will 4.0 succeed?

[Jester David]

Hmm...I'm mixed on this. On one hand, why do they need to be explicit? Isn't implied, or at least they "reserve the right" to revise the game? And isn't a revision not a bad thing, meaning it theoretically improves the game?

It seems that with a game such as D&D with so many moving parts, there's no way around some degree of revision - if only in errata-ed later printings. I can definitely see a three-year mark, like they did with 3.5, that not only re-prints with errata, but fixes and problems with math and such that might have arisen in 2+ years of heavy play by thousands of groups.

On the other hand, I agree with you insofar as its a nice gesture. I just don't think they "need" to do it, or need to justify a revision because its implied in the nature of the game.

I'd prefer an approach similar to 2e. Or what Pathfinder is doing. Where they reprint the core books with errata and small changes. They had planned to do this for 3e, but because of constant staff changes (and poor management that didn't restraint the designer's willingness to design) the plan grew from reprints with errata into a full revision of the game.

But a minor revision with errata and clarifications might also be permissible. Where they rewrite a few rules for clarity but don't actually change any mechangs. Although, a few small tweaks of the really, really broken stuff might also be good, so long as the changes are also provided in an errata document.

However, if they're up front about planning a revision, that might hurt initial sales as people just decide to wait for the finished version.

But this is all off topic...

 

[DaveMage]

Yeah, Pathfinder will be a good test (IMO) of how long an edition can last. They seem to have no intention of introducing a new edition anytime soon. Clearly they won't be doing so in 2014, which means as of Gen Con, it will be 5 years old - longer than 3.0, 3.5, or 4E.

I don't think edition churn is a good thing - I think it's a strategy WotC uses to generate revenue foremost rather than improve the game. I'm *so* sick of that model.

 

[fjw70]

It is interesting to see how the edition cycle is goingforward. It will be interesting to see if the new modular and supporting oldereditions philosophy lasts.

On 4e one issue with it (a game I really like) is that iscreated a new playstyle while the previous playstyle (3/3.5) was still verypopular. 3e was a new playstyle over OS D&D but from what I can tell (I wasout of the RPG scene at the time) the OS playstyle was pretty much dead at thetime (there were still people playing it but not in large numbers).

Not only was 3.5 still very popular but the OSR movement wasjust picking up steam and current players started going back to simpler timesand lapsed players (such as myself) were re-entering the D&F scene. So nowthere are three distinct major D&D playstyles to choose from. 5e is trying to capitalize on this by beingmodular and supporting each playstyle (to some degree).

Given that each of the previous two major editions were areaction/overreaction to the perceived issues of the previous edition (3e gavepeople choices when OS D&D was seen as not having enough choices and 4egave very strict balance) it will be interesting to see what the next majoredition will “fix” from 5e. Will thedesigners of 6e talk about 5e being too modular and that D&D should be morefocused on a particular playstyle? Willit be decided that 5e focused too much on DM empowerment? Time will tell.

 

[fjw70]

Yeah, Pathfinder will be a good test (IMO) of how long an edition can last. They seem to have no intention of introducing a new edition anytime soon. Clearly they won't be doing so in 2014, which means as of Gen Con, it will be 5 years old - longer than 3.0, 3.5, or 4E.

I don't think edition churn is a good thing - I think it's a strategy WotC uses to generate revenue foremost rather than improve the game. I'm *so* sick of that model.

Maybe the edition cycle can last longer with Paizo if they don't have the sales/profit pressures of WotC.

 

[GreyLord]

Maybe the edition cycle can last longer with Paizo if they don't have the sales/profit pressures of WotC.

I think Paizo has had a different idea of sales in the past, perhaps it still does?

From what I understand...

The entire reason PF was made was so that they could sell their evolved Magazine. They used to make money off of Dungeon/Dragon...but once that was taken from them by WotC...they still needed to make money to stay in business. They created their Adventure Paths, which basically was a monthly release that replaces the monthly release they were doing previously. They wanted an ACTIVE game system to support these monthly products that they were putting out...or the subscriptions that they were selling. Since 3.5 was no longer going to be actively published, and 4e seemed to present a no-go for their way of doing business...they utilized the OGL and continued on with the 3.5 roots to create their version...which is Pathfinder.

Basically Pathfinder the RPG was made to support Pathfinder the subscriptions.

So from that I would imagine Paizo makes money off the subscription model...similar to a magazine...rather than straight off an RPG only model.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

I think Paizo has had a different idea of sales in the past, perhaps it still does?

From what I understand...

The entire reason PF was made was so that they could sell their evolved Magazine. They used to make money off of Dungeon/Dragon...but once that was taken from them by WotC...they still needed to make money to stay in business. They created their Adventure Paths, which basically was a monthly release that replaces the monthly release they were doing previously. They wanted an ACTIVE game system to support these monthly products that they were putting out...or the subscriptions that they were selling. Since 3.5 was no longer going to be actively published, and 4e seemed to present a no-go for their way of doing business...they utilized the OGL and continued on with the 3.5 roots to create their version...which is Pathfinder.

Basically Pathfinder the RPG was made to support Pathfinder the subscriptions.

So from that I would imagine Paizo makes money off the subscription model...similar to a magazine...rather than straight off an RPG only model.

I'm not sure I see the distinction; the medium of transfer is slightly different (subscriptions to adventures, although the adventures are easily purchased individually at retail) but the content is an RPG model. Not sure they qualify as "RPG only" anymore since they have branched out into supporting minis, comics, books and now a card game, but the bottom line is they have their active game system and they exist because of it....and are doing very well, too.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Maybe the edition cycle can last longer with Paizo if they don't have the sales/profit pressures of WotC.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Erik Mona and crew kept Paizo capped at 50 employees to insure they didn't grow too large, and as a result find themselves tipping over the brink like WotC did.

 

[Jester David]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Erik Mona and crew kept Paizo capped at 50 employees to insure they didn't grow too large, and as a result find themselves tipping over the brink like WotC did.

I believe it was CEO Lisa Stevens and the cap was 200.
But I could be wrong on the number...

 

[dd.stevenson]

From this thread I've learned that [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] (and his group) is/was a good bellwether.

Also, I was somewhat surprised that bringing in TSR-edition players was on the forum agenda back in 2008. Although why the heck anyone thought 4E would would be a big hit with these groups is a bit of a head-scratcher.

 

[GreyLord]

From this thread I've learned that [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] (and his group) is/was a good bellwether.

Also, I was somewhat surprised that bringing in TSR-edition players was on the forum agenda back in 2008. Although why the heck anyone thought 4E would would be a big hit with these groups is a bit of a head-scratcher.

This is informational, so hopefully it can be taken that way.

Because it did things that 3e did not. 3e did great with Rolemaster and many who did not like the current versions of AD&D. It also brought in some who were still roleplaying, but had fallen by the wayside with 2e. It DID disenfranchise many.

Things in 3e that broke that camels back...could be seen as

No real limits on multiclassing and making it very easy to do. 4e reintroduced restrictions, or more stringent restrictions on multiclassing to try to make it less easily abused.

Classes as true archtypes. In otherwords, along with making it so that characters were not a conglomeration of ten different classes and such, to make it so that the classes were stronger in and of themselves. Hence a fighter was truly someone who had trained for years and could really fight! as opposed to a multiclass character that had simply gotten to be a fighter over the past day because...well...just because.

Characters and monsters were NOT the same types. They were different and hence used different rules. Aka...1e. Monsters are not heroes, and heroes are not monsters.

XP is not tenuously based upon some CR rating...but there are set XPs for challenges and foes. Hence, even if it's a very small amount...you can still earn XP from killing that low level monster from 1st level...even if you are 19th level. It may not count for much, but you can still do so.

Less system mastery, and more even handed ness for players going in.

These were all various grudges that many older players from AD&D seemed to have with 3e...and 4e tried to correct it to a degree.

In truth, it DID get many of the older players that despised 3e...but at the same time...IMO...not enough to really counter how many it lost. In addition I think Pathfinder ALSO corrected many of these perceived problems (emphasis on archetypes more than simply m/c...though it's still possible...they don't release 100 prestige classes and their cousings either, monsters have set XP in relation to CR, rewards for sticking to one class, etc.) and in some ways did it better so that it was more acceptable to the older players.

The bigger problem is even if it attracted a few of the other players from older editions, it didn't attract anything close to what 3e did when it was released (In my Opinion, once again), and many of those it initially attracted, were disillusioned with OTHER differences that 4e had (such as the powers system...with encounters, dailies, etc). Those 25 million missing players from AD&D and the BX/BECMI versions...getting them back...not happening. Didn't happen with 3e...and definitely didn't happen with 4e (though I think they tried overly hard at times).

To tell the truth...short of a miracle...I don't think they will get back that 25 million with 5e/Next either...but I could be pleasantly surprised.