Something Awful leak.

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem, at its root, is that a large and growing portion of the gaming public doesn't see 4e as an improvement and is currently voting with their dollars to use Pathfinder rather than 4e.

That's what's being missed in this conversation, I think. Monte's arrival at WotC didn't happen in a vacuum -- he was hired only after WotC concluded they went too far with 4e and inadvertently splintered the gaming community they'd hoped to unite. Viewed in that light, Next was never destined to build on 4e to make what 4e fans would consider an even better game, no matter how fervently current-edition players wish it could be so. And I frankly wouldn't trust any new "leak" that might suggest otherwise, for fear that it would simply fill you with false hope.

At the same time, though, the player base can't be reunited simply by dressing up 3e in new clothes and calling it Next. Only a genuine synthesis can do that -- one that includes 4e's strong points as well as 3e's. And whether the 5e team can successfully pull *that* off, only time will tell.

This is the key point though. Either 5e is an improvement on 4e for the people who like 4e or it is stillborn. It is as simple as that. No ifs, ands, or butts about it, that's the necessary condition to the survival of D&D. You may not like it but that's the way it is. Clearly WotC MUST have everyone on board and buying, and we have zero incentive to buy something that isn't better than what we have now. Consider, I have plenty of books that are what, 2-3 years old? I REALLY do not need to replace those. The case has to be really compelling. So, if people with other tastes want to see a new game succeed, well, they're going to have to compromise, and not just pay some casual lip service. I don't know where that leaves WotC, probably in a very bad place, but such is life.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thing is, your definition of a step forward is in the broadest terms pretty much the same as my definition of a step backwards, or at least away from a game I would want to play.

I too am hoping 5e is a step forward, but I fear that if it is to please both of us it'll have to walk in two directions at once.

Lan-"these boots are made for walkin'"-efan

Then it's done. Like I said above, there's ZERO incentive for anyone who likes the majority of what 4e did to buy anything from WotC unless it is a game that is actually better than 4e in our eyes. If it isn't, then it will almost certainly fail. I don't particularly want to see that, but if you want me to buy more books 3 years after I just bought lots of books you gotta sell me and you gotta sell me hard.

I'm not interested in inflicting anything on anyone of course. I'm skeptical of the 5e theory of a game that will please all tastes, but hey, who'd really be AGAINST that? Nothing is cast in stone yet. A year from now we'll know exactly what the scoop is, then we can all REALLY complain!

 

[Hussar]

Circumstantial is certainly true.

Hard numbers would be nice, yes. But in the absence of hard numbers, we have the following circumstancial evidence:

1) Paizo is making an awfully fine living supporting their own version of a separate edition;

Let's not forget that Paizo is a considerably smaller company than WOTC. By a couple of hundred employees (Magic and various other bits are still parts of WOTC). What is doing fine for Paizo isn't necessarily the same thing for WOTC.

2) A lot of anecdotal remarks on the internet and otherwise suggesting a trend of rejecting the new edition;

The plural of anecdote is not data. Do some people reject the new edition? Oh certainly. The question is, how many? Is it widespread or a localized phenomenon? Is it growing and at what rate? Is Paizo pulling in new players from the 4e side or simply cannibalizing existing 3e players? Is anyone actually bringing in new players to the hobby? If so, in what numbers?

3) WotC's clear decision to forgo either continuing the new edition or revamping it into a revised edition.

How is 5e not a new edition? It's clearly different than anything that came before. Will it include 3e elements and elements from other editions? Oh certainly. Then again, 4e contained a very large amount of elements from other editions, although it didn't really try to bank on that point. Many of 4e's "innovations" and whatnot are heavily cribbed from Basic/Expert D&D, for example.

All of this suggests that, at the very least, WotC (Hasbro?) thinks that they're losing an enormous amount of money to Pathfinder and older editions. Even if this isn't true, it's fairly obvious that it's driving their decision-making process.

A lot of our world today is driven by perceived trends that may or may not be actual trends. But we still have to deal with the results.

And I'm also looking forward to the playtest release. Too much, almost.

Define "enormous". It could easily be that while Paizo is doing quite well, the "quite well" for Paizo would not be enough for WOTC. It all depends on what WOTC's target goals are.

The thing is, 5 years for an edition is not exactly a huge problem. Many games have 5 year cycles. It's only D&D that has had these really long fallow periods between new editions. 5 years is perfectly respectable for any product.

This whole, "Well, 4e is so short lived, it MUST be a failure" meme really needs to die. It's simply not true. If time between new editions is the metric for a successful game, then RIFTS is the most successful game on the market.

Do we really believe that?

 

[billd91]

This whole, "Well, 4e is so short lived, it MUST be a failure" meme really needs to die. It's simply not true. If time between new editions is the metric for a successful game, then RIFTS is the most successful game on the market.

Do we really believe that?

IF (and that's a big if) the company behind it can afford to create a new edition and doesn't, that implies it's doing OK by their standards - the metric that matters the most. It is, however, reasonably apparent that 4e isn't performing up to WotC's standards and that's what really matters in WotC's decision-making process. Is there anyone really doesn't believe that? Is there anyone who believes that the new edition is coming out for some other reason other than 4e not paying the bills they way they want them paid?

I mean I can imagine a few other relatively minor factors weighing in - the coolness of coming out with a new edition right at the 40 year mark, the prestige hit of losing the top RPG spot in the specialty market without being financially destitute. But I don't think coming out with a new edition based on those alone would be a sound business decision. And despite my criticisms of WotC's decisions, I don't think they're likely to make decisions quite that bad.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Circumstantial is certainly true.



Let's not forget that Paizo is a considerably smaller company than WOTC. By a couple of hundred employees (Magic and various other bits are still parts of WOTC). What is doing fine for Paizo isn't necessarily the same thing for WOTC.



The plural of anecdote is not data. Do some people reject the new edition? Oh certainly. The question is, how many? Is it widespread or a localized phenomenon? Is it growing and at what rate? Is Paizo pulling in new players from the 4e side or simply cannibalizing existing 3e players? Is anyone actually bringing in new players to the hobby? If so, in what numbers?



How is 5e not a new edition? It's clearly different than anything that came before. Will it include 3e elements and elements from other editions? Oh certainly. Then again, 4e contained a very large amount of elements from other editions, although it didn't really try to bank on that point. Many of 4e's "innovations" and whatnot are heavily cribbed from Basic/Expert D&D, for example.



Define "enormous". It could easily be that while Paizo is doing quite well, the "quite well" for Paizo would not be enough for WOTC. It all depends on what WOTC's target goals are.

The thing is, 5 years for an edition is not exactly a huge problem. Many games have 5 year cycles. It's only D&D that has had these really long fallow periods between new editions. 5 years is perfectly respectable for any product.

This whole, "Well, 4e is so short lived, it MUST be a failure" meme really needs to die. It's simply not true. If time between new editions is the metric for a successful game, then RIFTS is the most successful game on the market.

Do we really believe that?

It's been stated in a few articles that Pathfinder is now the #1 selling RPG. If that is true, (I can't independently verify it), then it doesn't matter if Paizo is doing well for how big they are or not. It's still doing better than WotC when it comes to the Pathfinder / 4E divide.

How is it not true that the 3.5 years it was the sole edition means it wasn't successful? Do you really think that if Hasbro and Wizards were making money like they expected and the players embraced the system, they'd have scrapped it already? Based on previous experience, no, no they wouldn't have. They would strap the saddle on and ride it into the ground.

Now, going forward, their options are to either A) try and recapture the people they lost and make a system they will enjoy and potentially lose the 4e Neo-Grognards D). B) Build off of 4e and keep the playerbase they have now, which doesn't appear to be enough of a market to satisfy their sales numbers C) Hope to hades that they can make a system that appeals to both.

 

[hanez]

There are many reasons to conclude that at least to WOTC 4e was a failure

How about the hiring of a designer who was critical of 4e and worked for Pathfinder? -Monte

How about the head designer of 4e commenting about the way it restricted some game types, comparing it to forcing a musician to play thrash metal - Mearls on thrash metal

How about the fact that they ALREADY tried a[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=cm_lmf_:%29:%29:%29_1"] reboot of 4e 2 years ago [/ame]


How about the design goal of the new edition, which DIRECTLY addresses the fact that 4e splintered the base (Design goal - to create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is.)

How about the fact that many of the changes 4e introduced are gone (Vancian is back, alignment is back, etc)

 

[malkav666]

wow that was a long read,

I have a couple of additions to the thread.

I like most of what I saw in the leak if its real. It doesn't sound perfect but it sounds a lot better to me than 4e does. I also believe 5e will divorce a lot of the 4e-isms (at least in the core). Everything I have seen thus far seems to be aimed at lapsed players. Pathfinder is a great target for them, I think some of the information from last year had PF selling equal to or more than 4e (Black diamond and ICV). I think this year will be more of the same. That is absolutely insane for a company the size of Paizo to be able to directly compete with company the size of WOTC with the resources that WOTC/hasbro has. I just recently realized how popular Pathfinder is in my play area. I had been playing at store that was about half and half PF vs. everything else D&D, but another game store opened up here and I went to check it out because they were doing PF Society games 3 nights a week and I went and saw a new store with 2-10 regular games running every night except Friday (FNM). The games were mostly posted on the board in the back there were like 2 4e games all week vs. 25-30 different PF games. There were some other systems being played as well (Saw some SW, some leJAdv. some AD&D too). But the lion share was PF.

The funny part about this store was I actually encountered for the first time ever a diehard 4e player there. I thought the 4vangelist was an internet only species. But at this store that was clearly a PF heavy store is the only place I ever had some random 4e devotee come up and be rude about what I was playing and chastise the game while it was being played (interrupting the session in process). I took a picture for my album of rarities in life and went on.

I think that if WOTC does not find a way to get some of those PF players they will lose more and more brand potency over the coming years. I think they have been taking a hard look at why PF is doing so well. I think they are trying some of the same plays as Paizo with the idea of a public play test, and I think they will continue to go down that road and try and get some of that PF pie. They failed to get the new players they wanted with 4e and lost half of the current installed players. I don't really care how good of a game 4e might be for anyone, D&D is a brand that has always been the arguably dominant player in its genre since pretty much its inception. To get challenged for its' dominance such a short time after the release of a new edition, by none other than and updated version of the edition they just graduated from is a very loud indicator that something went wrong with 4e. I mean how much money do you think WOTC spent on R&D for 4e? How about lawyers for the GSL? They got seriously challenged by a company of freelance adventure writers for the crown. As 4e dies down, PF continues to gain momentum. 5e must appeal to these PF players or the 5e playerbase will just be a fractured portion of the current 4e playerbase. PF players are currently spoiled by a consistent and generous release schedule, great customer support, greater transparency as far as product direction and community involvement in choosing that direction, and a very strong organized play program. WOTC has a steep hill to climb to get those folks back. I think that anything less than a focused effort will fail as far as PF players are concerned. The real question is does WOTC feel the same way?

Going into 5e is going to be a strange ride. My prediction is that 4e will largely divorced from the core mechanically. I think 5e will get a splat about adding 4e stuff as alt rules. If it doesn't do as well as the core stuff I think that will be the only 4e flavored book. But hey as long it has an updated page 42 in it, that is the only book they will ever need, right?

As a final note I would like to mention two points previously mentioned in the thread way back.

1. The sage vs, vampire wombats - why would the sage simply not hire adventurers to get him close enough to the specimens of his study to conduct his research? Morgrave university , or Pathfinder (the guild in the campaign) style? The idea of armed individuals escorting science nerds is an established trope. I don't see why the scientist themselves need to kick the ass personally. They are valued for their minds, those sages.

2. on Housecats in 3.x- why would a housecat randomly attack a player character?(I have never seen a published random encounter table with angry housecats on it) If you have a player character running around killing housecats then what is your game really about? is there nothing better for your groups to do than fight cats? And if house cats are in fact the villains of a story doesn't it make sense that they can kill? I mean a cat does technically have all the tools it needs to take life. And it can't mew its enemies to death. I think the stats are for familiars and druids.

love,

malkav

 

[I'm A Banana]

Without reading tea leaves about success, I can say with a large degree of certainty that certain core concepts in 4e are incompatible with the way a lot of folks played D&D until 4e.

So a 5e that assumed some of these core concepts would be a non-starter. It would be just as divisive as 4e was originally.

Moving forward from 4e is the only option, but 4e's developments (and it has some awesome developments!) need to be contextualized within greater D&D, rather than making the rest of D&D resemble 4e.

Besides, it's not like 4e can't be improved upon. The idea of keeping minion one-hit-kill and simplified-damage mechanics can be improved on by making it further compatible with other playstyles, so that even people who don't fall strongly on the "it's only a game/it's just a story" side of the continuum makes use of them when they want.

 

[GreyICE]

There are many reasons to conclude that at least to WOTC 4e was a failure

How about the hiring of a designer who was critical of 4e and worked for Pathfinder? -Monte

How about hiring a head designer of 4e commenting about the way it restricted some game types, comparing it to forcing a musician to play thrash metal - Mearls on thrash metal

How about the fact that they ALREADY tried a reboot of 4e 2 years ago


How about the design goal of the new edition, which DIRECTLY addresses the fact that 4e splintered the base (Design goal - to create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is.)

How about the fact that many of the changes 4e introduced are gone (Vancian is back, alignment is back, etc)

By the same logic, 3E was a clear failure.

The problem is that WotC doesn't have the mandate 'create a good PnP RPG that sells well.' They have the mandate 'create a success Hasbro will appreciate.'

4E has clearly been quite profitable. For years it was the top selling RPG, Insider has given them the holy grail of the PnP RPG industry - an ongoing revenue source - and they've clearly had success with tokens, dungeon tiles, and other accessories.

But the fact of the matter is that all the profits of 3E and all the profits of 4E are a small shadow of what Hasbro made off Michael Bay's Transformer movies. And thus Hasbro just doesn't care.

 

[jsaving]

Several reports over the last year have suggested Pathfinder has overtaken WotC as the best-selling RPG. I thought one of those reports actually received a brief writeup here at ENWorld, to the effect that Pathfinder is now doing twice as well as 4e. And I have to say that's broadly consistent with what I'm seeing in my neck of the woods.

Several people in my 4e gaming group feel frustrated by this turn of events because they see 4e as clearly "better" than what came before and foresee a future in which they become the 'Grognards' they're currently so quick to disparage. And I have to tell them in all honesty that they may be right about this. Nobody likes to be told they're a minority in the marketplace, or that a product they've come to know and love won't be carried forward, but that's the simple truth of what's happening here.

One particular member of my 4e group feels an especially keen sense of injustice over this turn of events, perceiving that 3e fans deliberately sabotaged 4e through their stubborn refusal to acknowledge its merit and are now being reward for their intransigence with a new edition. And to some degree, I think he has a point -- some 3e fans didn't give 4e much of a chance. But there isn't much point in rehashing those kinds of grievances, because there will always be people who reject one edition or another out of emotion rather than evidence. All we can do now is for each of us, as individuals, to take a stand against this kind of thinking and give the new edition the fair shot we may feel our own favorite edition was denied.