# Do you want/are you ready for a D&D 5th edition?



## DaveMage (Dec 11, 2011)

There's been a lot of buzz lately about the possibility of 5th edition D&D.

I'm just curious how many people - regardless of your current edition choice - are interested in 5E.

Is it necessary?
Is it desired?

Vote!

(If you don't care, then vote "no".)


----------



## IronWolf (Dec 11, 2011)

I went with Yes. I haven't paid attention to D&D for some time now as 4e doesn't quite scratch my itch (yes, I know it works for lots of people and that is awesome!) and have been using other systems. 

With some of the recent L&L posts and the bringing back of Monte I am now curious what they are up to and wonder if a 5e edition could bring D&D back to being on my radar.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2011)

Is it necessary?  Necessary to achieve what, exactly?  A certain level of profits for WotC?  Gaming Nirvana?  What?

Do I *need* it?  Is my gaming suffering due to 4e, or something?  Not in the slightest.  I've been running classic Deadlands for over a year, and my players are quite happy.

Do I want it?  Well, that really depends on what it will be.  If it is good, I'll most certainly want it.  If it isn't so good, then I won't want it much.

The question, overall, will be, "Does it inspire me to run or play more standard fantasy games?"  That'll answer your question.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 11, 2011)

Is in nessecary? For me no. For WOTC? Maybe? 

Is it desired? For me? HELL NO. Ive pretty much come to the conclusion that once I got off of the D&D / WOTC wagon I have no inclination or desire to go back.


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 11, 2011)

I voted no - "don't care".

Basically, I am out of the target market for D&D. I'm an old fart with a young family - not much time. So if I am going to spend money on gaming instead of buying diapers for the kids, it better be something new and novel (not another way for a fighter to kill an orc).  Basically, if you need 5 books to define your system (3 PHB, 2 DMGs) before you even get to the monsters, something ain't right. And given my situation, I do not have time to figure it out for them 

I got plenty of D&D books if the pure D&D itch pops up. Otherwise, its Savage Worlds, Baby!!!


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 11, 2011)

Yes, I want 5E sooner than later. I want to see how they'll take 4E and evolve/"fix" it. I like 4E and feel that it is an overall improvement from 3E, but find it severely flawed and think there's enough out there about its flaws that it is time to rectify the system. Now if WotC decides to go in a more videogamey/onliny direction, I'll be disappointed but not upset. There is plenty of material for other editions to last many lifetimes, plus there are other RPGs I'd like to play.


----------



## LurkAway (Dec 11, 2011)

No game is necessary for me. There's always family and other hobbies. As for desired... 4E doesn't deliver the playstyle I enjoy most. I find that 3.X/PF is too complicated for me. I find that alternative systems don't have the popularity and don't "stick", players dabble, then go back to D&D or PF. Actually, I've stopped rp'ing altogether recently and go to Enworld to get my geek kicks. So for the segment of the market that I may represent, 5E might be desired or it might be too late, I don't know. But I voted Yes because I would at least like to see it what it delivers.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2011)

amerigoV said:


> Basically, if you need 5 books to define your system (3 PHB, 2 DMGs) before you even get to the monsters, something ain't right.




Well, that isn't really an accurate description, now is it?  There was one PHB, one DMG, then one monster book.  The other DMG and PHB books came later, not before, and they are supplemental, however much they call everything a core book.


----------



## scourger (Dec 11, 2011)

amerigoV said:


> I voted no - "don't care".
> 
> Basically, I am out of the target market for D&D. I'm an old fart with a young family - not much time. So if I am going to spend money on gaming instead of buying diapers for the kids, it better be something new and novel (not another way for a fighter to kill an orc).  Basically, if you need 5 books to define your system (3 PHB, 2 DMGs) before you even get to the monsters, something ain't right. And given my situation, I do not have time to figure it out for them
> 
> I got plenty of D&D books if the pure D&D itch pops up. Otherwise, its Savage Worlds, Baby!!!




This.


----------



## amerigoV (Dec 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Well, that isn't really an accurate description, now is it?  There was one PHB, one DMG, then one monster book.  The other DMG and PHB books came later, not before, and they are supplemental, however much they call everything a core book.




Yes, but recall the nerd rage during the release of the PHB1 from people that could not run their cherished Gnome Barbarian was pretty loud. And the old Core Monk class was in PHB3, correct (I stopped pretty early in 4e, so I might be mistaken there)? The point being is that D&D defines itself with deep, heavy crunch. Much of 2e, all of 3e and 4e are about player options (ie, lots of options and books). Unfortunately, you cannot cut the bloat without pissing off a large number of people. Thus, the bloat ramps back up. 

So while a bit of hyperbole on my part, it is a huge reason people get off the treadmill. They look at their bookshelf and have to decide if they want to "repurchase" it under a new edition (and a Catch 22 for the company)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 11, 2011)

I'm personally more than ready for 5e. 

I'm not really fulfilled with 4e, and I'm not really happy with Pathfinder, and I might be on board with a new game edition.

That depends, of course, on whether the new edition would do what I needed it to. But a hypothetical 5e that was released tomorrow, I (optimistically?) believe, would contain at least as many seeds of good ideas as 4e has.


----------



## 3catcircus (Dec 11, 2011)

Assuming they do one of the following things, then I'm all for 5e:

1.  Go back to an old-school vibe with a C&C-level of complexity.

2.  Completely abandon the entire D&D level-based ethos and go with a level-less completely skill-based system that allows for a variable level of complexity (using standard hit points vs., say, a Twilight:2013-style hit point system; allowing opposed rolls during combat (parry, dodge, etc.) vs. a standard to-hit roll; AD&D style secondary skills system vs. a full-blown skill system; etc.)

If they, however, trot out a refried version of 4e, then I hope it dies on the vine.  I'll get years and years out of Pathfinder, and the DCC RPG intrigues me.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 11, 2011)

Voted yes. Didn't enjoy 4e and looking forward to 5e. Hopefully they make something more in line with previous editions. But they are in a tough soot. Who knows what direction they will go.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 11, 2011)

Much as I dislike 4E and would like to see it end...I don't want 5E to come out anytime soon.  I have little disposable income if I did like the game; I still hate WotC and don't want to give them a single dime of my money; and I'm convinced after the grave WotC dug themselves that they can never go back to a more 3E-like game, mainly due to pride but also their fear of the OGL.  So chances are if a 5E made by WotC came out any time in the near future, I would hate it anyway.

I think the best possible outcome right now (for what I want) is for 4E to just wither and die, WotC to sell the brand to someone else after it spends a few years or so stagnating, and then that new company releasing "3E with the kinks removed."

So, umm...I'll vote no.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Dec 11, 2011)

No.

Here's hoping for an ever evolving D&D, formerly known as 4e, supported by DDI. No need to buy new sets of books, no need to ditch characters to keep up-to-date.

Grab the chances provided by the subscription model and make the edition moniker irrelevant.


----------



## Pour (Dec 11, 2011)

I voted yes with the hope 5e is predominantly informed by 4e's triumphs and failures. So much has been gained despite the trials and tribulations, to have the next edition disregard all of that in favor of returning to editions already actively well-supported boggles my mind. Now if 5e breaks ties with all other editions, which doesn't seem the case from Legends & Lore but who can say, I think I would still vote yes. Lets see what the designers can do. Why not?

If it was announced today, though, I think I would probably be happier if it were cleaned-up 4.5e.


----------



## SkredlitheOgre (Dec 11, 2011)

I voted Yes, but I my actual answer is 'Meh?'

For me, it will depend entirely on what they do with it.  I have never played 4E, but then I never liked the sound of it when I figured out what they did with it.  I've been happy with Pathfinder for the last couple of years, but I've also played other game systems and have found enjoyment in some of them (GURPS and Shadowrun most recently).

That being said, I'm not jaded against WotC or D&D as a whole, so when something comes out, I'll look it over and see if it's something I want to try.  If so, awesome.  If not, not a big deal, as I've already got something I'm enjoying.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Is it necessary?  Necessary to achieve what, exactly?  A certain level of profits for WotC?  Gaming Nirvana?  What?




Necessary for your own gaming Nirvana was what I was going for there.


----------



## OnlineDM (Dec 11, 2011)

I voted no. I've got plenty of ideas and inspiration and enjoyment with 4e as it stands now. If 5e comes out, it comes out, but I'm not eagerly awaiting it or feeling that it's needed.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 11, 2011)

Jan van Leyden said:


> No.
> 
> Here's hoping for an ever evolving D&D, formerly known as 4e, supported by DDI. No need to buy new sets of books, no need to ditch characters to keep up-to-date.
> 
> Grab the chances provided by the subscription model and make the edition moniker irrelevant.




I agree with you in that D&D can be evolved through DDI. However, I'd also like to see updated core books every few years that reflect those changes. It might actually be the best of both worlds: if the game is evolved through DDI, and thus remains compatible within itself, WotC could still release new core rulebooks every three or four years because people wouldn't "need" them because of DDI so wouldn't be pissed off, but they might _want _them because it is good to have an updated, revised _Player's Handbook.



_


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 11, 2011)

If D&D is to remain a viable commercial product, 5Ed (and more) is inevitable.

Itis too soon for it, IMHO.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 11, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> There's been a lot of buzz lately about the possibility of 5th edition D&D.
> 
> I'm just curious how many people - regardless of your current edition choice - are interested in 5E.
> 
> ...




Too vague, too binary. 

This is a "Yes if it's awesome, no if it sucks" question.


----------



## Mythous (Dec 11, 2011)

I voted yes, however my main focus is Pathfinder largely due to the issues I had with 4th edition. I was a loyal D&D player/DM for years but 4th edition in my opinion was too much of a jump from what I considered what D&D truly was. It was more MMO on paper, which I didn't like. 

I would give 5th edition a solid try with and open mind but I think Hasbro/WotC will need to rethink the system and look at what worked from the past.


----------



## jedavis (Dec 11, 2011)

No for Don't Care.  WotC has lost me as a customer as a result of their supplement-driven mentality.  If they produce a core that I like, they'll run it into the ground with player content supplements.  As a player, I don't have the disposable income to buy said supplements (be they books or subscriptions) to keep up with the Joneses, and as a DM, I'm not willing to deal with the crap that comes with said supplements (mechanically if allowed, dramatically if disallowed).  If they produce a core that I don't like, then I could care less.  It's essentially a business model problem; they could do wonderful, wonderful game design (hypothetically), but a constantly expanding game is something I have no interest in anymore.  But that's what they'll build, because that's where the money is.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 11, 2011)

I had to vote "no" as I'm not currently one of their customers.  If they wanted me back for anything other than Dungeon Tiles, minis or possibly a board game, they'd have to ditch 4E at this point and go for a 5E.  However, that'd be ditching a bird in hand for a bird in the bush for them.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 11, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> Necessary for your own gaming Nirvana was what I was going for there.




Oh, then definitely not.  My Nirvana comes more from the people at the table than the system we're playing.  Which isn't to say that a new edition might not be spiffy as all get-out, and something that I'd buy and be happy to play, but I don't *need* it to be a happy gamer.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 11, 2011)

I'm a 'no - don't care' voter.  I love 4E and play 4E and can easily continue to play 4E for years.  But by the same token, I also enjoy looking at new games.  So if 5E got released tomorrow, I'd most likely pick it up and play it.

Don't need it... but still would like to see it.  Same exact feeling I had it 2008 when 4E got released.


----------



## steenan (Dec 11, 2011)

I voted "yes" - by which I mean "If WotC want me as a customer, they better create 5e soon".

I like several new ideas they introduced in 4e, but the game as a whole is unplayable to me. So, 5e may be a game I'd really want to play, or it may not - but I won't know it until it is released.


----------



## steeldragons (Dec 11, 2011)

*Do you want/are you ready for a D&D 5th edition?*

"Do I want"?: Nah. Not really. Don't care. It's not necessary for me to enjoy my D&D...but then, 3e and 4e weren't necessary for my enjoyment either.

"Am I ready"? How ready do I have to be? If you put it out, lemme see the books and see if I like what's in them. It's really a "ready" kind of thing.



> There's been a lot of buzz lately about the possibility of 5th edition D&D.
> 
> I'm just curious how many people - regardless of your current edition choice - are interested in 5E.
> 
> Is it necessary?



Nope. Necessary for WotC's pockets, maybe. Not for my game/enjoyment.



> Is it desired?



Nope. I'll look at it...if it happens tomorrow or happens 5 years from now...makes no difference to me.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 11, 2011)

No, not really. I like 3.5 and 4E, and I am worried that 5E will be even more subscription and less about the books than 4E, and I am just not willing to go that way.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Dec 11, 2011)

I voted no. I'm enjoying playing and tinkering with 4th's system too much. It's so bloody flexible that I find no need for a further edition. Now if they make a completely different game under the guise of DnD? Or if 5th edition really is that much better? I'd probably buy it then. But I wouldn't feel a need for it.


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 11, 2011)

Yes. 4E has had its run, now it is time to see the quality of it's resurrection.


----------



## Roland55 (Dec 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Is it necessary?  Necessary to achieve what, exactly?  A certain level of profits for WotC?  Gaming Nirvana?  What?
> 
> Do I *need* it?  Is my gaming suffering due to 4e, or something?  Not in the slightest.  I've been running classic Deadlands for over a year, and my players are quite happy.
> 
> ...




I am perhaps a bit more interested than this.

But not much.

I'd say this matches my position, although I felt compelled to vote "yes."  Why?  Always interested in that 'new shiny.'


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Dec 11, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> I agree with you in that D&D can be evolved through DDI. However, I'd also like to see updated core books every few years that reflect those changes. It might actually be the best of both worlds: if the game is evolved through DDI, and thus remains compatible within itself, WotC could still release new core rulebooks every three or four years because people wouldn't "need" them because of DDI so wouldn't be pissed off, but they might _want _them because it is good to have an updated, revised _Player's Handbook._




Okay, I didn't want to say WotC should either drop printing books or reprint the core books at nauseam. I'm completely with you: reprint the core books when they are sold out and update them according to the latest, most current incarnation of the material. But please, pretty please, don't call this 5e. Just use some internal versioning or give the print date as point of reference.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 11, 2011)

I voted "No".


And really, it's probably not their fault.  I'm just tired of the edition changes and old/new supplements.

I know it can revitalize interest, and I understand making money.  We picked up 4E so we would stay current and relevant, but again?  

Nah, just tired.


----------



## Weregrognard (Dec 11, 2011)

No...because I'm getting kind of tired of incompatible D&D editions.

Yes...if they can somehow make an edition that a) reunites the fan base, and b) makes me feel like it's the 1990s again.  I know...purely selfish, pie-in-the-sky nostalgia


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 11, 2011)

There is definitely not any need for a Fifth Edition now.

The wisest course of action for Wizards is to continually update and revise Fourth Edition through the on-line tools.

With the Character Builder, Monster Builder and the Compendium, any current minor problems can be solved with a bit of programming.

Increased customization could be enabled on the Character Builder. This would solve many problems trying to reconcile different tastes.

(For instant, the Expertise and Defense Feat taxes could finally be eliminated and every character given the appropriate tier bonuses.

The Seeker's and Binder's crappy powers could be improved. In fact scores of inferior trap powers and feats could be given errata to make them viable choices.)


----------



## IronWolf (Dec 12, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> There is definitely not any need for a Fifth Edition now.
> 
> The wisest course of action for Wizards is to continually update and revise Fourth Edition through the on-line tools.




I think the issue with maintaining the 4e moniker is that too many people have written it off, people that used to be WotC customers. I have to think they are trying to think of ways to win these people back. Do they need all of them back? Certainly not, but I think they want some of them back.

They definitely have the tool to do incremental updates, but I think the 4e labeling will hold them back. Sure, those of us that keep up with the current happenings could see changes within the 4e line, but the casual observers will miss all but a new edition release which will make them look again.


----------



## DragonLancer (Dec 12, 2011)

I voted no for don't care, as Pathfinder is my game of choice now.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Dec 12, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> The wisest course of action for Wizards is to continually update and revise Fourth Edition through the on-line tools.
> 
> With the Character Builder, Monster Builder and the Compendium, any current minor problems can be solved with a bit of programming.




Well, this is one problem with 4E now, but one I can live with. There are several camps of 4E at the moment, and the choices people make between books, core 4E, Essentials and DDI pretty much defines which camp they are in.

How will 5E change this? I see 5E making thge decision between books and DDI for you, and if so 5E it totally off the table for me.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Dec 12, 2011)

Do I need or want a 5th edition of D&D? Not really, since I'm perfectly happy playing Pathfinder and would be unlikely to switch back even if D&D became more similar to my game of choice.

At the moment, I am not a WotC customer, and I feel that it would be best for WotC to focus on making D&D more enjoyable for those who currently do buy into the system. I'd rather see a good D&D game AND a good Pathfinder game, rather than see WotC and Paizo fight over the same crowd of customers.

That said, if WotC is looking to bring back fans like me who no longer play their game, they would need to do it in a new edition, since 4th edition just isn't my thing. A new edition would get me to glance at the core books, which would probably up my chances of returning to D&D from 0% to about 10%.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 12, 2011)

Depends. It would have to scratch my D&D itch better than PF does and I don't see that as particularly likely given the way 4e went. I just don't see them ditching enough of the 4e design to make it worth my while.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 12, 2011)

Wasn't one of the design goals of 4E to make it "edition proof" (or at least .5 edition proof)?  The idea being they could just print new stuff that was better than the old stuff without having to give it a whole new .X iteration?  The old stuff would still be usable, but just fall out of favor because it wasn't "as good" as the new stuff?


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Dec 12, 2011)

I voted no for several reasons.

For one I thing in my current campaigns, I feel like there is still a lot left to do. I feel like by the time 4e came along I'd played much more of 3rd than I have played 4e.

Also as a small publisher I enjoy creating for 4e. I'm worried that they would completely abandon any form of third party license.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm all for it. I liked 3e, but it needed revisions. 4e didn't do it the way I wanted, but I like it too. If they do new revisions, maybe I'll like it more, or maybe someone will come up with 'Fourthfinder' that tweaks what I already like and fix the stuff I don't like.

I'll be a little sad if it happens before ZEITGEIST is finished, though, because switching rulesets in the middle of writing a campaign is a pain.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 12, 2011)

I buy new systems on my calendar, not necessarily on their release dates.   So if a 5E was released, and it was sufficiently different from what I already have to make it a good addition to my collection, and the buzz was such that it appeared our group might play it--then I'll buy it eventually.

I don't anticipate starting with a new system in the next year, and possibly not the year after.  If I do, it might be a homebrew.  Or the group might switch to a Runequest, Fantasy Hero, or Burning Wheel campaign.  So it comes out in 2014 or 2015, I might be ready to put it on the short list of things we might play, and if it makes that list, I might buy 10-12 books or so.  Otherwise, I'll get the first 4-6 and stop there.

I'm not really much of a customer for anyone right now, unless a company knocks my socks off.


----------



## Wiseblood (Dec 12, 2011)

I went with yes. Really though, I do not care.


----------



## darjr (Dec 12, 2011)

I'll give it a try. they'll have to knock my socks off, because I really like what I'm playing now.


----------



## korjik (Dec 12, 2011)

I think it is past time for an editioning, if only to return the Players Handbook to being the handbook for players.

I think that the ruleset has gotten way to confused, with Essentials semi-obsoleting the pre-Essentials stuff, and DDI changing quite a few of the rules that dont appear in a book.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 12, 2011)

Definitely no.  I don't have the physical space for another edition's worth of books!


----------



## ComradeGnull (Dec 12, 2011)

I voted yes primarily because of curiosity over the direction that WoTC is going to take for D&D.  I currently foresee that they could either make me interested in committing to the game again with a new version, or pretty much kill my interest in it altogether and leave me playing Pathfinder exclusively in the 'D&D-esque' space.

I will echo one of the previous posters comments- there is an underlying tension in how games are published when there are big companies behind them that need continuing (and growing) income streams.  On the one hand, WoTC seems to have come up with a viable solution to that income stream problem by focusing on player options and building out more and more expansions.  On the other hand, as an old guy whose interests in RPGs is no longer the same (in either volume or orientation) as it was when I was 12 or 13, I'm not sure that that is the sort of game that is for me anymore.


----------



## delericho (Dec 12, 2011)

I voted for "Yes", but the real answer is "sort of".

IMO, it's really too soon for 5e. On the other hand, since 4e has failed to grab me, I would welcome a _good_ 5e whenever it comes. "Good" is, of course, defined by my internal and entirely subjective opinions at the time!

When 5e is released, I will check it out. This is the first edition since I started that I won't buy sight-unseen - they'll need to convince me to buy. And "Legends & Lore" hasn't been filling me with confidence.

Plus, WotC get _one_ chance to win me back as a customer. If I decide to pass on 5e, I'm done - in that case I won't even look at 6e.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 12, 2011)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I buy new systems on my calendar, not necessarily on their release dates.   So if a 5E was released, and it was sufficiently different from what I already have to make it a good addition to my collection, and the buzz was such that it appeared our group might play it--then I'll buy it eventually.




Good point about calendar.  I started two 4e campaigns this year, and I would like to take at least one of them all the way to 30th level, which would be several years.  To look at a new edition I'd need to be burned out on the current one.   I burned out on 3.5e in 2006 and tried C&C, which didn't work out.  I don't have the same problems with 4e and can't really see myself burning out on it within the next several years.


----------



## humble minion (Dec 12, 2011)

I was ready for 4e when it was announced - 3e was showing its age and starting to fray at the edges, and Pathfinder didn't really address the major issue behind that for mine.  But when 4e showed up I was distinctly unenthused.

So I suppose put me down as voting for the 'I'm ready for 5e _as long_ _as it's a 5e I personally like_' option, along with pretty much everyone else...


----------



## Anselyn (Dec 12, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> The wisest course of action for Wizards is to continually update and revise Fourth Edition through the on-line tools.
> With the Character Builder, Monster Builder and the Compendium, any current minor problems can be solved with a bit of programming. Increased customization could be enabled on the Character Builder. This would solve many problems trying to reconcile different tastes.




How does a new player or group of players with a DM start to play this game? By spending ~$100 on three redundant books - given the online updating? Or by deciding to subscribe to an online service for a game they haven't seen and for which they have no physical resources.

Pandering to a diminishing band of enthusiasts surely can't be a wise business model for substantial operation like WoTC.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Dec 12, 2011)

Anselyn said:


> How does a new player or group of players with a DM start to play this game? By spending ~$100 on three redundant books - given the online updating? Or by deciding to subscribe to an online service for a game they haven't seen and for which they have no physical resources.
> 
> Pandering to a diminishing band of enthusiasts surely can't be a wise business model for substantial operation like WoTC.




Whenever the core books are reprinted they would be a snapshot of the then current rules. Or one could travel the way of the Essentials Rules Compendium. Publish the real rules for a low price as a starting point for newcomers.

Concerning your second paragraph: what if WotC thinks that this "diminishing band of enthusiasts" are the gamers who won't let go of the concept of a static game undergoing substantial changes in form of new editions as opposed to an ever moving, evolving system?


----------



## IronWolf (Dec 12, 2011)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Concerning your second paragraph: what if WotC thinks that this "diminishing band of enthusiasts" are the gamers who won't let go of the concept of a static game undergoing substantial changes in form of new editions as opposed to an ever moving, evolving system?




This is certainly a factor in the choice they have to make. It does not seem an obvious choice to me as either path is likely going to alienate some gamers. The question is, which alienates the fewest or brings them the most sales? I don't think there is a clear cut answer to that question.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 12, 2011)

Would I buy it? 99% chance of "no".

Do I want it made? Yes, if only so the hobby as a whole can move forward.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 12, 2011)

Definitely not! I'm quite happy with (Pre-Essentials) 4e.

I also have no idea in which directions they should develop it. It's (almost) perfect already. Most of the changes I'd like to see could just as well be implemented without a new edition.

If 5e turns out to be a 'back to the roots edition' I'll sit it out and wait for 6e.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Dec 12, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm personally more than ready for 5e.
> 
> I'm not really fulfilled with 4e, and I'm not really happy with Pathfinder, and I might be on board with a new game edition.
> 
> That depends, of course, on whether the new edition would do what I needed it to. But a hypothetical 5e that was released tomorrow, I (optimistically?) believe, would contain at least as many seeds of good ideas as 4e has.




Sounds about how I feel.  I like some stuff in 4E, but it's not fulfilling to me.  Pathfinder has a lot of stuff I like, but it's a huge chore to DM, like 3.5E.


----------



## kitsune9 (Dec 12, 2011)

For me, my system of choice is now Pathfinder for various reasons. However, when 5e comes out, I'll pick up whatever will be defined as the "core set" (PH, DMG, and MM) and if a "basic box" comes out, I'll pick up that too. I don't know what their approach for the new edition will be though I think I'll agree with the guy who runs the GMS blog in that they will probably make it like Dragon Age--introduce a pared down set of rules just to get players started and then introduce more "complete" rules with additional core books. Anyways, that's just my speculation. 

I doubt seriously I'll make the switch to play 5e unless Paizo goes belly up.


----------



## Vascant (Dec 12, 2011)

How about not sure...

If they handle this like 4e, with a "build it they will come" mentality then I probably won't be leaving 3.5/PF or even reading it for that matter.  I haven't read the current edition so it will be even easier to pass on future editions.

This is just my opinion


----------



## Corathon (Dec 12, 2011)

I play 1E, so I was left behind 3 edition changes ago. However, 2E and 3E at least had things that I could steal; 4E doesn't even hold that much interest for me. I expect a 5th edition to be even less useful.


----------



## avin (Dec 12, 2011)

Yes and I'm ready.

I'm not conservative, I hate playing the same edition / system forever.


----------



## avin (Dec 12, 2011)

Corathon said:


> I play 1E, so I was left behind 3 edition changes ago. However, 2E and 3E at least had things that I could steal; 4E doesn't even hold that much interest for me. I expect a 5th edition to be even less useful.




Really? I'm running a PF game these days and stole some nice stuff from 4E. Being fluff (races, Fomorians, some aspects of the planes like Faerie/Feywild and Shadow as parallel planes - which was already mentioned in Planescape) or crunch (physical skill challenges, some monster powers).


----------



## KidSnide (Dec 12, 2011)

I voted "no" because I feel like the designers figured out 4e just a year or two ago, and there is more to do to fill out the system.  At least to my subjective eyes, the system is mature -- not getting long in the tooth.

That said, it's a good time to think about a 5e that is more incremental than the 2e->3e or 3e->4e leaps.  I think 4e suffered from insufficient playtesting and revision, given the extent the system was changing.  My biggest preference is that 5e go through a longer and more thorough playtesting process for two reasons.  First, I would really like it if the first set of books to have little enough errata that the physical books remain useful.  Second, it would be very good for the game if the designers had enough time to write a better set of initial adventures.

-KS


----------



## Grimstaff (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm a tentative "yes".

Tentative, because I have doubts about 5E being what I think it would need to be to enjoy any kind of resurgence of interest in D&D as a hobby accesible by both casual and hardcore players, which would basically be a very streamlined core system (think B/X informed by d20-style unified mechanics) with 4E/PF-style rules complexity available as an *optional* add-on in separate splats, and with the kind of campaign setting and adventure support offered by PF. So you could have your pick between rules-lite or rules-intensive, with both play-styles being cross-compatible, and both play-styles having a shared and extensive suite of adventures and setting material to enjoy.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 12, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> They definitely have the tool to do incremental updates, but I think the 4e labeling will hold them back. Sure, those of us that keep up with the current happenings could see changes within the 4e line, but the casual observers will miss all but a new edition release which will make them look again.



There's only so much you can fix with incremental updates. For instance, possibly the single biggest complaint I've seen about 4E is the healing surge mechanic and instant hit point recovery. I can't see how that could be eliminated within the 4E system. But unless it's eliminated, a lot of those who left for Pathfinder won't come back.


----------



## BriarMonkey (Dec 12, 2011)

Meh.

I'm not a WotC customer, they lost me a while ago.  However, if they released a new edition, how they did it would be as important as what they released.  If I had to "rent" my books through their subscription, I'd never do it and they would loose me forever.  If they go with traditional books, I'd at least give it a look-see (after all, there is the possibility that they could put out something I'd be interested in).

In the mean time, I don't care.  Pathfinder has what I want.


----------



## Windjammer (Dec 12, 2011)

The question for me is: is _WotC _ready for a new edition?

Are they up for the job? That I'd like to know. We fans are poor judges of that. I hope that at least WotC _themselves _know.

I remember shortly after 4E was released Mike Mearls was asked in an interview if 4E was basically released because WotC needed the money. (Heart warming, the sheer naivety of some interviewers.) 

I remember his reply was to laugh and say that few people have any idea how much *work *it is to produce a new edition. It's not as if WotC could produce new editions on sheer whim, just to get some quick money.

And I think he was probably right. It takes a LOT to produce a new edition of D&D. So much went wrong with 4E, not even so much as a game (though there's also a lot), but also with the way it was rolled out, marketed, and pre-release playtested. It seemed not so much too soon (though it was perhaps also that) but also too hasty. From skill challenge DCs to MM 1 damage numbers - a lot of 4E comes across as unnecessarily half baked, as a rush job. As if the skill or resources weren't there to produce a more solid core product right out of the gate.

But here's the catch. Compared to 2011, WotC had bigger resources back then, and a better, much larger D&D team to rely on. Look at the interior front page of your PHB 1 for the 4E credits. See how many people were involved? _Dozens_. Who of these is left at WotC today? How many of these people, some with jaw dropping track records, were replaced by interns or leftovers, how many of their positions even were filled since 2008? Where is the manpower today? Where is the promising new blood?

It's impossible to tell as a fan or customer, but comparing the situation to 2005-2007, when WotC hired crazily left and right, the current situation doesn't tell me so much that _I_ am not ready for a new edition - but that _WotC _isn't.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 12, 2011)

Clearly *yes*. In my own case, it's because while I rather like 4e, that wasn't universal in my gaming group so we've been bouncing from one gaming system to another since 4e came out and there's at least a chance 5e might be something we could stop on. But it's also because 4e has some issues that can't be really fixed without a new edition, but I'd rather not just punt and go back to 3.x / Pathfinder forever (even if I've pretty much decided that while I prefer 4e to 3.x, I prefer 3.x to retro-clones and 1e/2e by a large margin).


----------



## 'Arry (Dec 12, 2011)

No.

For the few occasions that I play D&D I have enough of my (heavily houseruled) 3.X material to last me for years.  I don't need, or want, any more D&D materials.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 13, 2011)

I voted yes.  There's absolutely nothing in 4e that interests me, at worst a 5e will be status quo, at best it might be worth picking up.  But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 13, 2011)

For me it is closer to a lukewarm 'Maybe. It can hardly be worse than 4e is for me, anyway.' The worst that can happen is that I won't be interested - which is already the case with 4e. Either way, I will still have Pathfinder.

This is just me, mind. If you like 4e then go have fun.

I guess the actual worse case scenario, for WotC, would be if they lose the 4e players without getting back those players who either stayed behind, switched to Pathfinder, or went on to some other game entirely.

I kind of doubt that there is a win - win scenario to balance that lose - lose possibility.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Connorsrpg (Dec 13, 2011)

Voted yes. I like to see new additions - but I also hate seeing all those books on my shelf go to waste.

I liked most of 3E. most of PF and most of 4E. But I also like more of Savage Worlds.

4E for me needs to keep a lot (like easy to play monsters), but also needs to go back a little. Simple combat rules (is there a better alternative to Savage World's 'ganging up bonus' as opposed to more complex flanking rules)?

One thing I really don't like about 4E is the everyone can do anything (or everything) all the time. Restricting things was seen as 'not fun'. Now it doesn't seem to matter what weapon you wield, or what you are fighting. Spears vs skeletons = no worries. All damage reduced to simply hps, that never last longer than a few rounds.

At the same time I certainly do not want to go back to 3e/PF style games where balance was made up in equipment carried. Outfitting every NPC with potions etc 'for balance' really turned me off. As did lists of feats and spells that I had to check carefully for each monster.

Something like Star Wars Saga struck a nice 'in-between' nerve for me. Especially the classes and their powers. What was wrong with talent trees? I liked those.

So, yes, I am interested.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 13, 2011)

I play all sorts of systems, so I will definitely try 5E out when it is released, probably several times.  I'm unlikely to buy in, however, if they don't go the OGL route (and I'm not interested in the GSL or similar offshoot licensing, personally).  The OGL evolution in the gaming landscape is something I like to encourage with my gaming bucks.  I acknowlege that there are plenty of good games out that don't use the OGL (certainly plenty that have been around since before the OGL was even an idea), so it isn't a matter of seeing non-OGL games as necessarily of lower quality.  I just think it is a good way forward.


But I didn't vote as I am content that it comes out when it comes out.


----------



## Wombat (Dec 14, 2011)

I don't need it -- then again, I didn't need 4th ed.  I once again in my gaming career took a lateral turn away from D&D (played OD&D, dropped out early in 1st ed., came back for 3e, barely switched to 3.5, dropped out with 4e) and am playing other systems. 

Unless 5e is a major change for, what would appear to me, the better, I doubt I will play it either.  D&D hasn't been my "core game" for quite some time so the fate of it is of little relevance to my gaming world...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 14, 2011)

I voted yes, as I'm a neophile, especially when it comes to RPG systems.

I'd be particularly pleased if they hired [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] to help with the design, as I love his ideas about the basic unit being 'the adventure' rather than 'the encounter'.

see here for more examples: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274142-return-dungeon.html


----------



## Roland55 (Dec 14, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> I voted yes, as I'm a neophile, especially when it comes to RPG systems.
> 
> I'd be particularly pleased if they hired [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] to help with the design, as I love his ideas about the basic unit being 'the adventure' rather than 'the encounter'.
> 
> see here for more examples: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274142-return-dungeon.html




"Neophile."  I resemble that.


----------



## Jeffrey (Dec 16, 2011)

Do I want it? Yes.

Am I ready for it? Yes.

All because I have a soft spot in my heart for D&D.

The *real* question should be: Do I need it?

The answer to that, is simply No.


----------



## Elf Witch (Dec 16, 2011)

I voted no because I don't really care. I don't like the direction they took 4E in so to even to get  me willing to look at it, it would have to be very different. 

I am also to the point that I really don't want to learn a new system not for DnD. Both AD&D, 3E and Pathfinder are good enough to give me my DnD fix. 

Though when they do bring it out then I wish them luck and hope it brings more fans into gaming.


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 16, 2011)

Hell yeah!

Let me tell you: When 4th Edition and Pathfinder first came out, I was completely onboard withh 4E and had a huge disdain for Pathfinder, which at the time seemed like a pretty repackaging of 3e (in some ways it was, obviously). But as time wore on I became less and less enthusiastic about 4E, and then I discovered that there was an "SRD" for Pathfinder. That they actually gave access to all the crunch of Pathfinder for free. 

Now, because I have pretty much zero disposable income I have not been able to spend a lot of money so far on Pathfinder (merely the first two Kingmaker modules), but there is something about it that is so awesome that even though I can essentially play for free, _I want to buy all of their game books_ (and plenty more modules, but there are kind of too many Golarion supplements at this point for me). Mark my words, when I have the money to spare I will be looking to pick up more Pathfinder (or Pathfinder 2nd Edition, if it takes that long) . 

So, why do I want a 5th Edition? A few people have mentioned the term "neophile" . I suppose that is part of it. I want to see what Wizards does with a new edition. I want to see the next era of evolutionary struggle for the PnP RPG niche unfold with an epic battle for survival between D&D and Pathfinder, no holds barred and quite possibly to the death!! Muahaha... ahhh... Maybe getting a little carried away with myself there. Really, I just want to see innovative solutions to the problems of 4E that make the next iteration of the game definitively better and something I would want to _own_ again, the way I want to own Pathfinder. And then sometime down the road other RPGs may be foreced to react and improve again as well.

Anyway, maybe that is just me.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 16, 2011)

When 4e hit, I was desperately ready for something new. More than half my group was completely sick of 3.x and all its warts.

Now, with the spectre of 5e looming, we don't feel that same pressure. We're pretty happy with it and feel it still has lots of room to grow.

That said, I would gladly have a look at a hypothetical 5e, but if I didn't like it, and my group didn't want to switch to it, well, that wouldn't break my heart, since I have something I still like.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 16, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> When 4e hit, I was desperately ready for something new. More than half my group was completely sick of 3.x and all its warts.
> 
> Now, with the spectre of 5e looming, we don't feel that same pressure. We're pretty happy with it and feel it still has lots of room to grow.
> 
> That said, I would gladly have a look at a hypothetical 5e, but if I didn't like it, and my group didn't want to switch to it, well, that wouldn't break my heart, since I have something I still like.



It is worth noting that a lot of people felt the same way about 3.5 as you feel about 4e - they didn't need or want the change, and really did not like the changes chosen.

I do not think that being ready or wanting a 5e will have much bearing on whether there will be a 5e in the near future. 

Gods, this is making me feel pessimistic - I don't like 4e, and I should feel _hopeful_ for a 5e, but instead I just feel like the market will be further split.... Honestly, I would rather see WotC continue with 4e 'warts and all' than see them split the market further. 

I do not need 5e to be closer to 3e, I have Pathfinder. Maybe a 4e with a functioning OGL?

The Auld Grump, doom and gloom. Sorrow and woe....


----------



## jbear (Dec 16, 2011)

I voted No.

I'm playing 4e and Pathfinder and enjoying both of them. 

Do I think it is going to  come: Yes.

Monte Cook is not there randomly. He's involved in rethinking the game. Whatever it is won't go back to 3.X. If anything it is going to be a mechanically slick version of Original D&D built to be as simple or as complicated as you like your game to be. But it won't be rules heavy like 3.X in any case if his polls are anything to go by. DM will be the rules for anything outside of the system rules, and that will somehow be part of the larger system.

So, I'm not in  any hurry for that to happen. When it does, I will check it out though.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 16, 2011)

I voted null, i.e. I did not vote, because:

A "Yes" vote would indicate I want a 5e and would support it
A "No" vote would indicate I do not want a 5e and would not support it.

And right now neither is true as I won't know whether I want it or support it until I see it, and see how it is presented.

I don't like 3e, PF, or 4e and thus I really don't want to see a 5e that is merely an evolution of one or more of those - though, given my track record, I'll probably pick up the core books anyway.  If they do some sort of back-to-basics system or a 0e or 1e variant, however, I'm all in.

Unless it's only available online and-or via subscription.  In that case, I'm done.

Lan-"wondering what these conversations will be like when 9e is released"-efan


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 16, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> It is worth noting that a lot of people felt the same way about 3.5 as you feel about 4e - they didn't need or want the change, and really did not like the changes chosen.



I'm fully aware of that, just as there are a lot of folks that felt that way about 3.0, and ever 2nd edition, but we both know that won't stop it from happening.



> I do not think that being ready or wanting a 5e will have much bearing on whether there will be a 5e in the near future.



Exactly. 



> Gods, this is making me feel pessimistic - I don't like 4e, and I should feel _hopeful_ for a 5e, but instead I just feel like the market will be further split.... Honestly, I would rather see WotC continue with 4e 'warts and all' than see them split the market further.



Here's how I look at it - splitting the market may be bad for their business model, and it's bad for generating a bunch of pointless arguments between gamers about The One True Way, but, and here's the best part - it's good for gaming. More games means more choices, and to me, that can never be a bad thing.

Say they do put out 5e, and it ends up being something that neither you nor I like. That's fine - we both have systems we're happy with - but someone will like it, and it will be their favourite. Someone will start playing because of it, and someone will use it to introduce others into the hobby. That can't be a bad thing.

Some will argue that it would 'be a bad example' to start someone out on, but really, the people who say that fail to realize that so might the version(s) that they would choose, so it's a foolish argument that smacks of being a True Scotsman.



> I do not need 5e to be closer to 3e, I have Pathfinder. Maybe a 4e with a functioning OGL?



I could get behind that 



> The Auld Grump, doom and gloom. Sorrow and woe....



I just want to point out that because of your avatar, I always picture you AS Professor Snape. It's pretty funny to imagine myself having that conversation, even virtually.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2011)

No. And I'm angry about it. 

My anger is simply that 4e has only been out *three years*. 3e had 8 years! 3.5 was a readjustment of math, not a new edition. 4e Essentials would be the equivalent of 3.5. If 4e had 8 years, that's fine, I'm ok with that. But no.

I don't care _what_ the rules are. I don't care if it's awesome. The point is that it's a restart _again_ in so short a time. So what will the restart for 6e be? 2 years? 

So it becomes incredibly hard for me to spend money and time on a new edition knowing that its lifespan is increasingly shortening.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 16, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Say they do put out 5e, and it ends up being something that neither you nor I like. That's fine - we both have systems we're happy with - but someone will like it, and it will be their favourite. Someone will start playing because of it, and someone will use it to introduce others into the hobby. That can't be a bad thing.



Maybe you live in a gamer rich environment. But every place I've ever lived, it's very difficult to find 4 people who will play *an* edition of D&D, let alone willing to play different editions.

By splitting the editions even further, it makes it incredibly hard to put together groups because you might have 2 peopel who want to play edition A, 2 who want edition B, and 1 who wants edition C. That's not even getting into the _style_ of games these people prefer, just systems. And the fewer groups there are, the fewer games are played, and that's a bad thing.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 16, 2011)

Rechan said:


> Maybe you live in a gamer rich environment. But every place I've ever lived, it's very difficult to find 4 people who will play *an* edition of D&D, let alone willing to play different editions.
> 
> By splitting the editions even further, it makes it incredibly hard to put together groups because you might have 2 peopel who want to play edition A, 2 who want edition B, and 1 who wants edition C. That's not even getting into the _style_ of games these people prefer, just systems. And the fewer groups there are, the fewer games are played, and that's a bad thing.



Fair enough, and that's a good point.

I've been fortunate enough to game with the same core of gamers since 1998 or so, with members coming and going, but generally staying for the long-term. It helps that one of them is my wife, and another my cousin, so people up and leaving is not an issue for me.

That said, no, we don't all agree on our favourite edition, heck, we can't even always decide on the same system, genre, or style of play, but we're all able to compromise. We all get turns with what we like best. My wife would prefer 2nd edition, I like 4th, my cousin likes 3rd, and another in the group likes whatever he can find the most loopholes in, but at the end of the day, we're all just glad to _play_.

And personally, I like the variety, but I get that this doesn't work for everyone, and that's unfortunate, but you can't turn back time, and you can't prevent them from bringing out another edition, because it will happen sooner or later. Would I prefer later to sooner? Yes, yes I would. That's not going to make a lick of difference in the end though.


----------



## William Ronald (Dec 17, 2011)

I have tried 4E and really did not feel much for it.  I am playing Pathfinder currently, and like the game better. I found very little use for the 4E core rules books.  I am willing to try 5e a few times, but I am not sure that I will buy the books.  So, I abstained from voting.

However, like TheAuldGrump, I do have worry about the market being split.  While I have my own likes and dislikes in games, I respect that other people may have preferences that are as legitimate to them as mine are to me.  Perhaps we can avoid any future edition wars, but this is likely too optimistic.  I am not sure how people would react to a 5E as a game, but I would hope that we can at least try to be more respectful to each other as gamers.

Maybe it is too much to expect that 5E -- whether it comes out or when it comes out -- reunifies a gaming community that has grown more fractured with the years.  Still, maybe we can be united in our love for our hobby and respect for each other.  I have meet a lot of great people through this hobby, including several good friends.  Regardless of what game that you enjoy, I wish that you can have as much fun and as many friends as I have had in some 30 years of gaming.


----------



## VictorC (Dec 17, 2011)

Funny that Eric Mona isn't ready for a fifth edition. Has he ever had a single nice thing to say about the current edition. Link please?


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 17, 2011)

William Ronald said:


> However, like TheAuldGrump, I do have worry about the market being split.




I see no need for a Fifth Edition because of this very point.

D&D is already very nicely split between Pathfinder, Old School Renaissance and Fourth Edition. Each of these versions of D&D amply satisfies different kinds of players, dungeon masters and groups.

I would rather see continued improvements to Pathfinder and Fourth Edition, just as the Old School Renaissance keeps tweaking and expanding on their games.

Otherwise we will have a further split within the players who currently play Fourth Edition. Because I cannot really see people leaving Pathfinder for a Third Edition retroclone published by Wizards. Wizards has their market now and should try to keep it. And players who dislike Fourth Edition should stick with the myriad other D&D systems already published rather than wish that Fourth Edition be replaced by something that already exists elsewhere.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 17, 2011)

VictorC said:


> Funny that Eric Mona isn't ready for a fifth edition. Has he ever had a single nice thing to say about the current edition. Link please?




He likely loves the current edition.  

It drove tons of people to play Pathfinder.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 17, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Otherwise we will have a further split within the players who currently play Fourth Edition. Because I cannot really see people leaving Pathfinder for a Third Edition retroclone published by Wizards. Wizards has their market now and should try to keep it. And players who dislike Fourth Edition should stick with the myriad other D&D systems already published rather than wish that Fourth Edition be replaced by something that already exists elsewhere.




Who are you to tell people what game they should play and what they should wish for? If an existing edition of D&D fulfilled everything that I wanted out of an RPG, I would play it and stick with it. None does, nor does any non-D&D RPG I have yet encountered. 4E comes closest, so that's what I play, but I have substantial issues with it (beyond the scope of what can be fixed with incremental updates) and am hopeful that 5E will fix some of them. I suspect there are people who feel the same way about Pathfinder that I do about 4E; the best option currently available for them, but far from the ideal.

Now, maybe there aren't enough of us to justify the risk of another split in the market. I expect WotC is doing a ton of customer research right now to determine that (or more accurately, I expect they've already done it and reached their conclusion). I leave that in their hands. What I'm going to do is say what I want, and if some RPG company thinks it can provide it at a price I'm willing to pay, go for it. If they succeed, I will buy it.


----------



## IronWolf (Dec 17, 2011)

VictorC said:


> Funny that Eric Mona isn't ready for a fifth edition. Has he ever had a single nice thing to say about the current edition. Link please?




Er, it isn't like he makes a habit of bashing 4th edition as you seem to be implying.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 17, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'd be particularly pleased if they hired [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] to help with the design, as I love his ideas about the basic unit being 'the adventure' rather than 'the encounter'.






I will put you down as one of my references. 



			
				William Ronald said:
			
		

> However, like TheAuldGrump, I do have worry about the market being split.




If only there was some sort of way to release the ruleset for free to any who wanted to modify it, to open up the game, so to speak, perhaps with some sort of license that provides a safe harbor to all and sundry who would like to write compatible rules, assuring that the game will live on forever with those who never want to leave, while still changing with the times, embracing some fixes, and moving forward with the path toward this decade's best-possible game system.

In only there was some sort of....open game license like that...man, then ANYONE could keep supporting 4e, and let the market speak to what that might support.

It would perhaps take some sort of mad genius to conceive of such a license, and for WotC to embrace it might mean that they want to support a rich fan community, rather than creating new walled gardens of IP that no one else is allowed to play in....

Ah, well, a banana can dream, can't he?


----------



## Glade Riven (Dec 18, 2011)

Huh..only 3 years of 4e? Seems longer...

I voted yes, for two points: one, I am interested to see where it will go now that DDI provides some hard data for WotC to analyse. Two, if they announce next year, 5e will be release somewhere between 2013 and 2015 - which is 5-7 years of 4e. Remember, it was only 3 years between 3.0 and 3.5, and some of the changes were fairly drastic. 3.5 last 5 years, so a 5 year cycle isn't that surprising. It is also on par with what happens with videogames - usually, a major engine overhaul happens about every 5 years.

The next version of D&D may not even be marketed with an edition number - it'll be given some code name or something. I suspect that it will be more of a restructuring/consolidation of 4e - almost a 4.5.

Now, I know some folk in this thread are pining for the "good ol' days" when everything was d20. D20 OGL/D&D 3.5 were good for revitalizing the market. 4e was good for causing a diversification of the market (what some people call fracturing). Both events were good things for the industry, and things are not going to go back to the way they were. I, for one, am happy about that. A lot of smaller systems have gotten more attention, and a rise in market share.


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 18, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Who are you to tell people what game they should play and what they should wish for? If an existing edition of D&D fulfilled everything that I wanted out of an RPG, I would play it and stick with it. None does, nor does any non-D&D RPG I have yet encountered. 4E comes closest, so that's what I play, but I have substantial issues with it (beyond the scope of what can be fixed with incremental updates) and am hopeful that 5E will fix some of them. I suspect there are people who feel the same way about Pathfinder that I do about 4E; the best option currently available for them, but far from the ideal.
> 
> Now, maybe there aren't enough of us to justify the risk of another split in the market. I expect WotC is doing a ton of customer research right now to determine that (or more accurately, I expect they've already done it and reached their conclusion). I leave that in their hands. What I'm going to do is say what I want, and if some RPG company thinks it can provide it at a price I'm willing to pay, go for it. If they succeed, I will buy it.




I see that my opinion offended you, but I stick by it. I do not want to see Fourth Edition with its tens of thousands of players abandoned to appease some others who do not like it. Let each play the game he likes and do not lobby to change the other man's game.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 18, 2011)

VictorC said:


> Funny that Eric Mona isn't ready for a fifth edition. Has he ever had a single nice thing to say about the current edition. Link please?



He actually has not said much about 4e, one way or another. The closest thing to 'bad' that he has said about 4e is that it was not ideal for the kind of adventures that Paizo wants to write.

You may want to review the lead up to both 4e and to Pathfinder, as the two are intertwined.

WotC kept procrastinating on the GSL, both about the rules and the terms of the license itself. In point of fact the license was not released until the game itself was gleaming on the horizon*.

Paizo had subscriptions to fill and adventures to write, with WotC not releasing anything to work with.

So, Paizo decided to skip 4e and to release Pathfinder rather than wait For WotC to finish the RD that they had promised to have finished months ago.

The game itself is almost incidental to why Pathfinder was written, even the horrible, bad, awful GSL is less important than the fact that the horrible, bad, awful thing was more than six months too late to be useful for any company wanting to release on opening day.

The fact that it turns out that there are more people that wanted to stick with the 3.X architecture than Paizo expected (and certainly more than WotC expected) is only icing on the cake.

The Auld Grump

* Or, depending on your viewpoint, 'the GSL was slumping rancidly on the horizon'....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 18, 2011)

> Or, depending on your viewpoint, 'the GSL was slumping rancidly on the horizon'....




The GSL is melting in the dark
All the sweet, new coding flowing down...
Someone left the game out in the rain
I don't think that they can save it
'cause they promised then delayed it
And we'll have to fight Edition Wars again

_OH NOEEEEEEEES!!!_


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And we'll have to fight Edition Wars again



 War! (Huhn!) What is it good for?

The Auld Grump - grogn3rd.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 18, 2011)

You see me now a veteran
Of the game's Edition Wars.
I've been playin D&D so long 
Where the winds of gamers roar 
And I'm young enough to look at 
And far too old to see 
All the scars are on the inside 
I'm not sure if there's anything left of me


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 18, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> I see that my opinion offended you, but I stick by it. I do not want to see Fourth Edition with its tens of thousands of players abandoned to appease some others who do not like it. Let each play the game he likes and do not lobby to change the other man's game.




...He said, while lobbying to prevent my game from ever existing.

Look, you advocate for the game you want. That's fine. It may not be the game I want. That's fine too. And if you think 5E will split the 4E market and make your life worse, feel free to agitate for 4E to continue forever. I don't agree with you, but there are lots of folks I don't agree with about lots of things.

What I find offensive is the claim that "players who dislike Fourth Edition should stick with the myriad other D&D systems already published rather than wish that Fourth Edition be replaced by something that already exists elsewhere." I will wish for what I want, thank you very freakin' much, and I will do so publicly and loudly. And if what I want existed elsewhere, I'd be playing it.

What everybody should do is speak up for what they want. If it turns out that there's a big community of 4E players who want their game to remain current, and only a handful of malcontents wanting 5E, okay; 4E stays. But if it turns out most players are making do with their current game and would really like to see 5E, and only a handful of holdouts want 4E to stick around, 4E goes*, and that's how it should be.

[size=-2]*Except it's not even that, because 4E will still be around, just like 3E, and 2E, and 1E, and OD&D with the Chainmail combat rules. It just won't be the current edition supported by WotC any more. Quelle horreur.[/size]


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 18, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> I see that my opinion offended you, but I stick by it. I do not want to see Fourth Edition with its tens of thousands of players abandoned to appease some others who do not like it. Let each play the game he likes and do not lobby to change the other man's game.




This is how many people felt when 4E came out. It was tailored to the folks who didn't like 3E and the 3E fans were left hanging. Many of us wanted a new ediition that built on and fixed 3E, not one that was a complete redo of the game. I'd really like to see an edition of D&D that attracts more players to the table from a range of playstyles.


----------



## Therise (Dec 18, 2011)

I voted "yes" for 5E, but honestly it's because I haven't been a WotC customer for a while now.  I probably purchased the least amount of things from them during this 4E period than any other edition;  only a couple novels, nothing else.  That said, I don't have anything against 4E rules necessarily, but it just wasn't to my tastes.  I absolutely HATED what they did to make the 4E Forgotten Realms, so much so that I doubt if it can be fixed in such a way that I'd like it.  Completely erasing the Realms 4E period would be one route toward that, but they're never going to do that.

So I'm pretty much beyond caring what WotC does at this point, who they lay off, who they hire, etc.  Long ago they stopped catering to my tastes as a customer.  But they're a business, so they do what they feel is necessary.  Maybe they can create an amazing 5E system, but it'd have to be truly brilliant for me to consider buying from them again.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Dec 18, 2011)

I'm ready for 5e.  I doubt that I'd actually _play_ 5e, but I'd like to see what Cook & Mearls come up with.  I'd probably just buy the core rulebooks out of curiosity like I did for 4e.

WotC lost me as a customer in 2003 with the switch to 3.5.  After some initial excitement for 3.0, my game group got disillusioned with 3.0 after a couple of years and the release of 3.5 just cemented our switch back to 1e/2e.

I'd love to see a 5e that's essentially classic B/X D&D with modern mechanics (ascending AC and Fort/Ref/Will saves).  Keep the core as simple as possible.  There's always room for expansions afterwards...


----------



## VictorC (Dec 18, 2011)

IronWolf said:


> Er, it isn't like he makes a habit of bashing 4th edition as you seem to be implying.




Really, where, in me asking for one example of a positive thing he's said, does it imply he's bashing it. Seriously, how is it implied?

Or do you not understand the difference between someone with nothing positive to say and someone bashing something? Because, there is a difference.


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 18, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> ...He said, while lobbying to prevent my game from ever existing.
> 
> Look, you advocate for the game you want. That's fine. It may not be the game I want. That's fine too. And if you think 5E will split the 4E market and make your life worse, feel free to agitate for 4E to continue forever. I don't agree with you, but there are lots of folks I don't agree with about lots of things.
> 
> ...




Go write your own game then. Publish it. Just do not lobby to replace 4E.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 19, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Go write your own game then. Publish it. Just do not lobby to replace 4E.




Tallifer, you are out of order here. It isn't up to you to tell someone what they may/should lobby for or not.

Talk up what you like about 4e, enjoy all that there is under that roof, lobby WotC for whatever you like.

But don't tell other people what they may or may not do.

Thanks


----------



## Mercutio01 (Dec 19, 2011)

I stumbled across some older posts of mine circa 2009 that discussed the fact that changes WotC made to the website effectively removed me as a customer, and I was accused of being hyperbolic (not in so many words, but that was the general intimation). It's interesting to me to look back now and see that it did exactly that. I was a fan of 4E, bought the core books immediately after release, and hyped the hell out of them, but the WotC model shifted away from me, which left me effectively out of the loop.

So, yes, I'm ready for a 5E, but I'm more wary this time. I read through the Essentials stuff at a Barnes and Noble, closely examined the box sets, and decided that they weren't for me. I'm a fan of many of the changes that were made to create 4E, but moreso as a DM than a player. My ideal 5E would merge some elements of 4E and 3.5E, or else scrap both completely, look back what worked in all previous editions, and used that to construct a new system that captures all of those previous lessons learned.

But all that is wishful thinking, to be honest. At this point, I'm looking smaller and more narrowly focused. My interests have shifted to indie-game design. I would probably buy 5E and look closely at it. I'm open to swinging back to the D&D brand, but as it stands now, it's unlikely.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 19, 2011)

I voted yes, just because I'm mildly curious to see what the WotC thinks the next step in the game's design should be.

But quite honestly, over the last few months I've realized I'm kinda sick and tired of the WotC/D&D roller coaster. Tired of the constant edition changes, tired of what feels like a constant state of system testing _(lets try something new and innovative.....ok cool, for a while.....now we're tired of it....lets take things back, but not all the way....ok yeah now lets take it back further....) _in an effort to find the Holy Grail of D&D.

I'm also pretty bored of the "hush-hush" game that WotC plays with their R&D. If they're working on something new, just come out and say it, so those interested can get hyped up and those not, at least have some idea of what to expect for what they are currently playing. Playing "lets wait and make a big announcement at GenCon" or other such nonsense gets old fast.

So, while I'm curious to see what they have planned for the next iteration, I'm skeptical that I'll do anything more than play it if anyone in my area wants to run it. I just don't know at this point if I'd invest in yet "another" edition.

There are too many other "stable" games that I find just as interesting and would rather spend money on, knowing that at least the likely-hood of it not changing within 2-3 years is pretty high.

So whether they toss our something new, or whether they keep with what's current, doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me, in the end.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 19, 2011)

VictorC said:


> Really, where, in me asking for one example of a positive thing he's said, does it imply he's bashing it. Seriously, how is it implied?
> 
> Or do you not understand the difference between someone with nothing positive to say and someone bashing something? Because, there is a difference.



Let me turn it around then - why _should_ he say anything nice about it? It is not his game.

And yes, there _was_ an implication in your tone that he has had negative things to say about 4e, otherwise why did you bother making the comment? You are obfuscating, and poorly.

For that matter Mr. Mona may not _have_ anything nice to say about 4e, and with good reason, certainly both the terms of the GSL and the procrastination on the part of WotC on releasing the rancid thing would be enough to sour anyone on the beast - even Necromancer Games in the person of the right honorable Mr. Clark Petersen went from being a vocal 4e supporter to dropping it after WotC hemmed and hawed for six months, then released an overly restrictive license that really only benefited WotC.

So, in lieu of Mr. Mona saying anything positive about a game that he has nothing to in common with, how about I say some incredibly rude, antagonistic, and negative things about the game instead? That way you can actually have something to complain about. And I guarantee that my complaints will be heart felt. 

The Auld Grump - 4e is ugly, and its mama dresses it funny.


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 19, 2011)

Let me approach the question differently.

If Fourth Edition is indeed superseded by a version which appeases the fans of other editions, I pray to God that Wizards opens up the GSL, so that players who enjoy Fourth Edition now can continue to play it.

Players of other editions are very lucky. Because of the OGL, we can play any edition from OD&D to 3.75 without any limitations. I dread the replacement of 4E, because the current restrictions surrounding it will mean it will wither on the vine.


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 19, 2011)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is how many people felt when 4E came out. It was tailored to the folks who didn't like 3E and the 3E fans were left hanging. Many of us wanted a new ediition that built on and fixed 3E, not one that was a complete redo of the game. I'd really like to see an edition of D&D that attracts more players to the table from a range of playstyles.




Fortunately, Third Edition fans were not left hanging, because Paizo has supported them without fail since 2008. I hope that Fourth Edition will get the same kind of support in the future, but I have my fears.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Dec 19, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Fortunately, Third Edition fans were not left hanging, because Paizo has supported them without fail since 2008. I hope that Fourth Edition will get the same kind of support in the future, but I have my fears.



Yes, in hindsight it is fortunate. Certainly didn't feel that way at the time, though. And I say that as someone who was excited for 4E from when it was announced until after it was released for about a year.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 19, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Let me approach the question differently.
> 
> If Fourth Edition is indeed superseded by a version which appeases the fans of other editions, I pray to God that Wizards opens up the GSL, so that players who enjoy Fourth Edition now can continue to play it.
> 
> Players of other editions are very lucky. Because of the OGL, we can play any edition from OD&D to 3.75 without any limitations. I dread the replacement of 4E, because the current restrictions surrounding it will mean it will wither on the vine.



I will second that!

Actually, as I mentioned above, I kind of hope that 5e _is_ an open version of the 4e architecture. I don't think that opening 4e license is likely otherwise - I am sure that some bean counters blame the OGL for [pick one] 4e's Failure/Pathfinder's Success. Mind you, I think that if 4e had an open license then Pathfinder wouldn't _be_ in its current position, if it even existed at all. That the mistake was not in WotC creating the OGL, it was in WotC turning their backs on it.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 19, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I will second that!
> 
> Actually, as I mentioned above, I kind of hope that 5e _is_ an open version of the 4e architecture. I don't think that opening 4e license is likely otherwise - I am sure that some bean counters blame the OGL for [pick one] 4e's Failure/Pathfinder's Success. Mind you, I think that if 4e had an open license then Pathfinder wouldn't _be_ in its current position, if it even existed at all. That the mistake was not in WotC creating the OGL, it was in WotC turning their backs on it.
> 
> The Auld Grump




I expect an OGL version of 4E to show up within two years of 5E's release. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, and most of the terminology used in 4E was carried over from previous editions and is thus covered by the OGL. Healing surges and a few other things might have to be renamed, but that's about it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 19, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I expect an OGL version of 4E to show up within two years of 5E's release. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, and most of the terminology used in 4E was carried over from previous editions and is thus covered by the OGL. Healing surges and a few other things might have to be renamed, but that's about it.



Oh, come on! If that were the case people would already be doing unauthorized supplements for the game!

Oh, wait a minute.... 

I was talking more official than unofficial, but you are of course correct - and I notice that WotC has not gone after folks like Jolly Blackburn.

One of the other disadvantages to the GSL - because it offers so little to the 3PP it is more tempting to ignore it.

As for renaming Healing Surges, I have met folks that already do that, simply because they hate the name. (Adrenaline Surge seems a common one.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 19, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I expect an OGL version of 4E to show up within two years of 5E's release. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, and most of the terminology used in 4E was carried over from previous editions and is thus covered by the OGL. Healing surges and a few other things might have to be renamed, but that's about it.




I would still miss the on-line resources, but I would accept building and researching characters by hand if a third party could make a cleaned-up compiled version of the most important classes, powers and feats.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 19, 2011)

> Kevin2moon
> has no status.
> 
> Registered User
> ...



Reported


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 19, 2011)

I think that the question of whether 5E should or will be open is tied up with the question " Does 3rd party support increase the strength and longevity of the game? " You really need to ask this question about both 3e and Pathfinder, then compare to 4E, before trying to apply the lessons to 5E.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 19, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Fortunately, Third Edition fans were not left hanging, because Paizo has supported them without fail since 2008. I hope that Fourth Edition will get the same kind of support in the future, but I have my fears.




That is a valid concern. But it was another company, not WOTC that appeased 3e crowd (most of them). If your prefered edition isn't supported, yes that isn't much fun, but there are other games out there. I haven't played D&D since 2009 and I doubt I will play after 5e. The reason is simple: I want a consistent and stable product. I don't want to play a game that reboots to something new every 8 years (new editions are fine but smaller changes like Cthulu not massive overhauls like 3e and 4e). WOTC just doesn't approach editions the way I want. So even if 5e is stellar there is a chance I won't play.


----------



## molepunch (Dec 19, 2011)

Sure, why not.  I'm not too emotionally invested in a system so I'm coming from an "outsider's" point of view, perhaps.

I currently play 4E. When 4E first came out my jaw dropped at the very idea of spammy Magic Missiles like most others in my gaming gang. Within' seconds I shrugged it off and said "let's give it a try!"

Even if 5E were totally different, I'd be okay with it. Is it too soon for the industry? Perhaps. But I'll plonk down money for a PHB and a DM book anyway.


----------



## drothgery (Dec 19, 2011)

Kaodi said:


> I think that the question of whether 5E should or will be open is tied up with the question " Does 3rd party support increase the strength and longevity of the game? " You really need to ask this question about both 3e and Pathfinder, then compare to 4E, before trying to apply the lessons to 5E.



FWIW, 3e (not 3.5) had the most extensive 3rd party support of any version of D&D; it lasted 3 years. 1e and 2e had no third party support, and lasted much longer (though a 3e -- if not the one WotC published -- likely would have been out sooner if TSR had the resources to publish it). 3.5 had less, and lasted 5 years; if (as is rumored), 5e is announced next year for a 2013 launch, 4e lasted as long as 3.5.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 19, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> I would still miss the on-line resources, but I would accept building and researching characters by hand if a third party could make a cleaned-up compiled version of the most important classes, powers and feats.



Long after WotC nails shut the coffin for 4e, there will still be people using and updating the old offline builder (including with custom and 3PP stuff). Nothing to worry about there.

If you ask them nicely, they'll even add your own set of houserules. Of course, I can't tell you how to find it, but it's out there.


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 19, 2011)

drothgery said:


> FWIW, 3e (not 3.5) had the most extensive 3rd party support of any version of D&D; it lasted 3 years. 1e and 2e had no third party support, and lasted much longer (though a 3e -- if not the one WotC published -- likely would have been out sooner if TSR had the resources to publish it). 3.5 had less, and lasted 5 years; if (as is rumored), 5e is announced next year for a 2013 launch, 4e lasted as long as 3.5.




If I counted 3e and v3.5 as truly separate games, I would have distinguished. If you are going to count them as different games, I think you ought to count Essentials as distinct from 4E, in which case 4E will have lasted 2 years and Essentials 3. As well, I am not so sure that the WotC era is really directly comparable to the TSR era. There is no BECMI in the current era unless you want to say roughly analagous to Pathfinder.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 19, 2011)

Why does it matter the length of each? Isn't it about creating fun and enjoyable games? I've played them all, but started just after AD&D 2e came around. I've loved each iteration of the game since.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 19, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Why does it matter the length of each?.



Money.



> I've loved each iteration of the game since.



I have not. There are some editions you couldn't pay me to play.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 19, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Why does it matter the length of each? .




It matters because lots of people want a relatively stable system that remains consistent over a number of years. Chances are you play a game because you like what it does. So you may not want to upgrade every few years.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 19, 2011)

drothgery said:


> 1e and 2e had no third party support, and lasted much longer (though a 3e -- if not the one WotC published -- likely would have been out sooner if TSR had the resources to publish it).



Not quite true - there was some limited third party support for both OD&D and AD&D. Officially there was Judges Guild, unofficially there was Mayfair, Game Lords, The Companions, and a few others. (I did some work for The Companions.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Therise (Dec 19, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Why does it matter the length of each? Isn't it about creating fun and enjoyable games? I've played them all, but started just after AD&D 2e came around. I've loved each iteration of the game since.



It depends...

For a company, you want fresh, shiny product that moves well off the shelves and generates income.  When games reach a certain saturation point (i.e. everyone likely to buy it has bought it), sales drop and you need to create shiny new product that will again sell and keep profits high.  Therefore, new systems, new rules, so long as they will sell, are a high priority every few years.

For a gamer (and this is speaking generally, as all gamers differ somewhat), there's a split.  Some gamers want "new and shiny" constantly and are willing to pay for it.  In this case, rapid turnaround is not a problem as the company is willing to provide.  But many gamers want a certain amount of stability in their gaming experience.  For those of us who prefer stability of rule systems (perhaps with refinements along the way), we buy things that are classically "support" books:  settings, campaigns, adventures, magazines with new options, new fluff, etc.  But those things do not sell as well or as widely as rule books because fluff is a matter of taste and rules are a matter of "need" (so to speak).


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 19, 2011)

Kaodi said:


> If I counted 3e and v3.5 as truly separate games, I would have distinguished. If you are going to count them as different games, I think you ought to count Essentials as distinct from 4E, in which case 4E will have lasted 2 years and Essentials 3. As well, I am not so sure that the WotC era is really directly comparable to the TSR era. There is no BECMI in the current era unless you want to say roughly analogous to Pathfinder.



It is why I tend to write '3.X' for 3e and 3.5 or 'the 3.X architecture' when I want to include Pathfinder. I tend to summarize Pathfinder as D&D 4th edition in my head, and discount that other game, uhm, what was its name again? 

For me 4e is not an edition of the same game as OD&D - 3.5, it is a new game trying to use an old imprint, one that is not an exact fit. This is aside from my perceptions of 4e as a game, and also aside from the way I feel about the GSL. I end up disliking the game on three separate levels....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Roland55 (Dec 19, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Why does it matter the length of each? Isn't it about creating fun and enjoyable games? I've played them all, but started just after AD&D 2e came around. I've loved each iteration of the game since.




I must admit ... I, too, don't really care how long an iteration lasts.

"Fun," whatever that is, is what I look for and usually find.


----------



## Agamon (Dec 19, 2011)

The poll is too polarized for me to vote; I'm not currently playing D&D, so I can't really say if I'm "ready" for 5e.  Not unlike any other new RPG, I'd be interested and possibly check it out, but do I need it?  No, not really.  But, it would be interesting to see.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Dec 20, 2011)

I'm ready for 5e and 6e. The amount of money and game design talent that gets thrown at a new edition of D&D means they are always welcome in my book. I was way impressed both by the Lego-brick sim of 3e and the battlegrid gamism of 4e. More weird new ideas please.


----------



## William Ronald (Dec 20, 2011)

I will be curious what WotC comes out with, but I am not very passionately involved in thinking about 5E.  I do think that we have a lot of questions here about what 5E might look like, and whether it can appeal to people with different game preferences.  

I will try to have an open mind about it, but I think that one of the great challenges that WotC will face is drawing people who have adopted other games to adopt a new one.  My hope is that we will try to be civil with each other.  (Ironically, considering the rancor of the Edition Wars, it seems that many of the game designers are pretty civil to each other. Maybe we can learn a few things from them.)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 20, 2011)

I think that a lot of the rancor is reserved for WotC the corporate entity rather than for WotC the game design studio, at least in my case that is true.

I do not know how much of the rhetoric in the lead up to 4e was corporate, for all I know Wyatt might just have been toeing the party line as hard as he could. It is also possible that he was the _source_ of that party line. It is _also_ possible that he was running off at the mouth because it was _his_ game, like an overly zealous parent watching his kid play softball. (This last is the one I favor, with no real supporting evidence.)

All that I can say for certain is that by the time 4e appeared I was already prepared to hate the game. The rules supported this belief, so my opinion was only confirmed.

I know that in my case I have never vowed ne'er to so much as look at a WotC product again, but then... they have not had much that interests me in years, so that is kind of moot. (I think the last thing I bought from WotC was some Elder Evils minis - I wanted the Remorhaz.)

If I had a time machine, I would like to travel back to when Peter Adkison was planning to sell WotC to the Devil Hasbro, grab him by the shoulders and shake him, yelling '_Don't do it!_' He would, of course, have me hauled away by security, but hey! At least I would have tried! 

But that has more to do with the politics of the situation - 4e _is_ what a whole bunch of folks want, and I cannot honestly call them wrong. I just disagree. I am willing to assume that if I had a time machine then 4e would still be 4e, that Wyatt would still have annoyed me, and that I would still not like the game. But hey, maybe it would still have the OGL....

The Auld Grump


----------



## msears (Dec 20, 2011)

Cannot say I am a fan of 4th, so why not?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 20, 2011)

I went with no, but it's not that I'm against or not ready for a 5e, it's just that I don't care.  I don't expect a new edition of D&D from WotC to mesh with my tastes.


----------



## MoxieFu (Dec 21, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Let me approach the question differently.
> 
> If Fourth Edition is indeed superseded by a version which appeases the fans of other editions, I pray to God that Wizards opens up the GSL, so that players who enjoy Fourth Edition now can continue to play it.
> 
> Players of other editions are very lucky. Because of the OGL, we can play any edition from OD&D to 3.75 without any limitations. I dread the replacement of 4E, because the current restrictions surrounding it will mean it will wither on the vine.




WotC created the GSL to kill off 3rd party support and thus competition. It was all about getting a larger slice of the pie even if the pie was smaller. By doing this they helped launch Pathfinder and further fragment the market.

One phrase I like to quote for this type of behavior is "being hoisted by his own petard".


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 21, 2011)

MoxieFu said:


> WotC created the GSL to kill off 3rd party support and thus competition. It was all about getting a larger slice of the pie even if the pie was smaller. By doing this they helped launch Pathfinder and further fragment the market.
> 
> One phrase I like to quote for this type of behavior is "being hoisted by his own petard".



To be fair, the GSL is also about intellectual property control - folks went far beyond what WotC expected of the OGL, and not always in a good way. (Book of Erotic Fantasy, anyone?)

I think that WotC may have expected the 3PP to line up for the new license, after all, what were they going to do? Resurrect 3.X and have it sell better than the new and improved D&D? Not bloody likely! 

If they had truly wanted to kill off 3PP then they would not have bothered revising the GSL, since leaving it as it was would have accomplished exactly that. They wanted the 3PP to channel their energies into the products that WotC wanted them to make.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 21, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Why does it matter the length of each? Isn't it about creating fun and enjoyable games? I've played them all, but started just after AD&D 2e came around. I've loved each iteration of the game since.





Will you be involved in the "playtesting" demos being run at D&DXP?


----------



## MoxieFu (Dec 21, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> To be fair, the GSL is also about intellectual property control - folks went far beyond what WotC expected of the OGL, and not always in a good way. (Book of Erotic Fantasy, anyone?)
> 
> I think that WotC may have expected the 3PP to line up for the new license, after all, what were they going to do? Resurrect 3.X and have it sell better than the new and improved D&D? Not bloody likely!
> 
> ...




But I remember WotC  keeping the 3rd parties dangling for months that they would release the GSL, oh any day now, and also charging the vendors just to have a look at it. I have seen anti-competitive behavior in the computer industry.

Maybe I am being cynical in my view, but I have seen these things happen before. It reminds me a lot of the way IBM created the PS/2 line of computers with micro-channel in a bid to take back a larger slice of the market pie. What they managed to accomplish was cede control of the market to their largest competitor (Compaq) and then eventually the clone makers. Now maybe Hasbro forced WotC to do this, I don't know. But to me it makes no difference, the result is the same.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 21, 2011)

MoxieFu said:


> But I remember WotC  keeping the 3rd parties dangling for months that they would release the GSL, oh any day now, and also charging the vendors just to have a look at it. I have seen anti-competitive behavior in the computer industry.
> 
> Maybe I am being cynical in my view, but I have seen these things happen before. It reminds me a lot of the way IBM created the PS/2 line of computers with micro-channel in a bid to take back a larger slice of the market pie. What they managed to accomplish was cede control of the market to their largest competitor (Compaq) and then eventually the clone makers. Now maybe Hasbro forced WotC to do this, I don't know. But to me it makes no difference, the result is the same.



I think that there was likely a _lot_ of infighting regarding the nature and limitations of the GSL - for at least one faction you are almost certainly correct.

The GSL has undergone that most brutal of tortures - genesis by committee....

Whether what that committee spawned was viable... I think 4e is already on life support, at least as far as Hasbro is concerned. Rather than reinvigorating the line and recapturing marketshare 'lost' to the 3PP it has instead lost ground to its previous incarnation wearing new duds, with the new threads tailored by one of those self-same 3PPs. That the marketshare wasn't 'lost', but was instead the result of strong growth spurred by the success of the line seems to have been ignored, or went unremarked.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 21, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> To be fair, the GSL is also about intellectual property control - folks went far beyond what WotC expected of the OGL, and not always in a good way. (Book of Erotic Fantasy, anyone?)




I always wondered about the process of how that went to print, and the reactions inside of WotC (given that one of the authors worked for WotC at the time, and I think one other current or former WotC person at the time was involved in coordinating the project).


----------



## MoxieFu (Dec 21, 2011)

"The more you tighten your grip Tarkin, the more publishers will slip through your fingers."

Orrrr somthin' like that.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Dec 21, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> To be fair, the GSL is also about intellectual property control - folks went far beyond what WotC expected of the OGL, and not always in a good way.




Not really. The D20 market did exactly what Ryan Dancey was saying he wanted it to do before 3rd Edition was released.

What changed was the leadership at WotC. The new leadership disliked the OGL and, as a result, they failed to capitalize on it. (They nevertheless benefited from it. But they could have benefited a lot more if they had been smarter.)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 21, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Not really. The D20 market did exactly what Ryan Dancey was saying he wanted it to do before 3rd Edition was released.
> 
> What changed was the leadership at WotC. The new leadership disliked the OGL and, as a result, they failed to capitalize on it. (They nevertheless benefited from it. But they could have benefited a lot more if they had been smarter.)



A corporation is only as smart as the stupidest person in chain of command on a given project.

Which may explain a lot about the GSL....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 21, 2011)

> A corporation is only as smart as the stupidest person in chain of command on a given project.




I'd modify that to "A corporation is only as smart as the stupidest person _with real power _in chain of command on a given project."


----------



## Droogie (Dec 21, 2011)

4e has become bit of a logistical mess, so yeah, I am ready for a new edition to give the game a fresh reboot. 

If they can steal all the best stuff from previous editions (subjective I know)

and allow me to make a character that fits on a single sheet of notebook paper rather than 7 sheets printed, 

I am on board.


----------



## Tallifer (Dec 21, 2011)

Droogie said:


> If they can steal all the best stuff from previous editions (subjective I know)
> 
> and allow me to make a character that fits on a single sheet of notebook paper rather than 7 sheets printed, I am on board.




The 4th edition haracter sheet itself is only 2 pages. The power cards are an extra thing: imagine if a wizard or cleric had printed out a card for everyone of his spells in 3rd edition? 4th edition has simply regularized the practice of writing out all the details for your spells.

Certainly in every roleplaying game I have ever played, I always wrote out by hand on the back of my paper my abilities and spells. I like having neatly formatted cards courtesy of the Character Builder.

When I made 4th edition characters by hand with no Character Builder, it only took the two pages plus a bunch of the usual scribbling on the back in my own weird shorthand.


----------



## Razuur (Dec 21, 2011)

Hmmm.  Lets see.  Yet another edition war, this time instead of being broken up between 2 editions, now we will have one between three versions.

3.5/Pathfinder vs 4e/4e essentials vs 5e(and 5.5 soon after).

Three crowds arguing and bickering about hwo the "other two" aren't DnD by "mine" is.

3rd party publishers who now have to decide which of the three to support, and now the audience is down to a third.

And then there i Wizards, who will select one style of play, require miniatures, and calling it D&D - that you either adapt to or are left off the boat.

Yeah.  Can't wait for an even deeper fracture in the hobby.  Sounds fun.

And yes I am bitter.

Things have nicely settled into two camps now - the 4e crowd and the 3e/3.5/Pathfinder/retro crowds. I am happy with the delineation.

Last thing I want is thre emore years of bickering and hurt feelings.  those things only hurt our small hobby.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 21, 2011)

Razuur said:


> Hmmm.  Lets see.  Yet another edition war, this time instead of being broken up between 2 editions, now we will have one between three versions.
> 
> 3.5/Pathfinder vs 4e/4e essentials vs 5e(and 5.5 soon after).
> 
> ...




Realistically speaking, I think you need to resign yourself to it. It happens with every edition change in D&D, although with different magnitudes depending on how well the newest edition captures the player base. For example, the change from TSR AD&D (1e/2e) to WotC D&D (3e) was enough to spawn the Dragonsfoot board and fuel an old school revival. Interesting niches, but not significant competition for WotC. The change from 3x to 4e was enough to generate a 3x-based competitor that is increasingly likely to outsell 4e in the game store market, something we hadn't seen since TSR's money woes prevented it from paying its printer and getting product out to the market. 

I'm trying to remember as much of the shift from 1e to 2e as I can. That's long enough ago and with relatively little access to the internet (as well as TSR being internet unfriendly) that it's harder. But since the two editions were so compatible, I remember seeing both 1e and 2e materials being used at game tables, pretty much interchangeably. There were holdouts for 1e, but they were so easy to integrate into 2e tables I didn't see much of a fuss. The transition was certainly a cakewalk compared to the transition from 3x to 4e.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 21, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Not really. The D20 market did exactly what Ryan Dancey was saying he wanted it to do before 3rd Edition was released.




Luckily the lesson was learned. I'm still not sure how it got approved at levels above him.


----------



## darjr (Dec 21, 2011)

I'm one of those that mixed 1e and 2e. Almost unconciously. Though my life got way to busy just after the begining of 2e that I stopped playing for a long while, a way to long while.


----------



## rogueattorney (Dec 21, 2011)

I play in a B/X campaign right now, and aside from old edition .pdf's (back when they were available) have bought two, maybe three, new D&D products from the license holder of the D&D brand over the last 15 or so years.  I do, however, frequently purchase new rpg materials, for D&D-ish clones and otherwise, and continue to go to cons.

TSR lost me in the mid-90s and WotC hasn't really done anything to get me back.  I disliked 3.x e.  I don't dislike 4e so much as it holds no interest for me whatsoever.  I think I've come to the realization that I'm never going to buy another multi-volume, multi-hundred pages of core rules type rpg ever again, and as long as that is what the D&D brand is, I won't be a D&D customer.

I would have no compunctions whatsoever in giving WotC some of my rpg'ing money if they were to produce gaming products that I liked -- I've certainly done so in the past with Magic, Everway, and Heroscape.  I think they're a good company.  It's just that their take on D&D has generally been the polar opposite of what I want out of a D&D game.  

If they were to produce a product that was compatible with or was in the spirit of the D&D of 1974 to 1982-ish, I'd certainly give it a look.  But as it is, I'm not sure they can aim to get players like me back into the fold without either alienating their current customer base or producing multiple systems.  

So, I guess all of that is to say that a new edition of D&D that came anywhere near my preferred play style would be neat, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 21, 2011)

darjr said:


> I'm one of those that mixed 1e and 2e. Almost unconciously.




Ditto.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 22, 2011)

darjr said:


> I'm one of those that mixed 1e and 2e. Almost unconciously.




For me, it was entirely unconscious. After a couple of years of sporadic BD&D playing, I started on AD&D right about when 2E was released, so there were still a ton of 1E books on the shelves, and I had no idea there was a difference. This resulted in me scratching my head over a number of inconsistencies, then shrugging and moving on--inconsistency was not exactly unheard-of in D&D products at the time.

It wasn't until several years later that the idea worked its way into my consciousness that "Hey, these things are _different_."


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 22, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Luckily the lesson was learned. I'm still not sure how it got approved at levels above him.



Yes the lesson was learned - Paizo is doing what Dancey described and is now leading the market.... 

The _real_ lesson is never start a land war in Asia. never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. that you can't put the genie back into the bottle once you have freed him.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Rechan (Dec 22, 2011)

All I'm going to say about 5e is this:

*They better playtest the damn thing*.

3.5 came out what, 3-4 years after 3.0? And with 4e they were scrambling to fix it a year after release, then had to fix the monster math, had to add feat taxes and so forth well before Essentials.

Wizards needs to _playtest to death_ the thing. To make sure the math *works* and any patches are superficial. 

That is, assuming that it isn't just a reboot to milk more sales by re-printing. 

Wait, I'll say another thing. That unless WotC puts PR as a priority, they're likely going to poison the well before 5e is even out. Because a lot of misgivings towards 4e can be traced back to poor statements by designers/book layout/presentation.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 22, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Yes the lesson was learned - Paizo is doing what Dancey described and is now leading the market....



I read a lot of bleating about this, primarily from Paizo fans and the anti-WotC crowd, but the truth is, we don't know how well D&D is doing compared to PF. Nobody but insiders at Wizards have access to the true numbers behind DDi. Paizo is most certainly outselling WotC in the book stores, but Paizo also doesn't have a digital subscription service.

It may very well still be that DDi is a flop - like I said, nobody but the bean-counters and brass at WotC/Hasbro know for sure - but until anyone has some actual facts to back up these claims, they're just making noise.

Quite frankly, I don't care who sells more - I care about what I like - end of story.

I just suspect that a lot of this feeling of who outsells who comes from the echo chamber effect that is so prevalent in the General section of the forum, and at a lot of FLGSes, and even among peoples' own circle of gamers.



> The _real_ lesson is never start a land war in Asia. never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. that you can't put the genie back into the bottle once you have freed him.
> 
> The Auld Grump



This is in part because the OGL was designed specifically so you *couldn't* put the genie back in the proverbial bottle. The license was modelled after the open-source software movement, and the "stick-it-to-the-man" part of me loves that, and wishes that it had continued into 4e.

If they had continued to use it for 4e, the market may very well have done more to embrace 4e (as Eric Mona initially thought it would*), and we might have a very different landscape in the RPG world today. Don't misread me - I'm not saying a better one, just different. In fact, I'm happy that the people that liked the 3.x architecture continue to have support. I wish it could be so for all editions, from OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, etc.

* the thread is still around on ENWorld. I didn't care to look it up, but trust me, it's here somewhere.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Dec 22, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> In fact, I'm happy that the people that liked the 3.x architecture continue to have support. I wish it could be so for all editions, from OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, etc.



Amen to this. 

I am gratified that there are third party publishers supporting earlier editions of D&D (the so-called "retro clones") but would love to see WotC support them too--even if it only means selling the old pdf's again.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Dec 22, 2011)

MoxieFu said:


> Maybe I am being cynical in my view, but I have seen these things happen before. It reminds me a lot of the way IBM created the PS/2 line of computers with micro-channel in a bid to take back a larger slice of the market pie. What they managed to accomplish was cede control of the market to their largest competitor (Compaq) and then eventually the clone makers. Now maybe Hasbro forced WotC to do this, I don't know. But to me it makes no difference, the result is the same.




Based on the statements made by the D&D Brand Manager at the time and the general feeling among third parties, I think WotC wanted something closer to the OGL but that it was blocked by someone higher up that either didn't get it or didn't like it.

Granted, it's all speculation, but I would think that if WotC itself and not its parent company were deadset against the OGL, there would have been more from their community representatives talking about how open gaming isn't necessarily the best thing ever, couching the eventual change, rather than promises up and down as well as handshake agreements with many other designers that something was coming.

I had always been under the assumption that the original GSL was closer to the OGL than not, but that somebody upstairs saw it as a threat to D&D's intellectual property and wouldn't be persuaded otherwise. Admittedly, I could very, very well be wrong, but it's what makes the most sense here based on what I actually saw coming from WotC versus what they actually did.


----------



## IronWolf (Dec 22, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Paizo is most certainly outselling WotC in the book stores, but Paizo also doesn't have a digital subscription service.




Paizo does have a subscription program though. A rather extensive one for multiple product lines that also includes a digital distribution in the form of PDFs. Those number are also not known.



			
				Nemesis Destiny said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, I don't care who sells more - I care about what I like - end of story.




100% agreed!



			
				Nemesis Destiny said:
			
		

> I just suspect that a lot of this feeling of who outsells who comes from the echo chamber effect that is so prevalent in the General section of the forum, and at a lot of FLGSes, and even among peoples' own circle of gamers.




Yep, sort of the nature of discussion boards, conversations at game stores and amongst friends.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 22, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I read a lot of bleating about this, primarily from Paizo fans and the anti-WotC crowd, but the truth is, we don't know how well D&D is doing compared to PF. Nobody but insiders at Wizards have access to the true numbers behind DDi. Paizo is most certainly outselling WotC in the book stores, but Paizo also doesn't have a digital subscription service.
> 
> It may very well still be that DDi is a flop - like I said, nobody but the bean-counters and brass at WotC/Hasbro know for sure - but until anyone has some actual facts to back up these claims, they're just making noise.
> 
> ...



My point is that the lesson learned was not by WotC - but by Paizo. That the Open License _does_ help sales. It likely made 3.X as popular as it was, and helped it last as long as it did. (I do not count 3e and 3.5 as separate games, but I also don't count 4e and Essentials as separate games. If one was a new edition then so was the other, and 4e _has_ had the 4.5 that WotC promised would not happen....)

I think sales are pretty much evenly split between Pathfinder and 4e, _when_ the DDI is factored in. Little to no support for that assumption, aside from local observation. But given that the only eye's view that I have is local (my area is very Pathfinder-centric) the numbers that I have seen bandied by ICv2 seem a hair conservative. 

That said, I expect WotC to regain the top slot because of the Christmas rush. How long they can hold it...? I expected Essentials to do much better for them than appears to be the case, so my abilities as a prophet are suspect.

People seem to think that having the DDI is having a license to mint gold pieces, but I suspect that development costs were high, and that maintaining and expanding the DDI also is higher than some folks think.

The fact that a lot of folks are polarized about the 4e rules is a separate matter. I hate them, some one else loves them, and Bob down the street doesn't care which he plays as long as he doesn't have to be the one running the game.

Yes, the OGL was designed so that it could not be retracted, but in creating the GSL WotC was still making the attempt to rebottle used djinn. That was _their_ part of the lesson.

Paizo's lesson was on how to make the OGL work for them. They are not fighting the terms of the license, but rather are using them to advantage. Making the rules easily accessible, putting search functions into their online SRD, etc.... WotC, on the other hand, locked away most of their material when the OGL was still new. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Rechan (Dec 22, 2011)

I believe the "Who sells more" issue comes down to a combination of three things:

1) "My team is selling more than yours"
2) Sales = success = I want my team to succeed and continue
3) Sales = proof of failure = validation of leaving that edition/disliking that edition/Itoldyouso.


----------



## MoxieFu (Dec 22, 2011)

an_idol_mind said:


> Based on the statements made by the D&D Brand Manager at the time and the general feeling among third parties, I think WotC wanted something closer to the OGL but that it was blocked by someone higher up that either didn't get it or didn't like it.
> 
> Granted, it's all speculation, but I would think that if WotC itself and not its parent company were deadset against the OGL, there would have been more from their community representatives talking about how open gaming isn't necessarily the best thing ever, couching the eventual change, rather than promises up and down as well as handshake agreements with many other designers that something was coming.
> 
> I had always been under the assumption that the original GSL was closer to the OGL than not, but that somebody upstairs saw it as a threat to D&D's intellectual property and wouldn't be persuaded otherwise. Admittedly, I could very, very well be wrong, but it's what makes the most sense here based on what I actually saw coming from WotC versus what they actually did.




My approach to this is not listening to their words, but to watch what they do. To me actions are worth far more than words.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 22, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I do not count 3e and 3.5 as separate games, but I also don't count 4e and Essentials as separate games. If one was a new edition then so was the other, and 4e _has_ had the 4.5 that WotC promised would not happen....
> 
> The Auld Grump




Personally, I count any time I have to repurchase the core rulebook(s) to play the game as an edition change. For me, that'd put D&D on about 8th edition (1E, Unearthed Arcana, 2E, Player's Option, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, Essentials) - er, not including the BECMI line.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 22, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Personally, I count any time I have to repurchase the core rulebook(s) to play the game as an edition change. For me, that'd put D&D on about 8th edition (1E, Unearthed Arcana, 2E, Player's Option, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, Essentials) - er, not including the BECMI line.



Ah, but you are consistent, so it still comes out the same.  Both or neither works fine, it is only when trying to claim that one is and the other is not.

I _might_ count the BECMI line, but for adventures, at least, swapping between systems seemed more the norm than otherwise.

The Auld Grump - I don't remember how often I ran Keep on the Borderlands with AD&D....


----------



## Windjammer (Dec 22, 2011)

Rechan said:


> All I'm going to say about 5e is this:
> 
> *They better playtest the damn thing*.
> 
> 3.5 came out what, 3-4 years after 3.0? And with 4e they were scrambling to fix it a year after release, then had to fix the monster math, had to add feat taxes and so forth well before Essentials.




I'm curious just how they are going to do it, though. With 3.5 and 4E WotC could rely on an extensive network of playtesters in the RPGA (LG then LFR). But WotC has since left that player base out in the cold, and all systematic feedback loops have been abandoned.

I guess it will be hard to replace this segment of dedicated hardcore players able to break a game in any direction. 

Good riddance say I. At least the next edition's playtesting won't be dominated by organized play. If there's one thing to be learnt about 4E it's that organized and home play are two different kettle of fish.

On the other hand, an open playtest wouldn't encourage my confidence either. It's basically a majority vote when few people, looking at PF, have ever played above level 10. So we go from niche expertise to no expertise. I'm horrified at the idea that the polls to Legends & Lore drive the next edition's design.

Also  if memory serves, WotC ably demonstrated with the early PH 2 barbarian playtest that it can't handle open playtests well. 

Let's just say there's room for improvement, and that WotC got a problem on their hands still in search of a solution.


----------



## Rogue Agent (Dec 22, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Luckily the lesson was learned. I'm still not sure how it got approved at levels above him.




What lesson? That you can create a bestselling game by placing yourself at the apex of the largest amount of support material ever produced for a roleplaying game in history?

Because that's what happened.

And then it happened again when WotC abandoned that apex and left a massive vacuum for Pathfinder to move into.

If the leaders who followed Dancey, Valterra, and the others who believed in the OGL had been _smart_ they would have found a way to place more of their products at the top of that apex.

Unfortunately, the failure of the Psionics Handbook and Epic Level Handbook caused them to abandon that business plan. (At least I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming their reasons were that rational.) And WotC ended up ghettoizing their own products instead.



TheAuldGrump said:


> The _real_ lesson is never start a  land war in Asia. never go in against a Sicilian when death is on  the line. that you can't put the genie back into the bottle once  you have freed him.




And that.

WotC thought the D&D trademark would be stronger than both the classic gameplay of D&D and the largest library of support material ever produced for a roleplaying game. For a sizable part of the market (possibly the majority of the market), they were wrong.


----------



## Droogie (Dec 22, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> The 4th edition haracter sheet itself is only 2 pages. The power cards are an extra thing: imagine if a wizard or cleric had printed out a card for everyone of his spells in 3rd edition? 4th edition has simply regularized the practice of writing out all the details for your spells.
> 
> Certainly in every roleplaying game I have ever played, I always wrote out by hand on the back of my paper my abilities and spells. I like having neatly formatted cards courtesy of the Character Builder.
> 
> When I made 4th edition characters by hand with no Character Builder, it only took the two pages plus a bunch of the usual scribbling on the back in my own weird shorthand.



Ok, fair enough. But the power cards are not an extra thing, they are a required thing. My 15th level rogue uses up 7 pages in CB, which is kind of a drag to print every time I level. If the CB had some other sheet formats that shrank it down more like the encounter pre-gens, I'd be happier. Not everyone likes cards, either. I find them fiddly and they clutter up the table. 

I guess what I'm boiling down to is the crunch/complexity issue. There are some robust RPGs out there that can get a character on one piece of paper. D&D could be like that again if people wanted it that way.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 22, 2011)

Rogue Agent said:


> Unfortunately, the failure of the Psionics Handbook and Epic Level Handbook caused them to abandon that business plan. (At least I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming their reasons were that rational.) And WotC ended up ghettoizing their own products instead.



I will admit that I was one of the folks that never used either of those books, neither interested me.  On the other hand I did get Unearthed Arcana, which is, I suspect, the book that Paizo patterns some of their own expansions after. Open and modular, so if you want piecemeal armor or Words of Power you can use them, or just slide on by them and grab the archetypes.



> WotC thought the D&D trademark would be stronger than both the classic gameplay of D&D and the largest library of support material ever produced for a roleplaying game. For a sizable part of the market (possibly the majority of the market), they were wrong.



 This I agree with wholeheartedly.

I think that by any standard, other than that of the leader of the industry, 4e is wildly successful. Whether it is #1 - with number 2 close on its heels, tied for #1, or a close running second, any other company would be thrilled with the numbers. For a subsidiary to a massive corporation that cares only for the bottom line... the possibility that they have lost marketshare might well be terrifying. They are no longer the _uncontested_ leaders in the market.

The Auld Grump


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Dec 22, 2011)

WHile I do have a handful of 4E books, and play occasionally, I can't honestly say that I'm a "fan" of the current rules-set OR the publisher at this point. 

But, at the same time, I'm assuredly NOT ready for a 5E.  I think that WotC needs to just STOP putting out updates and new editions; the time between editions has become STAGGERINGLY quick.   WotC made their bed with 4E, now they should to suck it up and deal with the ramifications of that choice, rather than relying on the good-will of an established customer base who will follow along just because of the brand-name involved. (And remember, the creation of Pathfinder, currently the biggest rival to the D+D name is a direct result of WotC's actions [or INaction, depending on how you look at the situation.)

And, as a note, an edition change doesn't have to be anything especially drastic, either; look at Call of Cthulhu.  There's been SIX editions over the course of 30 years, and little to no impact or divisions in the fanbase, and, even better, I can STILL pick up a module from the early 1980's and play it with MINIMAL tweaking.

I think 3E worked because the overwhelming concensus from the playerbase was that a revamp was NEEDED, since 2E was certainly on it's last legs. (Of course, I still think that 3/x was a bit rules-heavy for my taste even at that time, but it WORKED.)

To my eye, it didn't seem there was a NEED for 4E from the playerbase, and similarly, the playerbase seems split on 5E as well [at least, according to all the polls we've seen; even this poll seems split pretty close to 50/50 on the matter.]


----------



## Mercutio01 (Dec 22, 2011)

ShadowDenizen said:


> WotC made their bed with 4E, now they should to suck it up and deal with the ramifications of that choice



I don't follow this line of thought. Because they made (in your mind) a bad decision once, they can't try to correct it now?

By that line of thought, Coke should still be selling New Coke and losing marketshare to Pepsi, Ford should still be forced to sell the insanely unsafe Pinto, and Microsoft should still be selling Vista.

It's kind of a silly argument, when you think about it. Indeed, if 4E did do as badly saleswise as people seem to keep guessing, then it would be simply stupid NOT to try to put out a new edition to stem the hemorrhage.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 22, 2011)

ShadowDenizen said:


> And, as a note, an edition change doesn't have to be anything especially drastic, either; look at Call of Cthulhu.  There's been SIX editions over the course of 30 years, and little to no impact or divisions in the fanbase, and, even better, I can STILL pick up a module from the early 1980's and play it with MINIMAL tweaking.




One of the things I like from AD&D through 3.5 (and now Pathfinder) is that certain things were consistent throughout.  A 4th level wizard (in any edition) was pretty much the same beyond minor tweaks (they basically had the same spells, and the power level was pretty consistent).  Had they kept that consistency with 4E, I may have been more interested, but going from 3.x to 4E was (to me) like going from D&D to GURPS.  A whole new system.  

D&D has a rich history.  If they wanted to make an entirely new system structure (which they did), they should have called it something other than D&D (IMO).  But, of course, the all-powerful "brand" was key.  If they had called 4E anything else, sales would likely have been even worse.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 22, 2011)

ShadowDenizen said:


> I think that WotC needs to just STOP putting out updates and new editions; the time between editions has become STAGGERINGLY quick.   WotC made their bed with 4E, now they should to suck it up and deal with the ramifications of that choice, rather than relying on the good-will of an established customer base who will follow along just because of the brand-name involved.




If they have caused themselves problems with the brand because of 4e (and I'm not saying that's a given, I'm saying *if* they think its performance isn't up to snuff or it's got some problems that need fixing) and the market share it has lost, then coming out with another edition - to fix perceived problems, reorient themselves toward the lost marketshare, whatever - *IS* one way of sucking it up and dealing with it. If 5e does try to bridge the gap, it will almost certainly alienate a segment of the 4e fan population and there will be further edition warring.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 22, 2011)

An open beta playtest, nearly all digital/PDF, professionally managed by someone with experience doing so (brought in from outside the company), followed by a measured launch afterwards that provides plenty of time for feedback *and* follow up polish alpha playtesting--would help them immensely. It will help them not only produce a better game, once finalized and printed, but will also give a significant number of people a chance to accept it gradually. They will need some updates to DDI so that at some point they can tie this into the subscription. Instead of releasing a game into the wild, and letting the buyers find a bunch of problems, release it via subscription, find the same problems, then sell it in the stores.

But the main thing they need to do is not release the print version until the Gen Con after the economy has turned around. They don't need the deadweight of people watching their pennies causing bad sales. Given the long design and development window, this is yet another reason to do the open playtest. You may be selling only the alpha via subscription while the economy recovers, but you are still selling something.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 22, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> On the other hand I did get Unearthed Arcana, which is, I suspect, the book that Paizo patterns some of their own expansions after. Open and modular, so if you want piecemeal armor or Words of Power you can use them, or just slide on by them and grab the archetypes.



By far, my very favourite 3.x book. That and Monte's Cook's Books of Experimental Might. That, to me, is the way an RPG should be built. You pick what you want, ignore what you don't.


ShadowDenizen said:


> WotC made their bed with 4E, now they should to suck it up and deal with the ramifications of that choice, rather than relying on the good-will of an established customer base who will follow along just because of the brand-name involved.



Not only is that a patently ridiculous thing to say, the second half of the statement is pretty insulting.



> And, as a note, an edition change doesn't have to be anything especially drastic, either; look at Call of Cthulhu.  There's been SIX editions over the course of 30 years, and little to no impact or divisions in the fanbase, and, even better, I can STILL pick up a module from the early 1980's and play it with MINIMAL tweaking.



For what its worth, this is still generally possible, albeit with slightly more than minimal tweaking. Many, many people who run 4e do so with materials dating back to 1e.

In fact, Chris Perkins has just released his revamp of the Gygax classic 'Steading of the Hill Giant Chief" in Dragon, and according to him, it's not all that different from the original. It took some work, yes, but remember this is publishable quality. With a few scribbled notes and some new monster stat blocks, it's a lot less daunting.



> I think 3E worked because the overwhelming concensus from the playerbase was that a revamp was NEEDED, since 2E was certainly on it's last legs. (Of course, I still think that 3/x was a bit rules-heavy for my taste even at that time, but it WORKED.)



I know quite a few gamers who would beg to differ (on either or both points). In fact there are still a lot of folks playing AD&D.

I personally agree that 2e's time was up, I wanted something fresh, and I liked 3e at first (art direction and writing tone aside) but it wore out its welcome as soon as I ran a game past the low double-digit levels. The release of 3.5 did nothing to help that, which, to me, is the OPPOSITE of something that WORKED.



> To my eye, it didn't seem there was a NEED for 4E from the playerbase, and similarly, the playerbase seems split on 5E as well [at least, according to all the polls we've seen; even this poll seems split pretty close to 50/50 on the matter.]



I beg to differ. Most of my group was _very _done with 3.x, and I knew other groups in the same boat. One of the DMs in my group literally quit DMing because of 3rd ed, and nearly the entire hobby. We were *actively* "shopping around" for another fantasy game that pushed all the right buttons. I was tired of Wizards and their endless gravy train of supplements, each more broken than the last.

I was pushing pretty hard for Pathfinder, myself. I'd downloaded the beta in PDF, read it, and thought it was pretty good (in retrospect, I don't think they fixed enough of 3.x's problems, but that's another story). I also liked E6 quite a lot. Then, one of our group said, _"hey guys, I know that you all think WotC is the devil, but how about we give 4e a try?"_

It went over like a lead balloon. It took him _weeks_ of lobbying just to get us to agree to play _one session_. We did, in the end, and the rest is history. Looks terrible on paper, but we really liked the way it played. Particularly the part about it being only as "gamey" as you want it to be. It still felt like D&D to us. All the stuff we hated on paper isn't all the visible in play. And the balance it brought, the DMing support, and so much less fiddling with millions of rules left more time for the stuff that matters to us - roleplaying.

So to suggest that people that switched did so out of "blind loyalty" to either WotC or the D&D brand, is pretty damned far from the mark.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 22, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> So to suggest that people that switched did so out of "blind loyalty" to either WotC or the D&D brand, is pretty damned far from the mark.




But it's as far from the mark as much as it is you implying that NO ONE switched out of pure brand loyalty because we know that that's not true. There are people who are blindly going to follow WOTC / D&D no matter what they do. 

There have been people here on this board during the switch to 4E who have pretty much said this. So no it's not far from the mark at all. 

Now is that the consensus of the majority of 4E players who knows? But I can tell you that there are some folks here that are pretty dedicated to 4E and in their eyes WOTC and the 4E designers and D&D can do no wrong.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Dec 22, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Now is that the consensus of the majority of 4E players who knows? But I can tell you that there are some folks here that are pretty dedicated to 4E and in their eyes WOTC and the 4E designers and D&D can do no wrong.




There are a few such.  The numbers are tiny compared to 4E fans acused of being that for no good reason.  So I can tell you that there are some folks here that are pretty dedicated to this idea of a mass of 4E fanboys running rampant.


----------



## Matt James (Dec 22, 2011)

I need to make a spoof video of some of the comments here. GOLD! I'm just ready to play any game. As long as my buddies are around the table, we'll sort through the rest.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 22, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I need to make a spoof video of some of the comments here. GOLD! I'm just ready to play any game. As long as my buddies are around the table, we'll sort through the rest.





What will you be playing at the DDXP in a month?


----------



## Rechan (Dec 22, 2011)

> But I can tell you that there are some folks here that are pretty dedicated to 4E and in their eyes WOTC and the 4E designers and D&D can do no wrong.



Based on the response to Mearls's Legends & Lore articles, there are some folks here that in their eyes WotC and the 4e Designers shot their dog.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 22, 2011)

I voted yes, because I'd be ready for *a* 5e. Unfortunately, I'd be very surprised if they came up with 5e and it was anything like what I'm hoping for. Maybe PF2 has a slightly better chance of being it, but even there I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 22, 2011)

Rechan said:


> Based on the response to Mearls's Legends & Lore articles, there are some folks here that in their eyes WotC and the 4e Designers shot their dog.



Wait! _They_ were the ones that shot Rex?! 

I'll _kill them!_ 



The Auld Grump


----------



## Mallus (Dec 22, 2011)

I'm having a great time running AD&D right now... but sure, I'm ready to check out 5e. Why not? Perhaps there will be some inventive stuff in the next iteration.


----------



## kmdietri (Dec 22, 2011)

Yes, mostly because since switching back to 3.5 I've really missed the excitement of buying a new book.  It's been a long long time since I've actually bought a new book.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 22, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> But it's as far from the mark as much as it is you implying that NO ONE switched out of pure brand loyalty because we know that that's not true. There are people who are blindly going to follow WOTC / D&D no matter what they do.



The post I was responding to, he made a generalization about anyone playing 4e. I pointed out that that was not universally the case. I could just as easily say that PF fans followed Paizo out of blind loyalty to 3.5, or out of anti-WotC spite, and some probably did, but I'm not here to judge. And I know it's not universally true. It is also not all that helpful to point it out - doesn't accomplish anything.



> There have been people here on this board during the switch to 4E who have pretty much said this. So no it's not far from the mark at all.
> 
> Now is that the consensus of the majority of 4E players who knows? But I can tell you that there are some folks here that are pretty dedicated to 4E and in their eyes WOTC and the 4E designers and D&D can do no wrong.



Fair enough, but I can tell you that doesn't cover the majority of the 4e folks I've met here, IRL, or gamed with in any capacity.



Crazy Jerome said:


> There are a few such.  The numbers are tiny compared to 4E fans acused of being that for no good reason.  So I can tell you that there are some folks here that are pretty dedicated to this idea of a mass of 4E fanboys running rampant.



This.



Rechan said:


> Based on the response to Mearls's Legends & Lore articles, there are some folks here that in their eyes WotC and the 4e Designers shot their dog.



And this.


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Dec 22, 2011)

I'd say that I'm ready for 5th edition, but don't necessarily want/need it at the moment.

My group is just about to finish a 3 year 3.5E D&D campaign (Shackled City AP) and will likely start another 1-2 year 3.5E D&D campaign soon after.

I have only played 4E in a PbP game that lasted all of about 3 combats.  My other experience was a one-shot I ran of Gamma World, which uses simplified 4E rules.

Our group is fine with 3.5E, but I'm interested in seeing what WotC have learnt from the past 2 editions and what they might be able to come up with next.  A new edition would probably also help to draw some new people to the game (let's face it, new stuff is what gets many people to try a game out).

Olaf the Stout


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 22, 2011)

And the battles between Grogn3rds and Br4ts continues.... 

Honestly, I think that the majority of 4e players switched to the new edition to see what it was like, and liked it enough to stay. Why they started might not be why they still play. 

Are they having fun? Then they are playing a game they like.

They aren't having fun? Why are they still playing 4e? Oh, they aren't? Then why bring it up?

It does not matter why they first tried out a given game, if they enjoy it... let 'em play!

_I_ don't like 4e. I will likely _never_ like 4e. But if no one is telling me that I am having bad-wrong-fun for _not_ liking it, then I _don't care._ I am more concerned about what effect WotC is likely to have on the industry than about whether 4e is fun for Bob down the street. Bob is having fun? Let him play.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 22, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> And the battles between Grogn3rds and Br4ts continues....
> 
> Honestly, I think that the majority of 4e players switched to the new edition to see what it was like, and liked it enough to stay. Why they started might not be why they still play.
> 
> ...



That would be fine it that's how it worked. But we both know there are plenty of 3vangelists and 4uthoritarians out there constantly trying to push their views on the other side. It's annoying and I would really prefer if it stopped.

It's actually to the point where most of the time, I steer clear of General because of the hostility (which feels generally more pointed at the 4e camp in here). There is almost a prevailing attitude that it's ok to criticize one, but not the other.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> That would be fine it that's how it worked. But we both know there are plenty of 4vangelists and 4uthoritarians out there constantly trying to push their views on the other side. It's annoying and I would really prefer if it stopped.
> 
> It's actually to the point where most of the time, I steer clear of General because of the hostility (which feels generally more pointed at the 4e camp in here). There is almost a prevailing attitude that it's ok to criticize one, but not the other.



But most F4nboyz and F3n aren't that bad. There are some 4e f4ns here that I would rather bounce ideas off of than deal with some of the J3rks, even if I _am_ a Grogn3rd.

The Auld Grump - oh, the Grogn3rd and the F4nboy should be friends....


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> But most F4nboyz and F3n aren't that bad.



I agree. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch though. One person being aggressive and all up in everyone's grill, without being moderated when perhaps they should. It's sad, but true.



> There are some 4e f4ns here that I would rather bounce ideas off of than deal with some of the J3rks, even if I _am_ a Grogn3rd.
> 
> The Auld Grump - oh, the Grogn3rd and the F4nboy should be friends....



Likewise and Agreed. Cheers


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 23, 2011)

That exchange was both Christmasy for most of us and utterly ordinary for the R/G colorblind.

...and difficult for the dyslexic.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> It's actually to the point where most of the time, I steer clear of General because of the hostility (which feels generally more pointed at the 4e camp in here). There is almost a prevailing attitude that it's ok to criticize one, but not the other.



Subjective impression and all, but I'd disagree with this. I guess only the mods probably have an idea, and even then I'm guessing it would publicly come down to "both sides do it" (which is true).

Funny how likes flavor perceptions. I might be wrong because of it.


----------



## Derren (Dec 23, 2011)

No idea how (if?) I should vote.

I dislike 4E and think its a board game and no RPG so I would be very happy to see it go away (Yes vote) but after the 4E fiasco it is very unlikely that 5E will turn out well enough to be actually worth coming back (No vote).

So where is the "Don't care because I am finished with (new editions of) D&D"?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Subjective impression and all, but I'd disagree with this. I guess only the mods probably have an idea, and even then I'm guessing it would publicly come down to "both sides do it" (which is true).
> 
> Funny how likes flavor perceptions. I might be wrong because of it.



I agree, that both sides do it, no doubt.  To what degree it actually happens one side versus the other, I don't actually know, but it does colour one's perceptions of it.

The first part of my statement that you quoted is pretty hard to refute though - there is hostility (on both sides), and it doesn't exactly extend the welcome mat in General. All it takes is one jerk.

And truth be told, like it says on my sig, I am on nobody's side. I don't crusade for One True Edition. I like this game in _all _its incarnations (granted, to varying degrees). If I appear to come out on a given side, it's because I end up, more often than not, on the defensive with regards to misconceptions folks may have about 4e, and generalizations about it (some of which are just objectively wrong).

I would do the same thing for 3.x, or PF, or AD&D, or whatever, but such misconceptions and generalizations are, or seem to be, much less prevalent. That, and I don't discuss them much these days, since I am not currently playing them (though I would!). Partly because, if for no other reason, they've been around longer, and probably most D&D fans have at least _played _through one or more previous editions (I know there are exceptions).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> The first part of my statement that you quoted is pretty hard to refute though - there is hostility (on both sides), and it doesn't exactly extend the welcome mat in General. All it takes is one jerk.



Oh no, I'd never try to refute your actions based on your perceptions. I'd definitely even agree that this forum can get pretty hostile at times. However, I find these boards incredibly well moderated compared to, well, pretty much everywhere else on the internet, and I like this forum the most in terms of topic range. I actually prefer the 4e forum over the Legacy forum because of the difference in civility, even if I find the topics less applicable to my games (though still quite interesting at times).



Nemesis Destiny said:


> If I appear to come out on a given side, it's because I end up, more often than not, on the defensive with regards to misconceptions folks may have about 4e, and generalizations about it (some of which are just objectively wrong).



Understandable. There's definitely some of that on these boards.



Nemesis Destiny said:


> I would do the same thing for 3.x, or PF, or AD&D, or whatever, but such misconceptions and generalizations are, or seem to be, much less prevalent. That, and I don't discuss them much these days, since I am not currently playing them (though I would!). Partly because, if for no other reason, they've been around longer, and probably most D&D fans have at least _played _through one or more previous editions (I know there are exceptions).



That all makes sense. I think that 3.X still gets a bad rap some of the time (which you seem to agree with), what with "casters ruined the game" and so on. But, hey, not like people don't take cheap shots at 4e either (subjective shots at that). I just don't know if I'd say that there's "almost a prevailing attitude that it's ok to criticize one, but not the other", as you did. I think that's where we diverge. I've seen plenty of times where the edition wars flared up, especially when I first joined this site nearly a year ago (with Prof C and others trying to pile on 3.X).

At any rate, I'm not accusing you of anything; I was just stating that my perceptions didn't match, but that I might very well be biased. Thanks for the civil and thoughtful reply. As always, play what you like


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> At any rate, I'm not accusing you of anything; I was just stating that my perceptions didn't match, but that I might very well be biased. Thanks for the civil and thoughtful reply. As always, play what you like



Fair enough, and I think we are on the same page, perception mismatch aside. 

I do know what you mean - the name drop rang some bells. There are definitely a few feisty 4e folk, and some that are downright rude. I cringe when I see it, because they're not doing folks like me, who are trying to remain neutral (-ish) and bridge the gap caused by edition warring, any favours.

I also appreciate the civil reply. Cheers, and Game On!


----------



## JamesonCourage (Dec 23, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I do know what you mean - the name drop rang some bells. There are definitely a few feisty 4e folk, and some that are downright rude. I cringe when I see it, because they're not doing folks like me, who are trying to remain neutral (-ish) and bridge the gap caused by edition warring, any favours.



I know how you feel. All too often when I'm debating a point in casual conversation (but not arguing) I find I have someone agree with me (opinion validated!), only to hear their rather suboptimal and damaging reasoning (opinion hurt!).



Nemesis Destiny said:


> I also appreciate the civil reply. Cheers, and Game On!



I can't XP back, so we'll just say I owe you one. Game on, indeed


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 23, 2011)

One way to recognize The Enemy(TM) is that they tend to post on their opposite boards. There is at least one Pr4t that goes over to the Pathfinder area now and again.

I don't frequent the 4e boards, so I don't know if he has a J3rk counterpart.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Dec 23, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> One way to recognize The Enemy(TM) is that they tend to post on their opposite boards. There is at least one Prat that goes over to the Pathfinder area now and again.
> 
> I don't frequent the 4e boards, so I don't know if he has a J3rk counterpart.
> 
> The Auld Grump



The last time we had one was a long time ago (many months). Started a thread insulting 4e and got threadlocked _very _promptly. Seemed like a very obvious troll; low post count, bad english, etc. Nobody took the bait. I think they call that a 0/10.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 23, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> That all makes sense. I think that 3.X still gets a bad rap some of the time (which you seem to agree with), what with "casters ruined the game" and so on. But, hey, not like people don't take cheap shots at 4e either (subjective shots at that). I just don't know if I'd say that there's "almost a prevailing attitude that it's ok to criticize one, but not the other", as you did. I think that's where we diverge. I've seen plenty of times where the edition wars flared up, especially when I first joined this site nearly a year ago (with Prof C and others trying to pile on 3.X).




There is a weird chip that some people have developed on their shoulders that editions before 4e (and it's been a mix, not just 3x) are somehow not subject to cheap shots or criticism. I can assure you relative newcomers that 3x has been roundly criticized up and down the place in various levels of vitriol since ENWorld was established. I think if it looks like 4e takes a lot more shots these days, that's more because it's the new kid on the block. Criticism directed at it is a whole lot more fresh and relevant than criticism directed at 3.0, for example.

EDIT: Before ENWorld was established, really, since this grew out of Eric Noah's 3e News site. And there were people critical of the design directions WotC took on 3e then.


----------

