Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My D&D Next Experience at DDXP
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5802624" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>It seems obvious that there is some proportion of PF and OSR players who are not going to be recruited by WotC to play 5e. I don't know what that proportion is, but would be surprised if it's more than 60% of PFers. I'd be equally surprised if it's less than 20%. I hope for their sake the WotC <em>does</em> have some idea.</p><p></p><p>It seems also fairly obvious to me that WotC does not want to risk losing a significant proportion of its customer base for the second time in 5 (or so) years. That's why, from WotC's point of view, it is surely imperative that 5e be attractive to many, if not most, of those who are currently paying WotC for 4e material.</p><p></p><p>Which then raises the question - why is 4e attractive to those who play it? and does WotC know the answer to that question? In retropsect, it seems that they didn't know the answer to the same question in respect of 3E.</p><p></p><p>To date, I find that their characterisation of 4e does not capture what I like about it. 4e, for me, is not primarily about tactical combat. It is about <em>dramatic</em> combat, with the tactical format (squares, tokens, action economy etc) as the medium through which the drama is resolved. It's about a system that encourages cutting straight to the action - be it combat or non-combat - without action resolution mechanics that lead to bogging down in (what is for me) mere exploration.</p><p></p><p>The fact that 4e is easy to GM is important, but for me secondary. I think that GMing Basic D&D is pretty straightforward - monster design is pretty simple, for example, as the vast lists of home-made monsters in Dragon, White Dwarf etc illustrate; and action resolution is fast and loose. But I'm not playing Basic, because it doesn't have the mechanics that 4e does which background exploration while foregrounding conflict and dramatically-paced action resolution.</p><p></p><p>WotC is full of knowledgable designers. They must all think about this sort of stuff, and have views on it. Some of Mearls' thoughts are available through stuff he said on RPGnet and the like back before he went to WotC. They must have had this sort of stuff in mind when designing 4e, given that it pervades the design. But nothing in Legends and Lore over the past year, or the more recent designer comments, has spoken about these matters in relation to D&Dnext. I'd like to hear about them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5802624, member: 42582"] It seems obvious that there is some proportion of PF and OSR players who are not going to be recruited by WotC to play 5e. I don't know what that proportion is, but would be surprised if it's more than 60% of PFers. I'd be equally surprised if it's less than 20%. I hope for their sake the WotC [I]does[/I] have some idea. It seems also fairly obvious to me that WotC does not want to risk losing a significant proportion of its customer base for the second time in 5 (or so) years. That's why, from WotC's point of view, it is surely imperative that 5e be attractive to many, if not most, of those who are currently paying WotC for 4e material. Which then raises the question - why is 4e attractive to those who play it? and does WotC know the answer to that question? In retropsect, it seems that they didn't know the answer to the same question in respect of 3E. To date, I find that their characterisation of 4e does not capture what I like about it. 4e, for me, is not primarily about tactical combat. It is about [I]dramatic[/I] combat, with the tactical format (squares, tokens, action economy etc) as the medium through which the drama is resolved. It's about a system that encourages cutting straight to the action - be it combat or non-combat - without action resolution mechanics that lead to bogging down in (what is for me) mere exploration. The fact that 4e is easy to GM is important, but for me secondary. I think that GMing Basic D&D is pretty straightforward - monster design is pretty simple, for example, as the vast lists of home-made monsters in Dragon, White Dwarf etc illustrate; and action resolution is fast and loose. But I'm not playing Basic, because it doesn't have the mechanics that 4e does which background exploration while foregrounding conflict and dramatically-paced action resolution. WotC is full of knowledgable designers. They must all think about this sort of stuff, and have views on it. Some of Mearls' thoughts are available through stuff he said on RPGnet and the like back before he went to WotC. They must have had this sort of stuff in mind when designing 4e, given that it pervades the design. But nothing in Legends and Lore over the past year, or the more recent designer comments, has spoken about these matters in relation to D&Dnext. I'd like to hear about them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My D&D Next Experience at DDXP
Top