# 5E on the horizon?



## Mercurius (Jun 24, 2011)

When was the last time there was a good 5E speculation thread? A few weeks ago? A month. Long overdue! Anyhow, I missed all the fun here - by the time I noticed the thread it had already devolved into the inevitable debates about semantics, interpersonal communication, and rules minutia. I also just noticed that Bill Slaviscek is "leaving" (fired?) WotC. So let's see...

- 4E didn't do as well as planned for, with the D&D community more fractured than ever before, which paved the way for...
- Pathfinder, the first serious contender for the throne, at least since Vampire in its hey-day. 
- 4.5, aka Essentials, not doing as well as hoped, or at least not bringing in the droves of new fans and long lines of lapsed players.
- Mike Mearls starts writing a bunch of pieces about the core/essence of D&D.
- D&D head honcho Bill Slaviscek announces he's leaving.

= 5E on the horizon!!!

Could it be anything else? It may still be a year or two out - say, GenCon 2012 or Spring, 2013 - but I would think that it is certainly not too far off. 

I just got an image of a massive construction site beyond the horizon that is just out of visual range. Every once in awhile the head dude pops his head and starts talking about architectural abstractions, asking questions like "What do you like in a building? What are the core qualities you want in a living space? What is the essence of good living?" And so forth.

I mean, let's look at it another way. If 5E was *not *on the horizon, don't you think that Mearls' articles would be a bit odd? Slaviscek's departure unexpected? D&D in general in trouble? 

As a secondary question, if 5E *is *on the horizon, does it represent a move of desperation - or at least a last ditch effort - from WotC to return D&D to greatness? If it isn't a wild success, could it be that we see a massive reduction in the scale of production? Of course we're already seeing that now - with less physical products and more emphasis on DDI, but perhaps 5E would be one more attempt to enlarge the scale of production back to 2008-10 or even 2000-07.

Just some ruminations. What do you think?

p.s. EN Mods - maybe its time for a 5th Edition thread prefix?


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 24, 2011)

No 5E.

You increase staff in the lead up to a new edition, you don't reduce it.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 24, 2011)

There are 5 "E"s in the phrase "Mike Mearls Essentials Edition".

5E is already here!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 24, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> It may still be a year or two out - say, GenCon 2012 or Spring, 2013 - but I would think that it is certainly not too far off.




Not even that far out! I've already received my advance copy, haven't you?


----------



## Ulrick (Jun 24, 2011)

I heard they're going to announce 5e at Gen Con this year.

And that WotC, White Wolf, and Games Workshop are going to merge into one super gaming company. All current employees in each will be let go, and in house operations will shift somewhere overseas, maybe China or India. 

This company will cut all tabletop RPGs and Wargames and focus only on video games and that 5e will just be a video game for the next iteration of Xbox. Any miniatures produced will simply be 54mm collector's items made of resin that cost $50 a piece, can only be ordered online, and you have to paint yourself. 

How's that for "doom and gloom" for ya? 




Edit: or did I just give some corporate mook a great idea...


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 24, 2011)

That there will be a 5E someday is obvious. And 6E, 7E, 8E, until the company goes out of business or transforms so radically as to be unrecognizable. New editions are how WotC rejuvenates the product line. As to specifics... well, I agree that much of what we are seeing now (like Mearls's articles) will feed into 5E down the road. And I am quite certain that a 5E project is under way at WotC. 4E was in the pipeline years before it was announced, after all.

This doesn't mean a 5E announcement is right around the corner, though. Wizards faces a formidable challenge: Enticing Pathfinder players back into the fold, without driving off 4E players who have embraced the new way. The worst-case scenario is that they split the 4E fanbase without making inroads into Pathfinder, in which case they'd have been better off to stick with 4E. And the likelihood of that is higher if they do it too soon.

My guess would be we see 5E announced in 2013 or 2014. They need to give people on both sides of the divide time to start hankering for something new. And they also need time to figure out how to square the 4E/Pathfinder circle (pun most definitely intended). Expect to see a lot more "experimental" material in the next few years as they try to find the right balance.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 24, 2011)

We've seen the same claims before - I don't see any real indications that 5E is 'imminent'. Pretty much none of the suggested evidence is, well, remotely plausible in the actual context of the situation. 

I think, sure, they are gathering ideas, both for future editions and for the direction of this one, which they _do _seem to be somewhat playing about with these days.

My expected timeline is that the first basic concept-brewing on 5E will start in a year or so, and serious development a year after that. We'll see an announcement, thus in 2-3 years, and 5E will be along in 2014 or 2015, which is about what I was expecting from the start.


----------



## Elephant (Jun 24, 2011)

Based on WOTC's edition churn in the past, I'll be surprised if 5.0 is released later than 2013.


----------



## Melba Toast (Jun 24, 2011)

Dude... I am so out of the loop on 4E. Did they ever even manage to get their digital initiative off the ground (i.e. virtual gametable)?


----------



## fireinthedust (Jun 24, 2011)

Gosh, I'd like to be the mook who gets to design 5e.  I have some really great ideas, actually.  Big changes, but I think they'd be acceptable.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 24, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> No 5E.
> 
> You increase staff in the lead up to a new edition, you don't reduce it.




Unless I'm mistaken, we're only talking about one person - Bill  Slaviscek - and it may be that if they want to take a different  direction and are unhappy with how 4E has done then it makes sense for  him to be gone. 



Elephant said:


> Based on WOTC's edition churn in the past, I'll be surprised if 5.0 is released later than 2013.




Given that the gap between 1E and 2E was 10-12 years, 2E to 3E 11 years, and 3E to 4E 8 years, it would make sense that the gap between 4E and 5E would be 7 years or less. Furthermore, the gaps between edition and "sub-edition" has decreased - from six years between 1E and Unearthed Arcana and 2E and Skills and Powers, to three years between 3E and 3.5, and just two years between 4E and Essentials (well, two and a half really). The gap between sub-editions and new editions has been a bit more stable: 4, 5, and 5. But if we take Essentials and add 4-5 years we come again to 2014-2015.

If I had to bet money I'd say 2014 but I wouldn't be surprised to see it come out in 2013. I also wouldn't be surprised to see them take a similar approach to Pathfinder's alpha and beta testing, with an Alpha edition coming out in some form or another starting in late 2012, Beta in 2013, and 5E in 2014.


----------



## enpeze66 (Jun 24, 2011)

not to release 5th edition would be a big mistake from WotC. Or does anybody think they still make much money with the rpg as it is now? Maybe Heroes of the shadow was sold 1 Mio times , what do I know, but I guess a more realistic number is rather 30k. How much money this makes can everybody calculate for himself. 

IMO the whole 4e release was a major failure from WotC, not only from the rpg side (its more boardgame than rpg) also from a monetary side. A big black hole where the money goes with the effect that half the fans play another systems now and D&D is about to loose its Top Dog position on the market which it had since decades. Isnt this enough to let roll the heads of the managers responsible?

Thats why I think thats the reason why WotC lays off his personel. Or the reason why M. Mearls checks out the ground with polls and odd retrospektive articles. It seems atm WotC dont have a clear business vision like those creative heads at Paizo.

So if I am looking into the glass sphere: IMO 5th edition will be coming soon and it will be different to the 4th edition. One of the major changes will be the real option to play the game without a board. It will be simpler than 4th edition and much simpler than 3rd in order to remove the entry obstacles for casuals and totally new players. 

D&D will be the game for the unwashed casual masses which had no idea what the term "roleplaying" means, 1 week ago. It will be the "Volkswagen",of roleplaying again (or rather the first time since BECM)


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> When was the last time there was a good 5E speculation thread?




Honestly?  I don't know if I'd characterize any 5e speculation thread we've had as a really good discussion on the topic.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 24, 2011)

Maybe at Gen Con, 2011, they are going to announce the start of the two year, 5E open beta program.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 24, 2011)

Elephant said:


> Based on WOTC's edition churn in the past, I'll be surprised if 5.0 is released later than 2013.




2013 sounds about right to me.  Hopefully, my current 4E campaign will be completed by that time.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 24, 2011)

Why is it every 5E speculation thread has to start with the OP claiming it's because 4E "didn't do very well" and that Paizo's taking it's place?  None of us here STILL have absolutely any freaking idea what WotC's sales numbers were, nor any idea what their expectations for sales numbers were... so why the need to take potshots at them right off the top?  I suspect this is why these threads always devolve... because they are started with a black cloud of negativity already over them at the beginning.

Why not just say "5E is going to happen at some point... maybe sooner, maybe later.  Based upon things that have been done/said up to this point in time, where do we think things are leaning?  What can we speculate as to where WotC's headspace is with regards to 5E's design?"


----------



## Zaran (Jun 24, 2011)

Let's not forget the cancellation of several books.  That could mean they pulled those developers to put on the new edition. 

I honestly do not believe they are working on 5th Edition.   If they were it would be so close to what they already have so as to not waste all the investment they put into DDI. 

I do wish they would hire more developers though.  I really think that DnD can use alot more DM aids.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 24, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> That there will be a 5E someday is obvious...




You know...I don't think it is.

With some of the things Mearls has been talking about lately, and DDI being the future of D&D, I don't think new editions are a necessity or inevitable.

I can see an ever evolving DDI based game.  New ideas are incorporated, rules are modified, approaches and emphasis are shifted, and the game slowly morphs from month to month, year to year, and a new edition is never actually developed.  10 years from now D&D will look a bit different than it does now - but it won't be called 5E.

Even more, I expect that mention of editions (except in a historical context) will eventually disappear also (officially - not necessarily by customers).  You'll have rules online set up in various degrees of complexity and approach (simple and fast, complex, simulationist, story telling, tactical, etc.) - an _ala carte_ RPG courtesy of online DDI.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 24, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, we're only talking about one person - Bill  Slaviscek - and it may be that if they want to take a different  direction and are unhappy with how 4E has done then it makes sense for  him to be gone.




Nope, it's another lay-off and it's three persons:

From http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...aving-wizards-coast-others-2.html#post5601451


Plane Sailing said:


> Just seen a tweet from Monte Cook:
> 
> _I wish the best for those laid off from Wizards of the Coast today. Some were good friends. All, I'm sure, are talented and capable._




and from http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...aving-wizards-coast-others-2.html#post5601457


OStephens said:


> I have heard word that Michelle Carter and Stephen Schubert are also leaving as of today, though I haven't confirmed those yet.
> 
> Edit: Their departure is now confirmed.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 24, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, we're only talking about one person - Bill Slaviscek - and it may be that if they want to take a different direction and are unhappy with how 4E has done then it makes sense for him to be gone.




Who is 'they'? Who is coming up with some wildly divergent idea for D&D, and why would he be so opposed to it they need to remove him?

I suspect you've got several much more likely possible reasons: 
1) Layoffs were coming for coming, for whatever reasons. As is often the case, a senior employee might volunteer to leave, knowing that by departing with their higher salary, it would mean not having to cut 2-3 staff members lower in the ranks. 
2) Alternatively, this involves a follow-up to the reorganization from last year, when they split into the board game and RPG divions. The context of that different approach might have resulted in some positions not being as needed, or needed in different ways. 
3) Or this may indeed be blowback from a failed initiative. I don't know one way or another if Essentials has 'failed', but if it did end up getting oversold to management, and ended up underperforming, the blame might end up hitting up high. 

I don't know if any of those are the case. But it doesn't seem likely, to me, that this sort of thing would be indicative of 5E being on the horizon. It actually seems evidence that _isn't _the case, since I don't think, if there had been any forward momentum on such a thing, that they would disrupt it midstream in such a fashion. 



Mercurius said:


> Given that the gap between 1E and 2E was 10-12 years, 2E to 3E 11 years, and 3E to 4E 8 years, it would make sense that the gap between 4E and 5E would be 7 years or less.




I'm not sure that is a large enough sample size to make any really accurate predictions... especially given the different contexts of some of these editions. 

I mean, my one theories are only a year or two behind yours - I don't think it impossible that 5E is _approaching_, just that it isn't especially close, and that all these current 'signs' and 'evidence' have basically nothing to do with it at all.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 24, 2011)

4E (iirc) had been in production as early as 2005, so the timing seems about right for 5E.  I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least being tested.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of the newer 4E options were tests of 5E ideas much in the same way that things like Book of 9 Swords, the 3rd Edition Knight, and Reserve feats were tests of 4E ideas.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 24, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, we're only talking about one person - Bill  Slaviscek - and it may be that if they want to take a different  direction and are unhappy with how 4E has done then it makes sense for  him to be gone.




Tuft covered it above, but, yes, if Bill had been the only one out, then it could signal a new direction.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 24, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> If I had to bet money I'd say 2014 but I wouldn't be surprised to see it come out in 2013. I also wouldn't be surprised to see them take a similar approach to Pathfinder's alpha and beta testing, with an Alpha edition coming out in some form or another starting in late 2012, Beta in 2013, and 5E in 2014.




   I strongly suspect 2014, to coincide with the 40th anniversary of D&D. I also think brainstorming and 'blue-sky' design work has already begun, and that Mearls' columns are part of that process, trying to get a sense for what the fans want. Similar things happened in the lead-up to 2E and 3E. Rumor has it that Mearls has been tapped to move into Slavicsek's position, so we'll see what comes of that.

   This may be wishful thinking on my part, but I think the grid aspect of things may be seriously downplayed, now that the miniatures line is dead.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 24, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I can see an ever evolving DDI based game.  New ideas are incorporated, rules are modified, approaches and emphasis are shifted, and the game slowly morphs from month to month, year to year, and a new edition is never actually developed.  10 years from now D&D will look a bit different than it does now - but it won't be called 5E.




The existence of DDI does make this theoretically possible, but I remain skeptical. You can only morph a game so far with incremental updates and patches; the system core remains set in stone.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the designers conclude, "Healing surges were a mistake. We should get rid of them." The only plausible way to do that is a new edition. Can you imagine how much work it would be to strip them out of all the existing rules? And can you imagine the outcry if they did?

DDI does raise the possibility that WotC might preserve legacy editions of D&D--they can keep 4E online even as they release 5E. After all, why sacrifice the DDI revenue from 4E holdouts? Still, I doubt they would continue to actively support 4E, for all the same reasons they don't support 3E now.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 24, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> DDI does raise the possibility that WotC might preserve legacy editions of D&D--they can keep 4E online even as they release 5E. After all, why sacrifice the DDI revenue from 4E holdouts? Still, I doubt they would continue to actively support 4E, for all the same reasons they don't support 3E now.




I think they are at least one more edition cycle from having the expertise to pull it off, but ...

If your focus is to get as many people as possible to subscribe, and stay subscribed, and books are only seen as a way to make marginal profits while encouraging those subscriptions--then a fragmented set of customers is only a problem to the extent that it costs you tangible resources for your subscribed services.

At some point, your fragmented customer base actually becomes very much a strength.  You've got diversity in your products and customer base, and are thus better able to handle setbacks.  It is navigating from where they are now to such a point that is difficult, not the nature of the end goal.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 24, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> ...why the need to take potshots at them right off the top?




Who is taking "potshots"? I'm not making any qualitative judgements about 4E as a game - I like it, play it, and prefer to other editions of D&D, including Pathfinder. But I think it is almost a self-evident truth that 4E is not as successful as WotC would have liked it to be, both economically speaking but also in terms of the community, which is fractured in a way that it has never been.



El Mahdi said:


> With some of the things Mearls has been talking about lately, and DDI being the future of D&D, I don't think new editions are a necessity or inevitable.
> 
> I can see an ever evolving DDI based game.  New ideas are incorporated, rules are modified, approaches and emphasis are shifted, and the game slowly morphs from month to month, year to year, and a new edition is never actually developed.  10 years from now D&D will look a bit different than it does now - but it won't be called 5E.
> 
> Even more, I expect that mention of editions (except in a historical context) will eventually disappear also (officially - not necessarily by customers).  You'll have rules online set up in various degrees of complexity and approach (simple and fast, complex, simulationist, story telling, tactical, etc.) - an _ala carte_ RPG courtesy of online DDI.




I don't disagree with this and have had similar thoughts; I remember starting a thread a year or so back about DDI being the new core.

That said, I think there will always be new print runs, "state of the game" editions, so to speak. And the easiest, most clear--and probably most money-making--way to differentiate these print runs is through new editions. The difference being that the online version will always be the most up-to-date; this is already the case - compare, for instance, the 2008 _Player's Handbook _with DDI right now.



MrMyth said:


> Who is 'they'? Who is coming up with some wildly divergent idea for D&D, and why would he be so opposed to it they need to remove him?




You know.._.them._ 



MrMyth said:


> I suspect you've got several much more likely possible reasons:
> 1) Layoffs were coming for coming, for whatever reasons. As is often the case, a senior employee might volunteer to leave, knowing that by departing with their higher salary, it would mean not having to cut 2-3 staff members lower in the ranks.
> 2) Alternatively, this involves a follow-up to the reorganization from last year, when they split into the board game and RPG divions. The context of that different approach might have resulted in some positions not being as needed, or needed in different ways.
> 3) Or this may indeed be blowback from a failed initiative. I don't know one way or another if Essentials has 'failed', but if it did end up getting oversold to management, and ended up underperforming, the blame might end up hitting up high.
> ...




Hmm...I don't think this is necessarily true. If WotC is restructuring to prepare for a new edition of the game to begin serious development, with a scheduled publication in, say, 2-3 years, why wouldn't they clear house a bit? Especially if they want to bring fresh minds on to design the new edition?

There is also the question of how much staff is needed to run WotC pre-Essentials when they were churning out tons of books, versus now when meatspace products are fewer but DDI is the focus. Maybe they've found their DDI sea legs and realize they don't need as many folks to run the virtual ship. 

I'm open to any theory at this point - my point is only that we can interpret the data in various ways.



MrMyth said:


> I'm not sure that is a large enough sample size to make any really accurate predictions... especially given the different contexts of some of these editions.




Who said anything about "really accurate"?  Speculation is fun because it doesn't have to be accurate at all.



MrMyth said:


> I mean, my one theories are only a year or two behind yours - I don't think it impossible that 5E is _approaching_, just that it isn't especially close, and that all these current 'signs' and 'evidence' have basically nothing to do with it at all.




So you don't think that Mearls' recent series of articles has nothing to do with 5E, that he isn't fishing for ideas and feedback?



Matthew L. Martin said:


> I strongly suspect 2014, to coincide with the 40th anniversary of D&D.




That's a good point - I hadn't thought of that. Given that fact, I'm feeling a bit more strong in my suspicion that 2014 is the year that we get the "40th Anniversary Edition" of Dungeons & Dragons. Knowing WotC, they might try to get away with it not being a new edition but everyone will call it 5E, even if they don't!


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 24, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> You know.._.them._





*THEM*

*T*otally
*H*orrible
*E*nemy
*M*asses


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 24, 2011)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images.../12/19/1229684509497/Them!-giant-ants-001.jpg


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 24, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Hmm...I don't think this is necessarily true. If WotC is restructuring to prepare for a new edition of the game to begin serious development, with a scheduled publication in, say, 2-3 years, why wouldn't they clear house a bit? Especially if they want to bring fresh minds on to design the new edition?




Well, again, I'm just not sure the folks making the call would be thinking along those lines. It just seems far less plausible than the various other possibilities, especially with so little else to support it. 

But it also depends on the time-frame. There is a big difference between saying, "5E is actively being worked on, is not too far off and may be a year away"... and saying, "4E is about halfway over, and we'll see 5E in 3 years, around 2014."

Your initial post suggests, basically, the 5E is very actively being thought about right now. Not just Mearls and others letting thoughts percolate in the back of their minds, but a new direction is in mind and being established, and that this involves removed Bill. That just seems exceedingly unlikely and unsupported. 



Mercurius said:


> There is also the question of how much staff is needed to run WotC pre-Essentials when they were churning out tons of books, versus now when meatspace products are fewer but DDI is the focus. Maybe they've found their DDI sea legs and realize they don't need as many folks to run the virtual ship.




Maybe - I'm inclined to suspect the reduced product line-up is compensated by the split-off board game division. But it's true they may be scaling back. 

But, again - drawing these sorts of conclusions seems to require actively ignoring past evidence. Layoffs are, as unfortunate as it may be, a regular thing at WotC. If the previous ones didn't indicate any of these things, why should this time be more significant? 



Mercurius said:


> So you don't think that Mearls' recent series of articles has nothing to do with 5E, that he isn't fishing for ideas and feedback?




Nothing to do? Of course not - I'm sure these thoughts will be on his mind when that time comes. But is it directly related to, and is he 'fishing for ideas'? I think that far less likely. I think he is working on a column and examining his own thoughts on the game. I think that will inform 5E eventually, but is more likely to be informing 4E design as well, especially as they settle on the direction of the game post-Essentials.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 24, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Honestly?  I don't know if I'd characterize any 5e speculation thread we've had as a really good discussion on the topic.




I remember one really good one. If I could recall the thread title I'd link to it, but it was something like "If you had control of the next version of D&D, what would you do".

There were lots of really thoughtful and inspiring posts. If only I could remember the title or even the month it was written!


----------



## billd91 (Jun 24, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> No 5E.
> 
> You increase staff in the lead up to a new edition, you don't reduce it.




Generally, I'd say so. There were substantial layoffs shortly after major releases including 3.0 and 4 (the one that included Jonathan Tweet). On the other hand, Skip Williams was released by WotC in 2002 - shortly *before* the 3.5 release.

I wouldn't be surprised to see WotC use the savings in cutting long-time employees, each of whom probably makes at least twice what a starting employee would make, to pay for an increase in staff numbers. Perhaps in preparation for a new edition...?


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 24, 2011)

To know when WotC is working/further along on 5E, don't watch the firings, watch the hires and promotions.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 24, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> I remember one really good one. If I could recall the thread title I'd link to it, but it was something like "If you had control of the next version of D&D, what would you do".
> 
> There were lots of really thoughtful and inspiring posts. If only I could remember the title or even the month it was written!





Found it!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274027-where-do-you-see-want-5-0-go.html

Go and take a read of that thread, and a forked followup here http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274142-return-dungeon.html for some really interesting stuff.

cheers


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 24, 2011)

I do think there is enough of a pattern to start to wonder if they're going to "shake things up" in some major way. I don't think that means 5e necessarily.


I'd change/add to your list with:
- 4E fractured the D&D community, which paved the way for...
- Pathfinder, the first serious contender for the throne, at least since Vampire in its hey-day. 
- 4.5, aka Essentials, fractured the 4e fanbase somewhat.
- Several books scheduled for publication for 4e are cancelled
- There appears to be a shift toward board games and collectible card games.
- The cancelling of the minis line.
- Mike Mearls starts writing a bunch of pieces about the core/essence of D&D.
- D&D head honcho Bill Slaviscek (and two others) are laid off.

 
I don't know what that list means, but I think it's a bit more complete. What else besides 5e might it mean, I wonder?


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 24, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I do think there is enough of a pattern to start to wonder if they're going to "shake things up" in some major way. I don't think that means 5e necessarily.




The thing about shake-ups is, they're disruptive. Inevitably, some customers get shaken off the boat. And the more you shake, the worse it gets. We've already had a fairly recent shake-up with Essentials, which leads me to think we're not going to have another one for a couple years at least.

As I say, I do believe they are working on 5E, albeit in the early stages. I don't believe it's going to be announced in the near future. It's much too soon for that. Even if 4E were about to collapse completely (which I don't think is the case), WotC's RPG division might be better served to go dark for the next few years, with Mike Mearls laboring alone by candlelight over the next edition, and announce the result with great fanfare around 2014. Announcing now would just split an already overstressed fanbase further.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 24, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I do think there is enough of a pattern to start to wonder if they're going to "shake things up" in some major way. I don't think that means 5e necessarily.
> 
> 
> I'd change/add to your list with:
> ...




In all likelihood, far, _far_ less than most people think it means.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 24, 2011)

I do not believe that there will be an announcement of 5e until at least the final shape and pricing model for the DDI tools are announced. 
I alslo strongly suspect that around about that there will be an announcement of an addition of a module mart to the VTT at that time.

This may very well be how they bring in the old gamers.
Use out VTT and we have a prefabbed Keep on the Borderlands for $3.00.

Wizards have made a very strong committment to digital content and addons over the life of 4e so far in spite of some severe setbacks and great wodges of money.

Once they have it in place they are likely to leave it alone for a while to recoup the salaries of the developers.

5e will require re-development and if it is very different (as different as43 to 3e or 3e to 2e) then the software will need to be completely reworked.
That is very expensive, and watching how people use the online tools  will provide some very valuable marketing data.

In my opinion, they would be much wiser to forego 5e for 10 years or so and bring out a couple of interations of the online tools in the meantime.
Expand the subscriber base and offer additional digital services.

Then when they have mastered the digital channel bring out 5e.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 24, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> I do not believe that there will be an announcement of 5e until at least the final shape and pricing model for the DDI tools are announced.




This is a good point and brings up something else: even if WotC intends DDI to be the future, how can thay move to the next step until they finally get DDI done/right/complete.

Is it just me, or does it feel like DDI is still in it's development stages, and hasn't come anywhere close to its promise yet...


----------



## AeroDm (Jun 24, 2011)

I predict 5e will have a much longer play test cycle than 4e did with a fair portion of it being "public." The 3e play test cycle was (I believe) three years with more than year of it well known and regular tidbits given out. That generated huge good will but was only tenable because 2e sales were almost non-existent and so there was no risk of deterring sales. If 5e continues the DDi subscription model, which all signs indicate it will, then the 5e previews will become one of the features of the subscription that entice people to subscribe.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 24, 2011)

4E only game out a few years ago. I don't think they'd do a new edition this soon. They may just be cutting costs like a lot of other companies.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 25, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> 4E only game out a few years ago. I don't think they'd do a new edition this soon. They may just be cutting costs like a lot of other companies.




4E hitting goals = No reason to move to 5E.
4E underperforming = No justification for spending the development cash again this soon


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 25, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> This is a good point and brings up something else: even if WotC intends DDI to be the future, how can thay move to the next step until they finally get DDI done/right/complete.
> 
> Is it just me, or does it feel like DDI is still in it's development stages, and hasn't come anywhere close to its promise yet...



 It is not just you, I feel the same thing, which is why I think many comments about 5e are premature. Many commentators on these boards seem to think that Wizards revenue model is still selling book.

It may still be their principle source of revenue but I suspect that they want to make the digital subscription the core revenue with the books being recruitment tools that direct people to the subscription services.

They are probably not there yet and the digital tools are not complete.

I suspect that the majority of players are casual. That is my experience and i suspect it is typical. There are the super casual player who will play but never buy anything except dice and maybe minis.
The casual that may buy the PHB and some power books and the hardcore player that will subscribe to Dragon (in the old days) and DDI and the DMs who buy a lot more books and subscribe to Dragon, DDI etc.
There are also the collectors who buy everything.

Now the typical group will be mostly casual gamers and most of these will never have a DDI subsctiption.
So if the VTT is to be of general use then the DMs need a way to allow their casual players access to their online campaign. Otherwise the VTT will be pretty much useless to the general DM type.

So for practical purposes the current VTT beta is useless to me as a DM for the players I regularly DM for and for some college buddies around the globe.
On the other hand it is pretty useful to WoTC as a beta and a market research tool.

Is it ready for primetime? I do not know I have not had the opportunity to use it recently.

However, I think there are some missing elements to making the digital tools a compelling offering.

House ruled characters in the character builder.
Importing of images into the VTT.
Some kind of campaign manager.
The module mart where the harried DM can buy a module have it load directly in to the VTT with all monsters in place. Add characters and go.


----------



## AeroDm (Jun 25, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> It is not just you, I feel the same thing, which is why I think many comments about 5e are premature. Many commentators on these boards seem to think that Wizards revenue model is still selling book.
> 
> It may still be their principle source of revenue but I suspect that they want to make the digital subscription the core revenue with the books being recruitment tools that direct people to the subscription services.




I would agree with this. Wizards has the name recognition that their books are on the shelves of every bookstore which means they can rely on huge print runs with stores carrying their inventory for them; that is a common and lucrative business strategy. As bookstores have died, that strategy dies with it and I think Wizards realizes that they need to shift to new models. Digital subscriptions are far more lucrative so long as you can rely on a certain level of subscriptions.


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 25, 2011)

How would any of this evidence support that _other_ persistent rumour: that D&D may be for sale?

Long time employees who have been around since the TSR days might not want to go through another transition such as the one between TSR and WotC. Alternatively, having too many long time, well-paid employees may may the property look less attractive. 

Talk about the Core of D&D may not be geared towards necessarily writing 5E for WotC, but rather on the expectation that if someone does buy it, they, like WotC before them, will want to put out a new edition pronto; best to be prepared for that if it is going to happen. 

That of course is all very speculative, but I thinking I can be forgiven for making such speculations in a thread such as this.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I don't know what that list means, but I think it's a bit more complete. What else besides 5e might it mean, I wonder?




Maybe it means something.  That's certainly possible.

But then, we also have to remember that human beings are so good at finding patterns and meaning in things that we regularly do so when, in actuality, there is no underlying meaning or pattern.

Maybe there's something going on, maybe we're chasing ghosts with speculations.  Only their hairdressers know for sure.


----------



## Gargoyle (Jun 25, 2011)

I think my prediction is that WotC's support of the D&D brand is heading for a more passive state, not toward a new edition.

Instead of creating a new edition, they will:

- continue to publish board and card games, and alternate settings like Gamma World to test the waters on what works for D&D.  
-  continue to refine the DDI edition to make it more palatable to players of all editions and Pathfinder
- continue to publish supporting material for the "new" post-Essentials 4E, that I like to call the "DDI edition" in the form of monster vaults, adventures, campaign worlds, novels, and card and board game elements.  

I think WotC is doing a noble thing. Since they took it over from TSR, they have been walking the tightrope of being the caretaker for the leading game in our hobby, that is, trying to do the best thing for it while trying to succeed as a business.  I'm amazed that they have done so well at it both for so long in this economy, and I fear that they will not continue to be able to do so and something will have to give.  

So I guess what I'm saying is that there may be a 5th edition someday, but right now I think their plan is to refine what they have in an attempt to both broaden the appeal of the D&D DDI edition and to make some money.

If they are planning to sell D&D, I hope it is to a game designer who does at least as good a job as caretaker of the system, and who has a bit more ability to support it electronically, and who can manage the license well.  Preferably, it would go to a smaller company that could make the brand their flagship product, and not small part of a subsidiary of a large corporation.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 25, 2011)

Is 5e on the horizon?  No.  I maintain it's a lot closer than that.

Lan-"looming over us ready to pounce in just over a month"-efan


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 25, 2011)

Umbran said:


> But then, we also have to remember that human beings are so good at finding patterns and meaning in things that we regularly do so when, in actuality, there is no underlying meaning or pattern.




Nihilism, Umbran?  I'm going to stop one step before you and stick with agnostic existentialism - there may or may not be an underlying pattern, but the patterns we see and create aren't without merit or intrinsic meaning; in fact, they become meaningful through us creating them.

(I just watched _The_ _Adjustment Bureau--_a great flick--so am in a philosophical mood).



Gargoyle said:


> I think my prediction is that WotC's support of the D&D brand is heading for a more passive state, not toward a new edition.(SNIP)




You make a compelling argument, Gargoyle, and I think you _may _be right, but I'm also wondering how they're going to maintain profitability in that model. I mean, they can probably float for a year or two, especially if they notch up DDI and make it such a great product that more people subscribe, but we're not really seeing evidence of that. 

Someone also mentioned that WotC could be in the process of preparing to sell D&D - I have no idea if that is true or not, but it may be that Gargoyle's view is correct for the next 1-2 years and then we'll see a new edition in 2014 with the 40th anniversary and/or a sale to another company. 


Lanefan said:


> Is 5e on the horizon?  No.  I maintain it's a lot closer than that.
> 
> Lan-"looming over us ready to pounce in just over a month"-efan




Are you being facetious or do you really think it is just around the corner?


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 25, 2011)

Here's a thought: What if the plan isn't to release 5e, but maybe 40th anniversary editions of previous editions?  Given the growing trend of retroclone success, as well as print on demand, it would be pretty savvy of WotC to copy White Wolf's recent anniversary push for Vampire.  It would be easy and require less staff to consolidate materials, update it all, and after editing each previous edition this way make it available via POD, saving the quality printing for limited collector editions wrapped in leather and gold/silver trim they print themselves.  A move like that regains a lot of wayward fans as they suddenly gain access to stuff long out of print with new art and better editing.


----------



## caudor (Jun 25, 2011)

The way in which Wotc has been flailing about over the last year or so makes the future more cloudy for me.  Why is the current release schedule been erratic? Products have been canceled and I know of one cancelled product that has popped back on the schedule.

Why is the current product lineup so sparse?  I have trouble envisioning a scenario where this is good news.

Now the head honcho of D&D and others are out.

I don't know if this is related to a new edition; however, I'm finding fewer reasons to be optimistic where this is leading.  And I hope my hunches are dead wrong.


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 25, 2011)

I suppose there is also a chance that they could release a product line until the title 4.5E, even though that is how many think of Essentials.


----------



## caudor (Jun 25, 2011)

Kaodi said:


> I suppose there is also a chance that they could release a product line until the title 4.5E, even though that is how many think of Essentials.




Yep, they might.  I dislike trying to predict the future (the odds of being right is poor), but I'll just throw my hunch out there.  The next iteration of D&D --whatever it will be called -- will be announced this year at Gencon and will release next year.  Marks my words, it is going to happen.


----------



## alfredt (Jun 25, 2011)

yes you just increase the number..........


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 25, 2011)

Regarding the Slavicsek layoff, I wouldn't read too much into it. On the D&D side, WotC is notorious for their annual and often semiannual layoffs. Last time, they canceled products instead and shuffled everything around, but now they're back on schedule.

It sucks, but what are you gonna do?


----------



## Saracenus (Jun 25, 2011)

Here was my speclatron 2007 on the nature of 5e (I literally made this image back in 2007 when the edition wars started to burn)...


----------



## Dannager (Jun 25, 2011)

Gargoyle said:


> I think my prediction is that WotC's support of the D&D brand is heading for a more passive state, not toward a new edition.
> 
> Instead of creating a new edition, they will:
> 
> ...




Yep, this is what I think is going on.

The _real_ question is how will all the "5e is right around the corner!" folk react when 5e isn't even mentioned by WotC this year? My bet: Despite evidence to the contrary, they'll still manage to convince themselves that they have a _keen eye_ for what's going on in the industry, and that their predictions are going to come true _any day now_. None of them will say, "Huh, maybe I _don't_ have any idea what the hell I'm talking about."


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 25, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Are you being facetious or do you really think it is just around the corner?



I'm not being facetious at all (though future hindsight may beg to differ  ).


			
				Dannager said:
			
		

> The real question is how will all the "5e is right around the corner!" folk react when 5e isn't even mentioned by WotC this year? My bet: Despite evidence to the contrary, they'll still manage to convince themselves that they have a keen eye for what's going on in the industry, and that their predictions are going to come true any day now. None of them will say, "Huh, maybe I don't have any idea what the hell I'm talking about."



Hey, I'm the first to admit I don't *know* anything.  I'm just playing a hunch, and that hunch tells me 5e is coming real soon to a store near you.

I just hope it's designed well and marketed better, with an eye to unification rather than fragmentation of the gaming community.

Lan-"standing by my melting guns"-efan


----------



## Dannager (Jun 25, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Hey, I'm the first to admit I don't *know* anything.  I'm just playing a hunch, and that hunch tells me 5e is coming real soon to a store near you.




For those who have hunches, a personal realization of, "Huh, my hunches are often wrong and I should probably start going with rational thought over gut instinct in the future," is an acceptable substitute.


----------



## enpeze66 (Jun 25, 2011)

Gargoyle said:


> -  continue to refine the DDI edition to make it more palatable to players of all editions and Pathfinder





which is absolutely impossible IMO. To reach this, the core concepts would have to be taken out or modified (healings surges for example, the boring long combats, or the new magic system) because THATS what drove those old players away, it was not D&D enough for them. 

So I think it is an illusion to believe that with 4e or any derivate of it WotC can win anyone back. 

Not to say that such a radical departure to the roots of 4e will piss off the rest of their few remaining 4e fans.





Gargoyle said:


> I think WotC is doing a noble thing. Since they took it over from TSR, they have been walking the tightrope of being the caretaker for the leading game in our hobby, that is, trying to do the best thing for it while trying to succeed as a business.  I'm amazed that they have done so well at it both for so long in this economy, and I fear that they will not continue to be able to do so and something will have to give.




No. I think WotC involvement in D&D was the biggest curse for the game. They are responsible for the 2 worst editions D&D has seen in its history. They mistreat the legacy because they dont care about. For them its only about making money fast and without much effort. 

Look at the wonderfully made products of other game major companies (like FFG or Paizo) and compare them to the bland products of the "industry leader" and then you will see the what  "care" really means.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jun 25, 2011)

Dannager said:


> The _real_ question is how will all the "5e is right around the corner!" folk react when 5e isn't even mentioned by WotC this year? My bet: Despite evidence to the contrary, they'll still manage to convince themselves that they have a _keen eye_ for what's going on in the industry, and that their predictions are going to come true _any day now_. None of them will say, "Huh, maybe I _don't_ have any idea what the hell I'm talking about."



I think you are flat out wrong here. The folk that are saying that 5e is round the corner don't necessarily want to be seen as having a keen eye for the situation;I would guess that most of them simply *want *5e to be right around the corner. 4E just simply did not do it for them and they're hoping for the current edition of D&D to be one that they want to play. 5e is likely going to be the only way that it will happen.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Gargoyle (Jun 25, 2011)

enpeze66 said:


> which is absolutely impossible IMO. To reach this, the core concepts would have to be taken out or modified (healings surges for example, the boring long combats, or the new magic system) because THATS what drove those old players away, it was not D&D enough for them.
> 
> So I think it is an illusion to believe that with 4e or any derivate of it WotC can win anyone back.
> 
> ...




I have met many game designers at WoTC many times, and I have gamed with them, and I assure that's not the case.  They do care.  Whether you think they did a good job with D&D or not is subjective and I won't get into edition wars.  I personally think they did great with 3rd and stumbled somewhat with 4th.  But you are flat out wrong that they don't care.

They are however, owned by another company, and I'm pretty sure most people at Hasbro don't care about D&D, nor should we expect them to...their job is to make WotC profitable. That's why I think if D&D got sold it would be better off with a smaller company.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 25, 2011)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I think you are flat out wrong here. The folk that are saying that 5e is round the corner don't necessarily want to be seen as having a keen eye for the situation;I would guess that most of them simply *want *5e to be right around the corner. 4E just simply did not do it for them and they're hoping for the current edition of D&D to be one that they want to play. 5e is likely going to be the only way that it will happen.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise



Exactly right.

It is like fans of two opposing football teams.  The prediction of who is right is based 100% on what each side HOPES is true.  Calling either side "rational" is amusing.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 25, 2011)

Dannager said:


> For those who have hunches, a personal realization of, "Huh, my hunches are often wrong and I should probably start going with rational thought over gut instinct in the future," is an acceptable substitute.




For those who rely only on rational thought to engage the world, a personal realization of, "Huh, rational thought cannot explain everything, nor is it a complete way of engaging the world, so maybe I'll open up to other aspects of my being in the future," is an acceptable substitute.



Seriously, Dannager, I'm not sure what you're beef is with people having hunches about 5E coming out soon (by "soon" I personally mean within the next 2-3 years; 2012 _could _happen but is unlikely, imo). Does this sort of talk offend you in some way? Why?


----------



## DimitriX (Jun 25, 2011)

As far as I am concerned, Dungeon Crawl Classics by Goodman Games is going to be 5E.

Dungeon Crawl Classics


----------



## BryonD (Jun 25, 2011)

Gargoyle said:


> I have met many game designers at WoTC many times, and I have gamed with them, and I assure that's not the case.  They do care.  Whether you think they did a good job with D&D or not is subjective and I won't get into edition wars.  I personally think they did great with 3rd and stumbled somewhat with 4th.  But you are flat out wrong that they don't care.




Hey James,  Long time....

It is no secret I think they stumbled* in 4E.
But I completely agree with you.  I know they love the game and I'm confident they are more frustrated than anyone.

I still to this day think that Mearls is one of the two very best designers going.  (Steve Kenson is the other)  I don't believe there is anyone going who could have done better or would have tried harder.  

It is important to remember that part of the goal of 4E was to reach out and try to bring very large numbers of non-gamers into D&D.  I'm not a big believer in HASBRO meddling.  I don't think anyone at HASBRO mgmt thought for two seconds about the details of 4E rules.  But I do think simplification and "lowering the bar" for entry play were absolute criteria.  Just go back and look at the initial marketing, they played up these things over and over.  And I'd agree they were noble goals in concept.  I just think they were not based on realistic expectations.  But 4E is the best game it could possibly be with those criteria because some of the best and most dedicated people were working on it.

* - stumbled in this case meaning in (a) making a game that offers what *I* am looking for and (b) making a game that held together and grew the fan base.  Specific cases of finding 4E awesome are not challenged and I 100% agree it is awesome at certain, specific things.


> That's why I think if D&D got sold it would be better off with a smaller company.



Probably true.
But not gonna happen.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 25, 2011)

I dunno about Dannager but my gripe with 5e is coming threads is that the evidence (IMO and all that ) seems to sonsist of "something bad has happened at WOTC", "I don't like 4e" so 5e must be coming.

Now even if 4e is a financial disaster for Wizards and DDI is bleeding money, why would 5e be a success.

Which is the mostly likely to generate a future revenue stream?

1) Shut D&D down for 20 years and reboot ala Transformers circa 2030.

2) Strip down the D&D inhouse staff to a minimum to run a bunch of freelancers and do maybe a setting or mini setting a year, some new mechaincs via DDI and a couple of boardgames a year. With a console or PC game very 3 years or so. Let it tick along for 10 years or so.

3) Scrap all existing DDI structure and release a new pen and paper edition with no electronic support.

4) Replace the existing electronic support with the tools needed for a new edition and an new pen and paper edition alongside it.

It would seem to me that 1 or 2 makes the most financial sense and that they are going for 2.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 25, 2011)

BryonD said:


> It is important to remember that part of the goal of 4E was to reach out and try to bring very large numbers of non-gamers into D&D.  I'm not a big believer in HASBRO meddling.  I don't think anyone at HASBRO mgmt thought for two seconds about the details of 4E rules.  But I do think simplification and "lowering the bar" for entry play were absolute criteria.  Just go back and look at the initial marketing, they played up these things over and over.  And I'd agree they were noble goals in concept.  I just think they were not based on realistic expectations.  But 4E is the best game it could possibly be with those criteria because some of the best and most dedicated people were working on it.
> 
> * - stumbled in this case meaning in (a) making a game that offers what *I* am looking for and (b) making a game that held together and grew the fan base.  Specific cases of finding 4E awesome are not challenged and I 100% agree it is awesome at certain, specific things.




I think where WotC stumbled is that they focused too much on the two birds in a bush and lost track of the bird in hand, which fractured and split into multiple birds, some of whom flew off...err, you know what I mean!

This is not to say that it is not possible to find new players and expand the game, but that it has to be done from a strong core, and WotC lost that - or at least they didn't make up for players lost with players found (afaik, of course).

Now the problem with a new edition is that it is a high risk, high reward thing. The point would be to get lapsed players back AND find new players, but without losing current 4E fans. In other words, what they wouldn't want to do is further dilute the community with lots of unhappy 4E holdouts. It is a weird thing, because in order for 5E to be a success it would have to either turn 4E into a "lost edition" that nobody plays or it would have to compatible enough with 4E to make all of the material still valid and usable, ala 1E and 2E.

I would guess that they would go for the latter approach, that they would try to play up compatibility with 4E through DDI. So when we talk about "5E" coming out in some sense we may see something more akin to a new print run of core rulebooks that manage to be both a new edition but also a revised version of 4E.



ardoughter said:


> I dunno about Dannager but my gripe with 5e is coming threads is that the evidence (IMO and all that ) seems to sonsist of "something bad has happened at WOTC", "I don't like 4e" so 5e must be coming.




That is not at all what I'm saying. Actually, I find it irritating when people immediately polarize any such discussion into whether or not one likes or dislikes X-edition. I like and play 4E; I have problems with it and I would like to see a 5E that addresses those problems, but I do like the game - and more than Pathfinder, 3.5, 1E, or any other version of D&D. 



ardoughter said:


> Now even if 4e is a financial disaster for Wizards and DDI is bleeding money, why would 5e be a success.
> 
> Which is the mostly likely to generate a future revenue stream?
> 
> 1) Shut D&D down for 20 years and reboot ala Transformers circa 2030.




I don't see htis happening. 



ardoughter said:


> 2) Strip down the D&D inhouse staff to a minimum to run a bunch of freelancers and do maybe a setting or mini setting a year, some new mechaincs via DDI and a couple of boardgames a year. With a console or PC game very 3 years or so. Let it tick along for 10 years or so.




I don't see this ticking along for 10 years. We might see D&D run on idle for a  few years with the focus being on DDI and very little meatspace  products printed. Then, as the game gradually evolves through updates  and new material largely published online, "5E" might be printed in 3-5  years. 



ardoughter said:


> 3) Scrap all existing DDI structure and release a new pen and paper edition with no electronic support.




As much as some diehard grognards might want this, I don't see this happening.



ardoughter said:


> 4) Replace the existing electronic support with the tools needed for a new edition and an new pen and paper edition alongside it.




This is inevitable, imo, and can go hand-in-hand with #2, although with a shorter timeline.



ardoughter said:


> It would seem to me that 1 or 2 makes the most financial sense and that they are going for 2.




Again, I see some combination of 2 and 4, but on a much accelerated timeline. Remember, we live in the 21st century where information doubles every year or two now. 10 years is a _long _time; it will pass quickly, but a lot can change. So I see the following scenario playing out:

2011-12: Further "fishing" from Mike Mearls; WotC prints little product, maybe one new item every couple months, plus board games and other non-D&D products. At some point 5E is announced, although perhaps not as "5E" but as "Advanced D&D" or the "40th Anniversary Edition," but everyone calls it 5E anyway.

2012-13: 5E elements are gradually introduced via DDI.

2014: 5E is printed in conjunction with the 40th anniversary.

2015: Realizing 5E is a massive success, Paizo introduces a line of 5E product and a new OGL is negotiated.

2015-20: A new Golden Age of D&D as the community is united under 5E.

2019-20: Rumors of 6E start emerging.

2021: 6E emerges as a fully virtual, immersive computer game run on solar energy.

2022: The world ends when it is realized that the Mayan Calendar was off by a decade and an asteroid impacts the earth, destroying it. Luckily the central computers that run 6E survive the impact and float off into space on a new asteroid named Gygaxia. As the game is run on solar energy, thousands of D&D players remain alive in a virtual D&D setting. Gygaxia begins a new orbit around the sun.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jun 25, 2011)

IMO 5e will be announced this year at Gencon for release next year.


----------



## Pour (Jun 25, 2011)

I really hope 5e isn't announced any time soon. I've only just reached Epic with my party off my first campaign. There is still so much I've yet to do in the system, and there is a ton of design space and potential left in her after just 4 years. As more players scratch that late game surface and designers continue to push, I believe we'll get more awesome stuff like themes, basically every monster book in the last year or more, the boxed sets, and recent DDI content. 

I think someone mentioned the increase of freelancing already, but I concur we're going to see a lot of new names contributing over the next year, and that to me is pretty exciting. New approaches to design, new ideas, maybe a few past freelancers taking command roles, it's all good in my book.

Bring it all to a boil and make the 40th Anniversary Edition official 4.5e, maybe around the time they announce Pathfinder 2e.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 25, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> 2022: The world ends when it is realized that the Mayan Calendar was off by a decade and an asteroid impacts the earth, destroying it. Luckily the central computers that run 6E survive the impact and float off into space on a new asteroid named Gygaxia. As the game is run on solar energy, thousands of D&D players remain alive in a virtual D&D setting. Gygaxia begins a new orbit around the sun.




Unfortunately, no one thinks to check the orbit for traps and Gygaxia gets knocked into a wormhole by a complicated magnetic field / asteroid push trap and can't get out.  TPK.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 25, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> I think where WotC stumbled is that they focused too much on the two birds in a bush and lost track of the bird in hand, which fractured and split into multiple birds, some of whom flew off...err, you know what I mean!



That's right.



> This is not to say that it is not possible to find new players and expand the game, but that it has to be done from a strong core, and WotC lost that - or at least they didn't make up for players lost with players found (afaik, of course).



I've said this before, and I always get disagreement from all angles......  
But I'm still right.....  

The portion of society that will ever be table top role players is more or less fixed.  Most people will NEVER do it.  At least not as money spending on-going parts of the market.  Even most people who play WOW will never be table top gamers.  And people who play WOW is still a clear, distant overall minority.

Growing the fan base is possible.  But you have to be realistic about your prospective market.  I think WotC's reach on this one greatly exceeded their grasp.



> Now the problem with a new edition is that it is a high risk, high reward thing. The point would be to get lapsed players back AND find new players, but without losing current 4E fans. In other words, what they wouldn't want to do is further dilute the community with lots of unhappy 4E holdouts. It is a weird thing, because in order for 5E to be a success it would have to either turn 4E into a "lost edition" that nobody plays or it would have to compatible enough with 4E to make all of the material still valid and usable, ala 1E and 2E.



That is a very real problem.

I still say that 3E was a vastly bigger tent.  And the success of 3E and the "golden age" as described by people in the market are evidence of it.  A lot of people who love 4E were quite happy with 3E.  But, that was before 4E came in focused like a laser on their personal sweet spot.  That genie is not going back in the bottle.  There is a segment of gamers who will never go back to a game that I will go to.  And I don't say that as a critical comment toward either side.  

The successful big tent of 3E is an amazing achievement in its own right.  It would be completely unrealistic to expect that result under the best of circumstances.  And now the deck is deeply stacked against it.  Trying to repeat that unification would be a lost cause.  Who knows, maybe two years from now WotC will have me eating my words.  But I doubt it.

If my paycheck depended on D&D, I'd ride the 4E horse till it fell over.  That doesn't do me any good.  But it is the correct move for WotC.  

And the "lost edition" may still come even without 5E.  As the board game, card, etc... spin offs become more the focus and the RPG becomes a token reference point, the difference becomes less and less important.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 25, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> snip
> ....
> Now the problem with a new edition is that it is a high risk, high reward thing. The point would be to get lapsed players back AND find new players, but without losing current 4E fans. In other words, what they wouldn't want to do is further dilute the community with lots of unhappy 4E holdouts. It is a weird thing, because in order for 5E to be a success it would have to either turn 4E into a "lost edition" that nobody plays or it would have to compatible enough with 4E to make all of the material still valid and usable, ala 1E and 2E.



I think your time line is too accelerated and there is little need to call it a new edition. IMHO editions have become battle standards that grognards gather around and lob stinking clouds on all and sundry, much to the irritation of moderators everywhere.



Mercurius said:


> I would guess that they would go for the latter approach, that they would try to play up compatibility with 4E through DDI. So when we talk about "5E" coming out in some sense we may see something more akin to a new print run of core rulebooks that manage to be both a new edition but also a revised version of 4E.



Why not wait another couple of years until ereaders are ubiqitous and public 5e as a completely electronic edition compatible with 4e chargen?



Mercurius said:


> That is not at all what I'm saying. Actually, I find it irritating when people immediately polarize any such discussion into whether or not one likes or dislikes X-edition. I like and play 4E; I have problems with it and I would like to see a 5E that addresses those problems, but I do like the game - and more than Pathfinder, 3.5, 1E, or any other version of D&D.



Fair enough.


Mercurius said:


> snip
> ...
> 2011-12: Further "fishing" from Mike Mearls; WotC prints little product, maybe one new item every couple months, plus board games and other non-D&D products. At some point 5E is announced, although perhaps not as "5E" but as "Advanced D&D" or the "40th Anniversary Edition," but everyone calls it 5E anyway.
> 
> ...



What about circa 2016 or at least after the Kinect 2 is out they announce a 5e compatible with 4e chargen and pen and paper rules but playable via Xbbox and Kinect 2 on 3D tv's using the Kinect gesture recognition plus some gismos that will act as implement/weapon plut Kinect voice recognition.
For the pen and paper rules, it brings back verbal and somatic componens to spells.



Mercurius said:


> 2015: Realizing 5E is a massive success, Paizo introduces a line of 5E product and a new OGL is negotiated.



I do not see a new OGL ever. I am pretty sure either WoTC senior management or Hasbro sees it as a disaster. Probably Hasbro given the way they hang onto IP.
I also cannot see Paizo hitching their wagon to another companies licence again. 



Mercurius said:


> 2015-20: A new Golden Age of D&D as the community is united under 5E.



If it is that successful I am sure Paizo will produce stuff but taking a more cautious approach and at arms length.



Mercurius said:


> 2019-20: Rumors of 6E start emerging.



Round about the time of the first post-5e layoffs.



Mercurius said:


> 2021: 6E emerges as a fully virtual, immersive computer game run on solar energy.
> 
> 2022: The world ends when it is realized that the Mayan Calendar was off by a decade and an asteroid impacts the earth, destroying it. Luckily the central computers that run 6E survive the impact and float off into space on a new asteroid named Gygaxia. As the game is run on solar energy, thousands of D&D players remain alive in a virtual D&D setting. Gygaxia begins a new orbit around the sun.



 LOL


----------



## Gargoyle (Jun 25, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Hey James,  Long time....
> 
> It is no secret I think they stumbled* in 4E.
> 
> * - stumbled in this case meaning in (a) making a game that offers what *I* am looking for and (b) making a game that held together and grew the fan base.  Specific cases of finding 4E awesome are not challenged and I 100% agree it is awesome at certain, specific things.




Heya back at ya. 

I think you hit the nail on the head there.  4E turned out not to be the game for me either, at least at first, and apparently we are in good company since the fan base is so split. Unfortunately my group couldn't agree on a schedule to play anyway, so we haven't played any edition much at all.

I am, however, running Essentials for the wife and kids and we are having fun with that. And I plan to run a short campaign again for my regular group in the fall, and it will likely be Essentials, since I'm so rusty on everything else.  It's simple, yet has enough options to satisfy me, so I'm probably going to stick with it.  

If 5E were to come out tomorrow, I would be interested in seeing what they did, and would probably buy it out of curiosity, but I wouldn't play it for a long time, probably a year.  I just don't have time to learn a new system anymore and to relearn it when extensive errata comes out a year or two later.  And I will be letting my DDI subscription expire, as it has disappointed me too many times, so I need a system simple enough to support pencil and paper character and adventure generation.

I guess that's part of the splitting of the player base; we are getting older too, and we are changing.  My lifestyle just doesn't support weekends with 16 hours of gaming anymore, or buying all the books and subscribing to DDI no matter how fond I am of those days.  D&D is still a favorite hobby of mine, but I have a much more balanced life now, and I'm happy with that.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 25, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Lan-"looming over us ready to pounce in just over a month"-efan




We tracked down 5E..._*and the call came from inside your house!*_


----------



## Dannager (Jun 25, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> For those who rely only on rational thought to engage the world, a personal realization of, "Huh, rational thought cannot explain everything, nor is it a complete way of engaging the world, so maybe I'll open up to other aspects of my being in the future," is an acceptable substitute.




I wasn't suggesting that rational thought _was_ capable of explaining everything. Merely that some people *ought to give it a try sometime*.

Really, though, rational thought's pretty great at explaining nearly everything.



> Seriously, Dannager, I'm not sure what you're beef is with people having hunches about 5E coming out soon (by "soon" I personally mean within the next 2-3 years; 2012 _could _happen but is unlikely, imo). Does this sort of talk offend you in some way? Why?




I'm not offended beyond the very minor quibble that some of these people predict the doom of 4e/WotC/D&D/life as we know it every couple of months, when anything noteworthy happens at WotC. And I just _know_ that when 5e (probably) inevitably comes around, they'll be the first to jump up and down and shout "Told you so!" And then I'll have to roll my eyes, and point out that this is no different than if they played roulette a bunch of times and _finally_ landed their pick.

If you predict it's going to rain tomorrow _every single day_, you will eventually be right. It doesn't mean you can predict the weather.

There's nothing really in this thread to be _offended_ by, but this is about as worthwhile a discussion as can possibly be had in this thread.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 25, 2011)

Dannager said:


> If you predict it's going to rain tomorrow _every single day_, you will eventually be right. It doesn't mean you can predict the weather.




It's always easy for someone to keep on making the same forecast all the time.  Some day they may turn out to be right, just like how a dead analog clock is always correct two times every day.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 25, 2011)

ggroy said:


> It's always easy for someone to keep on making the same forecast all the time.  Some day they may turn out to be right, just like how a dead analog clock is always correct two times every day.




I agree it is one of those perpetual predictions, and i really would be surprised if wizards put out 5e any time soon. At the same time bill s leaving is huge news and i think it must indicate some change of direction ( though that could be any number of things). I dont think ghis is just another firing. He was the head of rnd.


----------



## caudor (Jun 25, 2011)

ggroy said:


> It's always easy for someone to keep on making the same forecast all the time.  Some day they may turn out to be right, just like how a dead analog clock is always correct two times every day.




Like myself, I suspect many of the folk sharing hunches are not doing so every day or trying to take themselves too seriously.  Playing on a hunch is just expressing a feeling.  Trying to be right isn't the point--sharing a hunch with others and getting it off your chest is more the point.

In my case, if I'm wrong, I'll feel no loss of dignity, but I may mumble to myself (in my Texas accent): I sure ain't no Nostradamus


----------



## drothgery (Jun 25, 2011)

Even if 4e had been pretty much universally embraced, it's pretty clear after 3.0, 3.5. and 4e that WotC can produce about three years worth of stuff for D&D before they start scraping the bottom of the barrel (second supplements on the same topic, niche settings, lots of setting-specific supplements, books for obscure campaign options, books repackaging older stuff). But the reaction to 3.5 at launch (even if we almost all ended up playing it eventually) strongly suggests gamers are not willing to embrace a new edition of the game after only 3 years.

So my guess is that WotC will launch 5e as soon as they can do it without provoking a major backlash (and I like 4e). This year is probably too soon to announce things, but I definitely wouldn't be surprised if they announce 5e next year and launch it in 2013.


----------



## ggroy (Jun 25, 2011)

drothgery said:


> Even if 4e had been pretty much universally embraced, it's pretty clear after 3.0, 3.5. and 4e that WotC can produce about three years worth of stuff for D&D before they start scraping the bottom of the barrel (second supplements on the same topic, niche settings, lots of setting-specific supplements, books for obscure campaign options, books repackaging older stuff). But the reaction to 3.5 at launch (even if we almost all ended up playing it eventually) strongly suggests gamers are not willing to embrace a new edition of the game after only 3 years.




At times I wonder whether 3.5E D&D would have lasted 4+ years, if Eberron was never created by WotC and/or 3E/3.5E Forgotten Realms was discontinued early on.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 25, 2011)

drothgery said:


> But the reaction to 3.5 at launch (even if we almost all ended up playing it eventually) strongly suggests gamers are not willing to embrace a new edition of the game after only 3 years.




In defense of WotC, I don't they expected everyone to treat 3.5e as a new edition of D&D. To me, it always felt like they thought they were releasing a new edition of Magic: the Gathering, the way they do every couple of years. I.e. Some cleanup, maybe new art, but it doesn't obsolete older material, and they don't expect everyone to buy it.

Personally, I think WotC was caught by surprise by the community reaction that 3.5e obsoleted 3.0e.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 26, 2011)

GSHamster said:


> In defense of WotC, I don't they expected everyone to treat 3.5e as a new edition of D&D. To me, it always felt like they thought they were releasing a new edition of Magic: the Gathering, the way they do every couple of years. I.e. Some cleanup, maybe new art, but it doesn't obsolete older material, and they don't expect everyone to buy it.
> 
> Personally, I think WotC was caught by surprise by the community reaction that 3.5e obsoleted 3.0e.




Can you blame them? The reaction was...ridiculous.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 26, 2011)

3.5E was a rather annoying update; everything changed just a little bit, enough to be forever blindsiding you when you thought you knew how something worked and then somebody happened to look it up in the book and, surprise! It's different now. And when you have Monte Cook announcing point-blank that it was planned from the start, I can see why folks would get upset.

Then again, did it lead to people ceasing to buy books? Or did most people eventually convert? If the latter, it did what it was supposed to do. Corporations are in business to make money, not friends.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Who is taking "potshots"? I'm not making any qualitative judgements about 4E as a game - I like it, play it, and prefer to other editions of D&D, including Pathfinder. But I think it is almost a self-evident truth that 4E is not as successful as WotC would have liked it to be, both economically speaking but also in terms of the community, which is fractured in a way that it has never been.




Really?  Where are they?

How many people are currently in the RPGA compared to say, 2005?  That would be an excellent indicator of the "fracture" and "not as successful" as it could have been.

Considering that as I look on the front page of En World, a site that has grown by about 30% since the release of 4e, I see that the 4e boards are about 10 times the size of the Pathfinder boards.  On a site where you'd think that the "fracture" would be very visible, you'd think that there'd be a bit more chatter on the Pathfinder boards.

All of the "evidence" of the fracture pretty much only exists in the minds of those that want there to be this massive split.  I have no idea why people insist there is this massive split when there is almost no evidence to support it.  I blame Lanefan.*  

* Someone has to take the blame.


----------



## Starfox (Jun 26, 2011)

To me the question is if Hasbro thinks the investment in a 5E is worth the expected returns. They did a big investment with 4E. It did not come up to what, by Hasbro standards, probably were pretty low expectations. Why would a new edition fare much better? 5e (and role-playing games in general) is not a very safe investment from Hasbro's horizon.

if there is indeed a 5E, I'd say that is a pretty significant victory for WotC.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jun 26, 2011)

enpeze66 said:


> No. I think WotC involvement in D&D was the biggest curse for the game. They are responsible for the 2 worst editions D&D has seen in its history.
> 
> They mistreat the legacy because they dont care about. For them its only about making money fast and without much effort.
> 
> Look at the wonderfully made products of other game major companies (like FFG or Paizo) and compare them to the bland products of the "industry leader" and then you will see the what  "care" really means.




Hum. Paizo certainly didn't "Care" enough about the legacy of D&D to fix the crippling flaws in 3.X.  They didn't even bother to do something simple and critically important like fix the saving throw ratios, much less repair the crippling of the warrior types and the overpowering of spellcasters. They did nothing to fix the fact that half the classes in the game become useless before 10th level. And of course they couldn't do anything about the overcomplicated, optimization-based building of characters that resembles nothing so much as making a Magic deck. Oh, but they had nice art, and they formatted their products SO well (meanwhile, we are happy to report that even though there was a little trouble with an iceberg, we've revarnished the decks of the Titanic!). If that's caring, I'd prefer if they cared a little less, in favor of fixing the broken aspects of 3.X.

I suppose if you consider dropping in a few minor house rules and putting nice artwork in to be caring, I suppose Paizo cared. Personally though, if one considers WOTC to be moneygrubbing for putting a lot of work in a product, what does it say about people who simply grabbed an open source product, made a few minor changes, and charged money for it?



BryonD said:


> That's right.
> 
> I've said this before, and I always get disagreement from all angles......
> But I'm still right.....
> ...




Well yeah. the glory days are long past. However, that's no excuse for catering to grognards at the excuse of drawing new players in. And that's definitely no excuse for creating systems that actively repel new gamers, like 3.X and derivatives.

It says a lot that I personally introduced several people to both 3.X and 4E. In each case they bounced hard against the deliberate "gotchas!" of 3.X, and at the same time found 4E very easy and fun to master. In short, 3.X is the sort of game that appeals to people who like to build killer Magic decks, while 4E appeals more to the people who would pick up and play "Settlers of Cataan".



> Growing the fan base is possible.  But you have to be realistic about your prospective market.  I think WotC's reach on this one greatly exceeded their grasp.




Possibly, though as I've said, I've had a lot of success introducing people to 4E that hated 3.X. If WOTC's reach exceeded their grasp with 4E, it's still worth looking at how we can bring in a general gaming population, instead of catering to particular system fanatics.



> I still say that 3E was a vastly bigger tent.  And the success of 3E and the "golden age" as described by people in the market are evidence of it.  A lot of people who love 4E were quite happy with 3E.  But, that was before 4E came in focused like a laser on their personal sweet spot.  That genie is not going back in the bottle.  There is a segment of gamers who will never go back to a game that I will go to.  And I don't say that as a critical comment toward either side.




I think you misspelled "AD&D" as "3E" there. I was around for the REAL golden age, and it had no numbers in the title. And IIRC, the figures bear this out- the number of gamers for 3.X never came anywhere close to the level of AD&D at it's height. 

And one major advantage of AD&D was that it was easy to teach, and every class could be fun from the beginning through the end. It didn't have nonsense like "rewarding system mastery", or the realization that "Hey, this character you've played through 8th level? he's completely useless. Back in those days, we didn't have "optimization", we had "munchkins", and it was a curse, but a badge of pride that you figured out how to win the game. That to me is one of the big reasons it was so successful.

Of course this is based on vague recollections of half-remembered survey and sales quotes, combined with fond memories of when every school had it's D&D club, and weekend D&D clubs were within bicycling distance. Actual numbers would be appreciated.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Considering that as I look on the front page of En World, a site that has grown by about 30% since the release of 4e, I see that the 4e boards are about 10 times the size of the Pathfinder boards.  On a site where you'd think that the "fracture" would be very visible, you'd think that there'd be a bit more chatter on the Pathfinder boards.




but 4e board is only 1/3 - 1/4 the size of legacy forum. And one might expect much more Paizo discussion to be taking place on forums more dedicated to it. In other words, can't draw too much from that, I think.

Clearly 4e hasn't had the same effect that 3e had, in that 3e brought loads of people back to D&D, and there wasn't nearly as many people arguing that it was less D&D than 2nd edition. Could this have been because of the relative maturity of the internet at that point, or for other reasons? Difficult to know.

But the release of 3e was a rallying point, the release of 4e has been more divisive. From a moderation point of view this has been (painfully!) obvious.

Cheers


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> but 4e board is only 1/3 - 1/4 the size of legacy forum. And one might expect much more Paizo discussion to be taking place on forums more dedicated to it. In other words, can't draw too much from that, I think.
> 
> Clearly 4e hasn't had the same effect that 3e had, in that 3e brought loads of people back to D&D, and there wasn't nearly as many people arguing that it was less D&D than 2nd edition. Could this have been because of the relative maturity of the internet at that point, or for other reasons? Difficult to know.
> 
> ...




Depends on whether you go by posts or threads.  If you go by posts, the 4e forum is 1/2 the size of the Legacy forum, despite being what, six years younger?  And those six years were purportedly the "Golden Age" of 3e gaming.

Again, we have to look at this over time.  At this point its somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 the size.  Give it a couple more years and lets have this conversation again.  If it's caught up, then wouldn't it make sense that 4e isn't really a whole lot less popular than 3e was?



			
				Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> I think you misspelled "AD&D" as "3E" there. I was around for the REAL golden age, and it had no numbers in the title. And IIRC, the figures bear this out- the number of gamers for 3.X never came anywhere close to the level of AD&D at it's height.




See, the problem here is, if current numbers are voodoo accounting and poking wobbly bits in the chicken entrails, the TSR numbers are even less accurate.  We have no idea what the numbers really were during the TSR days and, frankly, even TSR had no idea what the numbers actually were.  

I'm really not sure why people would think that gaming had it's golden day back in about 1982 and has never achieved that kind of player base again.  It's possible of course.  But, it's equally possible that the gaming population, other than spiking here and there, has grown fairly moderately over time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 26, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Can you blame them? The reaction was...ridiculous.




I have to say 3.5 being released just afew years out was irritating to me as a consumer. I didn't get involved in the online flame wars but suddenly you felt pressured to repurchase every book you already owned because 3.5 was just different enough to creat problems when people used different books. Don't get me wrong it is their company and they can release what they want-i don't feel like i have special ownership of the game as a player. But 3.5 was just a headache and i really didn't feel the changes warranted new books.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 26, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> Well yeah. the glory days are long past. However, that's no excuse for catering to grognards at the excuse of drawing new players in. And that's definitely no excuse for creating systems that actively repel new gamers, like 3.X and derivatives.



Certainly, and I didn't suggest they should cater to "gronards".

But not recognizing the difference between prospective new players and going for the public at large was a big mistake.



> It says a lot that I personally introduced several people to both 3.X and 4E. In each case they bounced hard against the deliberate "gotchas!" of 3.X, and at the same time found 4E very easy and fun to master. In short, 3.X is the sort of game that appeals to people who like to build killer Magic decks, while 4E appeals more to the people who would pick up and play "Settlers of Cataan".



I'm sorry your friends found 3E to be beyond their limitations and I'm glad 4E solved that for you.



> Possibly, though as I've said, I've had a lot of success introducing people to 4E that hated 3.X. If WOTC's reach exceeded their grasp with 4E, it's still worth looking at how we can bring in a general gaming population, instead of catering to particular system fanatics.



 Fanatics?  You clearly don't get the point I'm making.  First, it has nothing to do with edition.  A fully new edition that was designed with the correct market in mind COULD have done a lot better.  Moving on from 3E was a good idea and particular system doesn't even have anything to do with it.  And fanatics is even further removed.  Though I guess you do seem to have the grasp of that concept.




> I think you misspelled "AD&D" as "3E" there. I was around for the REAL golden age, and it had no numbers in the title. And IIRC, the figures bear this out- the number of gamers for 3.X never came anywhere close to the level of AD&D at it's height.



  No.  I played AD&D.  AD&D was cool for its time.  And it also had virtually no competition.  And 3E has been referenced as a second golden age, so I meant exactly what I said.  AD&D was as well, but the market was so different then, it doesn't compare.

I loved AD&D and I think it was brilliant.  But it was also a trailbreaker and learned a ton of lessons the hard way.  Everything after has stood upon its shoulders and has it to thank.    

But that doesn't change the fact that later games DID learn from it and, in the end, AD&D was on a downward path because as competition did grow a lot of people went to other games and little more than brand was carrying D&D.  3E saved the name and actually pulled the community together to a very large extent.



> And one major advantage of AD&D was that it was easy to teach, and every class could be fun from the beginning through the end. It didn't have nonsense like "rewarding system mastery", or the realization that "Hey, this character you've played through 8th level? he's completely useless. Back in those days, we didn't have "optimization", we had "munchkins", and it was a curse, but a badge of pride that you figured out how to win the game. That to me is one of the big reasons it was so successful.



You keep talking about easy and hard.

I don't know of a version of D&D that I have ever found anywhere near "hard".  I find nothing but downsides in changing the game to cater to people who do.

I've also found that I don't enjoy nearly as much when I play with people who think of RPGs in terms of "figuring out how to win".

So, bottom line, you and I are are not looking for the same thing remotely.  You have what you want and I have what I want.  They may both entail sitting around a table pretending to be an elf, but when all is said and done they are as different as baseball and monopoly. 
I think these conversations would go better if everyone realized just how distinct the experiences can be.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Where are they?
> 
> How many people are currently in the RPGA compared to say, 2005?  That would be an excellent indicator of the "fracture" and "not as successful" as it could have been.
> 
> ...




I don't have statistics so I don't claim that my experiences are representative of the hobby as a whole, but I experience the fracture in my small (very small) corner of the gaming world.

I have been trying to get a gaming group together since the release of 3.5, with almost no success.  The thing I've run into while recruiting at my FLGS is that all the other gaming options have grabbed a portion of potential candidates.  I ran the Keep on the Borderlands Encounters season at the store, and had trouble getting 4 people at the table each session.  I was the only person who had purchased the 4E rulebooks (Essentials for this campaign) but everybody had played some edition of D&D before.  Most of the guys that sat in the game had abandoned D&D by the time 4E came out, but they play Magic the Gathering religiously.

When I go to a larger city in my area and search the "gamers wanted" bulletin boards in their shops, the index cards are looking for gamers for 1E through 4E and include Pathfinder.  I'm not mad at WotC for this.  None of those game systems are obsolete, so people will continue to enjoy them when 8E is released (in 2027 you heard it here first).  

If there are something like 5+ existing editions of D&D plus Pathfinder, how could the one "in production" edition not suffer from dilution?  I know that the idea is to bring in new gamers to board the train with 4E, but how many gamers get introduced to role playing games by joining an existing group?  How many existing groups dropped the games they were playing and moved up to 4E?  As I said, I don't have the numbers and I know that my area is not likely representative, but you would be hard pressed to join a 4E group here.  I also know that when 5E comes, some will hate it and stay with 4E.  I think that is unavoidable.  

I like 4E well enough, though I do miss making PCs with pencil and paper.  I want 5E to come as soon as it can, because it's one more "lottery ticket" to try to win the jackpot that is a game that will attract new players and convince 3.5 and Pathfinder players to move to the new edition.  My reasons are selfish. I want to play. I need gamers to play. I desperately hope that 5E will attract gamers.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2011)

Lhorgrim said:


> I don't have statistics so I don't claim that my experiences are representative of the hobby as a whole, but I experience the fracture in my small (very small) corner of the gaming world.
> 
> I have been trying to get a gaming group together since the release of 3.5, with almost no success.  The thing I've run into while recruiting at my FLGS is that all the other gaming options have grabbed a portion of potential candidates.  I ran the Keep on the Borderlands Encounters season at the store, and had trouble getting 4 people at the table each session.  I was the only person who had purchased the 4E rulebooks (Essentials for this campaign) but everybody had played some edition of D&D before.  Most of the guys that sat in the game had abandoned D&D by the time 4E came out, but they play Magic the Gathering religiously.
> 
> ...




See, this is where I have such a problem with these conversations.  Your experience is pretty much the complete opposite of mine.  Working in Korea, I had a 3e game together in a matter of a couple of days.  When I came to Japan, my situation meant that I had to move to online VTT gaming and again, I had zero problems filling the table.

In fact, I know right now that I can post an ad for a new 4e game and have players in a week or two.  Probably the same for a 3.5 game to be honest.  I'm certainly not going to say that there aren't still lots of people playing 3e (or various iterations).

If I tried that with earlier editions, it would be an uphill battle, but, the joys of online play mean that I probably could hammer together a group eventually.

But, that's the point.  We're only seeing our own personal experiences.  Some people then try to paint that as a larger picture and make sweeping statements like the "massive divide" in the player base and things like that.  If someone wants to make broader claims, I'd think that a bit more evidence should be in order.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 26, 2011)

So, you're claiming there is not a massive divide in the player base, Hussar (or that we can't know whether or not there is?)?

Really?


I mean, there's our own experiences, but there's a lot more info to draw upon than just that.

Heck, the continued existence of Pathfinder ALONE shows that there's a massive number of players who didn't switch to 4e.


Whether or not 4e was "as big a success as they hoped" we'll never know, though...that I agree with. There's not really a way to know their projected hopes.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Where are they?




You really don't see the fracture, Hussar? Let's leave aside the online squabbling that Plane Sailing mentioned, the very simple fact that the player base is more differentiated into various versions of D&D, that a large percentage of current players don't even play the current edition of the came.

From the point of view of "cultural diversity," this isn't a bad thing at all - in terms of variations of D&D, my view is _viva la difference! _The more variations the better; in fact, one can argue that there are now _fewer _versions of the game because people are less likely to house rule 4E because of DDI, whereas in the Good Old Days of AD&D we all had house rules.

But from the perspective of economics, the fracturing is a bad thing. WotC finds themselves in a bit of a double-bind: the current edition of the game no longer holds the huge share of the player base that 3.x did, yet coming out with a new edition to try to "bring people home" runs the risk of further fracturing the player base. I am completely making these numbers up, but my guess is that of active players, 4E only has about 50-60%, whereas 3.x/Pathfinder has about 30-40% and pre-3.x and retro-clones have about 10%. Dial back five years and the then current version, 3.x, probably had 80-90% of the player base.

So when I say that 4E is "not as successful" as WotC hoped, I'm talking about not only the total number of players but the percentage of active players. I don't think they predicted that they would lose so many folks to Pathfinder, 3.x, and retro-clones. 



Hussar said:


> All of the "evidence" of the fracture pretty much only exists in the minds of those that want there to be this massive split.  I have no idea why people insist there is this massive split when there is almost no evidence to support it.  I blame Lanefan.*
> 
> * Someone has to take the blame.




This is such BS, Hussar, that I'm wondering if you are deliberately trolling. OK, I realize that _some _people really hate 4E and see it as the Antigygax. But let me make something very clear: *Believing that 4E is not as popular as WotC hoped/expected it to be, or that 4E may be in its wind-down phase as an edition, or that the D&D community is more fractured than it has ever been, or even that 4E is not the Perfect Game does NOT mean that one "hates" 4E.*

To be clear, my views on 4E's popularity, impact on the community, and overall economic health, has nothing to do with my personal feelings about it as a game. In fact, 4E is my preferred version of D&D and my favorite to date; if and when 5E comes out, I hope that it will be more like Firefox 5.0 - which is really just an update and fixing of the extremely buggy 4.0 that came out just a few months later, but is basically the same browser.



Bedrockgames said:


> I have to say 3.5 being released just afew years out was irritating to me as a consumer. I didn't get involved in the online flame wars but suddenly you felt pressured to repurchase every book you already owned because 3.5 was just different enough to creat problems when people used different books. Don't get me wrong it is their company and they can release what they want-i don't feel like i have special ownership of the game as a player. But 3.5 was just a headache and i really didn't feel the changes warranted new books.




See, I'm of a different mind. First of all, three years is a long time. I don't mind buying a new version of the same book, if it has been revised and includes new material. In fact, I've been calling for a revised version of the 4E _Player's Handbook _for sometime now. Secondly, while 3.5 had some differences a lot stayed the same; the 3E stuff wasn't instantly invalidated, it just required some eyeball tweaking. 

My view is that 3.5 was only a headache to the degree to which people were (overly, imo) attached to rules minutiae, that is to what degree they view the rules as Absolute Law versus "recommended guidelines." I've always taken them to be the latter so don't have a problem with revisions, especially if they improve the game.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 26, 2011)

5E? It won't be out for many years. It has been five long years since WotC promised us this awesome RPG and it hasn't hit the shelves yet.

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




[/sblock]


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 26, 2011)

[MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION]: While i would be of the view that we have no real idea of the size of the fracture brought about by advent of 4e but it strikes me that hte bigger the fracture the less viable 5e becomes.

If there is a significant frature (of the order of 40% or more) then the only way (it would seem to me) to make 5e viable is for the D&D division to shut up shop for 10 years or so and then bring out the new editions.

The other alternative is to change the business model where the edition threadmill is irrelevant.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 26, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> Hum. Paizo certainly didn't "Care" enough about the legacy of D&D to fix the crippling flaws in 3.X.  They didn't even bother to do something simple and critically important like fix the saving throw ratios, much less repair the crippling of the warrior types and the overpowering of spellcasters. They did nothing to fix the fact that half the classes in the game become useless before 10th level. And of course they couldn't do anything about the overcomplicated, optimization-based building of characters that resembles nothing so much as making a Magic deck. Oh, but they had nice art, and they formatted their products SO well (meanwhile, we are happy to report that even though there was a little trouble with an iceberg, we've revarnished the decks of the Titanic!). If that's caring, I'd prefer if they cared a little less, in favor of fixing the broken aspects of 3.X.




Be fair to Paizo; one of the explicit goals of Pathfinder was to be compatible with all your old 3.X material. That meant there were limits to how far they could go to fix the broken aspects of the game. I share your lack of enthusiasm for the result--I'd take Pathfinder over 3.X, but I'd take any other D&D edition over either of them. (Well, except OD&D where the combat rules referred you to Chainmail. That'd be a bit much.) But if I were a 3E enthusiast, I'd probably feel differently.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 26, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> 5E? It won't be out for many years. It has been five long years since WotC promised us this awesome RPG and it hasn't hit the shelves yet.




   You know, given the unexpected response _My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic_ has received from older audiences, I have to wonder if WotC isn't giving an updated version of this serious consideration right now.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 26, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> @Mercurius : While i would be of the view that we have no real idea of the size of the fracture brought about by advent of 4e but it strikes me that hte bigger the fracture the less viable 5e becomes.
> 
> If there is a significant frature (of the order of 40% or more) then the only way (it would seem to me) to make 5e viable is for the D&D division to shut up shop for 10 years or so and then bring out the new editions.
> 
> The other alternative is to change the business model where the edition threadmill is irrelevant.




I don't really agree with your assertion here, ardoughter. Rather, they could go that route - and it might be safer, but it would be potentially less rewarding, a conservative "survive but not thrive" approach. Downsize and focus on DDI...play a wait and see approach and see what the hobby industry and economy looks like in five or six years. 

But I think we're already past that point, that we're going to either see a sooner-than-we-think publication of 5E in 2012 or 2013 that "fixes" 4E and tries to appeal to those lost along the way, or we're going to see a longer period of gradual build-up, with Mearls' fishing becoming more and more obvious, and then eventually beta material coming through DDI - "Playtest 5E material - only available to Insiders!" They could even make a "Platinum" subscription for $20 a month that gives you access to playtesting. In this scenario we're looking at a 2014 release, maybe 2015, but I think they would try to correlate it with the 40th anniversary.

I could be wrong. Maybe WotC hasn't yet decided. But I don't think so. D&D is too hot of a commodity to just circle in a waiting pattern for 5-10 years. 

In all honesty I think Mearls' recent articles is a sign that WotC realizes they screwed the pooch by distancing the old-timers in a (failed, imo) attempt to bring in the WoW and XBox generation. This was misplaced from the beginning - they lost sight of what makes tabletops special, and what should be emphasized: the imagination. That coupled with a move away from the core, classic, archetypal D&D world that the diehard base grew up with. This distanced many of the diehard fan base; at best, people like myself that like the game system but don't like dragonborn and "elfier elves" just tolerate the more WoWish of the 4E tropes.In my view, the real key is to publish a game that is A) at least close to being mechanically compatible with 4E material so that it doesn't distance yet another generation of D&D players; B) appeals to 3.x/Pathfinder fans; C) appeals to grognards and retro-cloners; and D) Is both simple enough to be accessible to newbies, and complex enough to appeal to the diehards.

This isn't as impossible as it sounds. The core game for 3.x and 4E is virtually the same; where things start to diverge is with the secondary elements. So you tease out the core game and call that Basic or Core D&D and then you make a modular Advanced D&D, with a pick-and-choose approach, which _can _look similar to 4E as it currently is. Basic D&D would be "classic" in terms of tropes: you've got elves, dwarves, halflings, humans, maybe gnomes; you've got fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics, bards, druids, rangers, paladins, maybe monks. Then you can add in as many modular options and flavors as you like, but none of the non-classic stuff is part of the core game, the first PHB.
I could be wrong on this - I'm sure I'm wrong on some of this. Only time will tell...


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 26, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> I don't really agree with your assertion here, ardoughter. Rather, they could go that route - and it might be safer, but it would be potentially less rewarding, a conservative "survive but not thrive" approach. Downsize and focus on DDI...play a wait and see approach and see what the hobby industry and economy looks like in five or six years.
> 
> But I think we're already past that point, that we're going to either see a sooner-than-we-think publication of 5E in 2012 or 2013 that "fixes" 4E and tries to appeal to those lost along the way, or we're going to see a longer period of gradual build-up, with Mearls' fishing becoming more and more obvious, and then eventually beta material coming through DDI - "Playtest 5E material - only available to Insiders!" They could even make a "Platinum" subscription for $20 a month that gives you access to playtesting. In this scenario we're looking at a 2014 release, maybe 2015, but I think they would try to correlate it with the 40th anniversary.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maggan (Jun 26, 2011)

From reading this discussion re. Pathfinder versus 4e I get a sense that my part of the world must be a total freak show.

When 4e came out, all D&D gamers I know gave it a try. Most gave it a year or so to play it thoroughly. Also a not insignificant percentage of the "Anti-D&D" crowd in Swedish gaming adopted D&D4e, and loved it.

When Pathfinder came out, people started running that as well as D&D4. Taking turns as it were. Just like we do with other games, like Call of Cthulhu, WFRP, you name it.

And that's where it stands for me, and most of the D&D players I know. We run both games. And a lot of others as well. No huge rift here.

Like I said, when comparing my reality to the reality of the huge divide in the US, I just get a huge disconnect. I guess it's all down to anecdotal observations and all that.

/M


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 26, 2011)

DimitriX said:


> As far as I am concerned, Dungeon Crawl Classics by Goodman Games is going to be 5E.
> 
> Dungeon Crawl Classics




No, it is going to be DCC.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 26, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I wasn't suggesting that rational thought _was_ capable of explaining everything. Merely that some people *ought to give it a try sometime*.
> 
> Really, though, rational thought's pretty great at explaining nearly everything.



Rational thought led me to the conclusions I've reached, and to the prediction I made _last fall_ and have stuck with since: that 5e breaks at this year's GenCon.  I'll be proven right or wrong within 2 months.  If right, I'll be there on site to see it.  If wrong, c'est la vie.


> If you predict it's going to rain tomorrow _every single day_, you will eventually be right. It doesn't mean you can predict the weather.



Of course.  But if you don't predict rain except on those occasions when it makes sense, and in fact it does rain when you predict it will, then what? 

Lan-"rational thought explains what irrational thought invents"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Considering that as I look on the front page of En World, a site that has grown by about 30% since the release of 4e, I see that the 4e boards are about 10 times the size of the Pathfinder boards.  On a site where you'd think that the "fracture" would be very visible, you'd think that there'd be a bit more chatter on the Pathfinder boards.
> 
> All of the "evidence" of the fracture pretty much only exists in the minds of those that want there to be this massive split.  I have no idea why people insist there is this massive split when there is almost no evidence to support it.  I blame Lanefan.*



If you're going to blame me for something, at least allow me the pleasure of doing it first! 

I've no real horse in the 4e-Pathfinder race.  I am, however, still riding the 1e horse in the 1e-3e divide. 

Lan-"being blamed for what I didn't do gives a nice smokescreen so I can get away with what I did do"-efan


----------



## Shadeydm (Jun 27, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Lan-"being blamed for what I didn't do gives a nice smokescreen so I can get away with what I did do"-efan





What did you do? Were you one of the looters after the Canucks lost to the Bruins????


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 27, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> 5E? It won't be out for many years. It has been five long years since WotC promised us this awesome RPG and it hasn't hit the shelves yet.
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> ...




If you cannot wait, someone has already Savaged It.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 27, 2011)

Shadeydm said:


> What did you do? Were you one of the looters after the Canucks lost to the Bruins????



Not guilty - I wasn't even in Vancouver at the time, just sitting at home in Victoria morose in front of my TV.

Lan-"the best part of game 7 was Gary Bettman getting booed out of the building"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> So, you're claiming there is not a massive divide in the player base, Hussar (or that we can't know whether or not there is?)?
> 
> Really?




To be exact, I'm claiming that we cannot know how large the divide is.  That there is a divide is self-evident.  But, then again, there was a divide LONG before 4e came on the scene.  How much has 4e exacerbated that divide?  I have no idea.



> I mean, there's our own experiences, but there's a lot more info to draw upon than just that.




Where?  I keep seeing claims of all this information and evidence, but, no actual examples seem to be forthcoming.



> Heck, the continued existence of Pathfinder ALONE shows that there's a massive number of players who didn't switch to 4e.
> 
> 
> Whether or not 4e was "as big a success as they hoped" we'll never know, though...that I agree with. There's not really a way to know their projected hopes.




Looking at the Paizo boards, I see that the Pathfinder forums there have about 15 000 threads.  On their own boards, they have about the same number of threads that 4e has here and this is hardly a 4e fansite.  Looking at the total posts, the 4e boards here still have about 100 000 more posts than Pathfinder does on its own boards.

Are there lots of people playing Pathfinder?  Yup.  FAN-Lanefan-TASTIC.  That's great.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  But, the presumption that all 4e players and all Pathfinder players are distinct from each other is not based on any sort of facts.  There's a unknown sized body of gamers who play both and an unknown sized body of gamers that play one or the other.  Until we can make any sort of educated guesses as to the size of any of those three groups, then how can we possibly say that Pathfinder is evidence of a split?

It certainly could be.  I won't deny that for a second.  But, without any other information to go on, it's just chicken entrails.

Turn it around.  The continued existence of OSRIC alone shows that players didn't switch to 3e.  Does that mean that there was a massive divide in the player base with retro-clones and the like?  Does Mutants and Masterminds mean that 3e wasn't as successful as it could have been?

Just because there are other games on the market does not really mean anything.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> There's a unknown sized body of gamers who play both and an unknown sized body of gamers that play one or the other.



And an unknown sized body of gamers who play neither, but who still play D+D.







> Until we can make any sort of educated guesses as to the size of any of those three groups, then how can we possibly say that Pathfinder is evidence of a split?
> 
> Turn it around.  The continued existence of OSRIC alone shows that players didn't switch to 3e.



Seeing as OSRIC came out several years after 3e, I'd say it means players did switch to (or started with) 3e and then switched away.  







> Does that mean that there was a massive divide in the player base with retro-clones and the like?  Does Mutants and Masterminds mean that 3e wasn't as successful as it could have been?
> 
> Just because there are other games on the market does not really mean anything.



I think the difference this time is how well PF is doing in relation to 4e vs. how well (game x) did in relation to 3e, or 2e, or 1e, or whatever D+D was current at the time; in that no "game x" has ever come close to what PF is doing now.

Also, this is the first time a game that is a direct evolution of the immediately-previous D+D edition has been released to go head-to-head with the current D+D edition.

Lan-"these waters are uncharted - here be dragons"-efan


----------



## BryonD (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Where?  I keep seeing claims of all this information and evidence, but, no actual examples seem to be forthcoming.



Ha.
I see my absence has not missed any evolution in the return to go, do not collect $200, forgot everything that ever happened and claim all debates must be reset at zero tactic of Hussar.



> Looking at the Paizo boards, I see that the Pathfinder forums there have about 15 000 threads.  On their own boards, they have about the same number of threads that 4e has here and this is hardly a 4e fansite.  Looking at the total posts, the 4e boards here still have about 100 000 more posts than Pathfinder does on its own boards.



Ha.
The king of "that isn't data" is pointing a thread counts.  Cute



> Until we can make any sort of educated guesses as to the size of any of those three groups, then how can we possibly say that Pathfinder is evidence of a split?



I can make educated guesses.  So we got that covered.  Yes, you can stick your fingers in your ears, again, again, again.  That is fine.

I also know a guy who doesn't belive we landed on the moon and nothing changes his mind either.

Ladies and Gents, this post is laden with what we often call, "getting personal," or _ad hominem_ argument.  This is rhetorically weak, and pretty rude, and can get you booted from a thread - like it did here.  Try not to do this.  Thanks.  ~Umbran


----------



## _NewbieDM_ (Jun 27, 2011)

I wrote a speculative article back in february predicting a 2014 launch to tie into the 40th anniversary.... 

Where’s D&D Going?  www. Newbie DM .com


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 27, 2011)

Maybe we need to clarify what we mean by "divide." I think it is being used in different ways, but with three major usages:

1) What people are actually playing, especially on a regular basis. 
2) Community dynamics between those into various editions of D&D,  and the degree to which there are negative feelings between advocates of different editions.
3) Economics - what people are spending money on.

Going backwards through the three usages, we all know that serious gamers--the type of folks on these  forums--are known for buying books that they knowingly will never use.  There are probably quite a few people who prefer Pathfinder that still  buy major 4E releases and vice versa. Are Pathfinder folks also playing  4E? Maybe, maybe not - but if they are buying 4E then we can say that 4E  is doing well. But if a large portion of Pathfinder players are  disavowing WotC products, then 4E isn't doing so well. 

We also have to take into account the economic climate of the last few years - pretty much the entire life of 4E. I'm not sure if relatively inexpensive luxury items like D&D books have gone down in sales, but I would think that some people are trying to be more frugal. And even if some Pathfinder fans are buying 4E products, and vice versa, I would think that there are quite a few that don't buy products of the other game...but if the existence of Pathfinder hurts 4E, I really don't know. 

It is hard to conclude anything on the community thing, or rather it is hard to say how prevalent the negative feelings for different editions are. I work in a  small private high school with about 120 students and each year there  are about half a dozen to a dozen kids that are playing D&D and over  the last three years that I've worked there, it has always been 3.5.   This is another anecdote that has no weight in and of itself, but I have  asked them why they don't play 4E and I've been surprised at the  negative view they had towards it, especially a couple guys who had  discovered Pathfinder. I got the usual World of Warcraft remarks, among  other "appellations."

I've heard similar stories, so I think there is truth to the idea that  there is a community divide, that there are some Pathfinder players that  actively dislike 4E and vice versa (personally I don't get it; I _prefer _4E but I'd be happy to play Pathfinder or 3.5).

The first usage is simply what people are playing. The more editions  that are out there, the more "division" there is in this sense. We all  only have so many hours we can game (except the independently wealthy who don't have children or non-gaming spouses!). So in this regard, it is a self-evident fact that when 4E came  out and people continued playing 3.5, or went back to 3.5, and/or moved on  to Pathfinder, that there was a division in the D&D community.

My personal usage of the term is mainly in that sense - that is, what people are spending their time and attention on, what they are mainly playing. As I said, I  would argue that there has never been so many people playing other  versions of D&D than the current one. How many people were playing  non-3.x versions of D&D between 2000-07? Not a lot. I'm not talking  about "Hey, let's play a one-off AD&D game tonight!" but what people  are playing on a regular basis. 

Divided, fractured, factionalized - whatever you want to call. I  maintain that the D&D community has never been this divided, in any usage of the term, and it isn't even  close. But again, if we're only talking about people playing lots of  different versions but everyone still buying new product, the division  isn't a problem. But we're also talking about community tensions and, I  would guess, people being a bit more frugal about what they spend their  money on, especially given the economic climate.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Maybe we need to clarify what we mean by "divide." I think it is being used in different ways, but with three major usages:
> 
> 1) What people are actually playing, especially on a regular basis.
> 2) Community dynamics between those into various editions of D&D,  and the degree to which there are negative feelings between advocates of different editions.
> ...




That presumes a size of the Pathfinder community that actually matters as to whether or not 4e is doing well.  How many people are playing Pathfinder?  Roughly.  And, could you please give any sort of supporting evidence for your number?



> We also have to take into account the economic climate of the last few years - pretty much the entire life of 4E. I'm not sure if relatively inexpensive luxury items like D&D books have gone down in sales, but I would think that some people are trying to be more frugal. And even if some Pathfinder fans are buying 4E products, and vice versa, I would think that there are quite a few that don't buy products of the other game...but if the existence of Pathfinder hurts 4E, I really don't know.




Something we agree on.



> It is hard to conclude anything on the community thing, or rather it is hard to say how prevalent the negative feelings for different editions are. I work in a  small private high school with about 120 students and each year there  are about half a dozen to a dozen kids that are playing D&D and over  the last three years that I've worked there, it has always been 3.5.   This is another anecdote that has no weight in and of itself, but I have  asked them why they don't play 4E and I've been surprised at the  negative view they had towards it, especially a couple guys who had  discovered Pathfinder. I got the usual World of Warcraft remarks, among  other "appellations."




You admit that your anecdote is just that, an anecdote.  How is this relevant?



> I've heard similar stories, so I think there is truth to the idea that  there is a community divide, that there are some Pathfinder players that  actively dislike 4E and vice versa (personally I don't get it; I _prefer _4E but I'd be happy to play Pathfinder or 3.5).




That there is a community divide I will 100% agree with.  That's obvious.  

Now, how big is the divide?  You, I and anyone else have no idea.  Even BryonD's "educated guess" is no more than reading chicken entrails.



> The first usage is simply what people are playing. The more editions  that are out there, the more "division" there is in this sense. We all  only have so many hours we can game (except the independently wealthy who don't have children or non-gaming spouses!). So in this regard, it is a self-evident fact that when 4E came  out and people continued playing 3.5, or went back to 3.5, and/or moved on  to Pathfinder, that there was a division in the D&D community.
> 
> My personal usage of the term is mainly in that sense - that is, what people are spending their time and attention on, what they are mainly playing. As I said, I  would argue that there has never been so many people playing other  versions of D&D than the current one. How many people were playing  non-3.x versions of D&D between 2000-07? Not a lot. I'm not talking  about "Hey, let's play a one-off AD&D game tonight!" but what people  are playing on a regular basis.




Again, you presume that groups only play one game.  Or even a majority of one game.  



> Divided, fractured, factionalized - whatever you want to call. I  maintain that the D&D community has never been this divided, in any usage of the term, and it isn't even  close. But again, if we're only talking about people playing lots of  different versions but everyone still buying new product, the division  isn't a problem. But we're also talking about community tensions and, I  would guess, people being a bit more frugal about what they spend their  money on, especially given the economic climate.




Ballocks.  The divide between 1e, 2e and Basic/Expert was just as fractious as this.  People who absolutely refused to play one or the other and people who were quite happy playing all three (sometimes as the same time ).

I still stand by this.  BryonD complains that I'm pointing to post counts as poor examples of how popular a game is.  Okay, fine.  Find me something better.  Find me something, ANYTHING, that isn't some guy who "heard something".

The problem is, some people have repeated the mantra of there being this "huge divide" so often that any counter evidence is summarily dismissed and all supporting evidence is accepted without reservation.  It's almost become a point of faith with some people.  

Hey, there really might be this massive divide.  I don't know.  It might actually be that Pathfinder has taken over 50% of the D&D gamers out there and there really is this perfect split with two equal sized communities.

If it's true though, then where are they?  I know where to find the 4e community - Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page is a pretty good sign.  Where is this massive Pathfinder and 3e community that is equivalently sized?

Where is it?  You're the ones making the claims that there is this massive split.  Where is your evidence?  BryonD simply hand waving it and saying that it's there, but he can't be bothered actually producing any of it doesn't really cut the mustard.  

Hey, here's an idea.  How many RPGA players are there?  How many Pathfinder Society members are there?  That at least would give you some idea of the split.  You'd think that if the split were as massive as is being suggested, then the RPGA would have crashed hard from its 150 k members that it had as of about 2005 and that Pathfinder Society would be skyrocketing.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

Just to add one final point.  Well, two points.

1.  Mercurius, you could be absolutely right.  It's certainly possible that there is this large divide such as you are talking about.  I don't deny that at all.

2.  I have no real horse in this race.  I personally don't care one way or the other.

3.  My entire point is that all of the "evidence" that people bring up is about as factual as a magic 8 ball.  There are loads and loads of anecdotes floating around and lots of "I heard from ..." type stuff.  What there isn't is any hard facts.  BryonD says that I want hard evidence.  That's not true.  What I want is any evidence AT ALL that isn't simply anecdotal.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 27, 2011)

5e _can't_ be coming yet. WotC hasn't denied that they are working on it yet....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 27, 2011)

Hey Hussar, you will find no disagreement from me with your three points - we're totally on the same page. I don't have the kind of evidence that will satisfy you because I haven't done extensive polling, looked at sales figures, etc - I'm just going on what I perceive. So I would say that my guess isn't as much educated as it is based upon observation and whatever bits and pieces I have put together.

I also have no horse in this race. Actually, I find it a tad frustrating when this sort of conversation devolves into accusations about hating X Edition (e.g. "If you say that 4E isn't doing well then you are a 4Hater"). This, I think, is indicative of the community fracturing.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 27, 2011)

I have to admit that I do have a horse in this race; 5E can't come soon enough for me. If the direction of Essentials and the drift of Mike Mearls's articles indicate the design priorities of 5E, I'm greatly looking forward to it. If it were released tomorrow*, I would rush out to buy it with no complaint whatsoever.

Unfortunately, I don't think this attitude is widely shared, which is why I'm not expecting 5E to be announced for a couple of years at least.

[size=-2]*Or later today. Seriously, Wizards, if you _have_ been developing 5E in secret and are waiting for just the right time to announce it, you don't have to wait till tomorrow on account of me. Guys? Guys...? [/size]


----------



## catastrophic (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 3.  My entire point is that all of the "evidence" that people bring up is about as factual as a magic 8 ball.  There are loads and loads of anecdotes floating around and lots of "I heard from ..." type stuff.  What there isn't is any hard facts.  BryonD says that I want hard evidence.  That's not true.  What I want is any evidence AT ALL that isn't simply anecdotal.



I think you are making a good point, but I feel as if essentials an other features would not have gone the way they did if wotc at least didn't consider this a serious issue. 

The mearls articles also point in this direction- they're direct pandering and pr, clearly, but they may also be a genuine attempt to triangulate their audience. 

I'm not saying they're right- that there is clear information or a coherent strategy to deal with it. I don't even know if they could gather such information by market research- although that may be far more plausible if, as you argue, the polarization of the community is far less substantial than it sometimes seems. 

I'm just saying they clearly believe that it's an issue, and are trying to figure out a way to resolve it while, quite frankly, taking the people who actually buy their books very much for granted. I don't doubt that 5e wil bear the mark of that, although I doubt we'll see it for a few years, anyway.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 27, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I have to admit that I do have a horse in this race; 5E can't come soon enough for me. If the direction of Essentials and the drift of Mike Mearls's articles indicate the design priorities of 5E, I'm greatly looking forward to it. If it were released tomorrow*, I would rush out to buy it with no complaint whatsoever.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think this attitude is widely shared, which is why I'm not expecting 5E to be announced for a couple of years at least.
> 
> [SIZE=-2]*Or later today. Seriously, Wizards, if you _have_ been developing 5E in secret and are waiting for just the right time to announce it, you don't have to wait till tomorrow on account of me. Guys? Guys...? [/SIZE]



 And I probably would not buy it, not from any antipathy for the new edition but more because I am happy with what I have and am not planting another 100 bucks on a new version of D&D. If I am going to spend that kind of money on a new game it would be much more likely to be spent on Warhammer 3e.


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 3.  My entire point is that all of the "evidence" that people bring up is about as factual as a magic 8 ball.  There are loads and loads of anecdotes floating around and lots of "I heard from ..." type stuff.  What there isn't is any hard facts.  BryonD says that I want hard evidence.  That's not true.  What I want is any evidence AT ALL that isn't simply anecdotal.




An idea for anyone who cares: perhaps grab some data from either GenCon or Origins. Origins released its offerings in an excel spreadsheet. I presume they have done this for a number of years and perhaps GenCon does as well. If people could patch together enough years, especially if you could get back to 3.0's release, there might be some hard data there. Using some statistical methods, one might see patterns of popularity based on the number of games run over a length of time (3e vs everything else until 4e came out, 3e vs. prior D&D, 4e vs. everyone else in recent year, 4e vs. 3e/pathfinder, etc.). One would have to be very careful to control for the environment - there was a longer period between 2e to 3e then 3e to 4e (IIRC) - that type of environment can skew results (example, I am more likely to buy a new car if my current car is 10 years old vs. 3 years old, all other things equal).

This year was my first full Con experince, so I have no data other than this year's Origins listing. Of course, that is not enough to infer anything.  

Con data may not be great as many use that time to try other games. Also, I have no idea if that population is representative of the buying population. But it seems to be a source of data that might actually be available - maybe Origins or GenCon will release the data if asked, or maybe collect from smaller Cons. The data might have some value as people, regardless of experimentation, probably play what they like (for example, I did play some Serenity and 2e amongst my plethera of Savage Worlding - but there was enough SW to fill my plate).


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> To be exact, I'm claiming that we cannot know how large the divide is. That there is a divide is self-evident. But, then again, there was a divide LONG before 4e came on the scene. How much has 4e exacerbated that divide? I have no idea.




Ah, a much more reasonable stance than the one I thought you were taking.

And you're right, we don't have clear evidence to measure the size of the divide.

However...


Hussar said:


> Turn it around. The continued existence of OSRIC alone shows that players didn't switch to 3e. Does that mean that there was a massive divide in the player base with retro-clones and the like? Does Mutants and Masterminds mean that 3e wasn't as successful as it could have been?
> 
> Just because there are other games on the market does not really mean anything.




Two questions:
1. Do you think that Mutants and Masterminds is in competition for players in the same way that OSRIC, 4e, Pathfinder, 3e, and others are in competition? (I'm trying to point out that Pathfinder is not an "other game on the market" so much as "fills the same niche for D&Ders as other versions of D&D.)

2. Do you think that the OSRIC divide is anywhere close to the divide between Pathfinder and 4e? Do you think there are as many people playing OSRIC as Pathfinder? Honestly? I know it is tempting to say we can't know, but what is your honest guess (give a percentage for how confident your guess is if that makes you more comfortable).

Because I don't see an OSRIC forum here on ENWorld, I don't see the amount of supplements for OSRIC that I do for 4e or Pathfinder, I don't see people comparing OSRIC to 4e or to Pathfinder in thread after thread.

I think it's pretty clear that, whatever the size of the divides, that the gulf between 4e and Pathfinder is larger than the gulf between OSRIC and Pathfinder or OSRIC and 4e.

Overall point being that, no we can't measure the size of the divide, but we can gather data and impressions (two separate things, I'll grant) that the divide might be the largest one for players of D&D that we've seen (particularly if we lump 3e/3.5 holdouts with Pathfinder converts).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Ah, a much more reasonable stance than the one I thought you were taking.
> 
> And you're right, we don't have clear evidence to measure the size of the divide.
> 
> ...




Well, actually, I do think so.  I think that most groups have limited play time and that there was pretty much only one direction for gamers who played M&M and that was start with 3e then move to M&M.  They might come back to D&D, but, then again, they might not.  I think that games like M&M did not attract any significant new blood to the hobby but rather nibbled off chunks that were brought in by D&D.

I'll totally give mad props to both WOTC and Paizo for their efforts in the last couple of years to bring in new gamers.  Between WOTC spending buckets of money on the D&D Encounters and some pretty snazzy board games and Paizo kicking their Organized Play stuff into high gear, it's a freaking fantastic time to be a gamer.



> 2. Do you think that the OSRIC divide is anywhere close to the divide between Pathfinder and 4e? Do you think there are as many people playing OSRIC as Pathfinder? Honestly? I know it is tempting to say we can't know, but what is your honest guess (give a percentage for how confident your guess is if that makes you more comfortable).




My honest opinion?  I'd probably agree with you that there are quite a lot fewer OSRIC players than Pathfinder.  Now, if you tally up all the retro-clone and actual AD&D players and lump them into one group, then the numbers might be closer, although, to be honest, I think it would still be pretty far apart.  

I'd be the last person to argue that Pathfinder isn't doing well.  Any RPG that can support a company the size of Pathfinder is doing freaking fantastically as far as RPG's go.



> Because I don't see an OSRIC forum here on ENWorld, I don't see the amount of supplements for OSRIC that I do for 4e or Pathfinder, I don't see people comparing OSRIC to 4e or to Pathfinder in thread after thread.




I did see quite a few comparisons between 3e and earlier editions for many years though.  But, yeah, again, I'm pretty much in the same basket as you.  To be fair though, there are quite a lot of supplements for OSRIC but, I think most of it is POD or PDF.



> I think it's pretty clear that, whatever the size of the divides, that the gulf between 4e and Pathfinder is larger than the gulf between OSRIC and Pathfinder or OSRIC and 4e.
> 
> Overall point being that, no we can't measure the size of the divide, but we can gather data and impressions (two separate things, I'll grant) that the divide might be the largest one for players of D&D that we've seen (particularly if we lump 3e/3.5 holdouts with Pathfinder converts).




This one I'm not totally convinced of to be honest.  The late 80's, with the introduction of 2e saw a pretty big split in the fan base.  Plus you had BECMI chugging along as well.

I think what we didn't have was the Internet and any method for those in one camp or another to band together for a larger voice.  I honestly do think that if we had had the Internet in 1989, this exact same conversation would be going on though.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 27, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> And I probably would not buy it, not from any antipathy for the new edition but more because I am happy with what I have and am not planting another 100 bucks on a new version of D&D. If I am going to spend that kind of money on a new game it would be much more likely to be spent on Warhammer 3e.




Like I said, not widely shared. 

4E is my favorite edition to date, but there are things I miss greatly from older editions (AD&D and BECMI, not so much 3E), and there are things about 4E that seriously bug me. A game that addressed those issues would be awesome. Mike Mearls _seems_ to share my sentiments in most regards, so I am hopeful about the future direction of the brand.

In the meantime, I'll keep working on my own BECMI/4E hybrid, which is nearing the point of being a functional if bare-bones game.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 27, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> I think you are making a good point, but I feel as if essentials an other features would not have gone the way they did if wotc at least didn't consider this a serious issue.




Actually... I'd disagree with you that WotC's production of Essentials was because of a perceived serious issue with the divide between 4E and past editions.

My own personal opinion is that they produced Essentials because it allowed them to print another set of player books that have always been their best-sellers... the races and classes that come with the first Player's Handbook.

I think we all are pretty much in agreement that the stuff you get in the first PH is what probably generates the most purchases.  As you move on to PHII, then PHIII and so on... the amount of sales drops each time (probably because most players in the casual to new range are thinking more towards traditional fantasy archetypes for their gaming.)  So once WotC produced the first PH and their requisite Power splatbooks... they really had very little design space left to produce material worthy of a full book.  They had to struggle to fill up Martial Power II (as they had to create Martial Practices and the various combat technique multi-feats to help pad the book out but have never done anything with those ideas since), and who knows what sort of one-off magical concepts they would have created if they'd gone ahead with Arcane Power II.  Instead, their support for all the base classes have come with DDI and the magazines (which makes sense, as that was one of the reasons to generate subscriptions - support for the base classes beyond the PH and splatbook.)

So by looking at the drop in sales numbers for PHII and PHIII (and what PHIV probably would end up doing) versus the sales numbers of the release of the updated 3.5 books... they probably realized that a PH with the base material would generate more sales.  The biggest question for them would be how to re-produce info on the base material that was different enough from the classic 4E base material that established players would also buy it?  A PHI reprint that _just_ had errata in it would not do enough.  _Changing_ classic 4E material to create a .5 edition that negates most/all of the classic would create a huge backlash.  However, Essentials is the delicate middle ground.  Base material that does not replace the classic 4E material... but rather runs alongside it.  And thus they get more of a sales bump that material that includes fighters/clerics/wizards/dwarves/elves etc. traditionally generates over material that is seen as more esoteric and less desirable, like shardminds/wilden/ardents/runepriests.

(This is not to say that trying to cater to lapsed players had _no_ influence on the design... I think using the iconography of the Red Box proves that it did... but my point was that it wasn't the primary reason for the creation of Essentials.)


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 27, 2011)

Nineball said:


> AD&D was Rogue
> 2e was Dragon Warrior
> 3e was Diablo
> 4e was WoW
> ...




How about:

5e Farmville (or any other FB game)


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 27, 2011)

_NewbieDM_ said:


> I wrote a speculative article back in february predicting a 2014 launch to tie into the 40th anniversary....




And I predicted sometime around 2008 that 5e will be out sometime in 2012.  I still stand by that.  Probably Gencon.  I'd bet my house that it'll be out no later than 2013, though it may not be CALLED 5e.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 27, 2011)

JRRNeiklot said:


> And I predicted sometime around 2008 that 5e will be out sometime in 2012.  I still stand by that.  Probably Gencon.  I'd bet my house that it'll be out no later than 2013, though it may not be CALLED 5e.




Maybe Magic: The Gathering RPG??

Edit: Not saying that to be malicious, but it would be something they could release being a new D&D style RPG and bring in more nontraditional RPGers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2011)

JRRNeiklot said:


> And I predicted sometime around 2008 that 5e will be out sometime in 2012.  I still stand by that.  Probably Gencon.  I'd bet my house that it'll be out no later than 2013, though it may not be CALLED 5e.






dm4hire said:


> Maybe Magic: The Gathering RPG??




More likely "4e Revised Essentials"



RC


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jun 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> I'll totally give mad props to both WOTC and Paizo for their efforts in the last couple of years to bring in new gamers. <snip>




I wanted to point to the whole post, actually, but rather than copy it all, I just kept a nice little placeholder.

I tried to give you xp for your post, but I need to spread it around.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2011)

JRRNeiklot said:


> And I predicted sometime around 2008 that 5e will be out sometime in 2012.  I still stand by that.  Probably Gencon.  I'd bet my house that it'll be out no later than 2013, though it may not be CALLED 5e.




Well 2013 would be 5 years... that's a bit early IMO.  They might do something like a More Essentials kind of thing, dragging together a bunch of stuff that runs alongside Essentials and Core, but, is that really a new edition?

So long as everything that comes later is meant to be played with Core, I wouldn't call it a new edition.  3.5 wasn't meant to be played with 3.0, it was meant to replace it.  Skills and Powers was meant to replace most of the core stuff in 2e.  Unearthed Arcana in 1e was more along the lines of a class splat, with a few new classes, but mostly add ons to existing classes so I wouldn't call the original UA a .5 edition so much simply because it wasn't really meant to be an "instead of" sort of thing.

The more I think about it, the more I think we'll see a slower release schedule, similar to what is coming out now, with incremental changes to the rules for a while to come.

I'd wait until the DDI suite is complete and good to go before I'd expect any new edition.  Resource allocation for one would make releasing a new edition (a very expensive project) beyond the reach for now.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Jun 28, 2011)

We all know how this is going to go down, WoTc is going to sell the rights on D&D to Paizo, who is going to publish D&D 5e with pathfinder rules (keeping pathfinder as a setting) and then everyone is happy, I hate to say it, but thats a dream right there

I can for see a 5e sometime soon, as to which direction they take, I do not know, whether it be 4e times 2 or more like 3.5 or even OD&D, the only thing that matters is...START SAVING MONEY NOW

thank you.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> More likely "4e Revised Essentials"



It even has 5 E's in the title!


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jun 28, 2011)

UOTE=BryonD;5603832]Certainly, and I didn't suggest they should cater to "gronards".

But not recognizing the difference between prospective new players and going for the public at large was a big mistake.[/quote]

 Toh-may-toe, toe-mah-to. I think that you're conflating 3.x grognards with the gaming public at  large.  Sure there's a lot of 3.x players, but there's also large minority of gamers that were not interested in 3.0 and were disenfranchised by the attempted domination of the market by D20. Most of those people that I know haven't been interested in 4E either, but a few have liked it as ous own game.



> I'm sorry your friends found 3E to be beyond their limitations and I'm glad 4E solved that for you.




Unless you really this thread to get really ugly really fast, stop out with the not-so-veiled insults.You don't know my friends, and you have no right to make insinuations like that.

But, FYI, my friends include a grants writer, a college administrator, two technical writers and a lawyer. Most pf them have have over 15 years of play experience, with games ranging from Runequest to Hero to Exalted. When I say that they did not like  the complexities of 3.x, it wasnt because it was beyond their capabilities , but because it was badly designed,in such a way to exclude casual gamers. Others, because they had a better grasp of math than 3.x's designers, quickly saw early on the basic flaws in the design of 3.x. Others, including me, saw the potential in the D20 system, but grew disenchanted with the way it was wasted in a game that seemed more heavily based on, Magic the Gathering than classic D&D.



> Fanatics?  You clearly don't get the point I'm making.




Meh. Honestly, anyone who uses hyperbole like "worst mistake WOTC ever made" is pretty obviously a fanatic. Anyone who says flat put that 4E isnt really D&D is a fanatic. And so on. Finally, anyone who hopes for a 5E that is a return to something like 3.x is not only a version fanatic, but also engaging in hopeless levels of wistful thinking.



> No.  I played AD&D.  AD&D was cool for its time.  And it also had virtually no competition.  And 3E has been referenced as a second golden age, so I meant exactly what I said.  AD&D was as well, but the market was so different then, it doesn't compare.[/qoute]
> 
> I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there was no competition for AD&D. That era was a golden age for rpgs on general, with Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, Hero, and dozens of others. AD&D may have had the lions share of the market, but there was a lot of diversity.
> 
> ...



I loved AD&D and I think it was brilliant.  But it was also a trailbreaker and learned a ton of lessons the hard way.  Everything after has stood upon its shoulders and has it to thank.    

But that doesn't chan[/QUOTE]ge the fact that later games DID learn from it and, in the end, AD&D was on a downward path because as competition did grow a lot of people went to other games and little more than brand was carrying D&D.  3E saved the name and actually pulled the community together to a very large extent.[/QUOTE]

First of all, don't misuse the term "Heartbreaker" in such a recursive manner. AD&D by definition cannot be a  heartbreaker. 

 Secondly, you keep forgetting I was there. AD&D was on a "downward spiral" not because of any inherent problem with the game, but because of extremely bad business decisions on the part of TSR and Lorraine Williams. AD&D still had the lion's share of the hobby. If it revitalized the community at all, I suggest that was not due to any virtue of the game itself but to the effects of the  marketing and the Open Game License. It was really very clever of Ryan Dancy to fob off the less profitable aspects of brand building onto the very competitors he wanted to destroy.

The "community building" was pretty much conning the competition to do D20 and D&D content. Though the OGC led to some actually decent games  such as Mutants and Masterminds and True20, overall it had a deleterious effect on the game community, which is why gamer numbers resumed their decline after 3.5 and the glut of substandard publications.

It's interesting though that people are  still buying into Dansey's "there can be only one" philosophy, which the heart of the "splitting the community" argument.

[/QUOTE]You keep talking about easy and hard.

I don't know of a version of D&D that I have ever found anywhere near "hard".  I find nothing but downsides in changing the game to cater to people who do.[/QUOTE]

It's not a matter of "easy vs. hard", it's a difference between straightforward and overcomplicated. Straightforward character creation vs. "traps". Creating a character one can just play, and one that has to have their advancement planned out twenty levels on advance. Basic, easy to implement options, and a confusing conglomeration of skills, feats, multiclassing and prestige classes. It's the difference between knowing that your class pick is viable, and finding out that another class can do everything your class can do better, and be useful in a wider range of options as well.

I would rate 4E as pretty advanced, possibly at the level of Skills and Powers. However, I'd pretty straightforward in construction, and like AD&D the goal is to make a fun, useful character of any class. Compare that to 3.X where some character classes are effectively useless.



> I've also found that I don't enjoy nearly as much when I play with people who think of RPGs in terms of "figuring out how to win".




Then you shouldn't be playing Pathfinder. The 3.x system is specifically designed to cater to people gaming the system to win, at the expense of elements that make D&D a good game.

If you want a D20 based game that doesn't assume that some choices are "win" and others "lose", play True20 or something. But not any of the 3.x games.


----------



## Gundark (Jun 28, 2011)

I think 5th ed will look a lot like Warhammer 3rd . Box set and cards and tokens and the like......


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 28, 2011)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> We all know how this is going to go down, WoTc is going to sell the rights on D&D to Paizo, who is going to publish D&D 5e with pathfinder rules (keeping pathfinder as a setting) and then everyone is happy, I hate to say it, but thats a dream right there




If by "everyone" you mean "no one." Pathfinder fans would be no better off than they were. 4E fans would be furious. Personally, I would walk away--stick with out-of-print 4E, pick up some other game, or make my own.

No offense to those who love Pathfinder, but a lot of us who went to 4E were _really_ fed up with the 3.X core. I'll play almost anything, but as a DM, I'd go back to AD&D before I touched 3.X again, and Pathfinder is 3.X in my book.


----------



## Pentius (Jun 28, 2011)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> We all know how this is going to go down, WoTc is going to sell the rights on D&D to Paizo, who is going to publish D&D 5e with pathfinder rules (keeping pathfinder as a setting) and then everyone is happy, I hate to say it, but thats a dream right there
> 
> I can for see a 5e sometime soon, as to which direction they take, I do not know, whether it be 4e times 2 or more like 3.5 or even OD&D, the only thing that matters is...START SAVING MONEY NOW
> 
> thank you.



I really don't get this.  Making 5e Pathfinder would be entirely pointless, because there's already Pathfinder.  It's not like it's out of print or not being produced any longer.  It's still there, still going.  I mean, how many Pathfinder books with different system names on the cover do you really need?  



dm4hire said:


> Maybe Magic: The Gathering RPG??
> 
> Edit: Not saying that to be malicious, but it would be something they could release being a new D&D style RPG and bring in more nontraditional RPGers.




You know, I'd welcome a Magic RPG, if only because we'd get a shot at a Ravnica setting book.  I'd buy that book, even if the Magic RPG sucked.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 28, 2011)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> We all know how this is going to go down, WoTc is going to sell the rights on D&D to Paizo, who is going to publish D&D 5e with pathfinder rules (keeping pathfinder as a setting) and then everyone is happy, I hate to say it, but thats a dream right there




I am a little appalled that someone wants this to happen, and tremendously comforted that it never will.


----------



## BigWeather (Jun 28, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I am a little appalled that someone wants this to happen, and tremendously comforted that it never will.




Yeah, fan-wise there isn't much support for Paizo owning the D&D brand on either side and, much more importantly, neither Hasbro nor Paizo is likely to want that either.  I imagine Hasbro would rather put the brand on hiatus but keep it for the future in its portfolio than let it go.  Paizo, on at least one occasion, has indicated that it has its own brand now and isn't interested in buying D&D even if it were offered.  Of course at some point it comes down to "how much?" and if it were super-cheap they'd probably jump on it just to have it, but...  Hasbro won't let that happen.

I think any move towards 3.x by WotC in a future version (sans OGL, of course) is going to be iffy at best...  The existing 4.0 base won't like it and those that stuck with 3.x probably mostly migrated to Pathfinder (if not by now, by the time a few more years go by).

Of course this is purely anecdotal but Pathfinder seems to be doing quite well in my area.  In the FLGS that gives it equal billing with D&D (in terms of carrying not just the APs but also the rules and settings books) Pathfinder sales are more than D&D sales.  The other FLGS is harder to read but I suspect is still more on the side of D&D revenue-wise.  However, they started carrying no Pathfinder to just the APs to now they carry the full line.  Among my friends that played 3.x one went 4e, one went Pathfinder, and five quit.  So regardless of who is "winning" in my group, at least, the hobby was the big loser.  Of course this had as much to do with life transitions than the hobby itself, as is always the case it is never simple.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 28, 2011)

4e took the track that you only need good rules for important things, like combat, not silly things, like talking to guards about the weather. Clearly, following this mantra, 5e is going to use updated and streamlined FATAL rules, since we all know the only rules that *really matter* to an audience of demgraphically sexy middle-income males 18-32 is wang size. 

At the very least, it'll make the CharOp forums redundant.



I don't think 5e is exactly around the corner, but I _do_ think there's going to be an Interesting Announcement at this years' GenCon about something big for the brand. That might just mean re-launching the AD&D name with a new ruleset for those who want all those things that 4e kicked to the curb, redesigned and repackaged, pushed out like Gamma World was. It might even be a testing ground for 5e ideas, like the Book of 9 Swords was for 4e ideas. I wouldn't bet on it being 5e...though I was ludicrously wrong in the lead up to 4e, too, so we shall see!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 28, 2011)

Put me in the camp that says we won't see a true Fifth Edition until (and only until) all facets of the digital platform are built to completion.  This includes the character builder, ALL parts of the Adventure Tools that WotC wants to put into existence, and the Virtual Table.

Here's something that not many people (if any at all) mention, but which I think is a real possibility.  It helps explain something people have been questioning for over a year now, ever since the CB (and now the Monster Builder) went online.  People always wonder why both of these online builders do not have the same functionality that the offline builders did... especially for things like adding feats, adding powers, editing monsters etc. etc.  And there's been little to no talk from WotC as to when this functionality will be added.

My personal guess is that this functionality _will not_ be added to the 4E Character and Monster Builders.  Instead... all that functionality is being added to the *all-new* 5E Character Builder and Adventure Tools.  Why try and juryrig the 4E builders at this point (when there's only 1 to 3 years left in 4E's existence), when they can take what they learned from both the offline and online builders and rebuild them _even better_, in preparation for the next edition of the game?  That makes much more sense from a marketing perspective.

For the most part... I suspect those who are going to join DDI during the current 4E game have already done so, and the number of lapsed subscription holders who will only rejoin when the CB and MB get re-upped to offline builder levels is probably rather small.  Small enough that their subscriptions aren't worth the time and money it would take to get the 4E builders up to speed.  They'd rather put those programmers to work getting the 5E builders prepped and ready, so that WotC can announce a complete suite of fully built, fully tested and fully integrated programs to allow you to play a fully updated D&D 5E at home or over the internet.

That, to me, makes much more sense as to explaining WotC's current actions.  And why (while we have no idea when it will be released) they probably _are_ currently working on a fully "cleaned up" version of 4E (to be called 5E) that will work even better as a online digital (as well as a tabletop) game.  And once the online tools are all completely build and ready for the newly refreshed 4E rules system to be inserted into it... they will call the whole package 5E and begin publishing and marketing it.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 28, 2011)

The fallacy I see in the logic of 5e being held until everything is done for DDI is that WotC has a horrible history of failed online endeavors and software in general (even though they normally don't work the software side).  They have often just completely abandoned projects to later reinvent the wheel to speak with another foray into the same thing they just abandoned.  Granted DDI has had quite a run compared to previous tools it would just seem a mistake to think that they would hold up a revenue gain, by waiting, especially if they are being pressured by stockholders and their parent company.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 28, 2011)

dm4hire said:


> The fallacy I see in the logic of 5e being held until everything is done for DDI is that WotC has a horrible history of failed online endeavors and software in general (even though they normally don't work the software side). They have often just completely abandoned projects to later reinvent the wheel to speak with another foray into the same thing they just abandoned. Granted DDI has had quite a run compared to previous tools it would just seem a mistake to think that they would hold up a revenue gain, by waiting, especially if they are being pressured by stockholders and their parent company.




I think DDi is much more than previous forays into software.
Previous softeware efforts were after thoughts. Stuff it would be nice to provide to the fans.

DDI is a strategic re-alignment of the whole operation of D&D to digital content delivery and possibly more. I think they have bet the D&D division on it, if not the company.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Jun 28, 2011)

when I said "everyone" I was being sarcastic (sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet, they need to fix that)

I was just trying to say that 5e isn't going to work, at least in my opinion.

It was more of a joke, but I do think Pathfinder is going to keep strong how it is now and there will be a 5e, maybe even a 6e, before pathfinder dwindles

but whatever it is they do, I think 5e will (or should) be better than 4e


----------



## DumbPaladin (Jun 29, 2011)

It's funny to me how often these 5th Edition threads pop up.

I think it would be an even bigger PR disaster than the 3.5/4E transition to bring another edition out this soon after 4th Edition.  I'm not saying it'd surprise me to see the powers that be at WotC make such a stunningly bad choice ... but I don't think it's likely.  All it would do is potentially turn off a lot of current 4E players -- and too many 3.5 players are uninterested in returning to D&D to make that gamble worth it.

I DO think there is something unusual going on over there that they likely aren't used to, but more because of the abruptly-cancelled book titles than the layoffs.  In this economy, who _isn't _laying people off?  They're just a sign of how bad times are for everyone.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 29, 2011)

dm4hire said:


> The fallacy I see in the logic of 5e being held until everything is done for DDI is that WotC has a horrible history of failed online endeavors and software in general (even though they normally don't work the software side).  They have often just completely abandoned projects to later reinvent the wheel to speak with another foray into the same thing they just abandoned.  Granted DDI has had quite a run compared to previous tools it would just seem a mistake to think that they would hold up a revenue gain, by waiting, especially if they are being pressured by stockholders and their parent company.




Well first off... I'm pretty certain the "stockholders" know absolutely nothing about what Wizards is doing, since they are the stockholders in Hasbro and not Wizards of the Coast.  And WotC is _so minor_ in the grand portfolio of Hasbro, that I wouldn't be surprised if the Hasbro stockholders didn't even know the company existed.

But to your main point... ardoughter was right, the software was never the focus of the game, the books were.  They tried to add software products to the game after the fact to make it easier, and many of them just didn't cut the mustard.  But for 5E I think we might finally see the shift where _the DDI software_ is the focus product, and the books are the afterthought.  And as a result, obviously they would take much more time and care in making sure DDI was as close to battle-ready as possible before releasing it to the public.  So we can't take WotC's previous digital initiatives as any concrete indication of future action.


----------



## Deadstop (Jun 29, 2011)

Remember, the complete DDI suite (including VTT with pretty 3D minis) was supposed to be out concurrent with the 4e launch, and there was quite a bit of grumbling when that did not come to pass (though people kinda got used to it over time, and the original CB helped soothe bad feelings a lot).

If DDI is indeed the plan for the future (and I think it is), then it does make sense that they'd want to actually have all their ducks in a row this time before launching a new edition.

They do need to do something for the 40th anniversary, though.

Deadstop


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 29, 2011)

Deadstop said:


> They do need to do something for the 40th anniversary, though.




If that's in 2013, they could announce 5E then and release in 2014. Seems about the right timeline--maybe a little tight.


----------



## czak (Jun 29, 2011)

Some more anecdotal evidence:

paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / General Discussion / Plans for Pathfinder computer game?

Lisa Stevens wrote:
 "Scott is totally right here.  Pathfinder has surpassed D&D in most of the markets that I check."    


Scott Betts wrote:  "To be clear, though, you're saying that it's your belief that the  Pathfinder brand has a higher sales volume than the D&D brand?"



Lisa Stevens wrote:

"At this time in history, that is what I have been told by people in the  hobby distribution trade, the book trade, and other avenues that both  games sell their products into.  If you talk to the various retailers,  it is a mixed bag, with one telling you one thing and another a  different story.  But when you talk to the folks who sell those  retailers the product that they sell, then you get a clearer picture.  And I am just talking table-top RPG business.  I am not talking about  board games or card games or video games or whatnot.  Just books and  digital copies of those books for use in playing a table-top RPG."


----------



## rkwoodard (Jun 29, 2011)

*Holy Moley*



czak said:


> Some more anecdotal evidence:
> 
> paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / General Discussion / Plans for Pathfinder computer game?
> 
> ...




I have no prediction about 5th Edition.


But I bet that Lisa S. quote will live on in thread wars for years to come.

RK


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 30, 2011)

I think that a statement like that from Lisa Stevens is much more than an ancedote. However, it seem to make 5e a much more problematical venture.

5e is now in the position of a fantasy heartbreaker with a very strong fight on its hands from pathfinder, and past editions of D&D.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> I think that a statement like that from Lisa Stevens is much more than an ancedote. However, it seem to make 5e a much more problematical venture.
> 
> 5e is now in the position of a fantasy heartbreaker with a very strong fight on its hands from pathfinder, and past editions of D&D.




The statement by lisa is the first real evidence ive seen on this debate. Coupled with slavicseks departure i am inclined to think its true. But i also agree with your statement that if its true it makes 5e even more problematic. 4e may not be where they want it to be sales wise but 4 e fans seem to be very happy with the game. Is it worth losing their exosting fanbase in an unsure effort to win back the 3e folk who went over to pathfinder.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 30, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> The statement by lisa is the first real evidence ive seen on this debate. Coupled with slavicseks departure i am inclined to think its true. But i also agree with your statement that if its true it makes 5e even more problematic. 4e may not be where they want it to be sales wise but 4 e fans seem to be very happy with the game. Is it worth losing their exosting fanbase in an unsure effort to win back the 3e folk who went over to pathfinder.




I think a lot of 4e fans would feel betrayed by a new edition if that edition was too much of a throwback to older editions. The fans of older editions already _have_ those editions, after all, and there isn't a lot of incentive for someone who, say, loves Pathfinder to move to a D&D 5e when they're playing a game that appeals to them.

Having said that, if 5e was a refinement and fix to the current 4e problems, with enhancements made to support old play styles while keeping the goals of 4e in tact, I think a 5e would be well received. It would be especially well received if conversions between editions were simple and/or electronically (programmatically) simple.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 30, 2011)

ThirdWizard said:


> It would be especially well received if conversions between editions were simple and/or electronically (programmatically) simple.




I, for one, wouldn't care for a subscription-based electronic tool.

At all.


RC


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 30, 2011)

The only way I can see a resolve would be to find a mix that would satisfy both groups.  Those who fell away in my area tend to have one overall complaint about 4e which is that all the classes feel the same because of the structure.  Perhaps a way to fix that would be to combine from both.  Here's how I'd do it:

Barbarian - steal from Pathfinder
Bard - 3e/4e Hybrid
Cleric - 3.x as well as 4e variant option
Druid - 3.x as well as 4e variant option
Fighter - Use 4e version (it gives more combat options I believe)
Paladin - 3e/4e Hybrid
Ranger - 3e/4e Hybrid
Wizard - 3.x as well as 4e variant option


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2011)

dm4hire said:


> The only way I can see a resolve would be to find a mix that would satisfy both groups. Those who fell away in my area tend to have one overall complaint about 4e which is that all the classes feel the same because of the structure. Perhaps a way to fix that would be to combine from both. Here's how I'd do it:
> 
> Barbarian - steal from Pathfinder
> Bard - 3e/4e Hybrid
> ...





I think the problem is much deeper than that. The issue I think most 3E fans have with 4E is the powers system itself. My suspicion is it would be very difficult to win those people back. In a way 4E was really designed for people who didn't care for 3e. They may have an easier time winning over old school gamers, new gamers and satisfying their current base. The tactic of winning back lapsed gamers with shorter prep time and session time recently seemed to be paying off.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I, for one, wouldn't care for a subscription-based electronic tool.
> 
> At all.




Well recieved by the current 4e player base, I should have said. 

But, more to the point, when I mean electronically/programmatically easy to convert, I mean that you can literally have a tool, that anyone could make (well anyone who could program) that could, for example, take a 4e monster as an input and spit out a 5e monster that would at least be playable.

I think that was one serious problem with 3e-4e. None of it was really convertible. 3e to 3.5e was easily convertible, and 2e to 3e wasn't actually that bad conversion wise. But, man 4e really said "stop playing with those old toys" like no other. That was WotC's second largest mistake, I think, with 4e.

I think, for the most part, the Pathfinder converts are just gone. I don't think WotC is getting them back on the treadmill, and I think it would be a mistake to try, from a financial perspective. 3.Xe people, less so. I think people who just didn't switch to 4e are still a viable audience.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 30, 2011)

ThirdWizard said:


> I think a lot of 4e fans would feel betrayed by a new edition if that edition was too much of a throwback to older editions. The fans of older editions already _have_ those editions, after all, and there isn't a lot of incentive for someone who, say, loves Pathfinder to move to a D&D 5e when they're playing a game that appeals to them.




Welcome to the 3e (and older) fan's world. Older edition fans may, in fact, have those editions already, but whatever form 5e takes, the exact same argument applies to the 'betrayed' 4e fans. They *have* their edition already. 

That said, as long as PF is going reasonably strong, 5e would have to be really stellar to draw me in. I don't see that being particularly likely.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 30, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Welcome to the 3e (and older) fan's world. Older edition fans may, in fact, have those editions already, but whatever form 5e takes, the exact same argument applies to the 'betrayed' 4e fans. They *have* their edition already.
> 
> That said, as long as PF is going reasonably strong, 5e would have to be really stellar to draw me in. I don't see that being particularly likely.




Yes, but, at the very least getting the 3e fans back will be an uphill struggle. They simply can't afford to lose their (hyperbole) entire current playerbase to try! That would just be suicide.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 30, 2011)

ThirdWizard said:


> I think, for the most part, the Pathfinder converts are just gone. I don't think WotC is getting them back on the treadmill, and I think it would be a mistake to try, from a financial perspective.




I'm not convinced this is the case. People burn out on games and want to do something new. Obviously this doesn't happen to everybody--witness the groups still playing OD&D after almost forty years--but it happens to a lot of folks. If Wizards can create a 5th Edition that appeals to Pathfinder fans, and time its release for when people are getting tired of PF and antsy for a different system, it might be able to bring a chunk of them back into the fold, in much the same way 3E brought back fans who had drifted away from AD&D.

Of course, this is an argument against releasing 5E in the next couple of years. Pathfinder is still going strong right now. But the thing about Pathfinder is that it's locked in for the long term. The need to maintain backward compatibility puts strict limits on what they can do to revitalize the brand with new editions. So I do think there is an opportunity for Wizards to steal some customers back.


----------



## dm4hire (Jun 30, 2011)

Which is why I think meeting in the middle would be the only way.  You're right about the powers, but I think it also comes down a lot to the cookie cutter feel of the classes, i.e. they all eventually feel similar for the most part.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 30, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Of course, this is an argument against releasing 5E in the next couple of years. Pathfinder is still going strong right now. But the thing about Pathfinder is that it's locked in for the long term. The need to maintain backward compatibility puts strict limits on what they can do to revitalize the brand with new editions. So I do think there is an opportunity for Wizards to steal some customers back.




If they could time it with an eventual release of Pathfinder 2e...

It will come eventually.


----------



## BriarMonkey (Jun 30, 2011)

I've noticed that a lot of discussion is based on the fiscal needs of WotC.

Rather than come out with 5e in the near term, and since they already own all the bits, there is a much more elegant solution: reprint all the core books from the prior editions.

Imagine if you could go out and buy a new copy of the 1e DMG, or the 2e PHB, or the 3.xe MM?  WotC could have it's cake and eat it too!  PoD systems make such an endevour reasonable in cost and the potential for economic gain is large.  At the very least, I think it'd buy them a couple years before having to think of the edition treadmill again.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2011)

BriarMonkey said:


> I've noticed that a lot of discussion is based on the fiscal needs of WotC.
> 
> Rather than come out with 5e in the near term, and since they already own all the bits, there is a much more elegant solution: reprint all the core books from the prior editions.
> 
> Imagine if you could go out and buy a new copy of the 1e DMG, or the 2e PHB, or the 3.xe MM? WotC could have it's cake and eat it too! PoD systems make such an endevour reasonable in cost and the potential for economic gain is large. At the very least, I think it'd buy them a couple years before having to think of the edition treadmill again.




I would definitely buy the 1e and 2e books.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jun 30, 2011)

I think the release of a radically different edition from 4e would be brand suicide.  It's only been 3 years and a few months since 4e came out and they've already had a second version of those rules in that time with Essentials.  The prior edition players are already gone and the 4e players are already skittish.  You can't have a good chunk of your current customers bolt if you don't have any assurances that non-customers will buy in.

WotC is in a tough position with D&D right now.  Among the core group of Dungeons & Dragons players, I would have to believe that brand loyalty to Dungeons & Dragons is at an all time low.  By that I mean, those who consider themselves players of Dungeons & Dragons are more willing now than ever to use products that don't say "D&D" on the front cover in order to play Dungeons & Dragons.  WotC now does not have the luxury that TSR/WotC has had since the late '70s, an base of players who they can count on to buy a huge percentage of whatever they put out with "D&D" on the front cover.

I think WotC has to fight to keep their 4e fans for the time being.  They have to continue to give them what they want by making 4e be the best 4e it can possibly be.  

But WotC can also use resources only it has to make lapsed players know they're still around and interested in them.  I think they should put together some "fan service" products that would be interesting to both current and past customers.  But these products would have to be respectful of the history of D&D, and not some of the misguided efforts recently that focus on the superficialities of name and art, ignoring content.

Some examples of "bad" fan service - the 400 year advance in time line in the Forgotten Realms setting, the bait and switch of using the old D&D Basic box to disguise a completely different rule set.  Some examples of "good" fan service - cheap and free .pdf's of prior edition products, the 25th Anniversary boxed set.

Another thing they can do is to work to make their web presence much more all-editions inclusive.  I think Mearls' recent series of articles is a step in this direction.  But more prior edition or edition neutral content would serve as a big ol' welcome mat to all the disaffected out there.  By working to make the WotC site the home of all players of D&D (or better still all players of rpgs) by promoting content, tools, and an atmosphere friendly to those players, WotC would have a better chance to sell some books to those who aren't buying them right now.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 1, 2011)

A slightly different track:

I think the only way they are going to get Pathfinder folks back is if they bring Paizo along. If Paizo was happy with 5e and started releasing adventures and suchlike under 5e, their fans would likely follow. 

In order to get Paizo along, I think they need to, primarily, go back to something closer to the d20 System Liscence than the GSL. They need to let people sell things compatible with the game in a way similar to the way people sold things in the 3e heyday: with complete internal control and absolute confidence of independence. 

This is difficult for...anything owned by Hasbro, since Hasbro is currently _very concerned_ with IP issues. They're busy turning all their toys and games into movies and TV shows, some of which are good (especially those involving Lauren Faust!), some of which...well...involve Michael Bay. But ALL of which are probably much more profitable than the original line. D&D is mostly valuable for that -- the brand name. The ability to slap in on a board game, card game, movie, novel, or TV show, and instantly get the dorky blogosphere generating auto-buzz for it. And Hasbro is generally smart with this format shifting. Micahel Bay's Transformers may not be your cup of tea, but it IS very profitable. 

So the primary bone of contention is that there must be an agreement so that third party publishers (or at least Paizo) can confidently make a sound business in supporting this theoretical 5e. Which seems difficult to do without easing up on the internal control of the brand. Which is difficult to do in an environment where the brand is more important than any individual thing produced under it. Theoretically possible, but difficult. 

If they don't get that right, it doesn't matter what the mechanics are, or what the fluff is, or what the powers system is. If Paizo can't support 5e as a business, it will chug along with Pathfinder, and, if it continues its expanding trend, it will get at least as big as anything branded D&D.

I suppose when Paizo greenlights the cartoon series helmed by Genndy Tartakovsky, starring the iconics, or has BioWare making games with the PF brand, perhaps set in Golarion, we'll know that they've done good.  

5e will only succeed (compared to a presumably weak 4e) if they can bring along Paizo, or undermine the company somehow. 

Interestingly, if they bring Paizo back with a more open system, it'll prove one philosophy I heard during 3e true (can't remember who said it, though)...hmm....


----------



## pemerton (Jul 1, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> In a way 4E was really designed for people who didn't care for 3e.



Entirely agreed. That's an important part of why it was able to attract me back to D&D.



ThirdWizard said:


> I think a lot of 4e fans would feel betrayed by a new edition if that edition was too much of a throwback to older editions.



I wouldn't feel betrayed, but I don't think I'd play it. Of course, because I'm a sucker I might _buy_ bits of it - which is all that WotC needs, at least in the short term.



rogueattorney said:


> I think the release of a radically different edition from 4e would be brand suicide.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think WotC has to fight to keep their 4e fans for the time being.



Overall, I think this is probably right. And the bigger the contribution that DDI is making to their D&D revenues, the more right it is, isn't it? Because dropping 4e will surely lead to a lot of those subscribers leaving.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think the only way they are going to get Pathfinder folks back is if they bring Paizo along.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



From Paizo's point of view, what reason would they have to hook themself to a new open game when they're already growing out of sight with an old open game?

Even if they can't build Pathfinder/Golarion into a brand that is as big, overall, as D&D, that seems neither here nor there, as it's not as if an open RPG licence would let Pathfinder get any of those wider brand revenues.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 1, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Why is it every 5E speculation thread has to start with the OP claiming it's because 4E "didn't do very well" and that Paizo's taking it's place? None of us here STILL have absolutely any freaking idea what WotC's sales numbers were, nor any idea what their expectations for sales numbers were... so why the need to take potshots at them right off the top? I suspect this is why these threads always devolve... because they are started with a black cloud of negativity already over them at the beginning.




While that is true we dont have wotc's sales numbers, we do have this tidbit from Lisa Stevens of Piazo, when asked:

To be clear, though, you're saying that it's your belief that the Pathfinder brand has a higher sales volume than the D&D brand?



> At this time in history, that is what I have been told by people in the hobby distribution trade, the book trade, and other avenues that both games sell their products into. If you talk to the various retailers, it is a mixed bag, with one telling you one thing and another a different story. But when you talk to the folks who sell those retailers the product that they sell, then you get a clearer picture.
> 
> 
> And I am just talking table-top RPG business. I am not talking about board games or card games or video games or whatnot. Just books and digital copies of those books for use in playing a table-top RPG.




If thats the case, then yeah 4e is in real trouble. Take it with as much or little salt as you like.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> In a way 4E was really designed for people who didn't care for 3e.




I would go even further and say that 4e was designed for people who also didn't like the mythos that had grown around D&D either (which pre-dated 3e)... 4e not only had many mechanical changes but it also changed the default assumptions of the D&D fluff. 

 This was, IMO, a big mistake on WotC's part.  By doing this they alienated two subgroups of players... those who liked the mechanics of 3.x and those who enjoyed the default fluff of D&D... In other words they invalidated not only the system mastery some had gained but also the mythos knowledge others had invested in.  I think they would have been served better changing the mechanics with this edition and keeping the default D&D mythos... while putting the changes to fluff in an optional campaign book.  This would have allowed them to assess just how popular their fluff changes were with DM's and players... and if it proved more popular... then you make it the default.  

On a side note, I find it ironic when people who don't like 4e are told to "Just find another game instead of wanting D&D to be something different" because, IMO, 4e came about as a way to try and appease those who really weren't happy with the mechanics, conceits and fluff of previous editions.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 1, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In order to get Paizo along, I think they need to, primarily, go back to something closer to the d20 System Liscence than the GSL. They need to let people sell things compatible with the game in a way similar to the way people sold things in the 3e heyday: with complete internal control and absolute confidence of independence.




I think it would be easier for them to buy Paizo than to court them.



			
				Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> In a way 4E was really designed for people who didn't care for 3e.




No, I think it was designed for people who were _burned out_ on 3e.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 1, 2011)

ThirdWizard said:


> I think it would be easier for them to buy Paizo than to court them.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think it was designed for people who were _burned out_ on 3e.




I am sure that is an element of it. But 4e really looked like a direct response to the build-balance wars you saw on the wizards forum. I really think it is about two completely different design goals. 3e went one way and 4e the other. I think they knew there was a philosophical split in the gaming d&d community and kept that in mind designing 4e. And i think they were wise to do so.

In my own experience i didn't see a whole lot of burnout with 3e. I saw two camps of players- those who liked the system and those who felt it wasn't balanced enough. I am sure there was some desire for a new edition among many. But i think many if the 3e fans were expecting more of a 1e to 2e like jump.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Jul 1, 2011)

ThirdWizard said:


> I think it would be easier for them to buy Paizo than to court them.




Lisa Stevens, CEO and owner of Paizo, has clearly stated that there is no chance of ever selling Paizo. Further, she has also stated, as quoted above, that currently, Pathfinder is outperforming D&D 4E. Therefore, there is no chance of a) Paizo ever being onboard with a new edition and, b) Paizo being purchased by WOTC. 

I think it makes a lot more sense to do what Mike Mearls is currently doing: reminisce on the brand before 3E and add in some of the core elements and simplicty on a more modern engine for 5E.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2011)

Nineball said:


> I don't see it.
> 
> In fact, I see it as the opposite.
> 
> ...




You're not seeing the changes in fluff because you don't want to... You're focussing on one issue in 3e (The high level caster problem that some people had) and trying to define the fluff with what is essentially a mechanics issue. Quick question... what editions used the Great Wheel? How were the differences between demons and devils defined in all editons? See things like that are fluff. 

Now as to mechanics... I find nothing old school about conditions that change every round, a fighter that can force people around him to charge in and get whacked without any type of save, ritual magic, physically hitting people with Wisdom, Charisma, or any other ability... kobolds and first level characters with 20+ hit points, and so on. So IMO, no... even the mechanics are not reminiscent of previous editions.

In my 3.x/Pathfinder games fighters still beat the tar out of everything and stand on the front lines... the wizard throws the same spellls as previous editions (not just "spells of destruction")... Our cleric heals just like in previous editions (he just doesn't heal by whacking things and has to make an actual choice on whether he should or shouldn't heal a party member vs. attack this round)... Rogues use their skills, and 3.x had High Elves... that don't teleport and live on another plane (but only sometimes), like every other edition. Not really seeing your point here. The things you're talking about evolved into the game before 3e (check out the end of 2e).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 1, 2011)

Waylander the Slayer said:


> Lisa Stevens, CEO and owner of Paizo, has clearly stated that there is no chance of ever selling Paizo. Further, she has also stated, as quoted above, that currently, Pathfinder is outperforming D&D 4E. Therefore, there is no chance of a) Paizo ever being onboard with a new edition and, b) Paizo being purchased by WOTC.




Pathfinder could make quadruple the dollar amount that D&D brings to WotC and it wouldn't matter, WotC would still be worth significantly more than Paizo. Now, I admit, Paizo does a lot more than Pathfinder now, which is great. Eggs and baskets and whatnot. But, D&D was _never_ the most profitable aspect of WotC.

As to whether Paizo can be bought. I'm not overly cynical. I don't believe that everybody has their price. But, if WotC offered a high amount and Paizo took it, I would not think badly of them. And, I'm not saying its _likely_! I don't think it would ever actually happen. The people at Paizo are crazy dedicated to what they do, and you don't get that without love for your product.

But, I still think it would be more likely than WotC courting Paizo. I don't think that will ever happen. Paizo will not give up its independence. It would be like Britain going to the Americas, "Hey, you know, its not so bad having a king and being under our rule. We'll even give you a vote and everything!" And America being all, "What could go wrong?"


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 1, 2011)

carmachu said:


> While that is true we dont have wotc's sales numbers, we do have this tidbit from Lisa Stevens of Piazo...
> 
> >>>
> 
> If thats the case, then yeah 4e is in real trouble. Take it with as much or little salt as you like.




I'm sorry... but I cannot by any sense of logic or reason take the word of the CEO of the company that claims to be "winning" as a balanced view of what is actually happening.  Especially considering she says quite clearly that she has no personal first-hand knowledge... she is merely interpreting information that she is getting from other sources.

Also, there is no direct corollary between Paizo's sales numbers and the metrics WotC uses to determine whether or not they themselves are "in trouble".  They have certain sales levels they need to hit, and that may or may not occur _regardless_ of what Paizo is doing.  For all we know, Paizo might indeed be "leading" in tabletop RPG sales... but WotC _might still_ be reaching the sales metrics they are happy with.  The two are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 1, 2011)

Nineball said:


> Perhaps I see plenty but don't consider them changes? I'm not blind; stop implying that I am.




Implied no such thing, but you did counter a post about the changing fluff with things of a mechanical nature, it made me assume you didn't see or understand that I was talking about fluff. Sorry if my post offended you, I wasn't trying to do that.



Nineball said:


> Great Wheel? Which one? The one that was altered and renamed in Planescape? The one that Forgotten Realms didn't follow? The one that Eberron didn't follow? The one that was changed and added to and altered with every edition?




Maybe this is the problem... evolution, growth adaptation are different from removing something wholesale and replacing it with something entirely different, I can draw on my knowledge of the basics of The Great Wheel throughout editions, may have to learn a few new details here or there, but that's it... what is the basic Great Wheel in 4e... Oh yeah, there isn't one. 

On another note, using optional campaign settings that are intentionally designed differently... that's not the "default" fluff included in the rulebooks so are moot as far as this point goes.



Nineball said:


> The differences between demons and devils? Which ones? The Blood War that was born in 2e? The differences before that? Does that not count?




See above. As an example from another game... Exalted 2nd edition has changed small things to better represent a more updated version of the world of creation from 1st edition... but the basics remain the same. That's usually what hapens in the fluff of a new edition... it's not removed and replaced wholesale... it's changed and adapted in it's details.



Nineball said:


> See, the fluff changes _constantly_. Not even just between editions, but inside editions too! You're saying "4e changes the fluff." I'm saying "Well yeah, D&D fluff changes, but the 4e changes move D&D back to how I see 'D&D' as being."




I'm saying 4e removes and replaces giant swaths of the fluff wholesale.






Nineball said:


> Ah yes, the end of 2e all the way through 3e. The only time D&D was truly D&D.




Never said that was the only time D&D was truly D&D... but you seem to be selectively disregarding mechanics and fluff that came before in order to condemn 3e alone for certain things.



Nineball said:


> My point is this: 3e made a whole lot of changes to D&D, and hey, there's quite a few people that don't classify 3e as being "D&D." Seriously, head over to Dragon Foot and ask them what they think on your theory of 3e being the true heir of D&D!




Who said anything about a true heir of D&D? I do think the fluff of 3.x is closer to what came before it than 4e is... that is all I've said from the beginning... please stop trying to put words in my mouth.



Nineball said:


> 4e also made a lot of changes, no doubt! But for me and most likely others, they were changes that brought the game _back_ to being what we see as "D&D."




Good for you, but I'm asking you what exactly in the fluff (not mechanics) of 4e are similar to previous editions? I'd really like to know.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 1, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I would go even further and say that 4e was designed for people who also didn't like the mythos that had grown around D&D either (which pre-dated 3e)... 4e not only had many mechanical changes but it also changed the default assumptions of the D&D fluff.
> 
> This was, IMO, a big mistake on WotC's part.  By doing this they alienated two subgroups of players... those who liked the mechanics of 3.x and those who enjoyed the default fluff of D&D... In other words they invalidated not only the system mastery some had gained but also the mythos knowledge others had invested in.  I think they would have been served better changing the mechanics with this edition and keeping the default D&D mythos... while putting the changes to fluff in an optional campaign book.  This would have allowed them to assess just how popular their fluff changes were with DM's and players... and if it proved more popular... then you make it the default.
> 
> On a side note, I find it ironic when people who don't like 4e are told to "Just find another game instead of wanting D&D to be something different" because, IMO, 4e came about as a way to try and appease those who really weren't happy with the mechanics, conceits and fluff of previous editions.




I agree.

I also think 4E came about in part because:

1. WotC needed to sell more core rulebooks (sales of later 3.5 products were not where WotC wanted them to be)
2. WotC wanted to design a game that could not be duplicated by using the OGL.
3. Concerns about imbalances in classes (at the same expereince level) used in organized play.


----------



## carmachu (Jul 1, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I'm sorry... but I cannot by any sense of logic or reason take the word of the CEO of the company that claims to be "winning" as a balanced view of what is actually happening. Especially considering she says quite clearly that she has no personal first-hand knowledge... she is merely interpreting information that she is getting from other sources.




As I said take it with as much or little salt. SOme folks with believe, others like yourself will throw dirt. Its simply one more piece to a much larger puzzle.

She also said its simply the RPG side. No cards, games or other items(like DDI).



> Also, there is no direct corollary between Paizo's sales numbers and the metrics WotC uses to determine whether or not they themselves are "in trouble". They have certain sales levels they need to hit, and that may or may not occur _regardless_ of what Paizo is doing. For all we know, Paizo might indeed be "leading" in tabletop RPG sales... but WotC _might still_ be reaching the sales metrics they are happy with. The two are mutually exclusive.





But then we start adding other pieces. Summer firing of employees? Cancellations of other books or delays? Essentials move? You cant tell me that everything is happy and perfect in Wotc world, given many different things that have come down the line.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 2, 2011)

Nineball said:


> Betrayed? Naw. I never understood the hysterics behind "being fired."
> 
> I would be a bit sad that the game was regressing, but in the end, I'd simply shrug, give it a try, and depending on if I like it or not, play it. And if I don't, eh, there's other games I don't like, no skin off my back.



The real shame about 5e is that it would have been nice to see what they would come up with if they proceeded along the track that took them to 4e. There's still a lot wrong with the model, and the likely design goals for 5e are unlikely to address much of it. To be frank I don't think there will be many coherent and functional design goals for 5e, but even if there are, they're not going to be about fixing skills and skill challenges, or genuinly solving the grind.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 2, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I would go even further and say that 4e was designed for people who also didn't like the mythos that had grown around D&D either (which pre-dated 3e)... 4e not only had many mechanical changes but it also changed the default assumptions of the D&D fluff.
> 
> This was, IMO, a big mistake on WotC's part.  By doing this they alienated two subgroups of players... those who liked the mechanics of 3.x and those who enjoyed the default fluff of D&D... In other words they invalidated not only the system mastery some had gained but also the mythos knowledge others had invested in.  I think they would have been served better changing the mechanics with this edition and keeping the default D&D mythos... while putting the changes to fluff in an optional campaign book.  This would have allowed them to assess just how popular their fluff changes were with DM's and players... and if it proved more popular... then you make it the default.
> 
> On a side note, I find it ironic when people who don't like 4e are told to "Just find another game instead of wanting D&D to be something different" because, IMO, 4e came about as a way to try and appease those who really weren't happy with the mechanics, conceits and fluff of previous editions.



There has been a tendency in 3.X/Pathfinder gamers to say that 'WotC misread their audience'. Nowadays I am more of the opinion that WotC read a _portion_ of their audience very well, as evidenced by the strong defense of 4e by its fans.

The question is more one of how much of their audience it was that they were reading, and if they believed that the stragglers would fall into line and buy the new edition, despite their misgivings.

The announcement of Pathfinder changed that last - there was less need to try the new system, and even less to play it even if you did not much like it. There is definitely enough interest in something closer to the 3.X rules than 4e to keep Pathfinder rolling merrily along.

However, because there _is_ Pathfinder it is unlikely that a D&D 3.75 by WotC would gain much traction, the audience has moved on, as has WotC itself.

At this point, I think that WotC and their fans are better served sticking with 4e and whatever directions that leads them - the market is split, trying to turn back the clock is doomed to failure, and, this is important, there _was_ a vocal percentage of fans that did not love 3.X. It may have been a majority (I doubt it, but it may), it may have been a plurality, or it might have been a large and vocal minority (my bet, plus a lot of fence sitters who didn't/don't care much either way). 

But Pathfinder meant that those folks who preferred 3.X had someplace to turn, and those who are comfortable on the fence could stay there, even, _gasp! playing both games!_ 

So, the market may have split, pretty much because there was not much reason for it not to do so. Games are available for both audiences, and with Osric, Hackmaster, etc., more besides.

Which is selling better really doesn't matter that much - locally it is Pathfinder by a comfortable margin, but I am certain that there are other places where the opposite is equally true.

The market probably _is_ split - I don't think that there will be a winner (except the darned fence sitters - they get to enjoy the best of both games, dang their hides!) The audience will need to adjust, because while there are no real winners, neither does there need to be a loser.

I think that both games are here to stay, even if 4e becomes 5e in two years time.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 2, 2011)

Meh.

I don't play Pathfinder or 4e.  I have converted materials from both for my game.  I would quit gaming altogether rather than use either ruleset, if they were my only choices.

Yet, I agree that WotC misread their audience.  In fact, if seems to me that they wilfully did so.  If they are happy with the portion of the audience they did read correctly, though, more power to them.


RC


----------



## SkidAce (Jul 2, 2011)

I would not go so far as quit gaming over a rule system, but I respect your position.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 2, 2011)

SkidAce said:


> I would not go so far as quit gaming over a rule system, but I respect your position.




Thanks you for that respect.

My position is based upon an important rule:  "Life is too short for games you're not enjoying."

Unfortunately, both Pathfinder and 4e are far too combat-oriented, and take far too long to resolve the least important fights, for me to consider them as games of choice.  I don't believe that combat choices are the only important ones, and they are not choices I want to linger with for half an hour or more every time combat occurs.  Nor do I want to need a grid to resolve combat!

When I was running 3e, I would be able to assume that there would be only 3 encounters during a session for a low- to mid-level party, because combat took so long to resolve.  Time that would be better spent in exploration, negotiation, and making choices that affect the longterm game were instead spent deciding what the best route was on the "board" and whether or not an AoO would be provoked.

Meh.

I will never, *never* go back to a system like that.

I have better things to do.

Thankfully, I also have other options to choose from!  

Now, I also respect that some others will revel in things that I dislike.  And that's cool.  That's great, actually!  You shouldn't play games because* I* like them, but because *you* do.

That's what makes sense to me, anyway.


RC


----------



## Mercurius (Jul 2, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> The real shame about 5e is that it would have been nice to see what they would come up with if they proceeded along the track that took them to 4e. There's still a lot wrong with the model, and the likely design goals for 5e are unlikely to address much of it. To be frank I don't think there will be many coherent and functional design goals for 5e, but even if there are, they're not going to be about fixing skills and skill challenges, or genuinly solving the grind.




Why do you assume that 5E won't be an evolution from 4E? As some have said, I don't see WotC going back to a "3.75," although based upon Mearls' nostalgia they are going to try incorporating elements from earlier editions that have been de-emphasized in 4E.

But I think that one of the core design goals of 5E is/will be to fix the problems of 4E, especially the grind but also skill challenges, dissociation of rituals from play, non-classic tropes as core (e.g. wilden, dragonborn, etc), putting magic back into magic items, and so forth. The most encouraging thing--and I hope I'm not reading too much into it--was Mearls talking about the "complexity dial," which would theoretically please those who prefer a 15-minute combat and those that like 1-2 hour long highly tactical encounters. I'm particularly intrigued by the notion of being able to switch the dial within the same session, sort of like "blitz" option for combat that resolves easy combats with one or two die rolls.

IMO, WotC should NOT try to "out-3E" Paizo. Pathfinder fans are too faithful, and I also feel that going backwards would be a kind of regression. 4E added a lot of good things to the game - it is just time to iron out the problems and maybe re-incorporate stuff that was left behind. But they can create a product that Pathfinder fans will like and spend money on. It doesn't matter as much if people defect from Pathfinder to 5E in order for 5E to be successful; what matters is that Pathfinder fans _spend money_ on 5E products. WotC should focus their attention on pleasing existing 4E fans and bringing new people in - they shouldn't put too much effort into trying to get people back from Pathfinder.


----------



## Don Incognito (Jul 2, 2011)

Of course it's on the horizon. It's always been on the horizon. Hell, 6e is on the horizon.

Do I think it's on the horizon _soon_? Probably not. People are all up in arms about what Slavicsek's departure means, but editions are something that take a long time to develop (at least a year), typically they've _hired _people rather than let them go. I seriously doubt that, if a new edition's in the works, they would develop it alongside Essentials. Plus, unless they haven't been paying attention at all, they have to know that putting out a new edition fractures their base even further into little warring cliques. They can only do that so many times before everyone's got an edition they're 100% satisfied with and refuses try something new.

Mike Mearls' articles have gotten people worked into a frothing mess over the concept of a new edition being a love letter to the TSR era, but I'm just not sure that's the smart financial move for anyone right now. My guess? Re-releasing OD&D box set for the 40th anniversary.


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 2, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Why do you assume that 5E won't be an evolution from 4E? As some have said, I don't see WotC going back to a "3.75," although based upon Mearls' nostalgia they are going to try incorporating elements from earlier editions that have been de-emphasized in 4E.



Yeah but, those elements haven't actually been de-emphasised- for instance, many fans of older editions say that 4e is more 'dnd-like' than 3e was, for them. In most cases, what has been de-emphasised has been bad design who's re-inclusion would make for an inferior game. 

As an example: you can't actualy 'bring back vancian magic' or 'make the classes more mechanically differentiated' without screwing up what makes 4e a better game than 3e. And no matter how often people deny it, 3e was a less fun game for the poor suckers who played one of the many, many, many trap options in it's designs, which included entire classes, including the type of classes a new player was likly to try and play.

The claim that 4e is servicing various design goals less well is simply not accurate- it's not popular to say it, least of all around here, but 4e isn't actually more video gamey, or less door kickey, or less improvisational. 

In reality, the main reason critics of 4e note differences in their play experience between 4e nd previous editions? The main thing that makes a difference to play content in those cases? Is that in previous editions various elements were so poorly designed that players and DMs would find excuses not to use them, or buffer them with endless fiat, improv, and what they define as roleplaying. 

This actually caused problems for 4e- a lot of people played a lot of 4e combart when it came out, because hey, combat isn't a dumb chore anymore- and that got a bit much. OTOH, it really helped expose key issues, like the grind.

And all this is not to say there aren't failures of design in 4e- skill challenges continue to be at best, a poor first effort at making skills work. But contrary to what the rope use brigade insists, there was nothing lost in the transtion from 3e to 4e skills, but a lot of wasted effort that wasn't particularly fun.

Often, 4e players, upon finding this, heaved a sigh of relief and put all that extra effort into making cool stories and encounters together- with plenty of improvisation, roleplaying, and house ruling thrown in. All too often, 4e haters rebelled not because 4e had less roleplaying, or less improv, or less house ruling, or less anything particularly good, but because they wanted their ball and chain back. 

The lost, lamented 3e skills were nothing more than a coat-hangers to suspend a bunch of fiat play and improvisation from, and while a proper skill overhaul would probably look a lot different from 4e skills, and might even include for instance, a single self-contained craft skill, it doesn't change the reality of those skills and their usage in actual play. 

At the core of this debate is the notion that every criticism if 4e is a legitimate argument about design- either design directly, or design with regards to servicing play-style. I reject that assumption, and considering many of the mechanics that people defend, I have no doubts that my position is the correct one. Of course, stating such an opinion carries consequences on a forum like this, but that doesn't make it a less legitimate viewpoint.



> But I think that one of the core design goals of 5E is/will be to fix the problems of 4E, especially the grind but also skill challenges, dissociation of rituals from play, non-classic tropes as core (e.g. wilden, dragonborn, etc), putting magic back into magic items, and so forth. The most encouraging thing--and I hope I'm not reading too much into it--was Mearls talking about the "complexity dial," which would theoretically please those who prefer a 15-minute combat and those that like 1-2 hour long highly tactical encounters. I'm particularly intrigued by the notion of being able to switch the dial within the same session, sort of like "blitz" option for combat that resolves easy combats with one or two die rolls.



This all sounds great, but it's based on the assumption that design is simply a thing we can do whatever we want with. 

There's a myth about design as it related to play styles, which states, essentially, that all play styles are of equal merit, and hence, design is about servicing that variety fully. The assumption made here is that all play styles can be equally serviced by design, no matter what contradictions or incoherences they would seem to posess, from the position of logical analisis of competing goals.

But in reality, not only are all play styles not equally served by design, but all play styles do not have equal merit in any play. When we claim otherwise, we make assumptions without any legitimate reason for doing so, primarily because doing so avoids arguments and outrage from people who might take such criticisms personally. But if you're going to design well, and design well for actual play, you need to be up front about what design achieves, and what occurs in play. 

And in play, the kind of design we see in 4e just plain works _better_. Not IMO better, not 'just for me' better, but straight up, let's-wants-to-have-fun, let's-play-a-game-together-and-enjoy-it, better at being fun and hence, better at doing what design of games is intended to do. 

Not all designs are created equal, and not all playstyles are equally legitimate. 

Not all designs are created equal: people have limited time, enthusiasm, cognititive resources, attention, ability to schedual, ability to commit in various time frames, and so on, and on- there are real limits to play, so there are real limits to what design can achieve. Good design is about getting the most from the limited resources that people can bring to bear when playing a game- no matter how much time or self-agrandised brainpower people claim to bring to their tables, there are still limits, and issues, and problems that design needs to take into account.

Not all play styles can be equally serviced by design, or are of equal merit:
Somebody might claim that their super-mean killer gm retroclone is super awesome, but I garuntee you, a lot of proud killer gms are just power tripping jerks who drive people away- not just from their table, but from the hobby as a whole. The fallacy that such games are 'fair' because of various props like random rolls or uasi-realism is simply a crutch used when absing dm fiat. This leads to the classic scene of a GM with a bunch of random charts, who simply keeps rolling on the charts until they get the result they're after. Are many 'killer' gms just making fun for their players? Sure. Sure. Are you going to claim that you can design to service that play style? Good luck. 

Somebody might insist that the GMPC they play in their iconic 20 year campaign is a vital part of the story, but if a newbie asks me about running a gmpc, i'm stilll going to say 'hell no' because, all excuses aside, gmpcs have a way of turning players into passive, deprotagonised doormats. Can you create a design where gms get to play a pc and be a gm at the same time, and not lose much of the benfit in play of seperating those roles? Possibly. But I wouldn't put money on it, and I wouldn't demand WOTC do so, either.

And the same goes for most of that the anti-4e brigade demands of 5e. they are, in short, demanding bad design. Wish lists that are about gratifying their assumption about play, not about gratifying their actualy players in actual play.

A 5e that tries to serve these kinds of play goals? That adopts that myth of equality of playstyles, and tries to service that myth with the compounded myth that design can simply service any style of play, any time? That's a great way to make a really crappy game. 

And the idea that they can dial up and down these factors? So uh, at what dial setting do fighters turn into jokes again? What setting do we turn the dial to to remind ourselves how much worse 3e-style buff recalc was than 4e style grind? Is the old random prostitute generation chart a modular component, or just an optional house rule?

Now, I realise that you probably aren't after that stuff. But when mearls talks about that stuff, he's not aiming at either of us. 

Even leaving aside the issue of preference and goals. I'd be cautious about any 'versatile' system, and i've played the best and craziest, that being the HERO system, extensivly. 

Hero is a great game. But it's also a game where the gm basically has to co-build every pc from the ground up with the player, in a process that has much in common with game design, as it does with character creation. That is where versatility leads, and that is the only way it can reliably work. And i'm pretty sure . . . pretty sure that that is not D&D- although hero can make for a pretty cool fantasy game.

You might argue, hey, we can just add in a bunch of optional rules! But at some point, your game actually has to be playable, game by game, session by session. I honestly think a limited modular design would be a good idea, with modules for things like owning land, and grand rituals, but all those components would have to be balanced, and none of them are worth putting paid design time into, unless they service a reasonably large and marketable audience. 



> IMO, WotC should NOT try to "out-3E" Paizo. Pathfinder fans are too faithful, and I also feel that going backwards would be a kind of regression. 4E added a lot of good things to the game - it is just time to iron out the problems and maybe re-incorporate stuff that was left behind.



I honestly don't think that much was left behind. I mean magic items? Ok, need to be way better but. . in 3e it was just a matter of deciding what star to put on the top of your christmas tree. Earlier ediitions were frankly too archaic to draw actual design from. 

People can talk about cool play moments, but demanding that 'cool memory/nostaliga=game design goal" is not good design. 



> But they can create a product that Pathfinder fans will like and spend money on. It doesn't matter as much if people defect from Pathfinder to 5E in order for 5E to be successful; what matters is that Pathfinder fans _spend money_ on 5E products. WotC should focus their attention on pleasing existing 4E fans and bringing new people in - they shouldn't put too much effort into trying to get people back from Pathfinder.



I agree, and it's possible that there is a more reasonable cross section of fans available. But you woulnd't know it from reading a lot of forums, and i'm afraid it's the hostility to 4e that is driving design decisions at wotc. I mean it's not like opinions dissenting against that hostility get very good treatment, in most places on the net. 

It's very hard to find discussions that aren't trampeled over by the idea that design and hence, D&D, can be exactly what everyone wants it to be, and that the only people who stand in the way of _My_ D&D being exactly what _I_ want are mean corporate jerks and 4ron edition warriors.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 2, 2011)

Whooompf....



Whips out marshmallows


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jul 2, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> And the same goes for most of that the anti-4e brigade demands of 5e. they are, in short, demanding bad design.




There's a lot to what you wrote, but I find the idea that those who don't agree with 4e design choices to be advocating "bad design" to be both inflammatory and unproductive to a discussion. It might make a good statement for an argument, but implying that "the way you enjoy things is wrong" as that statement does strikes me as inflammatory.



> And in play, the kind of design we see in 4e just plain works better. Not IMO better, not 'just for me' better, but straight up, let's-wants-to-have-fun, let's-play-a-game-together-and-enjoy-it, better at being fun and hence, better at doing what design of games is intended to do.




And this is simply incorrect. When the measuring stick of how effectively something is is Fun, and Fun is subjective, than there is no objective way to say which way is more Fun. Period. You might be able to squeeze in a "for most people" in there. You can definitely squeeze in a "for the target audience" in there, as all you have to do to accomplish that is pander.

But, saying one game is inherently better designed for fun for _everyone_ is incorrect. There's simply no way to make that a blanket statement and be correct.

But hey, as always, play what you like


----------



## Imaro (Jul 2, 2011)

catastrophic said:


> STUFF


----------



## catastrophic (Jul 3, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> There's a lot to what you wrote, but I find the idea that those who don't agree with 4e design choices to be advocating "bad design" to be both inflammatory and unproductive to a discussion.



What is the purpose of the discussion? Because at some point, you're going to have to design a game based on all these grudges and greviances, and it's not unproductive to point out that that game, that design as an attempt at peacemaking, would probably be a badly designed compromise that would please nobody.

Put it this way. If design really could simply service any playstyle and do it well, then it would be entirely possible to design a game, with a bunch of dials, and in doing so, from an actual design perspective, please everyone. 

But this debate has never been about design, and when people argue that they're after design outcomes, they're not arguing in good faith. You can label me as inflamatory, but i'm not the one demanding the impossible.



> It might make a good statement for an argument, but implying that "the way you enjoy things is wrong" as that statement does strikes me as inflammatory.



Well I find it inflamatory that we're all supposed to apologise for having playable, balanced, fun classes in our rpg of choice, and that we aren't allowed to define that as a goal for class-based design.

I find it inflamatory that there are people who act like i'm some kind of tyrant if I don't want new players in this hobby suffering a lot of wasted time and frustration that will probably drive them from the hobby, time and frustration that is often caused by the cherished and fiercly defended sacred cows of various rpgs and their play style. 

I find it inflamatory that when the people who designed 4e set out some of the flaws in 3e, they were supposedly doing something terribly offensive and mean to 'the fans'. 

It's easy to choose to take offence at people who disagree with you, or to violate an unwritten rule of a debate which is defined, and amplified, and perpetuated by such rules and norms. A better option is to recognise that if you define good debate as 'whatever people on the internet will never take offence to', then you've just ended any and all genuinly good debate.

Likewise, if you define game design as 'give people whatever they say they want, no matter what is actually possible to give them', then again, kiss good design good-bye. 

I like this hobby. I want it to be a success. I want new people to join the hobby, and have fun with it. It's a great hobby. But play is not a purely subjective event, and design is an issue of merit, as well as more subjective issues. 

D&D lagged, _laughably_ lagged behind the curve of design for decades. Each era of innovation saw D&D as nothing but a foot-note, no matter what it's less well traveled fans believe. With 4e, we finally have a version of this hobby's flagship product, the gateway, the mainstay, the financial and social core of the hobby, that is _actually well desgined_. 

This is the first time this has ever happened. It's a very positive thing. In the long term, the philosophy behind that design could be the only hope that rpgs have of surviving, and in fact, thriving and becoming an integral part of a new era of creative entertainment. 

The notion that we should turn our backs on all of that because a bunch of people bitching in an edition war want to pretend that _third edition wizards and fighters were well designed?_ Yeah, I find that inflamatory.

I'll take or leave 5th edition. But the hobby can't really make the same choice.



> And this is simply incorrect. When the measuring stick of how effectively something is is Fun, and Fun is subjective, than there is no objective way to say which way is more Fun. Period.



This is great logic for people wanting to avoid arguments, but terrible logic for people wanting to make fun games and understand how to do so. 

At some point, we have to have the maturity and profesionalism to look at two mechanics and say "you know what? That one on the left is better". Not IMO, not YMMV, but in an genuine assertion of merit, of the kind that underpins every rational undertaking of any concrete substance in the entire history of human achievement. 

Now, you want to pretend that designers are like artists, and we're all absorbing art with no concrete, procedural elements? You go right ahead, but it's called game _design_ for a reason. It is about building a game, and as with anything else, if you build it with shoddy components, it ain't gonna work. 

Now as I said, it's possible to argue that design is purely about servicing subjective preferences and play styles. But guess what? That is a sefl defeating enterprise. After all, if play styles are purely subjective, and have no indepandant or functional critiera, then you still can't design for them. Where are you going to start? It's subjective, right?

Only by defining a play style in relatable, somewhat concrete terms, can we hope to design for it- and if that is the case, than we can, and should apply broader rules and norms that can appy to all play styles, even if they're tweaked based on the needs of a particular style. 



> You might be able to squeeze in a "for most people" in there. You can definitely squeeze in a "for the target audience" in there, as all you have to do to accomplish that is pander.
> 
> But, saying one game is inherently better designed for fun for _everyone_ is incorrect. There's simply no way to make that a blanket statement and be correct.
> 
> But hey, as always, play what you like



There's a point at which internet sophistry either destroys all rational dialogue, or is defeated by it. You can argue YMMV IMO until you're blue in the face, but if we're going to have a meaningful discussion, we have to get past that. 

99%? Whatever dude, are we going to talk design or not? I'm not talking about the .01% of theoretical grognards who want their fighting-men to be suitable parables for hapless 13th century serfs, or the somewhat larger group of people who are mad at 4e and talk a bunch of words about it that often don't bear very close scrutiny, but in real terms, if we're actually talking about good design, we can't keep acting like the hate-fest is a genuine design critique.

I am confident saying that we cannot brush games off as purely subjective, and hence, we cannot deny the role of critiera, and the core, relatable qualities that all games in the genre should seek to posess. We might aruge over what they are, but they're certainly there, wether we deny them or not.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 3, 2011)

Can someone hit this thread with a Picard facepalm, please?


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 3, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> Can someone hit this thread with a Picard facepalm, please?




No, but I think it's time to throw everyone out of the bar and tell them to find a place to crash. Head down the road, folks; there's plenty of worthy threads to lay your head in.

This has been fun, and somewhat thought-provoking, but it's starting to drift into contentiousness again. I'll close this, and we can start a new 5e discussion in a few weeks.



Spoiler



By then, WotC will have officially announced moving to an all-boardgame model for D&D, and gamerdom will once again be united, this time in fury at them.*

* Just kidding! I know nothing!


----------

