WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

[talok55]

WotC seeks unity? Does that mean they aren't going to troll players who like past editions this time?

Let's hope so. I still get mad when I think about all that "stop having badwrongfun with 3.5 "marketing" for 4E.

 

[Truth Seeker]

As I said a long time ago, give my time to TSR, Wotc/Hasbro for 2 decades plus.

Time to move on...Honestly, I did wish they didn't rush 4E as they did (admitted before an Ennie Awards event by a certain developer, within earshot), but this what has happened, now...will they take to their own lessons an learn? Or repeat the mistakes of the past?

Time will tell.

Even that isn't going to bring me back on the WOTC carousel. I'm staying where I'm at and not even signing up for the 5E play-test. When it's actually out I might take a look but right now D&D isn't even a factor in my RPG livelihood.

Besides I dont know why some 4E people are wringing their hands about this new edition, it looks like WOTC still is planning on supporting 4E in some form or fashion. That's a HELL of a lot more than 3x fans got when 4E came on the scene.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

WotC seeks unity? Does that mean they aren't going to troll players who like past editions this time?

Unifying the RPG community around 5e will be the greatest & most difficult accomplishment since the launch of 3e & the OGL. In fact, in many ways I think getting a majority of gamers behind 5e will be even more difficult.

3e launched at such a low point, with the sad state D&D (2nd ed) and RPGs were in at the time (late 1990s).

Now you have a have "healthier" base of people playing 3.5, 3.5 Pathfinder, 4e, indie systems, plus all the old school system holdouts that divide the community into a million slice pie.

That being said I think the team Mearls is leading is well poised to give it a go.

 

[Corathon]

I think that a new edition that could unify the fractured fan base would be a very good thing - but I'm not sure its possible. Still, this has piqued my interest.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

Now, that said, I’m not so sure that WotC is inclined to provide the ongoing game world and adventure material support that I have come to expect from Paizo and its material published for Golarion, its Adventure Paths and for Pathfinder Society. It isn’t that WotC can’t do it if it wanted to --- but I just don’t see that WotC is going to make that sort of ongoing support part of its core business anytime soon - or ever. Certainly, I have not seen any indication that they want to change their business approach and choose to make those kinds of products as part of their core business for the D&D brand.

On balance, that’s probably a deal breaker for me in terms of my “system of choice” – but it has nothing to do with the rules as such or with WotC.

Point is, I’m quite interested in seeing what Monte Cook has in mind for 5^th ed and I urge all of you to keep an open mind.

Mike Mearls in The Escapist: The Escapist : Speak Your Mind in the Next Version of Dungeons & Dragons


Story is going to be a focus of D&D going forward. Many of us fell in love with the game through the adventure modules released by TSR in the early days of the game. Gygax's Against the Giants modules are still regarded as a crowning achievement in how they planted plot details in the dungeon along with exciting combat, and Mearls said he wants to get back to that level of story-telling through new published adventures.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Maybe to a small degree. But I've been claiming since as far back as the 3.5 launch that there are really only about three years worth of decent-selling products in any edition of D&D (at a reasonably product release rate), so if gamers would accept a new edition every three years, that would be the thing to do.

What if the modularity they seek allows them to add onto the game the same way that a new edition would?

For my part, if I see anything "per day", "per encounter" or "per [any unit of time]", I'm done. I'm sure there are people who feel the reverse.

Do you mean no Vancian magic as there was pre-4E? That was per day. Or do you refer to the structure from 4E alone?

What if the modularity allowed you to play with either or both? Would the inclusion of the option you dislike as truly an option still put you off?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think this idea has a lot of potential to do just what they say it will/can. I'd love to see that happen. I've been predicting that what they will do next is make an extensible platform for D&D that is customizable to individual gamers' tastes, and then tweak it, and continue to offer up expansions at a steady pace (works for M:tG).

So, count me in the 'optimist' camp, despite already being reasonably happy with what I've got.

 

[billd91]

Can anyone give me a compelling reason why one should possibly trust WotC going forward for anything?

Scott Rouse said 8-10 years between editions. That was in 2008.

He doesn't work there anymore. In fact, all the people on the current design team may not be there next year (much less in 4 years).

Sorry, WotC. Until you (as a company) can be trusted (good luck), I'm not interested in supporting you....

But how can a corporation like WotC regain people's trust? Should they be forced to shoulder a burden that isn't working out for them because they need to wait 4 more years before you trust them? Do they have that kind of time? Or should they scrap the stuff that isn't in working in an effort to better serve dissatisfied customers?

I haven't had much confidence in WotC's decisions in some time, but I'll still review them individually in the hopes that they're successfully learning something.

 

[howandwhy99]

To put it another way, "5E" could be the last "new" edition and the first of an ever-changing and evolving "trans-edition" game if the core is simple enough and robust enough to whether storms, add whatever is needed to it (in terms of modular options) and be capable of handling any variation of D&D that we can dream up.

I thought this was what they were going to do with 4th, something they could continually upgrade and/or add on to without the need for any further edition releases. Just a core game and then selling more or less additional game elements with online subscription for each. Looks like they may take that route this go around though.

They might want to start thinking about dropping numbers. Windows and other programming (quite like game design) enterprises have already taken this approach to naming. We could see not new releases as obsolescence of a previous set of rules, but as new and interesting additions or stand alones to what came before, though compatibility is always an issue.

What do you think of Dungeons & Dragons Red Dragon^tm edition? Or D&D Drizzt^tm? D&D Orcus^tm? D&D Flumph^tm?
(just kidding about flumph, no one would ever use those)

We could look at 4E D&D as one way that the core d20 game was expanded upon. Now the trick for WotC with 5E will be if they can design in such a way that 5E could look and feel like Pathfinder or 4E or OD&D or AD&D or any number of other varieties.

I'm wondering how much this will be possible. To really make that happen would require an exceptional core game. It will be interesting to see what comes out though. I'm all for a more united community.

 

[TanithT]

I signed up!

D&D, I can't quit u!

Isn't that from Brokeback Mountain?

Must admit I rather like this version:

Brokeback Of The Rings.