D&D 4E Paizo and 4e - Vive le Revolution!

[Gundark]

Or...it just started. Which would be bad....

Wow you're really trying hard to be negative here. Yes you're right IF they started just recently that would indeed be a bad thing. However I personally don't see 4e being that big of a leap from 3e, thus they probably havn't spent the last 2 years solely coming up with the new rules. I'm no game designer, however I suspect they worked and playtested as they went. My guess is that they probably had (back in 2005) a rough set of rules which they playtested and tweaked as time passed. Thus over time they have a polished set of rules. Doing it the opposite, that is coming up with how the rules will work and then setting about playtesting seems to me to be the idiots way of doing it.

 

[Gundark]

On a side not I know quite a few gamers (we have an active RPGA in the area). Of them all I really doubt any of them would pick up a 3.75, let alone even hear about it.

Now I know there will someone who'll jump in a say "me and every gamer I know would jump at 3.75"

Honestly I don't get the people would are hating 4e and totally on board for a 3.75. Sure I like Paizo's stuff too, however there is no garentee that you're gonna like what they put out for rules. You don't know what the cosmology is gonna look like, or anything like that.

I really like the Iron Kingdoms, I love the fluff of the setting, however privateer press absolutly sucks at rpg rules. I buy their fluff books, and only buy their rule books for the fluff.

 

[Treebore]

Or, perhaps, because 4E is better than 3E? Or 3.5. Or 3.75. Or 3.82.

Who knows? I don't. You don't.

But I guarantee you two things:

1) 4E will replace 3E in every relevant gaming and/or business metric, and

2) Any company trying to jump off the Progress Bus will be Left Behind.

Including Paizo. They're good, but they're not WotC. Even if the gather a couple well-intentioned henchfolk (e.g., Necromancer, Goodman, <insert any boutique gaming company here>, etc.), they'll never do more than appeal to a set of folks that don't like 4E or don't like the idea of Change. That'll be a subset of the overall market. A small subset.

So there's a third guarantee:

3) The number of people playing 3.5/3.75/3/82 will be less than 4% of the RPG market by 4Q2008.

And, lastly, a disclaimer: I'm not a 4E fan. I'm not anti-4E. I've read things that interest me about it, and I've read things that scare me. But I'm not going to hide from it, nor will I encourage companies I like to shout out "Power to the People!" and start some 'revolution' that will lead only to their budgetary deaths.

Bad Idea.


W.P.

What is the size of the D&D consumer base? At least 1 million in the USA, right? 4% is 40,000. What was Dungeon and Dragons monthly circulation for PAizo? 40,000.

So if Paizo did stay 3E, and only got a loyal base of 40,000 customers, they would be happy.

However I don't think numbers are going to be that low. Why? Because 3E is not a broken system like 1E and 2E were considered to be. Until the announcement of 4E I only heard how wonderful and awesome 3E is.

So 4E better? I doubt it. Different? Yes. Better? only if you prefer the differences. 3E still does the job just fine for many people, so why buy into a new system when the old one isn't broke? Especially when you don't know if the new one isn't going to be a lemon?

Yeah, I am sure the "New Car" mentality will get a significant number of people to switch, but I don't think its going to be the huge switch seen with previous editions.

Like you said, neither one of us really knows anything for sure, so we will have to wait and see.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

Actually i have some problems understanding the merrits of a 3.75 Edition. Wouldn't the players who resent 4th Ed. want new third party products to be completly compatible with their game of choice (that would be 3.5)?? Why should they change to 3.75 for a handfull of new books? If a 3.75 Ed. would be completly compatible with 3.5, what reasons are there to make a distinctive 3.75 Ed. in the first place? Change for the sake of change? A grognard could argue that a semi-new Edition that differs to much from 3.5 would make all of his old books obsolete. (Actually i find it difficult to follow that logic but i see comments like that all the time on these boards)

Personally, i'm hoping for Paizo and Necromancer Games to provide me with cutting edge 4th Edition material.

Would some of you 3.75 promoters like to answer my questions? I'd still like to hear some

 

[JeffB]

Would some of you 3.75 promoters like to answer my questions? I'd still like to hear some

There are a few of us who feel WOTC kinda dropped the ball with 3.x in many areas. Good first set of downs and then blew the game with alot of whacky trick plays instead of just playing soild ball.

I quit 3.X cos of it, and sold off my rather large D20/3.X collection (barring a few modules). I have more faith in Necro, Paizo, Goodman, the Trolls and Green RonEEn , than WOTC. Cos I know their mindset of what makes "good D&D" is much closer to my own compared to the people in charge of D&D these days.

 

[Doug McCrae]

For crying out loud....I wish, wish, wish that this idea would die. I get so tired of the arguement (generally from people who have never played a MMO) that 4e is becoming MMORPG-like. I have yet to see reasonable evidence to this effect.

The problem is confusion between:

1) D&D is becoming an MMO.
2) D&D is using MMOs as a source of inspiration, one among many, and far from the most significant.

(1) is false, (2) is true, but people see (2) occurring and assume (1) follows.

 

[Woas]

I've already bought into a 3.75. I am very interested in Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes and those two systems basically are my 3.75. I think a 3.75 would be wonderful.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I've already bought into a 3.75. I am very interested in Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes and those two systems basically are my 3.75. I think a 3.75 would be wonderful.

Exactly, those and variant rules from Unearthed Arcana and Book of Iron Might and any number of 3rd party publishers allow most people to pretty much make their own 3.75 rules and still basically be compatible with 3.5.

The people who are going on about how 3.75 may split the market even further arent taking into consideration HOW it can be put together to not completely invalidate 3.5 as 4E is apparently doing. I'd buy into a well done 3.75 version, I'm not re-buying into a version of D&D that pretty much invalidates most of the mechanics (and now it seems most of the fluff as well) that came before it. I'm not also into buying into a new version of something just because it's new. I'd like to be able to still use the metric assload of 3.5 resources and adventures that I have and 4E is not going to allow me to do that.

 

[Barrataria]

The question I'd like to ask: Why do you think that other designers will not be able to make a good game, too? And why do you believe that the designer you named wouldn't make a system similar to D&D 4, too?

That's not really what I said. What I said was: these d20 designers all have independent, proven track records as professional game designers AND as veteran gamers. From that hard cold evidence I conclude they would do a good job if they decided to unite to create a SRD-based fantasy gaming ruleset. And if they could find something they all agree on, I guarantee it would be good. I think the Trolls did a good job all by themselves with respect to C&C design. I'm not familiar with Monte Cook's rule stuff, but I know those things have been very well received in the d20 community. I have looked at Blue Rose and think it's good and interesting. If, hypothetically, all those folks came up with something, I KNOW it would be good.

I don't know who all is involved in 4E. Mike Mearls I know mostly from his design work for Necro and Goodman, and he's just fine. Bill Slaviscek wrote d6 Star Wars, which is a very, very fine game.

However, the gods on Olympus at 1,000 keyboards can't write a ruleset in a week much less playtest it. Clark explained that better than I can, but I'm sure there are enough software designers to know about marketing-driven timelines. Their work will get emailed to someone who emails it to someone who reports to Hasbro, who makes cheesy marketing videos and negotiates Pirates of the Caribbean tie-ins. I'm not necessarily bashing Hasbro, it's just a publicly-traded corporation and that means the officers and directors are legally required to make a profit for shareholders. Short playtesting means speed to market, and that means more revenue sooner.

What I also didn't say: none of the d20 publishers have to go to a Hasbro board of directors meeting and justify their choices or expenditures. Clark isn't going to get a memo from Renton telling him to use more half-dragon paladin-monks to move a new line of toys.

I think those factors make it more likely that a quality game could be produced by these d20 characters than by Hasbro marketing geniuses. And I trust artisans and craftsmen more than I trust Ivy League MBAs, particularly when it comes to designing games as opposed to flow-of-funds models.

BB

 

[Barrataria]

Two things: One, Rappan Athuk is very fun, but if 'extensively playtested' also means 'balanced' then, er, no.

Balance? Is that when the characters meet the monster that hopelessly outclasses them and they flee for their miserable lives, scattering treasure as they go in the forlorn hope that the monster will be distracted?

RA was definitely playtested... just in Bill & Clark's 1E campaign I was speaking more to playtesting the ruleset, not holding out particular products as models of anything other than the quality of work of the particular designers.

BB