# WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition



## Morrus

_This is one of three articles covering this announcement.  The other two articles are Off to See the Wizards: The Day that WotC Showed Me D&D 5th Edition and Bet You Wish Your Workplace Looked Like WotC?_ 


One thing made clear by Mike Mearls and other WotC staff at the "WotC Summit" last year - at which they formally confirmed to us that they were working on a new edition of D&D -  is that they intend to do it very differently this time around.  The approach to the development of 5th Edition (or whatever it ends up being called - it's referred to by a code name at WotC, or by phrases such as "a new iteration"; there's an implication there that simply calling it a "new edition" may be underselling their goals which appear to be more inclusive of _all_ D&D players and which we hope to be able to share soon) is very specifically planned to be inclusive of fans, with the ultimate goal of having the fans_ actually help shape_ the new edition.  

They've never done this before - at least, not to this degree; it's a very different process to that used with previous iterations of the game.  But it was made clear that they _really, really, really_ want to put out a game that is unifying rather than divisive; that caters - as much as possible - to as many as possible. And which is, ultimately, a game that all D&D players, whatever their preferred flavor, will want to play.  And so they intend to engage the community to an unprecedented level.  

During a conversation last month, Mike Mearls, head of R&D for _Dungeons & Dragons,_ made this comparison: _"D&D is like the wardrobe you use to go to Narnia."_ I wrote it down so as to remember it. I was fortunate to have an opportunity to do some playtesting for the fledgling 5th Edition of _Dungeons & Dragons_ with Mike Mearls as the DM and by the end of the event I really felt that is what Wizards was attempting to do with the new edition.

Wizards of the Coast described the goal of the new iteration of D&D in the following way: _"The goal of this project is to develop a universal rules system that takes from the best of every edition and get at the soul of what D&D is. What better way to do that than to look to the fans to help us in this effort?"_ This is more revealing than it looks: WotC has acknowledged publicly that they made mistakes in the buildup to 4E, and has learned important lessons from that period. 

That's why the buildup period of the new edition will be far more inclusive than ever before.  Fan feedback and public playtests are a core part of WotC's strategy this time around.  In their own words, _"This is a whole new process for Wizards and we’re excited to enlist the fan base to help shape the future of D&D." _ They intend to engage the fans in a way they have never done before; and summarize their approach most clearly when they say_ "this process is an opportunity for *fans to help us craft a new edition* and help determine how the game is played moving forward."_  In many ways, this really is an exciting new approach to designing a new edition of the game; and it's exciting for us fans because this time we aren't just spectators waiting for scraps of information - we're going to be part of the process.  We're going to have opportunities to take part in playtests (and these very soon - we're not talking months in the future here), and respond to specific questions or concepts.  For sure, DDXP is going to be an exciting convention this year for those who are able to attend.  There is a new edition playtest called_ Caves of Chaos_ at the event, which you can find details about here -_ "__Join the first public playtest of the next iteration of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game. The playtest offers players the chance to run pre-generated 1st-level characters through the Caves of Chaos, a four-hour D&D adventure. Wizards of the Coast staff will be running several tables each day. As part of the playtest, participants must sign a special non-dislcosure agreement for playtesters."_

You've already seen some preliminary elements of this process in the _Legends & Lore_ columns, although I personally feel it's a mistake to look at those columns and conclude that you know what the new edition is going to shape up like.  Those columns aren't previews of what they're doing; they're a way of floating concepts out there and seeing what you think.  Some are popular; others less so, and this is important.  I feel it's vital not just to find some things that gamers _want_ in their new D&D, but also to discover what they definitely _don't_ want.

WotC also wanted to emphasize its commitment to *tabletop face-to-face gaming*. There are many, many rumors flying round the web, and much speculation; a lot of this is centered around an expectation of a more digital, online focus.  WotC stated clearly _"[We are] extremely committed to tabletop gaming and the face to face experiences that D&D brings." _There is clear recognition that although digital tools can enhance and supplement a game, the company has not lost sight of the fact that D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game, and not a digital experience.

I encourage you to write them, to post about them, to be active on the message boards here at EN World, the Wizards of the Coast site, and elsewhere (but mainly here). The idea of getting fan feedback to help craft the newest edition of the godfather of role-playing games should excite anyone who plays or has played D&D in the past. Make sure you get signed up for the playtest and keep giving feedback on the _Legends & Lore_ columns. I suggest voicing your opinion in a positive way; if you really want to help shape this game - _and you can_ - please try not to actively alienate the folks who are attempting to engage you. This news will stir up some fervor and Wizards of the Coast expects this. Keep in mind that we are a community and all share a passion for the same hobby. There are no right or wrong answers, just your opinions.

You can expect to see this development process much more clearly very soon.  The playtests can already be signed up for (see the link above); DDXP is going to be very exciting; and in the coming months you'll be able to witness - and participate in - something which is new to us, and new to WotC.  It's an exciting time to be a D&D player!

_*NOTE: * The "I" in this article is EN World's WotC correspondent, [MENTION=6679316]Gaming Tonic[/MENTION].  The article was added to and posted by Morrus._


----------



## mac1504

*WOTC's Announcement of 5e*

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Charting the Course for D&D: Your Voice, Your Game)


----------



## mac1504

Had no plans to go to D&D Experience this year, but I may have to see if I can make the trip this year...


----------



## (un)reason

Well, that was quick.


----------



## Gundark

Shocked....no not really. But really the open playtest thing is going to be cool. I am looking forward to seeing it roll out and how it all unfolds. And truth be told I am ready to come home .


----------



## Charles Dunwoody

*design team for new D&D*

From the Wizards new D&D blog:

Mike Mearls, Team Lead                         
Greg Bilsland, Team Producer                    
Monte Cook, Design Team Lead               
Bruce Cordell, Designer                            
Robert J. Schwalb, Designer                             
Jeremy Crawford, Development Team Lead
Tom LaPille, Developer                            
Rodney Thompson, Developer
Miranda Horner, Editor


----------



## thedungeondelver

There is a movie from 1980 - Steve McQueen's last one - titled *THE HUNTER*, where McQueen (whose usual ride is a 1950s era Studebaker) has to rent a car.  In this case, it's a 1980 "F-Body" Trans Am.

As the rental agent leaves him with the car he calls out to her "DON'T YOU HAVE SOMETHING WITH A CLUTCH?" (although the idea of a big 350 equipped air-breather like a Trans Am being automatic just turns my stomach).  He drives around town, looking for the bad guys, the car moving in comical fits and starts the whole way as he comes to grips with a "modern" vehicle.  The denouement to this act is when he finally chases the bad guys down and returns to the rental agent with the car literally in pieces, the front drive train and rear body portion lying separately on a flatbed truck.

I have a feeling my playtesting 5e would go something just like that.

(Like McQueen's character though, I'll do it just the same...)


----------



## Weregrognard

I signed up!

D&D, I can't quit u!


----------



## Eridanis

Threads merged.



Kravell said:


> From the Wizards new D&D blog:
> 
> Mike Mearls, Team Lead
> Greg Bilsland, Team Producer
> Monte Cook, Design Team Lead
> Bruce Cordell, Designer
> Robert J. Schwalb, Designer
> Jeremy Crawford, Development Team Lead
> Tom LaPille, Developer
> Rodney Thompson, Developer
> Miranda Horner, Editor




That's a great-looking team. Looking forward to seeing what they come up with.


----------



## Dausuul

I'm not sure guys are allowed to squee, but I'm doing it anyway. 

Monte Cook as lead designer? Dang. Everything comes round again...


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Off to a good start.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

I stepped off the carousel some time ago. As it goes around, again, I'll keep an eye on it. I doubt I'll be offered anything worth stepping back onto it, but we'll see.


----------



## buddhafrog

I have an addiction and laready want to give them more of my money.

It will be fun to see how this develops over time.

Too bad Enworld's countdown clock was set too late....


----------



## Zulithe

Really excited to be following the developments over the next year. I'm glad they seem to be taking a more open approach to its development, something that worked out great for Paizo and Pathfinder -- it really helps the community feel like it's "their" game when they have a voice in things.

So judging by that article it sounds like we can expect the first finished books to launch At GenCon 2013. Who wants to place their bets early?


----------



## NewJeffCT

Article in the NY Times today on the announcement.  Good sign that they're having a huge open playtest for 5E

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/a...uses-players-input.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hpw

You might need to register at the NY Times website (free) to read the whole article.


----------



## Holy Bovine

buddhafrog said:


> I have an addiction and laready want to give them more of my money.
> 
> It will be fun to see how this develops over time.
> 
> Too bad Enworld's countdown clock was set too late....





OR both the NYT and Wizards not honouring the terms of the NDA.


----------



## amerigoV

The odd numbered editions have been my favorites so far. Thus, I deem this to be an automatic slam dunk success!


----------



## Nagol

Holy Bovine said:


> OR both the NYT and Wizards not honouring the terms of the NDA.




If I toss on my conspiracy hat, I'd say that providing a two-hour exclusive window may have been a requirement to get what is effectively ad copy into a NYT article.


----------



## I'm A Banana

So, I clickie the "become a part of this!" link, and went to the D&D Next group, and saw this little number:



			
				http://community.wizards.com/dndnext said:
			
		

> By posting in this group you agree that your comments, suggestions, ideas, and/or creative materials or other information ("Feedback") are non-confidential and shall become the sole property of Wizards. This does not apply to any personal information about you (such as name, mailing address and e-mail address), the use and disclosure of which is described in Wizards' Privacy Policy.




....oh hai draconian claim of intellectual property on my words.

We ain't off to a roaring start here, are we?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So, I clickie the "become a part of this!" link, and went to the D&D Next group, and saw this little number:
> 
> 
> 
> ....oh hai draconian claim of intellectual property on my words.
> 
> We ain't off to a roaring start here, are we?



Isn't that the boilerplate stuff they say on all of WotC forum, and in fact on most game creator forums? 

Though isn't it usually an exclusive license? I suppose they really want to be sure no open playtester claims that they owe him royalities for his great idea to make Come And Get It an attack vs willpower.


----------



## IronWolf

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So, I clickie the "become a part of this!" link, and went to the D&D Next group, and saw this little number:
> 
> ....oh hai draconian claim of intellectual property on my words.
> 
> We ain't off to a roaring start here, are we?




That seems pretty boilerplate and there for their protection. I believe Paizo has something similar for their forums?


----------



## Mark CMG

No mention of the Open Game License.  They really should have said something about that right out of the gate.  It's one of the cornerstones of what made 3.XE so successful.  I imagine a lot of gamers are going to be disappointed if they don't use it and don't make mention of it fairly soon.


Plus, where's the need to sign an NDA for a "public" playtest?  Seems odd to start off open playtesting with that contradiction (or is the actual open part some way down the road and the early shape of the game is not so open?).


----------



## Umbran

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ....oh hai draconian claim of intellectual property on my words.
> 
> We ain't off to a roaring start here, are we?




That really is pretty standard boilerplate, and necessary, from their point of view.

If they didn't have that, how many people would find similarities between things they wrote (however vague or distant the similarity) and things that got published, such that they might want to lay a claim?  This boilerplate basically means, "Dude, if you post it, you lose the right to claim we stole it from you."


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Isn't that the boilerplate stuff they say on all of WotC forum, and in fact on most game creator forums?




It may be. Still, it does grate on me. This is perhaps because I am over-sensitive to copyright issues, though.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Nagol said:


> If I toss on my conspiracy hat, I'd say that providing a two-hour exclusive window may have been a requirement to get what is effectively ad copy into a NYT article.




<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <w:TrackMoves/>   <w:TrackFormatting/>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <woNotPromoteQF/>   <w:LidThemeOther>EN-CA</w:LidThemeOther>   <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>   <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>    <wontVertAlignCellWithSp/>    <wontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>    <wontVertAlignInTxbx/>    <w:Word11KerningPairs/>    <w:CachedColBalance/>   </w:Compatibility>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>   <m:mathPr>    <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>    <m:brkBin m:val="before"/>    <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45-"/>    <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>    <m:dispDef/>    <m:lMargin m:val="0"/>    <m:rMargin m:val="0"/>    <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>    <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>    <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>    <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>   </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"   DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"   LatentStyleCount="267">   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable 	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; 	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; 	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; 	mso-style-noshow:yes; 	mso-style-priority:99; 	mso-style-qformat:yes; 	mso-style-parent:""; 	mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; 	mso-para-margin-top:0cm; 	mso-para-margin-right:0cm; 	mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; 	mso-para-margin-left:0cm; 	line-height:115%; 	mso-pagination:widow-orphan; 	font-size:11.0pt; 	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; 	mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; 	mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; 	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; 	mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; 	mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; 	mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->If ENWorld is breathing the same rarefied air as the NYTImes, CNN.com, and Forbes.com? _Two hours, schmoo hours_, I say.


All the mainstream press has -- and will have - is “spin” and copy+paste press-release info. If you are actually looking for “the beef”? My guess is ENWorld will be the place to find it, as ever.


----------



## Stumblewyk

I signed up for the potential playtest opportunity.

...

I just talked 2 gaming groups into switching from 4e to PF.  And created a third to play another PF game.  Like...all within the last 6 months or so.

...and now I'm already pondering the possibilities of 5e.  Thinking things like, _"But it's D&D!  It's the mothership!  And...and they want player input!  It's going to be modular!  It's going to be simple and quick, or complex and cumbersome, as much as I want it to be!"_

Will my players ever forgive me for my game system adultery?  I just can't stay true to one game...


----------



## Shecky

Dausuul said:


> I'm not sure guys are allowed to squee, but I'm doing it anyway.




Of course guys squee. See Pat Rothfuss. See Pat Rothfuss squee. Squee, Pat Rothfuss, squee.


----------



## S'mon

I'm not personally interested in a new edition, but I wish them the best of luck.  I hope it turns out well and maybe there'll be stuff in there I can nick for my 1e, Pathfinder and 4e campaigns.


----------



## kitsune9

Mark CMG said:


> No mention of the Open Game License.  They really should have said something about that right out of the gate.  It's one of the cornerstones of what made 3.XE so successful.  I imagine a lot of gamers are going to be disappointed if they don't use it and don't make mention of it fairly soon.




I can see how 3PP would find this new announcement very underwhelming if there's no OGL or another GSL for the new edition. Let's be optimistic and hope that Wizards will do something that will allow 3PP to play too.


----------



## Kzach

Naysayer here.

I do not believe in democracy. I can't go into the reasons why without earning a ban, but suffice it to say that I don't have any, and I mean zero, faith in humanity to make intelligent decisions. People need to be ruled.

The division within the D&D community isn't because of different editions, it's because people are inherently divisive. Design by committee doesn't work anywhere else so it's not going to work here either. WotC should ignore the community entirely, especially the online community, and just make games.

Asking people what they want is stupid because people don't know what they want. WotC should become more like Apple and less like a socialist republic.


----------



## Gold Roger

Interesting, but my concern is: Do they have the manpower for this? An open playtest and asking everyone concerned for feedback, actually organizing the amount of input to something workable might be the hardest part of this.

Color me curious, but nothing more for now.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> No mention of the Open Game License. They really should have said something about that right out of the gate. It's one of the cornerstones of what made 3.XE so successful. I imagine a lot of gamers are going to be disappointed if they don't use it and don't make mention of it fairly soon.




I'd give 'em some time for that one. I imagine this is something they'd be re-visiting, but something they need to be a lot more careful about than just an announcement that "It's coming, and we want to be inclusive."


----------



## talok55

Can it be true?  Did WotC actually learn that it's best to ask what the customers want instead of making what their designers want and trying to force it on the customer?  Let's hope so.  Maybe it will even be in time to save D&D.


----------



## OpsKT

Well, I can't say what I really feel without violating the EN World ToS, and I for the most part get along with the mods here, so I won't. I'll just leave this here and note that is not safe for work or school.

As a side note... 



OpsKT said:


> My guess is more stuff that will further divide their player base, based on the last 2 years of operating procedures.




I hate being right...


----------



## Argyle King

I'm interested to see where things go.

However, I can't seem to get by the thought that I already own the game they are talking about when I hear things like "...we want a _generic_ and simple base which you can add to with options to suite the complexity you want..." and "nod toward realism."


I wasn't shocked by the announcement.  I'm actually relieved that I can move beyond 4E now; I had good times with it, but I think it's time to let it go.  Though there's no guarantee I'll be moving to 5E.  WoTC has a lot of work to do to win me back as a regular customer.  While I am excited to see what 5E will hold, I was also somewhat burned when I jumped into 4E as quickly as I did, and I already have what I feel is a game of excellent quality which has many of the traits the 5E team seems to feel is desirable in a game system.


----------



## delericho

I thought I'd be more excited than I am.

I wish the luck in their endeavour. I don't have time to be properly involved in the playtest, so I'll have to restrict my input to posting here.

When the time comes, I'll check out the 5e core books, and make a decision. Hopefully, it will be "better enough" than 3e to persuade me to switch. If not, I won't have any interest in any potential 6e; WotC have _one_ opportunity to persuade me to return to the fold.


----------



## kitsune9

Kzach said:


> Naysayer here.
> 
> The division within the D&D community isn't because of different editions, it's because people are inherently divisive.




I agree with this. Appealing to gamers is like herding cats, but if you have the opportunity to playtest a new edition, jump in and at least enjoy the fun while it lasts.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Kzach said:


> Asking people what they want is stupid because people don't know what they want. WotC should become more like Apple and less like a socialist republic.




remeber there is a right and wrong way to do it. In sales we ask people what they want, then ignore 90% of there answer and take the last 10% and twist and interpirt it to give our first suggestion, then we gage there responce to maek a second suggestion.


----------



## Son of Meepo

Mark CMG said:


> No mention of the Open Game License.  They really should have said something about that right out of the gate.  It's one of the cornerstones of what made 3.XE so successful.  I imagine a lot of gamers are going to be disappointed if they don't use it and don't make mention of it fairly soon.




Bah!  The OGL was just a poor excuse for small time companies to make money off the backs of a real game system.  90% of the 3rd party stuff was poorly conceived, utterly unbalanced, overpriced crap.  

Feel free to have an OGL again WotC, but this is one consumer who won't touch it.


----------



## S'mon

Gundark said:


> Shocked....no not really.




WoTC has had to swallow a lot of pride.  To announce a new edition so soon seems to be openly saying they take the view that 4e is a catastrophic failure.  I don't take that view as pertains to the 4e play experience - I love playing 4e - but they must know much better than anyone else how 4e sales have been; apparently very much Not Good, at least as compares to their projections.

I hope something good comes out of this.  I bought 3e when it came out in 2000 after 2e had driven me away from D&D for about 5-6 years, and was an enthusiastic adopter.  I burned out on 3e in 2006, I bought 4e in 2008 but didn't like what I saw, I finally got into 4e in mid 2009.  I finally got 4e hammered into a shape I like about 6-7 months ago, and am currently very happy with it.  

So, I'm not burned out on 4e and have no plans to switch, and unlike 3e & 4e I will not be an 'on-launch' customer for 5e.  If it turns out to be a good, robust system with legs, I guess I may look at it in 3-4 years.


----------



## Remathilis

Aw hell, just when I thought I was off the edition treadmill...

I'm excited to see their initial beta test. I hear a lot about "lessons learned" but I'm quite curious to see _which_ lessons they learned. The only one I see implied is a de-emphasis of combat as rule-focus to the loss of everything else. It will be interesting though to see what elements return, which are kept, and what gets modified. 

Specifically I wonder about

* Are classes going to run on a universal skeleton with only their power-choice really differing them, or will there be differences in ability acquisition speeds, advancement rates, etc.
* What is the role of fluff in this "modulal" system: Is the implied world dead?
* What is the role of OGL and the d20 Community beyond WotC? They lost a lot of good companies (Necro, Paizo, Goodman) to their own home-systems. Can they re-unify the clans?
* Are we going back to Vacian magic, or keeping magic a nebulus term to be defined by powers, feats and rituals?

I guess we'll here more as things progress.


----------



## Dragonblade

WotC is saying all the right things about it being modular and being able to take what you like from each edition.

I love 4e and believe it has a lot to offer. It has become my favorite D&D edition to date.

That said, I'm not a big fan of open playtests. I don't like the idea that a vocal contingent of fans can seize the design direction of a game. The open playtest is why I actively dislike playing Pathfinder and why it kept a lot of the worst aspects of 3e intact instead of fixing them.


----------



## Mark CMG

Son of Meepo said:


> Bah!  The OGL was just a poor excuse for small time companies to make money off the backs of a real game system.  90% of the 3rd party stuff was poorly conceived, utterly unbalanced, overpriced crap.
> 
> Feel free to have an OGL again WotC, but this is one consumer who won't touch it.





That's kinda funny.  It's like saying if an ice cream shop allows other people to use sprinkles, I'll never by a cone of vanilla there anymore. 


I doubt many people would reject a new D&D for using the OGL even if they had no personal interest in getting 3PP supplements, particularly if that ensured a much larger player base whence to draw more gamers to their tables.  That's the whole point of making sure there are more oars in the water pulling in the same direction.


----------



## Ron

Morrus said:


> WotC also wanted to emphasize its commitment to *tabletop face-to-face gaming*. There are many, many rumors flying round the web, and much speculation; a lot of this is centered around an expectation of a more digital, online focus.  WotC stated clearly _"[We are] extremely committed to tabletop gaming and the face to face experiences that D&D brings." _There is clear recognition that although digital tools can enhance and supplement a game, the company has not lost sight of the fact that D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game, and not a digital experience.




I liked this statement. I always thought it was a mistake to make D&D more similar to online games as it is like playing your weakness instead of your strengths.


----------



## c0c0c0

*Unifying Standard*

Good luck on the new unifying standard.  However, I can't help but think of XKCD's thoughts on new standards to address the failings of old ones:

xkcd: Standards


----------



## bouncyhead

Remathilis said:


> * Are classes going to run on a universal skeleton with only their power-choice really differing them, or will there be differences in ability acquisition speeds, advancement rates, etc.
> * What is the role of fluff in this "modulal" system: Is the implied world dead?
> * What is the role of OGL and the d20 Community beyond WotC? They lost a lot of good companies (Necro, Paizo, Goodman) to their own home-systems. Can they re-unify the clans?
> * Are we going back to Vacian magic, or keeping magic a nebulus term to be defined by powers, feats and rituals?




Also... will resources be based around the encounter?


----------



## Shecky

Kzach said:


> Naysayer here.
> 
> I do not believe in democracy. I can't go into the reasons why without earning a ban, but suffice it to say that I don't have any, and I mean zero, faith in humanity to make intelligent decisions. People need to be ruled.
> 
> The division within the D&D community isn't because of different editions, it's because people are inherently divisive. Design by committee doesn't work anywhere else so it's not going to work here either. WotC should ignore the community entirely, especially the online community, and just make games.
> 
> Asking people what they want is stupid because people don't know what they want. WotC should become more like Apple and less like a socialist republic.




I don't think it's so much a question of "design by committee" as it is "give us feedback, we'll collate and analyze it and we'll figure it out from there." Only reasonable logistical approach that includes both command decisions AND listening to the people who are actually intended to USE it.


----------



## S'mon

IronWolf said:


> That seems pretty boilerplate and there for their protection. I believe Paizo has something similar for their forums?




It might be boilerplate, but it would appear to violate the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive under EU Law (including UK), so it would not appear to be enforceable in the EU, to me.


----------



## Son of Meepo

Mark CMG said:


> That's kinda funny.  It's like saying if an ice cream shop allows other people to use sprinkles, I'll never by a cone of vanilla there anymore.
> 
> 
> I doubt many people would reject a new D&D for using the OGL even if they had no personal interest in getting 3PP supplements, particularly if that ensured a much larger player base whence to draw more gamers to their tables.  That's the whole points of making sure there are more oars in the water pulling in the same direction.




You misunderstand.  I just won't buy the sprinkles.  I never said anything about the ice cream.


----------



## Umbran

S'mon said:


> To announce a new edition so soon seems to be openly saying they take the view that 4e is a catastrophic failure.




There's going to be a strong temptation to use hyperbolic language (like "catastropic").  But I'm not sure it is warranted.

The issue at hand isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about how well 4e has done, to date.  The past is the past.  You don't set development strategies on the past.  You base them on what you think you can do in the future.  You compare what you can do with 4e, and what you can do with other things.

Both staying the course and trying a new course have some risk.  You weigh the risks against potential gains, and you take an educated gamble.

None of this is predicated on 4e having been a "catastrophic failure".


----------



## S'mon

Umbran said:


> That really is pretty standard boilerplate, and necessary, from their point of view.
> 
> If they didn't have that, how many people would find similarities between things they wrote (however vague or distant the similarity) and things that got published, such that they might want to lay a claim?  This boilerplate basically means, "Dude, if you post it, you lose the right to claim we stole it from you."




No, a *non-exclusive, non-revokable license* would be ""Dude, if you post it, you lose the right to claim we stole it from you."

_your comments, suggestions, ideas, and/or creative materials or other information ("Feedback") are non-confidential and shall become the *sole property* of Wizards_ means "We own your ideas".


----------



## Mark CMG

Shecky said:


> Of course guys squee. See Pat Rothfuss. See Pat Rothfuss squee. Squee, Pat Rothfuss, squee.





The ears help sell it a bit.


----------



## Mark CMG

Son of Meepo said:


> You misunderstand.  I just won't buy the sprinkles.  I never said anything about the ice cream.





Ah, no need to tell WotC then as in, "Feel free to have an OGL again WotC, but this is one consumer who won't touch it," since they only sell the main flavor of ice cream.


----------



## Son of Meepo

Umbran said:


> There's going to be a strong temptation to use hyperbolic language (like "catastropic").  But I'm not sure it is warranted.
> 
> The issue at hand isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about how well 4e has done, to date.  The past is the past.  You don't set development strategies on the past.  You base them on what you think you can do in the future.  You compare what you can do with 4e, and what you can do with other things.
> 
> Both staying the course and trying a new course have some risk.  You weigh the risks against potential gains, and you take an educated gamble.
> 
> None of this is predicated on 4e having been a "catastrophic failure".




The issue for me is that I feel there is an expectation that with increasing frequency, this too shall pass.  That as soon as 5e is out the door, WotC will be having their project kickoff meetings for 6e and I should only expect a few years before 6e is announced to the world.  Is that their business model?


----------



## Umbran

S'mon said:


> "We own your ideas".




If you want to be part of the process, yes, you should expect to have to hand over the ideas you put into that process.  It is not reasonable to expect to have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Remathilis

Son of Meepo said:


> The issue for me is that I feel there is an expectation that with increasing frequency, this too shall pass.  That as soon as 5e is out the door, WotC will be having their project kickoff meetings for 6e and I should only expect a few years before 6e is announced to the world.  Is that their business model?




I get the impression 4e got rushed out the door to appease Ha$bro's beancounters. I get the impression 5e got quick-listed to make up for 4e's being rushed. If 5e is successful, they might be able to slow down the treadmill again.


----------



## Dragonblade

Son of Meepo said:


> The issue for me is that I feel there is an expectation that with increasing frequency, this too shall pass.  That as soon as 5e is out the door, WotC will be having their project kickoff meetings for 6e and I should only expect a few years before 6e is announced to the world.  Is that their business model?




Its the model for all game publishers. Even Paizo will release a Pathfinder 2e at some point and they probably already have a confidential internal product road map for the next 2-3 years sketched out and Pathfinder 2e is on it.

They probably already have early drafts and ideas for it even if its too early to admit to it publicly yet.

The interesting thing to see will be how 5e affects their plans if at all, and if they have their own schism with their fans being upset at changes they introduce with their eventual new edition.


----------



## Son of Meepo

Remathilis said:


> I get the impression 4e got rushed out the door to appease Ha's beancounters. I get the impression 5e got quick-listed to make up for 4e's being rushed. If 5e is successful, they might be able to slow down the treadmill again.




If you look at Mike Mearls' post, he specifically calls it an "iteration".  To me that sounds like someone who expects 5e to be part of a repetitive process rather than an endpoint.

Oh, and the bean counters still work at Hasbro.


----------



## Mercurius

Son of Meepo said:


> The issue for me is that I feel there is an expectation that with increasing frequency, this too shall pass.  That as soon as 5e is out the door, WotC will be having their project kickoff meetings for 6e and I should only expect a few years before 6e is announced to the world.  Is that their business model?




Hold on a second there, Son of Meepo. I think what WotC realized they could do once DDI got rolling is make "One Edition to End Them All" because of the nature of digital technology--you can make micro-changes online, including errata and new rules, with new core books every few years to drive sales and collate all of the changes--but that everything could still be backwards compatible as an evolution of what came before. But I think they quickly realized (I'm totally guessing here) that 4E wouldn't work, it was too complex, too developed, and too tightly interconnected to provide the simple core for a modular game. 

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

At its heart, I wouldn't be surprised if 5E looked very similar to a stripped down d20/3.x D&D upon which different groups can "dress up" in whatever way they want, even in different campaigns and perhaps even different characters.

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


----------



## Dark Mistress

When 5e comes out, I am really curious what they are going to do with the DDI and the 4e stuff. Will they leave it up or will it go away like the PDF's of the older games when 4e came out. For me how they handle that will tell me a lot about them as a company going forward. I hope they leave it up complete for the 4e fans that don't want to switch.


----------



## LurkAway

They're even in Forbes
'Wizards' Announce New Dungeons & Dragons: An Inside Look At The Game - Forbes

Hasbro's and/or WoTC's marketing dept seems to be pulling all the stops

In X-Men First Class, Xavier uses the Cerebro to locate young mutants... I wonder if WoTC has a device to locate geeks in big media companies?


----------



## Zaran

_"[We are] extremely committed to tabletop gaming and the face to face experiences that D&D brings." _

Why do I feel like they said this because they can't figure out how to do online stuff?


----------



## Mercurius

LurkAway said:


> They're even in Forbes
> 'Wizards' Announce New Dungeons & Dragons: An Inside Look At The Game - Forbes
> 
> Hasbro's and/or WoTC's marketing dept seems to be pulling all the stops
> 
> In X-Men First Class, Xavier uses the Cerebro to locate young mutants... I wonder if WoTC has a device to locate geeks in big media companies?




LOL. Nerdpro?


----------



## Truth Seeker

If any part of it, is compatiable with a 3.5 conversion. Then maybe...if not. I 'll be watching that carousel spin, and spin, and spin.



Philotomy Jurament said:


> I stepped off the carousel some time ago. As it goes around, again, I'll keep an eye on it. I doubt I'll be offered anything worth stepping back onto it, but we'll see.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Umbran said:
			
		

> If you want to be part of the process, yes, you should expect to have to hand over the ideas you put into that process. It is not reasonable to expect to have your cake and eat it too.




Of course it is. When I'm talking with you about how to improve something you want help improving, you don't then *own* my ideas. I still have them, and I can still go use them elsewhere, regardless of if you take them or not. I understand that a corporate entity is a little different, but it's still possible to leagal-ese that to protect WotC without this sort of intellectual imperialism. It's lazy lawyering, and it's an unreasonable agreement, and it's potentially unenforceable.

BUT ANYWAY, that's not really relevant to the 5e discussion here.


----------



## talok55

Asking people what they want is stupid because people don't know what they want. WotC should become more like Apple and less like a socialist republic.[/QUOTE]

Well apparently just making games with little thought to if your customers will enjoy playing them or if they capture the D&D feel didn't work out so hot for them.  4E must have been a commercial failure or they wouldn't be announcing 5E so quickly.   Pathfinder sought out input from it's customers, and it's been increasing in popularity and stealing players from 4E since it's inception.


----------



## Steel_Wind

S'mon said:


> WoTC has had to swallow a lot of pride.  To announce a new edition so soon seems to be openly saying they take the view that 4e is a catastrophic failure.  I don't take that view as pertains to the 4e play experience - I love playing 4e - but they must know much better than anyone else how 4e sales have been; apparently very much Not Good, at least as compares to their projections.




<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <w:TrackMoves/>   <w:TrackFormatting/>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <woNotPromoteQF/>   <w:LidThemeOther>EN-CA</w:LidThemeOther>   <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>   <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>    <wontVertAlignCellWithSp/>    <wontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>    <wontVertAlignInTxbx/>    <w:Word11KerningPairs/>    <w:CachedColBalance/>   </w:Compatibility>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>   <m:mathPr>    <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>    <m:brkBin m:val="before"/>    <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45-"/>    <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>    <m:dispDef/>    <m:lMargin m:val="0"/>    <m:rMargin m:val="0"/>    <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>    <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>    <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>    <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>   </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"   DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"   LatentStyleCount="267">   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-priority:99;     mso-style-qformat:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin-top:0cm;     mso-para-margin-right:0cm;     mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;     mso-para-margin-left:0cm;     line-height:115%;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:11.0pt;     font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";     mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;     mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;     mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;     mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;     mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->  I don’t think you have to use the words ”catastrophic failure”. 4E made money... initially. We all know that along the road since, things have not gone as well as they would have hoped. WotC gained lots of new fans with 4E – and it lost lots of old ones, too. 

To be fairthough, 4E kept lots of old fans as well. 

There is no argument that 4E hasn’t unspooled as well as WotC might have hoped, but “catastrophic failure” is a significant overstatement. 

I think it is fair to view WotC’s “Hearts and Minds”  announcement at face value: WotC would clearly prefer to be in a place where it can keep the new fans it made while enticing many of the old ones back in to the fold. That suits its economic interests and it MIGHT suit the interests of gamers, too. So, I’m willing to hear them out.  

I’m not sure how they plan to build a Big Tent rules system for 5E or that it even can be successful in that goal – but I’m sure as hell willing to hear them out and judge the new edition on the quality of its rules and the rest of the material that supports it.

Seeing as I am certainly in the upper strata of “rabid Pathfinder fandom”, then I think that says a lot about WotC's potential for success.  I think Monte Cook is a great designer and I am confident that he is well able to come up with a new iteration of the game that appeals to a broad swath of gamers. 

  So that’s all good and I look forward to buying 5E, reading it and playing it, too.

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

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

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


----------



## thedungeondelver

Philotomy Jurament said:


> I stepped off the carousel some time ago. As it goes around, again, I'll keep an eye on it. I doubt I'll be offered anything worth stepping back onto it, but we'll see.





I was thrown from the carousel, and even though I was disgusted by the experience, Paizo stuck out a hand to try and help me back on...then they were thrown off, too.


----------



## drothgery

Remathilis said:


> I get the impression 4e got rushed out the door to appease Ha's beancounters. I get the impression 5e got quick-listed to make up for 4e's being rushed. If 5e is successful, they might be able to slow down the treadmill again.



Maybe to a small degree. But I've been claiming since as far back as the 3.5 launch that there are really only about three years worth of decent-selling products in any edition of D&D (at a reasonably product release rate), so if gamers would accept a new edition every three years, that would be the thing to do. The only reason 3.5 and 4e (presuming a GenCon 2013 launch of the final 5e) held on for even five years is because gamers won't buy new sets of books every five years.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Steel_Wind said:


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




One of my hopes with their _inclusiveness_ is that they will actively try to partner with a company like Paizo that can provide the adventure support needed for the next iteration. Paizo would also provide good feedback for what should and should not be included in the new edition. And it may save Paizo the development costs of a Pathfinder 2E and open up more market share for them as well. It could be a big win for the top two in the industry.


----------



## Wightbred

OK, so I'm interested and cautiously optimistic.

Since I got sick of 3.0 and was disappointed with 4e I've been trying and liking other games. I don't know if D&D can deliver what I want any more because one of the things I don't like about it are the pointlessly escalating HP, skill and attack/defence bonuses which are core to every edition so far.

If they can somehow give me a modular D&D that allows me to run heroic fantasy without pointless maths I will come back now and be happy. But I can see it is most likely I'm going to be unsatisfied by the core of 5e, even as I love the idea of what they are trying to do and appreciate some of the new inclusions I expect such as proper social mechanics.

Still, I'm keeping my hopes up.


More ranting on unnecessary maths: Removing the last unnecessary escalation?


----------



## howandwhy99

Mother of Iuz! Tavis made into the Times article!



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> "...one that takes the fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game."




Interesting use of terminology. I'm wondering what they posit this is? I'm secretly hoping they don't answer it. The less call for divisiveness in the community the better.

I'm pumped. I've been dissecting AD&D for my OD&D game for awhile now, but there is so much material I could use the help, or at least comments from others who may want some of it as optional elements in a new publication. The idea of D&D as setting occurred to me awhile back and, while it may not be the setting or system everyone desires, I think having those elements available and comprehensible on a large scale does benefit everyone.

EDIT:
Part of the reason I don't care to have the essence of D&D defined is also personal, not simply because we each have our own. I run and like playing in D&D as a reality puzzle game, a kind of simulated reality which is programmed in part by the players as they play. It's very much based on a preset vocabulary of words which grow through play, but all reference the game world. Think "rook", "knight", and "queen" in terms of chess and you've got the idea. 

A simulated reality, like our own world, can be addressed in different manners. Two I've come up with are Palette and Puzzle. Think of a computer program. Are you using it to create your art, your story? Or are you treating it like many treat computer games which is as a puzzle to explore and figure out the underlying code to achieve your victory in the game? By defining the essence of a computer program or a game or D&D even as one or the other or something else entirely we stop being inclusive in my book. And because I enjoy a good strategy game and a good puzzle and a good story and a good artwork I'd rather not have a single essence defined.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Truth Seeker said:


> If any part of it, is compatiable with a 3.5 conversion. Then maybe...if not. I 'll be watching that carousel spin, and spin, and spin.




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

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


----------



## Uder

Wonder how open the playtest will be? Maybe it will be possible to use the OGL to retroclone a D&D edition before it's even published!


----------



## Gentlegamer

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


----------



## Umbran

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Of course it is. When I'm talking with you about how to improve something you want help improving, you don't then *own* my ideas. I still have them, and I can still go use them elsewhere, regardless of if you take them or not.




But, I'm not trying to publish anything - you cannot later sue me for rights on things I'm producing, or claim significant damages from my use of your ideas.  If you got in a huff over my using an idea in my home game, the courts would laugh at you as frivolous.  The same is not necessarily true when discussing ideas for a book that (I would expect) hopes to sell in the tens or hundreds of thousands of copies.  



> but it's still possible to leagal-ese that to protect WotC without this sort of intellectual imperialism.




If you go to them of your own free will to take part in their design process, posting in their web space, in the area they set aside and specifically label as "this is where we are farming ideas for the new game we intend to publish, and here are the terms", I don't think you get to call it "imperialism".  There's a darned sight too much free will on your part to name it so.

You may not like the terms they offer - that's fine.  But let's keep the action in appropriate perspective.


----------



## Nagol

So long as what is built isn’t met by unified disinterest.  The problem with generic games is they end up as toolkits for building a game and I have enough of those right now, thanks.


----------



## Remathilis

Gentlegamer said:


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




Did you read the announcement? Its like a damn love letter to those players?


----------



## DaveMage

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

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

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

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

UNLESS, you get a license from Paizo to integrate the Pathfinder system in whatever offering you come up with.  Then we'll talk.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Kzach said:


> Naysayer here.
> 
> I do not believe in democracy. I can't go into the reasons why without earning a ban, but suffice it to say that I don't have any, and I mean zero, faith in humanity to make intelligent decisions. People need to be ruled.
> 
> The division within the D&D community isn't because of different editions, it's because people are inherently divisive. Design by committee doesn't work anywhere else so it's not going to work here either. WotC should ignore the community entirely, especially the online community, and just make games.
> 
> Asking people what they want is stupid because people don't know what they want. WotC should become more like Apple and less like a socialist republic.



Actually, my main concern is that regardless of their stated intent they'll ignore popular demand and end up making the same mistakes they made last time. Democracy has its problems but anyone in the entertainment industry needs to play to their audience.

OTOH, I agree that the divisions in place now are quite fundamental and not tied to brand loyalty. I'm also skeptical that any attempt at unification will succeed. For my part, if I see anything "per day", "per encounter" or "per [any unit of time]", I'm done. I'm sure there are people who feel the reverse.

At least they're trying something. The industry needs a kick in the pants.


----------



## talok55

Gentlegamer said:


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




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


----------



## Truth Seeker

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

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

Time will tell.


ShinHakkaider said:


> Even that isn't going to bring me back on the WOTC carousel. I'm staying where I'm at and not even signing up for the 5E play-test. When it's actually out I might take a look but right now D&D isn't even a factor in my RPG livelihood.
> 
> Besides I dont know why some 4E people are wringing their hands about this new edition, it looks like WOTC still is planning on supporting 4E in some form or fashion. That's a HELL of a lot more than 3x fans got when 4E came on the scene.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Gentlegamer said:


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




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

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

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

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


----------



## Corathon

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


----------



## Charles Dunwoody

Steel_Wind said:


> Now, that said, I’m not so sure that WotC is inclined to provide the ongoing game world and adventure material support that I have come to expect from Paizo and its material published for Golarion, its Adventure Paths and for Pathfinder Society. It isn’t that WotC can’t do it if it wanted to --- but I just don’t see that WotC is going to make that sort of ongoing support part of its core business anytime soon - or ever. Certainly, I have not seen any indication that they want to change their business approach and choose to make those kinds of products as part of their core business for the D&D brand.
> 
> On balance, that’s probably a deal breaker for me in terms of my “system of choice” – but it has nothing to do with the rules as such or with WotC.
> 
> Point is, I’m *quite interested* in seeing what Monte Cook has in mind for 5<sup>th</sup> ed and I urge all of you to keep an open mind.




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


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


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

drothgery said:


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




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



Ahnehnois said:


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




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

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


----------



## Nemesis Destiny

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

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


----------



## billd91

DaveMage said:


> Can anyone give me a compelling reason why one should possibly trust WotC going forward for anything?
> 
> Scott Rouse said 8-10 years between editions.  That was in 2008.
> 
> He doesn't work there anymore.  In fact, all the people on the current design team may not be there next year (much less in 4 years).
> 
> Sorry, WotC.  Until you (as a company) can be trusted (good luck), I'm not interested in supporting you....




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

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


----------



## howandwhy99

Mercurius said:


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



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

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

What do you think of _Dungeons & Dragons Red Dragon_tm edition? Or _D&D Drizzt_tm? _D&D Orcus_tm? _D&D Flumph_tm?
(just kidding about flumph, no one would ever use those)



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



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


----------



## TanithT

Androlphas said:


> I signed up!
> 
> D&D, I can't quit u!




Isn't that from Brokeback Mountain?  

Must admit I rather like this version: 

Brokeback Of The Rings.


----------



## Jan van Leyden

Ahnehnois said:


> Actually, my main concern is that regardless of their stated intent they'll ignore popular demand and end up making the same mistakes they made last time. Democracy has its problems but anyone in the entertainment industry needs to play to their audience.




Which leads to the question of how they want to define their audience.



Ahnehnois said:


> OTOH, I agree that the divisions in place now are quite fundamental and not tied to brand loyalty. I'm also skeptical that any attempt at unification will succeed. For my part, if I see anything "per day", "per encounter" or "per [any unit of time]", I'm done. I'm sure there are people who feel the reverse.




Judging by the frequency and intensity of the flame wars raging more than three years after the release of 4e, you're probably right. It's a tough order to re-unite the D&D players. A lot of players seem to be hunting for and emphasizing things they don't like. Any attempt to create The One Edition will lead to people complaining over certain things. And no open playtest can ever hope to reconcile those differing positions.

Oh, by the way: You don't like "spells per day" for wizards


----------



## howandwhy99

Steel_Wind said:


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




Right now there are a few schools of thought on adventure design and I think WotC could benefit from going a different direction from Paizo. They do and have released adventures for 4E, but I don't know how profitable they have been. 

Paizo is not going to be beat at their own game. The adventure path paradigm is their bread and butter because it naturally works with a subscription based book selling model - very lucrative for a small bookseller. Not to mention they have been cultivating authors and running contests to find more. It is every bit as much if not more important to their success IMO as the updated ruleset with a legacy audience.

The indie model doesn't really work well in regards to adventure publishing. Most games are very much focused on at the table improvisation by all players. The games themselves can sometimes be construed as single adventure booklets in some cases. In other cases adventures would be contrary to the design of the games.

What Wizard could do is go with alternate adventure designs until they find something that hits. Traditional modules can be every bit as complex as any finely written novel, but they are simply a different beast. Imagine a basic module-sized situation (an adventure territory) and tie all of the piece together in their relations. Then spin out a potential future of dynamic change within it. The key is, let the players change the world and the future timeline and enable DMs to construct alternate ones easily on the fly and between sessions without ignoring the starting relationships. - Well, that's one way. But just because adventures may not be selling or be seen as a weakness now doesn't mean they don't support play or cannot be reinvigorated.


----------



## Mercurius

howandwhy99 said:


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




It is certainly tricky, but that's why game designers get paid the big bucks!

But seriously, there is no way that they're going to please everyone, but I think they can go a long way towards offering the "feel" of older edition play except to those that are super-attached to specific rules, who will always miss the forest for the trees and get hung up on the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

For instance, there is really no way to please those for whom the "Old School feel" is contingent on making a save vs. Polymorph and Petrification and an attack vs. Fortitude is a sin against Gygax. It is very unlikely that we're going back to that sort of hodge-podge rules system, just as it is very unlikely that eight-track players or rotary phones will make a comeback. 

But it may be that there are more ways to get to Rome than the previously trodden path; that is, the "Old School feel" may be possible through other means including a stream-lined modular rules system that facilitates the type of game experience that was the hallmark of pre-WotC D&D.

I would suggest that the rules don't limit or force a specific type of game experience, but they do encourage (or discourage) a certain kind of experience. The main issue that many had (and have) with 4E is that for various reasons it was more difficult to create the type of experience that long-time D&D players associate with D&D.

The key then, in my view, is to create a 5E that doesn't focus on the past in any form--whether we're talking about OD&D, AD&D, BECMI or even 4E--but forms a strong basis for as wide a variety of D&D experiences as possible, while remaining connected to the overall legacy of the game. So if I were designing 5E I would make sure that, in the context of this discussion, all of the following were true:

*It is possible to play an "Old School-esque" game.
*It is possible to play a 3.5esque game.
*It is possible to play a 4Esque game.
*It brings something uniquely its own ("5Esque") to the table.

The key being that "esque" is less a function of the actual rules than it is what the rules are capable of facilitating. It is a subtle, but crucial, difference.


----------



## Osgood

Based on many of the comments in this thread alone, I'd say WotC has a serious uphill battle in any attempt to unify the fan base.  A lot of folks are very invested in their chose edition/company.  I'll be interested to see how the play test shakes out, but with any group this divided compromise will leave neither side particularly pleased.


----------



## tecnowraith

I have a few questions: 
What makes D&D game feel old school-esque?
What was good about 3.5 that fans liked?
What was good about 4.0 that fans liked?
D&D all about Classes if not, it is possible to do D&D without classes? That players can make any character they want without the hassle? Some publishers (and even producers) think kids are stupid or unimaginative to come up with character on their own.

What  I liked from 4.0 was the powers system if they can improve on it, then cool.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

DaveMage said:


> Can anyone give me a compelling reason why one should possibly trust WotC going forward for anything?
> 
> Scott Rouse said 8-10 years between editions.  That was in 2008.
> 
> He doesn't work there anymore.  In fact, all the people on the current design team may not be there next year (much less in 4 years).




Since you're quoting me I'll chime in. I don"t have a horse in this race and I have largely moved on (professionally and personally). 

Yes I did say that and  at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.

There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that violated the communities trust (failure to have DDi tools at launch, the GSL vs OGL) but after all that has happened with 4e is a shorter edition life-cycle really going to be the thing that turns you away from the opportunity of a better game that 5e offers?  4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.

Edit for the sake of clarity that I am talking about the game as it stands now:



> My statement about the game being broken is more a commentary on the environment in which 4e currently lives (play & business). The audience is fractured among a few D&D systems, the GSL did not accomplish what it was supposed to do (create broad 3pp support for the system), the designs has evolved over time (class changes, monsters etc), Essentials was/is confusing to new(er) players and veterans. If 4e was healthy we would not be talking about 5e right now.
> 
> And for the record, I am not bitter AT ALL. I enjoyed my time at WotC, I am proud of what I accomplished there, I still have a ton of friends that work on D&D and I hope 5e is a smashing success. To add to that, I am a pretty big 4e fanboi. It is my favorite D&D rules system and I wish I had more time to play in a campaign.


----------



## Morrus

Scott_Rouse said:


> was broken as a game and business and it's needs to go away.




Yikes, man!  I know you don't work there any more, but wow!


----------



## Umbran

DaveMage said:


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




They aren't asking you to extend them a loan, or something.  You're putting no money down, need to expend zero effort, have nothing on the line, have no skin in the game.  You are perfectly free to sit back and wait and see if you like the final product.

If and when you're putting something at risk, when you have to choose to make an investment, then you need to worry about trusting them.


----------



## pauljathome

Steel_Wind said:


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




In my mind the ideal situation would be if

1) 5th edition is sufficiently flexible to mostly unite the D&D base (it absolutely will NOT be able to completely please EVERYBODY.)
2) That WOTC, at a minimum, comes to some deal with Paizo and other significant 3PP so that Paizo can concentrate on what it arguably does best (settings, modules, organized play, Adventure Paths, game aids)

I don't expect anything as open as the OGL to be adopted by WOTC. And, quite frankly, I really don't mind if the bar to writing adventures is sufficiently high that BasementJoe cannot compete (as most of what he writes is crap ). 

But I really, really hope that whatever license comes out is sufficiently loose that Paizo (and others) can commit their business to making supplements for 5th Edition AND that 5th Edition is sufficiently good and flexible that they'll want to do so.

I'm sceptical that all of this will occur but I certainly HOPE that it does and certainly am NOT going to prejudge WOTC before I see what they produce.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Morrus said:


> Yikes, man!  I know you don't work there any more, but wow!




My therapist tells me admitting this kind of stuff is healthy.


----------



## jaerdaph

I don't think "unite all players" with 5e is an obtainable or realistic goal. I do, however, think it's awesome that it is a stated goal for 5e, because even if they fall short of that mark, I'm sure some good design and development will come out of it anyway. More so when you combine that with their other stated goal - massive fan input and playtest. 

I don't think we'll ever see the OGL as it existed during 3e/3.5e ever again, at least not from WotC/Hasbro. I think they see that as part of the reason 4e failed to live up to their expectations both financially and with regards to edition lifespan and carrying over fans of the previous edition. Note I said "failed to live up to _their _expectations", not "4e is a failure". I also think you could argue that by failing to open up 4e with an OGL like they did 3e, WotC/Hasbro contributed to their failure to meet their expectations. 

Now my data point: Don't spend too much time, money or effort trying to win me back, WotC/Hasbro. I'm in that 45 and older crowd, and while I know I don't speak for everyone in that age group, I've moved on. I already have what I need in 3 1/2 editions of D&D, Pathfinder, a few d20 "spin off" and OSR retro-clone games, not to mention the non-d20/non-D&D games I play now as well. Spend that time, money and effort appealing to my younger nephews and nieces (ages 11, 9, 6 and 6) instead. Take D&D well into the 21st century by getting them on board. Take almost 40 years of D&D and revamp and refresh it for the younger generation. Make them feel that same magic that I felt in 1979 when I first discovered D&D. But don't just package up 1979 D&D and resell it. Use every modern technology and tool that has been developed since D&D first came out and are such an integral part of the younger generation's lives, and integrate that into the the new game. Keep in mind their preferred way of getting information - sound bites, text messages, short and to the point. Don't overwhelm with countless tomes filled with pages and pages and pages of information. Let them pick up the game and be up and running and playing in 10 minutes or less. Do that, and people will still be playing D&D another 40 years from now.


----------



## Alzrius

Based on the tone of their press release, I'm worried that WotC is going to go too far in trying to make a game that appeals to everyone.

My concern is that their approach will take the form of designing "meta-rules" - entire systems for various aspects of the game that can be added or subtracted without crippling game-play - and that this will lead not only to divisiveness, but also to the demise of the unified d20 mechanic that characterized the Third and Fourth Editions.

To be clear, when I talk about "meta-rules," I'm thinking of, for example, things like feats and skills in Third Edition. Imagine if you tried to run a 3E game without those; you'd run into problems with prestige classes (prerequisites), magic items (skill boosters), class abilities (bonus feats), racial abilities (skill bonuses), etc. Now, try and design 3E so that feats and skills could be easily removed from the game _without_ causing those problems...that sounds like what 5E wants to do.

That worries me because it has built-in fault lines for community fragmentation. Forget about play-styles...if there's no specific set of rules, things will only grow more factionalized among players.

The other part of this is that it's easier to design a game where rules sets can be added and subtracted if all of those sets run independently. If nothing else references feats, then it's easier to drop feats. This, however, tends to lead back towards the earlier editions of the game (e.g. 2E and previous) wherein the game was effectively a collection of sub-systems...something that was (not without merit, I think) indicted as poor design when Third Edition came out.

If the D&D guys can find a way to pull this off while avoiding those pitfalls, I'll be impressed. But until I see the end result, I'm nervous about what 5E will look like.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Scott_Rouse said:


> was broken as a game and business and it's needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.




Well to be fair they DID kill 3.x, at least support for it. Which at that point was to be expected since they were introducing 4E. It's also the reason that Pathfinder and other OSR games became havens for people who wanted nothing to do with WOTC's new and shiny. 

I find it incredible and also a little galling that with WOTC is still going to support both 4E and whatever the new edition is though. I understand that the DDI is in place and if they pulled the plug on it for their 4E players there would be absolutely no reason for 5E players to trust them at all.

I'm also saying this as someone who's not a huge fan of 4E: I think that this is a mistake. Theyre going to try and do with the fans what they did with thier properties back in 2007-2008: Pull everything back in house. I think the hardcore 4E people are going to resent having their edition end about as much as the hardcore 3.x people did (or maybe not as much because they'll still have support...). The dedicated Pathfinder people dont trust WOTC enough to boil water for tea much less a new system. The OSR fanbase for the most part shuns BOTH of the later systems so anything resembling them gets poo-pooed. 

the design team and WOTC REALLY has their work cut out for them. I dont envy them at all. Especially with this upcoming playtest. If they experience anything close to the complete douchelike behavior that came out of some of the playtester forums on Paizo? I expect Monte and Mearls to start drinking HARD.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Jan van Leyden said:


> Oh, by the way: You don't like "spells per day" for wizards





			
				Vyvyan Basterd  said:
			
		

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



Should have seen that coming. It's an aside, but I'll answer the question (thoroughly). I think that Vancian magic is a problem; the game has largely been balanced by the idea that mages can do incredible things a few times per day and fighters can do decent things indefinitely. This didn't achieve balance very well, less so as spells became more plentiful and easy to cast. Spells aren't difficult enough to cast. The fighter and the fatigue and wounds of combat were not modeled well, and his infinite reserves of stamina aren't that useful.

4e tried to fix this by adding an abstraction to where fighters and mages used the same power system. This also didn't model fatigue very well, robbed spellcasters of their diversity, and, even worse, created a "per encounter" distinction, even though an encounter is not an objective time unit. There's also the "homogeneity" and "grind" that even 4e advocates often complain about. Even if it was more balanced, it's hard to say that's worth it.

My take on the whole thing is that limiting an ability by "X uses per unit time" is an anachronistic game mechanic. It doesn't achieve balance, because the amount of adventuring in a day varies enormously by group, and it creates cheesy attempts to rest and regain uses (15 minute adventuring day). In addition, it doesn't model reality very well. You could get away with it with mages because magic isn't real, but the problem was there even before the mechanics migrated towards fighters. People fatigue over time, but they aren't fine one minute and unable to swing their sword a certain way the next. If you're going to release a new edition of D&D, an "upgrade" this is one of the prime things to fix.

And yes, I have some ideas on other ways of doling out spells and other abilities (which I'm sure I'll be posting at length somewhere else).

And no, I never liked 3.X barbarian rages, PF barbarian rage points, the 3.0 version of power critical, anything from the Tome of Battle, or any of the other "per day" or "per [unit of time]" mechanics that made their way into the rules during 3e. This is an edition-neutral issue. I hate "per day" in all editions, and I see it as a nexus of problems that many different people have with the game, along with hit points, magic items, combat maneuvers, and some other things.

And no, I don't think Trailblazer's "per rest" solution works, that's a band-aid.

Bottom line, unless you're going to take problematic rules and replace them with innovative and better mechanics _that are actually better than the old ones_, why would I buy a new game?


----------



## DaveMage

billd91 said:


> But how can a corporation like WotC regain people's trust? Should they be forced to shoulder a burden that isn't working out for them because they need to wait 4 more years before *you* trust them? Do they have that kind of time? Or should they scrap the stuff that isn't in working in an effort to better serve dissatisfied customers?
> 
> I haven't had much confidence in WotC's decisions in some time, but I'll still review them individually in the hopes that they're successfully learning something.




To regain trust, the cycle of terminations of WotC employees has to stop.  Otherwise there is no accountability and what's said today is meaningless.



Scott_Rouse said:


> Since you're quoting me I'll chime in. I don"t have a horse in this race and I have largely moved on (professionally and personally).
> 
> Yes I did say that and  at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.
> 
> There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that violated the communities trust (failure to have DDi tools at launch, the GSL vs OGL) but after all that has happened with 4e is a shorter edition life-cycle really going to be the thing that turns you away from the opportunity of a better game that 5e offers?  4e was broken as a game and business and it's needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.




The point is that the people there today may (and one might even say it's likely that they will) be gone tomorrow and WotC has a terrible record with regard to staffing.  Therefore, anything said, any time spent on the process, may become meaningless when the next "leader(s)" come in to do their thing.

I'm not saying you weren't being honest when you said 4E would last 8-10 years.  Quite the opposite.  I'm saying that there are forces within (and above) WotC that make any statements by any staff member dubious.

Today they want an all-inclusive game.  Tomorrow they may all be fired.

Now granted, it's possible in any business that the climate may change forcing decisions to be made, but WotC seems to bring the changes on themselves and they don't seem to be getting better - but worse in this regard.


----------



## pauljathome

jaerdaph said:


> .
> 
> Now my data point: Don't spend too much time, money or effort trying to win me back, WotC/Hasbro. I'm in that 45 and older crowd, and while I know I don't speak for everyone in that age group, I've moved on. I already have what I need in 3 1/2 editions of D&D, Pathfinder, a few d20 "spin off" and OSR retro-clone games, not to mention the non-d20/non-D&D games I play now as well. Spend that time, money and effort appealing to my younger nephews and nieces (ages 11, 9, 6 and 6) instead. Take D&D well into the 21st century by getting them on board. Take almost 40 years of D&D and revamp and refresh it for the younger generation. Make them feel that same magic that I felt in 1979 when I first discovered D&D. But don't just package up 1979 D&D and resell it. Use every modern technology and tool that has been developed since D&D first came out and are such an integral part of the younger generation's lives, and integrate that into the the new game. Keep in mind their preferred way of getting information - sound bites, text messages, short and to the point. Don't overwhelm with countless tomes filled with pages and pages and pages of information. Let them pick up the game and be up and running and playing in 10 minutes or less. Do that, and people will still be playing D&D another 40 years from now.




I'm genuinely curious. Have you seen the Pathfinder Beginner Box? If you have, how good a job of doing this did they do? I certainly believe that their intent was to pretty much do exactly what you propose above (well, not the technology so much as it was still a printed product)


----------



## Dice4Hire

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It may be. Still, it does grate on me. This is perhaps because I am over-sensitive to copyright issues, though.




Then perhaps write your own game or product and keep all the copyrighty goodness for yourself?


----------



## Scott_Rouse

ShinHakkaider said:


> Well to be fair they DID kill 3.x, at least support for it. Which at that point was to be expected since they were introducing 4E. It's also the reason that Pathfinder and other OSR games became havens for people who wanted nothing to do with WOTC's new and shiny.




To be fair, considering how well Pathfinder is doing, the DID NOT kill 3.x (thanks to the OGL). 

TSR/WotC have never supported past editions when a new version came out. Most (if not all) publishers stop supporting old editions when new versions come out.

BTW there is a school of thought that a publisher like WOTC should support ALL editions new & old of a game like D&D. I think that is crazy but there are people who subscribe to this idea.


----------



## Uder

DaveMage said:


> I'm not saying you weren't being honest when you said 4E would last 8-10 years.  Quite the opposite.  I'm saying that there are forces within (and above) WotC that make any statements by any staff member dubious.
> 
> Today they want an all-inclusive game.  Tomorrow they may all be fired.




Exactly. If 5E turns out (thinking of a way to say this nicely) _performing_ in a similar manner to 4E, which of the people in charge will be here in four years saying the equivalent of:



Scott_Rouse said:


> 4e was broken as a game and business and it's [sic] needs to go away.




(Which, BTW, would be an excellent sig if I was type who like tweaking noses with sigs).


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Scott_Rouse said:


> BTW there is a school of thought that a publisher like WOTC should support ALL editions new & old of a game like D&D. I think that is crazy but there are people who subscribe to this idea.




I wonder how much this school of thought is being pursued now at WotC? Given the nature of the 5e announcement, with its talk of unity and drawing from earlier editions, it seems natural to wonder if we could see this happen to some extent. It would be nice at the least to see the pdfs of older edition material made available for sale again.


----------



## Kzach

talok55 said:


> Well apparently just making games with little thought to if your customers will enjoy playing them or if they capture the D&D feel didn't work out so hot for them.  4E must have been a commercial failure or they wouldn't be announcing 5E so quickly.   Pathfinder sought out input from it's customers, and it's been increasing in popularity and stealing players from 4E since it's inception.




All of your statements are based on what, exactly? Because I've seen no evidence to support anything you claim; rabid fanboism is not a substitute for facts.


----------



## Uder

Scott_Rouse said:


> To be fair, considering how well Pathfinder is doing, the DID NOT kill 3.x (thanks to the OGL).
> 
> TSR/WotC have never supported past editions when a new version came out. Most (if not all) publishers stop supporting old editions when new versions come out.




Eh?

TSR continued publishing AD&D 1E articles in Dragon magazine for at least a year, printing 1E PHBs for several years and including "how to use this with 1st edition" notes in many early 2nd edition products.

WotC still provides FAQs, errata, adventures and hundreds of other web articles for 3.x., and provides downloads of a large amount of AD&D material.

When you say most publishers stop supporting old versions of their games? Which publishers? Games Workshop, sure, but I'm at a loss to think of another publisher that turned the hose on the fanbase the way you guys did during the runup to 4E. Now it turns out you knew it was old and busted you ever parachuted out of there.

Arrgh. Urge to flame rising. I'm out.


----------



## Roland55

Kravell said:


> From the Wizards new D&D blog:
> 
> Mike Mearls, Team Lead
> Greg Bilsland, Team Producer
> Monte Cook, Design Team Lead
> Bruce Cordell, Designer
> Robert J. Schwalb, Designer
> Jeremy Crawford, Development Team Lead
> Tom LaPille, Developer
> Rodney Thompson, Developer
> Miranda Horner, Editor




Cook ... Cordell ... Thompson ... Schwalb.  That sounds just fine to me.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

DaveMage said:


> To regain trust, the cycle of terminations of WotC employees has to stop.  Otherwise there is no accountability and what's said today is meaningless.




Terminating the _right _folks would actually go a long way towards demonstrating some accountability.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Uder said:


> Eh?
> 
> TSR continued publishing AD&D 1E articles in Dragon magazine for at least a year, printing 1E PHBs for several years and including "how to use this with 1st edition" notes in many early 2nd edition products.
> 
> WotC still provides FAQs, errata, adventures and hundreds of other web articles for 3.x., and provides downloads of a large amount of AD&D material.
> 
> When you say most publishers stop supporting old versions of their games? Which publishers? Games Workshop, sure, but I'm at a loss to think of another publisher that turned the hose on the fanbase the way you guys did during the runup to 4E. Now it turns out you knew it was old and busted you ever parachuted out of there.
> 
> Arrgh. Urge to flame rising. I'm out.




By support I meant making a business out of old edition. 

Haha, yeah I "parachuted out". 

If 4e was working (as a game/business) we would still be talking about 5e rumors and not 5e reality right now.


----------



## drothgery

Scott_Rouse said:


> Yes I did say that and  at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.



You'd obviously know this a lot better than I would, but what the heck do you expect to be selling in years 4-8 (or 10!!) of an edition's life cycle? The evidence of 3 editions of WotC D&D (3e, 3.5, and 4e) -- and three of WotC Star Wars RPGs, for that matter -- say that after you do splatbooks for all the core classes, psionics, and the core setting books for a few major settings, further expansion material is really scraping the bottom of the barrel -- and that gets done within three years or so unless you're publishing things really slowly (which slows the uptake of a new edition, so you don't want to do that). And WotC has been pretty adamant that adventures don't really sell well enough to try and build a business model around them. So even if WotC wanted to go 8 years between editions of D&D (which they never have done, or even come close to doing), how could they?


----------



## TerraDave

Scott_Rouse said:


> Since you're quoting me I'll chime in. I don"t have a horse in this race and I have largely moved on (professionally and personally).
> 
> Yes I did say that and  at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.
> 
> There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that violated the communities trust (failure to have DDi tools at launch, the GSL vs OGL) but after all that has happened with 4e is a shorter edition life-cycle really going to be the thing that turns you away from the opportunity of a better game that 5e offers?  4e was broken as a game and business and it's needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.






Morrus said:


> Yikes, man!  I know you don't work there any more, but wow!




I've missed The Rouse.

(also, took a quick glance at the blog, and glad to see the job there).


----------



## Erdrick Dragin

First off, I like to state that I called this a long time ago and it's actually announced. My predictions with WotC have always been spot on. They're so insanely predictable.

Second, clearly 4E failed. Another thing I called when I heard just one paragraph of the changes coming to D&D with that edition.

Next, this piece of news says one thing to me: "We don't know what the hell we're doing anymore, so we're going to have you do the work for us!"

Is that what WotC has come down to with D&D? Seriously, sell the damn brand already. It's worthless in their hands. Paizo or some other company can do a much better job. Heck, White Wolf could do a much better job! They talk about unity across all editions with the gamers who are split apart from the Edition Wars by --- wait for it --- making ANOTHER edition!? Where is the logic in that?

Were I in control of D&D, I know exactly how to bring this "unity" they speak of while being very profitable. WotC, if you're reading this, please consider this suggestion. I'll also be involved in the playtest, if possible, to repeat this suggestion again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*HOW TO FIX D&D in 3 EASY STEPS
*[Number One]
Never create a new edition. Ever. Keep the 4 you have. The reason is explained below.

[Number Two]
Redistribute and release PDFs across all editions along with print-to-order hard copies of any D&D product of any edition of the game. 

[Number Three]
Spread resources throughout the 4 editions, giving each their share. The newer edition receives the bigger share, and then scale down. Maybe switch it up now and then.

That's pretty much it. Keep the bases you have now and just cater to them. Rely on these 4 Editions to bring in new customers, because they will. Why?! Because they not only have reason to play D&D (because you're now supporting their edition with new material), but they're also spending money on you again in utter ecstasy to see their favorite edition "revived".

Making an edition where the customers give all the input is not going to solve jack. You're going to get too many divisive suggestions and 5E is going to be a horrendous mess. No one is going to like 5E if it doesn't incorporate most of the rules of the edition they play, it's that clear and simple. 

So be simplistic and give them what they want. THEIR EDITION OF THE GAME! Clean up the first 3, have separate divisions for each edition, and just craft away, using input from the customers to determine what products you'll need to release for each edition.

That's how I'd handle it. I'd not only gain back many fans that have left, but I'll be getting new ones from 4 different styles of play which means I'll have tons of new gamers coming in. 

I sometimes believe gamers really have no business sense at times. And business people seem to have no gaming sense. Mold the two together and you'll be fine.


----------



## Sammael

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Terminating the _right _folks would actually go a long way towards demonstrating some accountability.



Dunno, most of the ones I wanted to see gone are already gone. I'm fine with the above 5e core team, though it could be greatly improved by adding a few more names.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> Then perhaps write your own game or product and keep all the copyrighty goodness for yourself?




I'd go OGL (or at least Creative Commons), but that's neither here nor there. The point is that WotC doesn't need to claim ownership of everything I post in their little sub-forum just to protect themselves from getting sued some day, and that lazy, unenforcable, categorical claims of ownership are bad things. That's true regardless of what business yer in. 

But anyway again, not really important to the 5e convo.



			
				Alzurius said:
			
		

> Based on the tone of their press release, I'm worried that WotC is going to go too far in trying to make a game that appeals to everyone.




I don't think this is a big fear. I think that rather than make "a game for everyone," they will make a loose base, and then several things that jack into that base. Those things that jack into that base will be self-contained, and narrowly defined.

Imagine 4e's policy for settings (1-3 books, then done, except for magazine content), but applied to _rules instead_. Rather than make one Universal D&D, they'll make a loose base, and then plug in 1-3 books on minis-intensive combat, and 1-3 books on dungeon exploration, and 1-3 books on intrigue-heavy city gaming, and....etc. 

So the "core D&D" will be less "a game for everyone," and more "a game for those who want to do their own thing with D&D." And then, on top of that core, they can release other games -- games for those who love minis combat, games for those who love adventure paths, games for those who want postapocalyptic wahoo 80's adventure (like Dark Sun), etc. 

And if the core is sufficiently flexible -- broadly defined principles instead of hard and fast rules, forex -- then even those people who want to save vs. paralyzation rather than roll an attack against Fortitude can be happy, since D&D's brand identity won't rest on a particular ruleset.

If they're very clever, they'll make it OGL, since that'll let others fill in niches WotC might not have the budget to pay attention to. And then Pathfinder can even build on whatever base 5e makes, taking it in its own direction.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Scott_Rouse said:


> Haha, yeah I "parachuted out".




Maybe he meant like in that James Bond movie where he was thrown out of the airplane and had to fight a guy for a parachute on the way down.


----------



## TerraDave

Uder said:


> Eh?
> 
> TSR continued publishing AD&D 1E articles in Dragon magazine for at least a year, printing 1E PHBs for several years and including "how to use this with 1st edition" notes in many early 2nd edition products.
> 
> SNIP.




It was more like several months. But yes, there was an overlap. And they did keep OD&D in reprints after AD&D came out. 

On the other hand, within a few years of 2E, you started to see adds in Dragon for re-salers of 1E and B/X material.


----------



## BobROE

As someone with a stable pathfinder game, I'm not really sure who I'm supposed to be getting "unity" with....

WotC wants to get unity it the market, cause that's good for them, but I don't really see why that's good for ME as an individual user....


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Ah, here we go; actual footage of Scott Rouse parachuting out of Wizards after the release of 4e:

Skydive Escape - YouTube


----------



## Roland55

Indeed.  Color me at least as interested.

But, I'm a "glass half full" kinda guy.
<!--

Point is, I’m *quite interested* in seeing what Monte Cook has in mind for 5<sup>th</sup> ed and I urge all of you to keep an open mind.[/quote]

Indeed.  Color me at least as interested.

But, I'm a "glass half full" kinda guy.-->


----------



## Scott_Rouse

DaveMage said:


> To regain trust, the cycle of terminations of WotC employees has to stop.  Otherwise there is no accountability and what's said today is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that the people there today may (and one might even say it's likely that they will) be gone tomorrow and WotC has a terrible record with regard to staffing.  Therefore, anything said, any time spent on the process, may become meaningless when the next "leader(s)" come in to do their thing.
> 
> I'm not saying you weren't being honest when you said 4E would last 8-10 years.  Quite the opposite.  I'm saying that there are forces within (and above) WotC that make any statements by any staff member dubious.
> 
> Today they want an all-inclusive game.  Tomorrow they may all be fired.
> 
> Now granted, it's possible in any business that the climate may change forcing decisions to be made, but WotC seems to bring the changes on themselves and they don't seem to be getting better - but worse in this regard.




People leave companies on their own or through layoff/firing all the time so statements made by individuals need to be attributed to the company. If people are going to hold a company accountable on the validity of statements for 2, 3, 4, 5+ years then those companies would be best served to not make these kinds statements. 

WotC is in a tough spot. On the one hand they want to have an open dialog with their customers and go out of the way to share information often/early (case in point they are crowd sourcing a big chunk of their business with the 5e announce) but with openness is a darkside. When the company needs to make (sometimes) unpopular but necessary decisions to remain viable they get blasted (eg announcing 5e is coming less than 4 years after 4e was launched), not an enviable position.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Scott_Rouse said:


> Since you're quoting me I'll chime in. I don"t have a horse in this race and I have largely moved on (professionally and personally).
> 
> Yes I did say that and  at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.
> 
> There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that ...




A man who will face a comment like that head-on with truth and grace is a man with _integrity_.

Nicely done.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Scott_Rouse said:


> TSR/WotC have never supported past editions when a new version came out. Most (if not all) publishers stop supporting old editions when new versions come out.
> .




I am going to retract this.  There was the sales of older edition D&D PDFs via RPG now.


----------



## Roland55

Scott_Rouse said:


> My therapist tells me admitting this kind of stuff is healthy.




Yes, yes it is.

Feels pretty good, too.


----------



## howandwhy99

Mercurius said:


> The key then, in my view, is to create a 5E that doesn't focus on the past in any form--whether we're talking about OD&D, AD&D, BECMI or even 4E--but forms a strong basis for as wide a variety of D&D experiences as possible, while remaining connected to the overall legacy of the game. So if I were designing 5E I would make sure that, in the context of this discussion, all of the following were true:
> 
> *It is possible to play an "Old School-esque" game.
> *It is possible to play a 3.5esque game.
> *It is possible to play a 4Esque game.
> *It brings something uniquely its own ("5Esque") to the table.




I believe they are going to use modularity to satisfy the concerns you bring up.  I think it is extraordinarily important that both 4E as is and 3.x play styles are catered to. That is the guts of the divide in the community. Old schoolers like me have a horse in the race, but we simply aren't as sizable (if not vocal) portion of the community. 

More importantly I believe they need to make a game that makes people stand up and say "I want to play that" and that means innovative thinking and a strong finger on the pulse of what makes all players today the same when it comes to a fun game. It must be a fun game first and foremost. It really must be enjoyable enough at start to attract the investment of old and new players alike. The rest of the issues like play style splits can be addressed with solid know how of what makes 3.x and 4.0 the games they are (and we're talking Mike & Monte here). 

Old school games are a different beast in my book, but I think they are plausible. It is a matter of rules in some ways, but it is DM and DM screen magic time. Catering to that can be done, but it will be more difficult. They are like writing a joke book. If you put the punchlines in the PHB, the players won't be in frothing anticipation when the joke arises. 

One route to cover all of these beyond rules support by game modularity may be by vastly expanding game styles in the DMG. 3.0 had event vs. site based adventures and episodic, continuing and plot weaving for campaigns. 4E had adventures and super adventures, single setting, nonlinear, and multiple quests. It's DMG 2 added significantly to these. 

A new game making an umbrella over numerous play styles is really going to need a large and most wisely an ongoing accounting of each. It will still need some grouping, but there is enough material in the community already, which the community can give in feedback, to build a strong base of what the game needs to be covering in DM guidebooks. While some may see the fracturing of the community in RPGs across the board as a divisive splitting I do believe it can be a community which seeks to include all members. Having our flagship game seek to do just that is positive whatever the outcome. 

The flip of the fracture argument and "How could they possibly cover everyone's concerns?" and "you can't please everyone" is that we as players have become highly knowledgeable about what we want from games. Some will not want modularity. I suggest modules be capable of stand alone play for that reason, if no other. For everyone else, this is a step forward even if it may take awhile for your specific concerns and desires to be addressed. I strongly suspect that no matter how much is published almost all of us will do a little more personalization beyond the printed work. That's great. Let's keep innovating. But let's also tell the designers what we want, so we have the chance (at least) to have a bigger and better game for all. Opting out early on only serves to hide one's desires from the exact group of people looking to satisfy them.

I get my personal desires are mine (and probably too often stated), but I feel a well intentioned crew with talent and the resources to back them up can satisfy *most* of us, if we don't stop them by our own disenchantment first. I'd like 5E to be the best D&D yet. I plan on adding my own 2 cents for the potential that it may happen.

...but if we quit this, I don't care to guess what will happen to the community, not just the company. Hasbro may seem some monolithic overlord to some, but it also brings significant weight to bear for spotlighting this hobby. I don't see anyone else even remotely on their level. I'd rather work with them for what we want than abandon ship or ignore it all dispassionately.


----------



## Dragonblade

Scott_Rouse said:


> If 4e was working (as a game/business) we would still be talking about 5e rumors and not 5e reality right now.




4e works just fine as a game. In fact its my favorite edition to date, thank you very much.


----------



## Roland55

TerraDave said:


> I've missed The Rouse.
> 
> (also, took a quick glance at the blog, and glad to see the job there).




Yes, I've missed him, too.

I'm glad to see him chiming in here -- and even gladder to see he has a solid job doing something exciting.

I'd like to see a lot more Rouse around here.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Roland55 said:


> Yes, I've missed him, too.
> 
> I'm glad to see him chiming in here -- and even gladder to see he has a solid job doing something exciting.
> 
> I'd like to see a lot more Rouse around here.




Thanks 

BTW is the thread looking goofy for anyone else? Everything from #125 is posting like a multi-quote under Roland55


----------



## Gentlegamer

Scott_Rouse said:


> Thanks
> 
> BTW is the thread looking goofy for anyone else? Everything from #125 is posting like a multi-quote under Roland55



Yeah, it's gone Inception for me, too


----------



## Nemesis Destiny

Scott_Rouse said:


> BTW is the thread looking goofy for anyone else? Everything from #125 is posting like a multi-quote under Roland55



Not just you. It's busted as heck for me too.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

BobROE said:


> As someone with a stable pathfinder game, I'm not really sure who I'm supposed to be getting "unity" with....
> 
> WotC wants to get unity it the market, cause that's good for them, but I don't really see why that's good for ME as an individual user....




THIS EXACTLY. 

I walked away from WOTC because they were selling a product that I had no interest in. Paizo makes a product that I'm more than interested in and have been supporting since 2007-8. 

People who play 4E are still going to have support for their game. Who are they supposed to be unifying with?


----------



## bouncyhead

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Not just you. It's busted as heck for me too.



Well if _this_ is what it's going to be like under 5th Edition, I'm already unhappy.


----------



## Dark Mistress

ColonelHardisson said:


> Ah, here we go; actual footage of Scott Rouse parachuting out of Wizards after the release of 4e:
> 
> Skydive Escape - YouTube




Never knew Scott looked so much like Roger Moore, though I totally imaged WotC/Hasbro suits to have metal teeth and be really tall.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny

Scott_Rouse said:


> The "they broke their promise" argument  sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was  all over the boards when 4e was announced.



To be honest, the  statement you make in the sentence immediately preceding this one does,  too:


Scott_Rouse said:


> 4e was broken as a game and business and it needs to go away.



As a business / business model - I'll buy that. As a _game_? That smacks of the same kind of "you're Doing It Wrong" arrogance that turned folks sour around the launch of 4e in the first place. For WotC's sake, and D&D as an entity, it's probably a good thing that you're no longer involved if that's how you truly feel.

I'm not attacking you personally here. I gather that you had a rough time with them, so your bitterness is understandable. That said, I don't think your assessment of 4e is all that fair.


----------



## DaveMage

Scott_Rouse said:


> People leave companies on their own or through layoff/firing all the time so statements made by individuals need to be attributed to the company. If people are going to hold a company accountable on the validity of statements for 2, 3, 4, 5+ years then those companies would be best served to not make these kinds statements.
> 
> WotC is in a tough spot. On the one hand they want to have an open dialog with their customers and go out of the way to share information often/early (case in point they are crowd sourcing a big chunk of their business with the 5e announce) but with openness is a darkside. When the company needs to make (sometimes) unpopular but necessary decisions to remain viable they get blasted (eg announcing 5e is coming less than 4 years after 4e was launched), not an enviable position.




Agreed.  But it's more than that.  The D&D team has undergone such a continual shift that it looks like there's absolutely no consistent leadership and vision.  Until there is such a person (who actually has backing from the company) and vision, it's all a crap-shoot.

It's hard for me to have any faith in such a company.  Obviously, for everyone else, YMMV.


----------



## howandwhy99

Oddly I made a post about designing modular game systems only a few days ago.


----------



## BrooklynKnight

Kravell said:


> From the Wizards new D&D blog:
> 
> Mike Mearls, Team Lead
> Greg Bilsland, Team Producer
> Monte Cook, Design Team Lead
> Bruce Cordell, Designer
> Robert J. Schwalb, Designer
> Jeremy Crawford, Development Team Lead
> Tom LaPille, Developer
> Rodney Thompson, Developer
> Miranda Horner, Editor




No Sean K Reynolds? Fail!

The rest of the list is pretty cool though...


----------



## Dragonblade

Nemesis Destiny said:


> To be honest, the  statement you make in the sentence immediately preceding this one does,  too:
> As a business / business model - I'll buy that. As a _game_? That smacks of the same kind of "you're Doing It Wrong" arrogance that turned folks sour around the launch of 4e in the first place. For WotC's sake, and D&D as an entity, it's probably a good thing that you're no longer involved if that's how you truly feel.
> 
> I'm not attacking you personally here. I gather that you had a rough time with them, so your bitterness is understandable. That said, I don't think your assessment of 4e is all that fair.




Agreed. 4e is a fantastic game when evaluated on its own merits without all the baggage that comes with being an edition of D&D.

Its game design is superb and its my favorite edition to play by far. Though, I remain cautiously optimistic that 5e won't throw the baby out with the bathwater in its attempt to woo back prior edition players.


----------



## Kzach

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Not just you. It's busted as heck for me too.




News just in: 5e broke EN World!


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Nemesis Destiny said:


> To be honest, the  statement you make in the sentence immediately preceding this one does,  too:
> As a business / business model - I'll buy that. As a _game_? That smacks of the same kind of "you're Doing It Wrong" arrogance that turned folks sour around the launch of 4e in the first place. For WotC's sake, and D&D as an entity, it's probably a good thing that you're no longer involved if that's how you truly feel.
> 
> I'm not attacking you personally here. I gather that you had a rough time with them, so your bitterness is understandable. That said, I don't think your assessment of 4e is all that fair.





My statement about the game being broken is more a commentary on the environment in which 4e currently lives (play & business).  The audience is fractured among a few D&D systems, the GSL did not accomplish what it was supposed to do (create broad 3pp support for the system), the designs has evolved over time (class changes, monsters etc), Essentials was/is confusing to new(er) players and veterans. If 4e was healthy we would not be talking about 5e right now. 

And for the record, I am not bitter AT ALL. I enjoyed my time at WotC, I am proud of what I accomplished there, I still have a ton of friends that work on D&D and I hope 5e is a smashing success.  To add to that, I am a pretty big 4e fanboi. It is my favorite D&D rules system and I wish I had more time to play in a campaign.


----------



## Roland55

Scott_Rouse said:


> Thanks
> 
> BTW is the thread looking goofy for anyone else? Everything from #125 is posting like a multi-quote under Roland55




I see it, also.

For once, probably NOT my doing ... I simply don't have that kind of "power."

Now, if we're talking quantum physics ... but, no.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

DaveMage said:


> Agreed.  But it's more than that.  The D&D team has undergone such a continual shift that it looks like there's absolutely no consistent leadership and vision.  Until there is such a person (who actually has backing from the company) and vision, it's all a crap-shoot.
> 
> It's hard for me to have any faith in such a company.  Obviously, for everyone else, YMMV.




Beyond Gary Gygax & Bill Slavicesk who has been at the design helm of the game for more than 1 edition (8-10 years)?


----------



## Morrus

Scott_Rouse said:


> Beyond Gary Gygax & Bill Slavicesk who has been at the design helm of the game for more than 1 edition (8-10 years)?





The question, presumably, should be who has been at the design helm of *a* game for more than 1 edition (8-10 years)?


----------



## catsclaw227

howandwhy99 said:


> Paizo is not going to be beat at their own game. The adventure path paradigm is their bread and butter because it naturally works with a subscription based book selling model - very lucrative for a small bookseller. Not to mention they have been cultivating authors and running contests to find more. It is every bit as much if not more important to their success IMO as the updated ruleset with a legacy audience.




This is a good point about the success of the AP sales model.  It worked for Paizo during the mid-late 3.5 era because it was still part of a magazine subscription.



> What Wizard could do is go with alternate adventure designs until they find something that hits. Traditional modules can be every bit as complex as any finely written novel, but they are simply a different beast. Imagine a basic module-sized situation (an adventure territory) and tie all of the piece together in their relations. Then spin out a potential future of dynamic change within it. The key is, let the players change the world and the future timeline and enable DMs to construct alternate ones easily on the fly and between sessions without ignoring the starting relationships. - Well, that's one way. But just because adventures may not be selling or be seen as a weakness now doesn't mean they don't support play or cannot be reinvigorated.




This is sorta like what they wanted to do with Chaos Scar.  I think it's a nice idea, but I do really want WoTC to do some kind of adventure pack, whether loosely detailed regions or highly detailed cities or even traditional adventures.  TSR did adventures and they were pretty well sold (if I recall correctly)

Actually, I think this is where an OGL/GSL could be beneficial for indie press - adventures and/or adventure series' geared towards different settings or setting types.   I loved some of the 3.x campaign regions, especially those that took an exception based design methodology and spun the rules a bit on it's ears.

What I DIDN'T like were the super crunchy 3PP books of the 3.x era.  There were some exceptions, but mostly they were unbalanced and geez... did I really need to see the 11th "Complete Book of Drow" with a not-so-new spin on drow mechanics?

IMHO, the worst 3PP offenders of the 3.x era were the crunchy books written by amateurs and semi-professionals that didn't quite understand the ruleset.  The best books were the colorful campaign settings, adventure areas, adventure series.  

As I said, there were some exceptions, I generally trusted things from Green Ronin, Malhavoc and Necromancer Games, but how cool were books like Seven Cities from Penumbra, Portals and Planes by FFG, and Lost City of Barakus from Necro?


----------



## Walking Dad

So, I took the time to read the whole thread...

This is why I'm not that optimistic for the 5e

- Monte articles
Disliked nearly all of them. And the polls were mostly heavily weighted.

- Face-to-Face focus
I'm a PbP player. There are some things that work great on the table and not in PbP (like interrupts).

- Open playtest (like pathfinder)
I hat like it looks that they try to copy the Paizo success. First making a familiar based wizard class and calling it "witch". Then an "open playtest" (still thinking Pathfinder Alpha had some great ideas that were destroyed by this).
And they make "mistakes". Their witche's familiar is less a focus of this class and their playtest is under NDA protection.

- 4e failure
<acronym title="Wizards of the Coast">"WotC</acronym> has acknowledged publicly that they made mistakes in the buildup to <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4E</acronym>, and has learned important lessons from that period."
I really like 4e.

----

And now some comments on previous posts:



GMforPowergamers said:


> remeber there is a right and wrong way to do it. In sales we ask people what they want, then ignore 90% of there answer and take the last 10% and twist and interpirt it to give our first suggestion, then we gage there responce to maek a second suggestion.



Makes me wonder how Paizo did this...



Son of Meepo said:


> Bah!  The OGL was just a poor excuse for  small time companies to make money off the backs of a real game system.   90% of the 3rd party stuff was poorly conceived, utterly unbalanced,  overpriced crap.
> 
> Feel free to have an OGL again WotC, but this is one consumer who won't touch it.



But the OGL gave us Mutants & Masterminds, Spy-/Fantasycraft, Iron Heroes and Pathfinder.

Not a bad legacy.



DaveMage said:


> ...
> 
> UNLESS, you get a license from Paizo to integrate the Pathfinder system  in whatever offering you come up with.  Then we'll talk.



The already have the license...

it is calld "OGL".



Sammael said:


> Dunno, most of the ones I wanted to see gone are  already gone. I'm fine with the above 5e core team, though it could be  greatly improved by adding a few more names.



Maybe he thought of some people in the Hasbro management...



ShinHakkaider said:


> ...
> 
> People who play 4E are still going to have support for their game. Who are they supposed to be unifying with?



How, without something like an OGL or Hasbro selling the rights for the 4e system?


----------



## Morrus

Walking Dad said:


> S
> - 4e failure
> <acronym title="Wizards of the Coast">"WotC</acronym> has acknowledged publicly that they made mistakes in the buildup to <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4E</acronym>, and has learned important lessons from that period."
> I really like 4e.




The mistakes referred to there are specifically marketing mistakes.  I don't think anyone could argue that they didn't drop the ball there - the edition wars are a testament to that.  

It wasn't said as a commentary on the game itself.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny

Scott_Rouse said:


> My statement about the game being broken is more a commentary on the environment in which 4e currently lives (play & business).  The audience is fractured among a few D&D systems, the GSL did not accomplish what it was supposed to do (create broad 3pp support for the system), the designs has evolved over time (class changes, monsters etc), Essentials was/is confusing to new(er) players and veterans. If 4e was healthy we would not be talking about 5e right now.
> 
> And for the record, I am not bitter AT ALL. I enjoyed my time at WotC, I am proud of what I accomplished there, I still have a ton of friends that work on D&D and I hope 5e is a smashing success.  To add to that, I am a pretty big 4e fanboi. It is my favorite D&D rules system and I wish I had more time to play in a campaign.



Fair enough, and thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were speaking technically/mechanically. My mistake, sir.


----------



## jaerdaph

pauljathome said:


> I'm genuinely curious. Have you seen the Pathfinder Beginner Box? If you have, how good a job of doing this did they do? I certainly believe that their intent was to pretty much do exactly what you propose above (well, not the technology so much as it was still a printed product)




I think 4e D&D Essentials did an okay job and Paizo's Pathfinder Beginner Box was a little better for entry level fantasy roleplaying game products in a box. Unfortunately for both companies, it isn't 1980 anymore. If either of them want to get younger people invested in the game, not only do they need to offer something where you can be up and running in minutes, they need to make it available as something that can be played on smart phones and tablets for these kids to want to play. It needs to be similar to how Playstation/Wii videogames work now - the kids need to be able to play with their friends in the same room, play with their friends over the Internet, and play with other users from around the world over the Internet as well. 

So what do I see happening? It looks like Hasbro/WotC, despite today's press release marketing rhetoric, is about to make the same mistake that a lot of big corporations in a lot of different industries are making (and like WotC did last edition change too) - going after segments that weren't buying but dropping a large portion of existing customer that were buying to do it (and not necessarily intentionally). 

Paizo on the other hand is developing an MMO...


----------



## bhandelman

talok55 said:


> Pathfinder sought out input from it's customers, and it's been increasing in popularity and stealing players from 4E since it's inception.




Has it been stealing players from 4e?  Where I game, Pathfinder just replaced all the 3.5 games that were still being played, we have the same number of 4e games as we did before.  Also, it seems almost everyone playing Pathfinder also plays 4e and vice versa, the only exception being certain DMs only run one type or the other, but even they still game in both.  I think forums like ENWorld make the Edition Wars seem a lot more rabid than they are in real life.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

ShinHakkaider said:


> THIS EXACTLY.
> 
> I walked away from WOTC because they were selling a product that I had no interest in. Paizo makes a product that I'm more than interested in and have been supporting since 2007-8.
> 
> People who play 4E are still going to have support for their game. Who are they supposed to be unifying with?




but you walked away with your eyes still looking back... I know that becuse here you are, looking and commenting on a WotC announcment.
Maybe you are more the target then you think...

Imagin the following statement:



> I walked away from Krystal because she was selling doing things I had no interest in. Kari I have found I'm more than interested in and have been seeing her since 2007.



would not it just seam like if you said that in responce to something krystal said...well it might point to some feelings still being there for krystal.


Pathfinder players who really don't care wont bat an eyelash... pathfinder players who may still long for a wotc D&D edtion for them on the other hand may come by and take a look.


----------



## Walking Dad

jaerdaph said:


> ...
> 
> Paizo on the other hand is developing an MMO...




WotC did that, too.
And Paizo now sells miniatures (or at least the rights for them). As did WotC before.

BTW, WotC also tries this facebook game...


----------



## talok55

[
  4e was broken as a game and business and it needs to go away. 
  Best quote by a former WotC employee ever!! I need to make this my sig.


----------



## jaerdaph

Walking Dad said:


> BTW, WotC also tries this facebook game...




Good, glad to hear it, because that's what they should be doing.


----------



## bhandelman

Dragonblade said:


> Its the model for all game publishers. Even Paizo will release a Pathfinder 2e at some point and they probably already have a confidential internal product road map for the next 2-3 years sketched out and Pathfinder 2e is on it.
> 
> They probably already have early drafts and ideas for it even if its too early to admit to it publicly yet.
> 
> The interesting thing to see will be how 5e affects their plans if at all, and if they have their own schism with their fans being upset at changes they introduce with their eventual new edition.




All good points.  Even Warhammer FRP, which prided itself on 15 years with the same edition, eventually moved on and changed.  You can have editions that are more compatible (think the Hero system or BRP, which are for the most part still compatible with their first editions 30 years ago), but the larger your userbase is the larger the split.  I'm really curious as well, but I think Pathfinder should be careful and take their time, certainly at least until 5e is out and see how that affects them first.  The younger you are, the less likely you are to survive a fracture like that I think, especially if 5e really does bring people back into the fold.


----------



## DaveMage

Scott_Rouse said:


> Beyond Gary Gygax & Bill Slavicesk who has been at the design helm of the game for more than 1 edition (8-10 years)?




The problem is that from 2002-2013 there will have been 5 editions.

3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.Essentials, 5E.  That's a LOT of edition turnover in 11 years.


----------



## catsclaw227

DaveMage said:


> 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.Essentials, 5E.



Now...  I see the editions noted like this occasionally.  Sometimes from 4e players, but mostly from people who don't play 4e (or at least don't play much).

Yes, there are some threads started asking questions about compatibility, but for each naysayer, there are a flood of experienced 4e players that debunk the notion that Essentials is a different "version" or "edition" of 4e.

I've been DMing and playing mixed core 4e and essentials games since Essentials came out and there are really very, very few issues that aren't easily fixed.

It is absolutely NOTHING like the switch between 3.0 and 3.5 where we had whole huge subset compatibility issues and therefore the reprinting of splat and monster books with the same monsters and splat classes rebuilt for 3.5.  3.5 was reprinted and positioned as a new edition of D&D.


----------



## talok55

Erdrick Dragin said:


> First off, I like to state that I called this a long time ago and it's actually announced. My predictions with WotC have always been spot on. They're so insanely predictable.
> 
> Second, clearly 4E failed. Another thing I called when I heard just one paragraph of the changes coming to D&D with that edition.
> 
> Next, this piece of news says one thing to me: "We don't know what the hell we're doing anymore, so we're going to have you do the work for us!"
> 
> Is that what WotC has come down to with D&D? Seriously, sell the damn brand already. It's worthless in their hands. Paizo or some other company can do a much better job. Heck, White Wolf could do a much better job! They talk about unity across all editions with the gamers who are split apart from the Edition Wars by --- wait for it --- making ANOTHER edition!? Where is the logic in that?
> 
> Were I in control of D&D, I know exactly how to bring this "unity" they speak of while being very profitable. WotC, if you're reading this, please consider this suggestion. I'll also be involved in the playtest, if possible, to repeat this suggestion again.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *HOW TO FIX D&D in 3 EASY STEPS
> *[Number One]
> Never create a new edition. Ever. Keep the 4 you have. The reason is explained below.
> 
> [Number Two]
> Redistribute and release PDFs across all editions along with print-to-order hard copies of any D&D product of any edition of the game.
> 
> [Number Three]
> Spread resources throughout the 4 editions, giving each their share. The newer edition receives the bigger share, and then scale down. Maybe switch it up now and then.
> 
> That's pretty much it. Keep the bases you have now and just cater to them. Rely on these 4 Editions to bring in new customers, because they will. Why?! Because they not only have reason to play D&D (because you're now supporting their edition with new material), but they're also spending money on you again in utter ecstasy to see their favorite edition "revived".
> 
> Making an edition where the customers give all the input is not going to solve jack. You're going to get too many divisive suggestions and 5E is going to be a horrendous mess. No one is going to like 5E if it doesn't incorporate most of the rules of the edition they play, it's that clear and simple.
> 
> So be simplistic and give them what they want. THEIR EDITION OF THE GAME! Clean up the first 3, have separate divisions for each edition, and just craft away, using input from the customers to determine what products you'll need to release for each edition.
> 
> That's how I'd handle it. I'd not only gain back many fans that have left, but I'll be getting new ones from 4 different styles of play which means I'll have tons of new gamers coming in.
> 
> I sometimes believe gamers really have no business sense at times. And business people seem to have no gaming sense. Mold the two together and you'll be fine.




Dude! They aren't having fans write the system.  They are asking for input.  They might as well because doing it the "us designers know better than you gamers" way resulted in the massive failure that 4E became.  Paizo had three rounds of open playtesting for their core rule and several rounds of open playtesting for new classes.  Clearly Pathfinder is performing better than 4E ever dreamed about, so I wouldn't discount feedback and input from customers.


----------



## talok55

Scott_Rouse said:


> Since you're quoting me I'll chime in. I don"t have a horse in this race and I have largely moved on (professionally and personally).
> 
> Yes I did say that and  at that point in time anyone on the D&D team would have said the same thing. The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.
> 
> There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that violated the communities trust (failure to have DDi tools at launch, the GSL vs OGL) but after all that has happened with 4e is a shorter edition life-cycle really going to be the thing that turns you away from the opportunity of a better game that 5e offers?  4e was broken as a game and business and it needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.




I have to ask.  At what point in 4E's life cycle did you come to personally realize that the game was completely , irrevocabley borked?


----------



## Alan Shutko

bhandelman said:
			
		

> Also, it seems almost everyone playing Pathfinder also plays 4e and vice versa, the only exception being certain DMs only run one type or the other, but even they still game in both.




Not in my circle of friends. A whole bunch of split off from the 4e game and went pathfinder. Right now, neither the 4e players nor the PF players are playing in the others' games.


----------



## talok55

Nemesis Destiny said:


> To be honest, the  statement you make in the sentence immediately preceding this one does,  too:
> As a business / business model - I'll buy that. As a _game_? That smacks of the same kind of "you're Doing It Wrong" arrogance that turned folks sour around the launch of 4e in the first place. For WotC's sake, and D&D as an entity, it's probably a good thing that you're no longer involved if that's how you truly feel.
> 
> I'm not attacking you personally here. I gather that you had a rough time with them, so your bitterness is understandable. That said, I don't think your assessment of 4e is all that fair.




I don't know. If a guy who used to be the brand manager for the game says it's broken, that's hard to argue with.


----------



## talok55

bhandelman said:


> Has it been stealing players from 4e?  Where I game, Pathfinder just replaced all the 3.5 games that were still being played, we have the same number of 4e games as we did before.  Also, it seems almost everyone playing Pathfinder also plays 4e and vice versa, the only exception being certain DMs only run one type or the other, but even they still game in both.  I think forums like ENWorld make the Edition Wars seem a lot more rabid than they are in real life.




Yeah, it is.  I can't give numbers, but I've seen countless "I've left 4E for Pathfinder threads" on forums and am part of gaming group that left 4E for Pathfinder.  I've heard it enough that is seems to be a fairly common occurance.


----------



## Remathilis

BrooklynKnight said:


> No Sean K Reynold's Fail!




Fixed it for you


----------



## Nemesis Destiny

talok55 said:


> I don't know. If a guy who used to be the brand manager for the game says it's broken, that's hard to argue with.



If  you'll read the response he made to that post, he indicated that he was referring to the community and the business model, not the game itself.

It's a pretty annoying comment for him to have made though, in the context that it does nothing to help said community (especially out of context, as most people will take it) - all it will do is fuel the fires for more warring.

How many anti-WotC people are now dancing in the streets saying, "I told you so!" right now? Quite a few. These are the same folks that were alienated and annoyed by the piss-poor marketing surrounding 4e's launch. Now they're saying, "we were right all along; 4e is badwrongfun. haha!"

Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Argyle King

<big><big>_"The new edition is being conceived of as a modular, flexible system, easily customized to individual preferences. Just like a player makes his character, the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset. He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.” - Mike Mearls_

Ok, cool, but how's that different from what these guys are doing?  
GURPS Tactical Shooting
GURPS Dungeon Fantasy
GURPS Mass Combat

Or like these guys?

Welcome to Pinnacle's Weird Website!

Or maybe like...
Basic Role Playing System

I'm not naysaying.  I'm simply curious if that's the type of model WoTC has in mind.  If yes, then what will prompt me (or what does the design team hope will prompt me) to purchase D&D 5E over some of the other games which have already been doing this for a while.  If no, then I'm curious what makes the WoTC vision different.

I'm also curious if the modular rules idea hopes to allow someone wanting to play 3rd edition to sit at the same table with someone wanting to play 4th.  Some of the other comments seem to imply that is the case.  If I have a first edition character who does not have a will save and a 4th edition monster attacks my will defense, how does that work?  

More importantly, how do you make all of this work with the idea of D&D levels while still keeping it balanced?  

 
</big></big>


----------



## frankthedm

Scott_Rouse said:


> 4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away.



Can someone XP the Rouse for me?


----------



## Ahnehnois

Nemesis Destiny said:


> How many anti-WotC people are now dancing in the streets saying, "I told you so!" right now? Quite a few. These are the same folks that were alienated and annoyed by the piss-poor marketing surrounding 4e's launch. Now they're saying, "we were right all along; 4e is badwrongfun. haha!"
> 
> Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.



How about three or more? 4e didn't work. Businesswise or creatively. Then again, some people enjoy it. The same was true for 3.5. The reason for 4e in the first place was that 3.5 was losing steam in the marketplace and some problems had emerged with how the game played. PF is just a sideways step from 3.5. 3e was introduced because 2e had been run into the ground. And so on. Why should any of these games be immune to civil, reasoned criticism?

Every version of D&D has severely broken mechanics, mixed quality art and presentation, and business decisions behind it that are debatable at best. Why can't this be the point of commonality? Everyone can criticize equally.


----------



## Walking Dad

I actually like the Savage World model more than the GURPS one (I think there is a difference.

Interesting citation from the Forbes site. It implies you drop miniatures for "lots of fighting". For what do you want miniatures then? Social games? Trapfinding?


----------



## frankthedm

Morrus said:


> Yikes, man!  I know you don't work there any more, but wow!



He at least waited until the next edition was announced. Heck my paranoid delusions are making me suspect Wotc may have told their ex employees "You can throw 4e under the bus now". Statements like the Rouse's and The Escapist's revealing the financial reasons for 4E's inception tie too well together. I know seeing this stuff made me a lot angrier at 4E.


----------



## Walking Dad

Ahnehnois said:


> ...
> 
> Every version of D&D has severely broken mechanics, mixed quality art and presentation, and business decisions behind it that are debatable at best. Why can't this be the point of commonality? Everyone can criticize equally.



Because he clarified a few posts later he wasn't speaking about mechanics and being a 4e fan.



Scott_Rouse said:


> My statement about the game being broken is  more a commentary on the environment in which 4e currently lives (play  & business).
> 
> ...
> 
> To add to  that, I am a pretty big 4e fanboi. It is my favorite D&D rules  system and I wish I had more time to play in a campaign.





<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @Scott_Rouse <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> Can you please add the clarification to your original post to avoid further misinterpretation? Just for the sake of clarity for people not reading all your following posts. Thanks!


----------



## Nemesis Destiny

Ahnehnois said:


> How about three or more? 4e didn't work. Businesswise or creatively.



A business case can be made, as I said, but creatively? Sorry, that's just as meaningless as saying 3.x is BadWrongFun.


> Then again, some people enjoy it.



Indeed. Lots of people. Perhaps not enough to make 50 million dollars for Hasborg in poor economic times, but that doesn't make it a creative failure. Financial, maybe, but creative... no. Especially since that's an extremely subjective thing.


> The same was true for 3.5. The reason for 4e in the first place was that 3.5 was losing steam in the marketplace and some problems had emerged with how the game played. PF is just a sideways step from 3.5. 3e was introduced because 2e had been run into the ground. And so on. Why should any of these games be immune to civil, reasoned criticism?



They shouldn't be, and aren't. What was your point? I'm not saying that 4e is without its flaws and should be immune to criticism - no system falls under that description. What I am saying, is that it's a little ironic (and in poor taste) that the folks whose noses are out of joint over 4e's poor marketing at launch are the ones casting all the stones right now.



> Every version of D&D has severely broken mechanics, mixed quality art and presentation, and business decisions behind it that are debatable at best. Why can't this be the point of commonality? Everyone can criticize equally.



Sure, but that's not what we're seeing here, is it? This news is being taken as an excuse to take cheap shots at the boogey man.


----------



## DaveMage

catsclaw227 said:


> Now...  I see the editions noted like this occasionally.  Sometimes from 4e players, but mostly from people who don't play 4e (or at least don't play much).




Do you need the PHB, DMG, and MM if you have the Essentials products?  (I was told "no".)

If the answer is "no", it's a new edition.  It may be perfectly compatible with 4.0, but it's a new edition.

And, it doesn't matter if one plays 4.0E - it matters to the people that *don't* play 4.0E - it causes yet more edition confusion.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

talok55 said:


> I have to ask.  At what point in 4E's life cycle did you come to personally realize that the game was completely , irrevocabley borked?




As a playable game it is no more borked than OD&D, AD&D, 3.X, etc. If the game is fun for you then keep playing it.


----------



## Jasperak

*While you are welcome to debate, name calling is not civil and won't be tolerated.

-Stalker0*


----------



## frankthedm

nothing to see here...


----------



## bhandelman

Alan Shutko said:


> Not in my circle of friends. A whole bunch of split off from the 4e game and went pathfinder. Right now, neither the 4e players nor the PF players are playing in the others' games.




Your selective quoting missed the part that said "Where I game".  I wasn't saying everyone in the world that now plays PF also plays 4e, I was saying where I specifically play.  My circle of friends could care less about what edition they are playing, but I was using it as an example.  That doesn't mean I believe no one plays Pathfinder without also being a 4e fan or that all 4e players also play Pathfinder.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Walking Dad said:


> Because he clarified a few posts later he wasn't speaking about mechanics and being a 4e fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @Scott_Rouse <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> Can you please add the clarification to your original post to avoid further misinterpretation? Just for the sake of clarity for people not reading all your following posts. Thanks!




Done. Thanks


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel

*Phrase of the Day is Wait and See*

...for many of the reasons stated above in the thread. I'm interested in seeing what they do though the least common denominator problem does concern me.

I am glad though that they are taking a more open approach to this one. 1E to 2E was discussed somewhat in advance in Dragon and 2E to 3E had preview articles for a year that prompted disucssions on this very site, among other places.


----------



## Alan Shutko

bhandelman said:


> Your selective quoting missed the part that said "Where I game".  I wasn't saying everyone in the world that now plays PF also plays 4e, I was saying where I specifically play.





You're right. I was just giving an example of folks i know where Pathfinder has taken former 4e players.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

DaveMage said:


> The problem is that from 2002-2013 there will have been 5 editions.
> 
> 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.Essentials, 5E.  That's a LOT of edition turnover in 11 years.




So you want to support a company with a pretty consistent design & development staff and a game system (cal it "edition") with a 8-10 year life-cycle? 

Seems like Paizo may be fitting that criteria pretty well.


----------



## bhandelman

talok55 said:


> Yeah, it is.  I can't give numbers, but I've seen countless "I've left 4E for Pathfinder threads" on forums and am part of gaming group that left 4E for Pathfinder.  I've heard it enough that is seems to be a fairly common occurance.




Honestly, if forum post counts mattered 3e would never have been successful because when it came out all I saw were posts about how people weren't switching to a TRPG that was trying too hard to be Diablo.  Excuse me if I don't find forum posts on a hard core fan website to be very representative of things as a whole based on prior experiences like that.  Add on to that the fact that nearly every post I see talking about Pathfinder being so great is by someone who decided to stick with 3.5 until Pathfinder was released and are mostly people who didn't even bother to read the PHB.  I understand your gaming group switched, and I'm sure some did, but I'm not sure that was where most of or even a sizable amount of Pathfinder only groups come from.

Please understand, I'm not trying to play Edition War here.  I personally prefer to play 4e but I don't have a problem with Pathfinder in any way and plan on playing in a game of it pretty soon just for the heck of it.  It's just that where I play, all the DMs running games were running 3.5 games before Pathfinder was released, not 4e, and all of them have played 4e and still play on a fairly regular basis either in Encounters or at the monthly meetup before or after their Pathfinder games.  Also, the DM of the 4e game I was in last Saturday played in a Pathfinder game right after he ran our game.

I see a lot of blanket statements made here that act as though the whole community feels a certain way, but most people I know at the store don't care at all about things like the OGL vs GSL arguments and just want to game in a fantasy setting.  The rules are kind of a secondary thing it seems.


----------



## GregoryOatmeal

Kzach said:


> I do not believe in democracy. I can't go into the reasons why without earning a ban, but suffice it to say that I don't have any, and I mean zero, faith in humanity to make intelligent decisions. People need to be ruled.
> 
> The division within the D&D community isn't because of different editions, it's because people are inherently divisive. Design by committee doesn't work anywhere else so it's not going to work here either. WotC should ignore the community entirely, especially the online community, and just make games.



I bet you'd be surprised by how many people feel the same way. Hell, I don't even trust myself. So I had the same thoughts this morning.

But I'm not quite sure that "design by committee of 10,000 internet nerds" approach is the direction WOTC is going to go. It's hard to imagine anyone would sign off on that approach and it appears WOTC has already made some big decisions about where they want the game to go independent of the online community. I think they'll use the community to get the kinks out and obtain feedback, rather than allowing them to dictate major decisions. I'd say it worked out pretty well for Pathfinder, and it appears that's the model they want to follow.

I'm excited.


----------



## bhandelman

DaveMage said:


> Do you need the PHB, DMG, and MM if you have the Essentials products?  (I was told "no".)
> 
> If the answer is "no", it's a new edition.  It may be perfectly compatible with 4.0, but it's a new edition.
> 
> And, it doesn't matter if one plays 4.0E - it matters to the people that *don't* play 4.0E - it causes yet more edition confusion.




Sure, you could run a game with all those Essential books and not the 3 core books, but all you are really doing is running a game using the 3 core books, patched with 2 years of errata, in a smaller paperback format.  The rules aren't just compatible, they are the same rules.  To me, a new edition requires a change of rules that makes the game incompatible or at least difficult to run together.  3.0 to 3.5 is an edition change, incompatibilities were introduced that required conversion. 4e to 4e essentials is just a fancy way to sell more books, hopefully to new people.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Scott_Rouse said:


> So you want to support a company with a pretty consistent design & development staff and a game system (cal it "edition") with a 8-10 year life-cycle?
> 
> Seems like Paizo may be fitting that criteria pretty well.




To paraphrase this man:







_*"Let's not start rolling each other's dice quite yet."

*_Paizo is three and a half year's in to their cycle. Whether they get to "8-10" years is very much a fact not (yet) in evidence.  I appreciate the sentiment, but it's still too early to be planning that parade route.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Ahnehnois said:


> How about three or more? 4e didn't work. Businesswise or creatively. Then again, some people enjoy it. The same was true for 3.5. The reason for 4e in the first place was that 3.5 was losing steam in the marketplace and some problems had emerged with how the game played. PF is just a sideways step from 3.5. 3e was introduced because 2e had been run into the ground. And so on. Why should any of these games be immune to civil, reasoned criticism?
> 
> Every version of D&D has severely broken mechanics, mixed quality art and presentation, and business decisions behind it that are debatable at best. Why can't this be the point of commonality? Everyone can criticize equally.




Technically it would take exactly 3 wrongs to make a right. Just like it takes 3 left hand turns to be heading the same way as a right hand turn... if you made more wrong you would be facing another direction again.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Nemesis Destiny said:


> If  you'll read the response he made to that post, he indicated that he was referring to the community and the business model, not the game itself.
> 
> It's a pretty annoying comment for him to have made though, in the context that it does nothing to help said community (especially out of context, as most people will take it) - all it will do is fuel the fires for more warring.
> 
> How many anti-WotC people are now dancing in the streets saying, "I told you so!" right now? Quite a few. These are the same folks that were alienated and annoyed by the piss-poor marketing surrounding 4e's launch. Now they're saying, "we were right all along; 4e is badwrongfun. haha!"
> 
> Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.




People shouldn't put that much  stock in what I say, in fact I may have turned into just another message board troll.


----------



## M.L. Martin

Walking Dad said:


> Interesting citation from the Forbes site. It implies you drop miniatures for "lots of fighting". For what do you want miniatures then? Social games? Trapfinding?




  I believe the quote actually says "drop in"--i.e., add them. To be precise . . .



			
				Forbes said:
			
		

> Mearls says the new edition is being conceived of as a modular, flexible system, easily customized to individual preferences.
> 
> “Just like a player makes his character, the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset,” says Mearls. “He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.”
> 
> “You can have as little or as much customization as you want,” he says. “It’s about letting people find their own way to play.”




  I've been pushing for something like this for at least two and a half years, and if they can pull it off (it's a big if, but they've got the people and resources to do it), it just might work.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny

Scott_Rouse said:


> People shouldn't put that much  stock in what I say, in fact I may have turned into just another message board troll.



No, perhaps they _shouldn't_, but they *will* (in fact, it's already started). I figured, being a marketing guy, you would realize the weight your words carry.

People are going to cling to anything you say, good or bad, because of your past with WotC, and as such, anything you say automatically carries greater "weight" or clout. _"The Rouse said it, so it must be true."_ Et cetera. People will use those words to lend strength to their own POV in arguments. It's showing up in signatures (naturally without context).

Anyway, that's why I thought you were bitter with WotC (that and the rumours).


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Steel_Wind said:


> To paraphrase this man:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*"Let's not start rolling each other's dice quite yet."
> 
> *_Paizo is three and a half year's in to their cycle. Whether they get to "8-10" years is very much a fact not (yet) in evidence.  I appreciate the sentiment, but it's still too early to be planning that parade route.




You sending the Wolf? 

I feel better now!


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Nemesis Destiny said:


> No, perhaps they _shouldn't_, but they *will* (in fact, it's already started). I figured, being a marketing guy, you would realize the weight your words carry.
> 
> People are going to cling to anything you say, good or bad, because of your past with WotC, and as such, anything you say automatically carries greater "weight" or clout. _"The Rouse said it, so it must be true."_ Et cetera. People will use those words to lend strength to their own POV in arguments. It's showing up in signatures (naturally without context).
> 
> Anyway, that's why I thought you were bitter with WotC (that and the rumours).




People have been miss-attributing the stuff I say for years so I guess it is nothing new. 

Maybe it's because I've been pretty silent on stuff like this in the past. Sure I said something provocative but this should not be new news to anyone. It's all been said by the members of the community a million times before and by people in the industry as of late (looks at Escapist article which was pretty spot on).


----------



## Nemesis Destiny

Scott_Rouse said:


> People have been miss-attributing the stuff I say for years so I guess it is nothing new.
> 
> Maybe it's because I've been pretty silent on stuff like this in the past. Sure I said something provocative but this should not be new news to anyone. It's all been said by the members of the community a million times before and by people in the industry as of late (looks at Escapist article which was pretty spot on).



Sure, it has been said by other members of the community, but to many, you aren't just a member of that community - you _represent_ it.

Anyway, I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just that us 4e supporters will be doing damage control on that one for quite some time, I'm afraid. 

I've otherwise very much enjoyed having a conversation with a legendary (at least semi-legendary) figure in the D&D community.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Some folks have an axe to grind, and they're not above taking things out of context to grind it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

ColonelHardisson said:


> Ah, here we go; actual footage of Scott Rouse parachuting out of Wizards after the release of 4e:
> 
> Skydive Escape - YouTube



Sorry, I need to correct your footage. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXYfnWRp1Q0]Skydive Rescue[/ame]



The Auld Grump, that scene _still_ makes me laugh....


----------



## nnms

GregoryOatmeal said:


> But I'm not quite sure that "design by committee of 10,000 internet nerds" approach is the direction WOTC is going to go. It's hard to imagine anyone would sign off on that approach and it appears WOTC has already made some big decisions about where they want the game to go independent of the online community. I think they'll use the community to get the kinks out and obtain feedback, rather than allowing them to dictate major decisions. I'd say it worked out pretty well for Pathfinder, and it appears that's the model they want to follow.




I think you've got the right idea here.

WotC already has their processes and procedures that have been expanded upon in various interviews and panel events.

Design --> Development --> Playtesting

If you want to see what WotC expects of its playtesters, take a look at the Barbarian PDF that came out for playtesting before 4E PHB2.  Or the Assassin PDF that came out for playtesting before Heroes of Shadow.

I think we'll see that WotC has a particular vision for their product and are not looking for everything to be first subject to the approval of random internet people.

Unless they are planning on a 2014+ release date, the rules wouldn't get done in time if they were _designed _or _developed _by internet volunteers.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Anyway, I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just that us 4e supporters will be doing damage control on that one for quite some time, I'm afraid.




Us 4e supporters need to stick together so fire up that bat signal thing I'll come in and roll some heads. 



> I've otherwise very much enjoyed having a conversation with a legendary (at least semi-legendary) figure in the D&D community.




thanks 

Sincerely,

Scott Rouse
The semi-legendary soon to be 5e supporter


----------



## Lanefan

That they seem to be trying to hearken back to earlier (as in, much earlier) versions - at least to some extent - gives me hope.

If the end result is merely a 3e-4e hybrid, however, I'll be sorely disappointed.

Lan-"and the number shall be five; not six, not four..."-efan


----------



## Jan van Leyden

tecnowraith said:


> I have a few questions:
> What makes D&D game feel old school-esque?
> What was good about 3.5 that fans liked?
> What was good about 4.0 that fans liked?
> D&D all about Classes if not, it is possible to do D&D without classes? That players can make any character they want without the hassle? Some publishers (and even producers) think kids are stupid or unimaginative to come up with character on their own.




Man fans seem to focus on what they don't like in certain editions. And if the solution is to remove everything a group of fans doesn't like ... well, there won't be much left, I'm afraid.

Perhaps we'll see something with strictly defined classes a la 1e or BECMI as base and "advanced" systems like the feat/class-level system of 3.x and 4e's power system as options?

The L&L articles talked a lot about scaling within a subsystem, but they didn't - up to now - answer the question of basic class construction.


----------



## pogre

I like the opening salvo by WOTC. I'm excited to playtest.

I honestly am not crazy about Mearls and Monte's past work, but Mike said all of the right things as far as I am concerned. 

Did not expect to be excited about D&D again, but I admit I am.


----------



## Echohawk

DaveMage said:


> The problem is that from 2002-2013 there will have been 5 editions.
> 
> 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.Essentials, 5E.  That's a LOT of edition turnover in 11 years.




Well, I guess we can be thankful that the pace of change over the last 11 years has slowed down slightly from the first 11 years of D&D's history:

1974-1985: Original D&D, AD&D, Basic Set (Holmes), Basic Set (Moldvay), Basic Set (Mentzer), AD&D UA.


----------



## Spinachcat

So we are not getting the VTT? AKA, the only thing that can possibly invigorate D&D in the current era? 

Wow. I guess Hasbro really has no faith in the D&D IP. 

I can't see 5e succeeding in their "please everyone" fantasy. They can't make it Old School enough to please Old Schoolers at the same time pleasing fans of 3e and 4e. 

I wonder who will create the "Pathfinder" version of 4e? 

Wouldn't that be a hoot that WotC would be forced to compete with Pathfinder, the OSR and a 4e clone plus all those people who didn't leave 3e and 4e!!!

Talk about a house divided.


----------



## S'mon

Scott_Rouse said:


> 4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away.




That's pretty harsh!

I played it last night and it seemed to work ok.


----------



## mach1.9pants

^He was talking about business model and has clarified it as such with 4 e being his fave edition


DaveMage said:


> The problem is that from 2002-2013 there will have been 5 editions.
> 
> 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.Essentials, 5E.  That's a LOT of edition turnover in 11 years.





			
				Monty Python said:
			
		

> Three Sir!





DaveMage said:


> Do you need the PHB, DMG, and MM if you have the Essentials products?  (I was told "no".)
> 
> If the answer is "no", it's a new edition.  It may be perfectly compatible with 4.0, but it's a new edition.
> 
> And, it doesn't matter if one plays 4.0E - it matters to the people that *don't* play 4.0E - it causes yet more edition confusion.




I disagree here, you can play Pathfinder Beginner Box (which has many different rules than the Core) without the PF Core Book but it is not a 'new edition'. Requiring the use of PHB et al to play does not define a new edition. Essentials is a fully compatible new set of options (classes races etc) in a slightly different layout


----------



## Baumi

DaveMage said:


> The problem is that from 2002-2013 there will have been 5 editions.
> 
> 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.Essentials, 5E.  That's a LOT of edition turnover in 11 years.




3E came out in the year 2000 and Essentials is not a new edition, so it's:

2000-2013 (13 Year Span): 3e, 3.5, 4E, 5E

Thats still a fast release of new editions, but not as bad as you have written. Also I want to point out that the shortest Edition from that was 3E and 4E will be 5 years in the market, which is the same as 3.5.

(Source: Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )


----------



## Echohawk

mach1.9pants said:


> I disagree here, you can play Pathfinder Beginner Box (which has many different rules than the Core) without the PF Core Book but it is not a 'new edition'. Requiring the use of PHB et al to play does not define a new edition. Essentials is a fully compatible new set of options (classes races etc) in a slightly different layout



The question of what exactly counts as an edition is a vexing one. Here's how I'd probably group the major rulebook/intro boxed sets, but a case could certainly be made for splitting up the BECMI column into two or more "editions", and similarly for D&D3/3.5.

The black boxes below indicate the period where TSR/WotC/Paizo was/is actively producing product for each ruleset, which gives a rough idea of the lifespan of each "iteration".


----------



## Baumi

About 5E .. I certainly look forward to the coming year, it will be an interesting time with many news, speculations and playtests. 

Since I personally like 4E, I would love a new Edition that take 4E, reduce the powers to a more manageable level (at paragon+ it becomes to much with all the class, items, themes,..) and a much faster combat. 

But since they want to get all players on board, I don't think they will base it to much on 4E and more on the basics that all D&D Editions have, like the 6 Attributes, AC, HP, etc. and just add a few optional systems for those who are not satisfied with such a simple system. 

What I would find great is if they would have two complexity tiers for the characters that you can use at the same time in an group .. so the players who like complexity take the tactical one and the others take the Basic tier characters (a bit like 4E Companions but more suited for players).


----------



## S'mon

Alan Shutko said:


> Not in my circle of friends. A whole bunch of split off from the 4e game and went pathfinder. Right now, neither the 4e players nor the PF players are playing in the others' games.




At the London D&D Meetup some people prefer Pathfinder and some people prefer 4e, but there is a lot of crossover, especially among players rather than GMs.  I GM two 4e games there and I'm planning to start a Pathfinder Beginner Box game there soon.


----------



## S'mon

BTW I'm surprised to have read through 14 pages of this thread on "WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition" and I'm surprised not to have seen any cracks about Mike Mearls = Little Annie Skywalker, bringing Unity to The Force.


----------



## Walking Dad

Matthew L. Martin said:


> I believe the quote actually says "drop in"--i.e., add them. To be precise . . .



 Thanks for the clarification. I misread ths.



Lanefan said:


> That they seem to be trying to hearken back to earlier (as in, much earlier) versions - at least to some extent - gives me hope.
> 
> If the end result is merely a 3e-4e hybrid, however, I'll be sorely disappointed.
> 
> Lan-"and the number shall be five; not six, not four..."-efan



What exactly was the great thing in the earlier editions that was missing in 3e/4e?

Rules? Flavor?


----------



## TrippyHippy

Walking Dad said:


> What exactly was the great thing in the earlier editions that was missing in 3e/4e?
> 
> Rules? Flavor?




Simplicity. In the original game there wasn't vast lists of Feats, Skills, Powers, and tactical maneuvres. There wasn't a need for grid based combat, you could roll up a character in 5 minutes, and the core books weren't 500 pages long. 

There was a lack of balance, rules that didn't make sense and so on - but the core game could be grasped very quickly, and the character archetypes were pretty clear.


----------



## Nagol

Walking Dad said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I misread ths.
> 
> 
> What exactly was the great thing in the earlier editions that was missing in 3e/4e?
> 
> Rules? Flavor?




Speed/simplicity of character creation, limited requirements for beginning player/DM knowledge (i.e. thin books -- this began to vanish under 2e).  Limited choice/archtypes.

Speed of combat resolution with very limited emphasis on battlemat play.  Most games I ran used a blackboard for the tactical map and basic positioning.  Unless you got to gods on the battlefield, creatures had less than 100 hp -- usually *a lot* less.


----------



## DaveMage

Baumi said:


> 3E came out in the year 2000 and Essentials is not a new edition, so it's:
> 
> 2000-2013 (13 Year Span): 3e, 3.5, 4E, 5E
> 
> Thats still a fast release of new editions, but not as bad as you have written. Also I want to point out that the shortest Edition from that was 3E and 4E will be 5 years in the market, which is the same as 3.5.
> 
> (Source: Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )




Oh, I know 3.0 came out in 2000.  My point was that in 2002 we had 3.0, then the others.  The debate whether essentials is a new edition notwithstanding, that's still a lot of edition turnover in a short period of time.  

I grew up on AD&D (12 years) and 2E (11 years).  I liked that pace.

Will Pathfinder be like that pace?  I can hope.  If Paizo is true to their word that the rules exist to support their adventures, then there should be very little need to change the rules going forward.  I'm very interested in what stories they can tell with adventures and monsters.  Not as much interested in new rules - there are already enough options in Pathfinder rules-wise to game with for decades (at least at the pace that I play).

(And, adding epic rules *ahem* would be the last thing that I need for a very long time.)


----------



## bhandelman

Spinachcat said:


> So we are not getting the VTT? AKA, the only thing that can possibly invigorate D&D in the current era?




I think it's highly debatable that a VTT is "the only thing that can possibly invigorate D&D in the current era" or is even that relevant.  There are tons of VTTs out there, some pretty decent, and they aren't making an impact.  They also didn't say anything to lead one to believe there won't be a VTT, only that they consider tabletop gaming the most important part of their market.



Spinachcat said:


> Wow. I guess Hasbro really has no faith in the D&D IP.




I would say flying out reporters from both fan sites like ENWorld and major news media like NY Times and Forbes lead one to believe they have a lot of faith in the IP.



Spinachcat said:


> I can't see 5e succeeding in their "please everyone" fantasy. They can't make it Old School enough to please Old Schoolers at the same time pleasing fans of 3e and 4e.




Yeah, I'm not sure trying to please everyone is a good idea, but we'll see what they do.



Spinachcat said:


> I wonder who will create the "Pathfinder" version of 4e?
> 
> Wouldn't that be a hoot that WotC would be forced to compete with Pathfinder, the OSR and a 4e clone plus all those people who didn't leave 3e and 4e!!!
> 
> Talk about a house divided.




Can't happen, as the GSL doesn't allow it to happen.  This is the major criticism of the OGL, it allowed someone else to pick up the previous addition and make DnD it's own competitor.


----------



## Nagol

bhandelman said:


> <snip>
> 
> Can't happen, as the GSL doesn't allow it to happen.  This is the major criticism of the OGL, it allowed someone else to pick up the previous addition and make DnD it's own competitor.




0e, 1e, and 2e didn't even have a license and there are clones of those using the OGL.

It is possible to do though it'd be an awful lot of work.  Probably won't happen unless there is a large enough disenfranchised segment.


----------



## TerraDave

Echohawk said:


> ...Picture that says way more then 1000 words




Awesome.


----------



## catsclaw227

talok55 said:


> Yeah, it is.  I can't give numbers, but I've seen countless "I've left 4E for Pathfinder threads" on forums and am part of gaming group that left 4E for Pathfinder.  I've heard it enough that is seems to be a fairly common occurance.



Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but lately here at EnWorld, there have been quite a few posts of people saying that they left 4e for Pathfinder... and now are back playing 4e because they remember why they left 3.x in the first place.  

It doesn't mean that one game sucks more than the other or one is badwrongfun, but that many of the frustrations many people had with 3.x still exist in Pathfinder.


----------



## Bagpuss

Walking Dad said:


> What exactly was the great thing in the earlier editions that was missing in 3e/4e?
> 
> Rules? Flavor?




 or just sense of nostalgia?


----------



## Scott_Rouse

catsclaw227 said:


> not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but lately here at enworld, there have been quite a few posts of people saying that the left 4e for pathfinder... And now are back playing 4e because they remember why they left 3.x in the first place.
> 
> It doesn't mean that one game sucks more than the other or one is badwrongfun, but that many of the frustrations many people had with 3.x still exist in pathfinder.




qft.


----------



## gamerprinter

catsclaw227 said:


> Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but lately here at EnWorld, there have been quite a few posts of people saying that they left 4e for Pathfinder... and now are back playing 4e because they remember why they left 3.x in the first place.
> 
> It doesn't mean that one game sucks more than the other or one is badwrongfun, but that many of the frustrations many people had with 3.x still exist in Pathfinder.




Luckily, I didn't play 3x long enough to dislike it. So when PF came along, I found it scratched my gaming itch, actually better than 3x itself. I looked at, but never really played 4e, and 5e probably won't draw me in, no matter how good it is. WotC has never been my 'go to' game publisher. Even though they are gone, I have more loyalty to TSR. Now I put my trust in Paizo.


----------



## DaveMage

I'm still trying to process all of this and how I feel about it.

On the one hand, I'm thrilled that WotC has admitted that 4E's rollout and the way it treated those who really liked prior editons (and especially 3.5) was a mistake.

And, the predictions I made about 4E's viability as flagship D&D have come to pass.

But now that I've gotten to say "I told you so", what does that mean for the future?

I'm not at all interested in beta testing for WotC.
I'm very happy with Pathfinder and don't want another ruleset change for many years (if ever).
I like how Mike Mearls is handling things at WotC.  (Though I wouldn't be surprised if WotC fires him next week.  It's how they seem to roll.)
If 5E were released tomorrow I don't think I'd have any interest in it.  (Again, very happy with Pathfinder)
I'm not interested in being unified with D&D players that prefer other rulsets. (And my 3.x/Pathfinder library ensures that I don't need to be unified with those who prefer other rulesets.)

I guess it will come down to this: can any WotC D&D product be used to improve my Pathfinder game.  If the answer is yes, I'll buy it.  If not, I won't.


----------



## howandwhy99

I've been thinking about the essence of D&D comment.

Extrapolating from the Legend & Lore columns I believe the design team are planning on keeping some very central statistics of D&D throughout every edition and building them into the core game, something slimmed down yet essentially recognizable as D&D.

What does that account of? Likely levels, classes, and races along with the 6 ability scores. I also think they will probably build into it HP, AC, Saving Throws, move speeds, and a gold piece coinage system which can be used to buy equipment, arms, and armor (to begin with). Other elements may follow in supplements, or could even be built into the core, but the "essentials" comment may refer to the aforementioned.

What made me think of this was how 4e uses levels to refer to challenges and monsters. It is possible for these to be kept for a simple monster construction system for a 3.x compatible supplement. d20 Challenge Ratings can be somewhat overlaid into a level system. AD&D's monster rating by XP could also be converted into such a Level-based system. In fact, I think it may already have been done in one of the old Dragon magazines. For both pre-4e system the fraction or spread within a level, especially first, will probably need to be worked out, but I don't see why it couldn't work as an option. For instance, a 3.x kobold is 1/6 of a level 1 monster and 1/2 of one for AD&D (though I suspect they'll drop XP by HP and random HP generation for it. Lots of people don't know why it was ever there to begin with).


----------



## Walking Dad

Bagpuss said:


> or just sense of nostalgia?



I fear this is the real appeal of the good ol' editions.

Incomplete rules and thin books seem not something that would be the future of gaming.

But starting with a real simple beginner's set would be maybe a good idea. But I love my crunch. (Crunch, not the endless tables I remember from 2e).


----------



## howandwhy99

Walking Dad said:


> What exactly was the great thing in the earlier editions that was missing in 3e/4e?
> 
> Rules? Flavor?



Mystery. 
And a sense of agency and accomplishment.

Most of the theoretical understanding that was designed into the game during the 70s and early 80s had been forgotten. ...of course it had been forgotten in the 90s too, but there you go.


----------



## talok55

DaveMage said:


> Oh, I know 3.0 came out in 2000.  My point was that in 2002 we had 3.0, then the others.  The debate whether essentials is a new edition notwithstanding, that's still a lot of edition turnover in a short period of time.
> 
> I grew up on AD&D (12 years) and 2E (11 years).  I liked that pace.
> 
> Will Pathfinder be like that pace?  I can hope.  If Paizo is true to their word that the rules exist to support their adventures, then there should be very little need to change the rules going forward.  I'm very interested in what stories they can tell with adventures and monsters.  Not as much interested in new rules - there are already enough options in Pathfinder rules-wise to game with for decades (at least at the pace that I play).
> 
> (And, adding epic rules *ahem* would be the last thing that I need for a very long time.)





I too hope they keep that pace.  The older editions lasted longer because they focused on adventures and campaign settings instead of rules supplements.  I think Paizo understands this as the bulk of their products are adventures and campaign setting fluff.   Sure, adventures don't sell as well as martial power x, but they are vital to the game.  Granted, an entity as big as WotC probably can't afford to focus as much on adventures since they aren't as profitable as splat books, but they can (like they did with the OGL) give third party publishers the ability to make adventures for the game.  More focus on quality adventures and less focus on splat books is the way to extend the life of the edition and keep rules bloat manageable.  WotC should take note of this fact.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Bagpuss said:


> or just sense of nostalgia?




Considering that there are at least two other commercially successful versions of D&D currently competing with D&D on the strength of appealing to peoples' preference of older versions, I think we can safely dismiss the 'nostalgia' argument.


----------



## Roland55

frankthedm said:


> Can someone XP the Rouse for me?




Happily, but I haven't seen the XP button for two days now.  Not sure why.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny

Roland55 said:


> Happily, but I haven't seen the XP button for two days now.  Not sure why.



They took it offline due to server load / performance reasons.

I expect it to be back when the 5e hype begins to die down.


----------



## Roland55

Nemesis Destiny said:


> They took it offline due to server load / performance reasons.
> 
> I expect it to be back when the 5e hype begins to die down.




Thank you.  That makes perfect sense.


----------



## Umbran

howandwhy99 said:


> Mystery.
> And a sense of agency and accomplishment.




In my experience, those have little or nothing to do with rules, and are mostly issues of how the GM presents material to the players.


----------



## broghammerj

DaveMage said:


> I'm still trying to process all of this and how I feel about it.....But now that I've gotten to say "I told you so", what does that mean for the future?




As a guy who thinks 4e is a great game, but unfortunately it is not DnD for me, I am happy to see a change.  As much as I thought the "I told you so" would feel good, it really doesn't.  I still feel like I'm a kid stuck between two parents in a divorce.


----------



## Eytan Bernstein

[Caveat: This is all speculation. Anyone I might know on the Design Team or who has been in early playtests is under NDA, so I don't have any more details than you do. I'm making what I hope are educated guesses, based on past experience. But this is a whole new frontier and anything can happen.]

The way I see it, whether or not it's possible to create a perfect, utopian unification of previous editions is less important than the fact that Wizards has a committed design team focused on this goal. This sort of goal drives the culture of the team, it creates an atmosphere of openness (hence the drive to work with the gaming community), and it shows dedication to playtesting this edition until it is smooth.

Many people complained that 4E didn't have a long enough playtest period. I was on one of the playtest committees for 43, and I think that this new approach to playtesting is a much more practical one. It involves far more communication between the Design team and playtesters. 

A lot of people complained about rigidity in 4e, or lack of choice when it comes to designing the character that fits the concept they want. These players often like 3.X better. The design philosophy that's been stated for 5e seems to alleviate that concern. 

We don't know how previous editions might be unified, but I believe that the goal is a good one. We don't know how much the Design Team has already spec'd out and how much hasn't even been storyboarded. And even then, any and all of that can change. I do know that when we playtested 4e, huge sections of rules change throughout the process. Will this happen in 5e - who can say? It sounds almost like the Design Team is trying to get community consensus, and then generating mechanics, or meshing community thoughts with mechanics they are already working on. This allows them to fill in goals and make tough decisions. 

Sometimes, when you are with a small group of people, a set of blinders or assumptions come on, making it hard to make decisions. This can lead to missing obvious things or making choices that would seem obvious to the majority. But they've chosen to ask the majority, rather than assuming that their small group will get it right. This is very smart. 

After they ask the community, they probably do a rought draft, or amend an existing draft with whatever they learned.  I'd guess that at that point, they would return to small group playtests and convention playtests, like D&D Experience and see how the new content plays out outside of their small "lab environment." Things are very different when live than they are in a controlled setting where everyone has the same aims and assumptions. Bob, who likes to kill defense goblins, might cause you to rethink that particular skill challenge mechanic. 

As the playtest process goes on, they might slowly flesh out the core game, all the while testing with the community. They might even hold contests for monsters or other mechanical elements. This allows for direct contributions. Who wouldn't want a monster they created to have the potential to become part of D&D canon.

In the end, people who have kept abreast of the playtest process will know far more about this edition than they would have before the release of any previous edition, unless they were among the few that happened to playtest one of those editions. There is a much greater degree of transparency, and I think this is a crucial component of Wizards' strategy. WotC knows that Paizo has an advantage in terms of a cohesive brand image for Pathfinder. Pathfinder has a clear path, a very solid and devoted fan base, longevity, and a decisive vision. Wizards must become more transparent and open in its "new D&D" if it wants to appeal to people who play Pathfinder, or who might play it, as well as people who stopped playing D&D or didn't play 4th. 

The appeal of this open process is genius. It's not just a marketing tactic, but also something that really makes people feel like they're part of something (or at least should make, if done right, and I think there's a good possibility it will be done right). When people feel like they are part of something, they will support it, which will make for a great game, but will also make people want to buy the products. The people playtesting will create buzz and hype which will draw in other players. If they buy the products, the company will do better and will be able to make more products. That is what happened with Paizo. Wizards will now try to get back on course by involving fans in the Design Process. 

It used to be that players could become involved in design through the 3.X OGL. But in this new process, they can actually influence the design of the core game. I don't know what will or won't be with the OGL, though I suspect that it will be friendlier than the 4e license, which was very restrictive. My  theory, and this is highly speculative (by which I mean, quite possible hogwash), is that if players are more trained in design, they will be more capable if they choose to go off and work on their own products through OGL. 

Another thing to consider: think of some of the names on the Team that is designing 5e. Many of them did significant work on OGL products. Two of the Stars, Mike Mearls and Rob Schwalb launched their careers through the OGL. If there hadn't been an OGL, I think the list would be significantly different. 

In that sense, the OGL can forge new talent that WotC can tap. That talent can go on to become competition, but new talent has to come from somewhere and has to have experience. It's true that the 3.X OGL produced a lot of really terrible products, but it also produced some incredible products. I hope that this becomes possible again because it will make the D&D world more united. Surprised?

You might think that this would fracture the community further, but it wouldn't. The reason for this is that people need to have and play the core rules in order to play OGL products and design for them. Tons of people will want to play those OGL products and many will want to try their hand at design. This means that they will need to become familiar with the Core D&D rules. Even if they use something like the SRD, they are still using WotC's rules, not Pathfinder's (and this is not in any way a knock against Pathfinder, which is an awesome world and system). 

Will Wizards actually create an OGL like this? Will the gaming community unite around 5e? Will it successfully unite previous editions? I know know, but early reports are extremely positive. I do have positive feelings about the philosophy and aims that the Design Team has put forth. And ultimately, the philosophy behind the game is what makes or breaks it. The marketing, design, integration, release schedule, playtesting, transparency - those are an extension of a strong core vision that is clear to all staff working on the project and all players of the game.


----------



## Gundark

Echohawk said:


> Well, I guess we can be thankful that the pace of change over the last 11 years has slowed down slightly from the first 11 years of D&D's history:
> 
> 1974-1985: Original D&D, AD&D, Basic Set (Holmes), Basic Set (Moldvay), Basic Set (Mentzer), AD&D UA.



 nothing to se here


----------



## Gundark

catsclaw227 said:


> Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but lately here at EnWorld, there have been quite a few posts of people saying that they left 4e for Pathfinder... and now are back playing 4e because they remember why they left 3.x in the first place.
> 
> It doesn't mean that one game sucks more than the other or one is badwrongfun, but that many of the frustrations many people had with 3.x still exist in Pathfinder.



Yeah I have been seeing that too.


----------



## Truth Seeker

Let's start the one thing, that mostly is needed to be on a fresh start.

Respect...

It not given.

It is earned.


----------



## Argyle King

Umbran said:


> In my experience, those have little or nothing to do with rules, and are mostly issues of how the GM presents material to the players.





I'm not sure I'd completely agree.  I do believe how the GM presents material matters a lot.  However, I am also of the belief that mechanics (crunch) can (and often do) impact how fluff feels and how it comes across.


----------



## Lanefan

Echohawk said:


> The black boxes below indicate the period where TSR/WotC/Paizo was/is actively producing product for each ruleset, which gives a rough idea of the lifespan of each "iteration".



Excellent chart, Echohawk!

One minor thing: there was a book - I think it's called "Forgotten Realms Adventures" (or something like that, I have it but I can't find it right now to confirm) that came out in 1987 and was specifically intended and written as a transition from 1e to 2e.  So I think 2e started oozing forth a bit earlier than your chart indicates. 


			
				Walking Dad said:
			
		

> What exactly was the great thing in the earlier editions that was missing in 3e/4e?
> 
> Rules? Flavor?



As others have posted before me, I can but repeat:

Simplicity.  Sure, 1e had some complexities but those could be pruned out with relative ease leaving a game that was (and remains still) very playable.

Mystery. 







			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> In my experience, these have little or nothing to do with rules, and are mostly issues of how the GM presents material to the players.



Quite right, but hear me out: the DM is likely to present to the players in much the same vein as the game is presented to the DM!  If the DM is learning from an arcane-like book with complex prose and dripping with flavour (e.g. the 1e DMG) then it naturally follows that some of that will get passed on to the players.  Conversely, if the DM is reading from something only slightly more engaging than an instruction manual the presentation to the players is also likely to be a bit dry.  Same goes for the PH, which is the best chance for the game to present itself to the players.

That, and as the editions have progressed more and more mechanical information has been moved to the players' side of the screen.  Couple this with the drier presentation and yes, sadly, the mystery is gone by design.  

Lanefan


----------



## Bagpuss

Walking Dad said:


> Incomplete rules and thin books seem not something that would be the future of gaming.




To which I respond the increasingly popular Savage Worlds, rules. The core rule book is very thin pretty and only about £6. While you can run a game with it, really if you want to use it, you get a setting book with additional rules or buy one of the many add on rules like they have for Pulp, Supers or Fantasy, so it could almost be called incomplete.


----------



## Echohawk

Lanefan said:


> One minor thing: there was a book - I think it's called "Forgotten Realms Adventures" (or something like that, I have it but I can't find it right now to confirm) that came out in 1987 and was specifically intended and written as a transition from 1e to 2e.  So I think 2e started oozing forth a bit earlier than your chart indicates.



_Forgotten Realms Adventures_ was actually an April 1990 release, a year after the core 2nd Edition books!

The Forgotten Realms had a fairly gradual transition from 1st to 2nd edition -- at least as far as products go, not as far as the Time of Troubles went. The _Shadowdale_/_Tantras_/_Waterdeep_ adventure and novel series were the main transition products, as well as _Forgotten Realms Adventures_ which was half how-to-switch-editions, and half new setting material. The setting had to wait until July 1993 to get a completely updated Campaign Setting boxed set, four years into 2nd Edition!


----------



## Anselyn

howandwhy99 said:


> I've been thinking about the essence of D&D comment. (...)
> 
> What does that account of? Likely levels, classes, and races along with the 6 ability scores. I also think they will probably build into it HP, AC, Saving Throws, move speeds, and a gold piece coinage system which can be used to buy equipment, arms, and armor (to begin with).




I suggest that this column:
​​​​​​"Minimalist D&D
Legends & Lore Archive | 7/5/2011
“A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when
there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to
take away.”​— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry"

May mean that you strip back to ability scores and the essence of OD&D is roll some abilties, choose a class and start to play.

AC= DEX
HP = CON
WIS = "know roll" (c.f. BRP) for knowledge skills 
INT = "idea roll" (c.f. BRP) for puzzling out traps and mechanisms
CHA = influence roll
....
(Not sure how to tie _to hit_ rolls to STR - and you want a unified system of roll-under or roll-over. )

But at this level of boil-down every ability point counts and you don't need any table to refer to before you can start play.

BTW - is the d20 sacred? What do we think? One way to have a gritty/epic setting is to change the dice you roll.

d20 + ability vs target number
3d6 + ability vs target number
d10 + abilty vs target number


----------



## talok55

Gundark said:


> Yeah I have been seeing that too.




Really? You must search the forums a lot more than me.  I have not seen one thread or heard of one instance of this.  Not a single one.


----------



## talok55

Truth Seeker said:


> Let's start the one thing, that mostly is needed to be on a fresh start.
> 
> Respect...
> 
> It not given.
> 
> It is earned.




I totally agree. WotC has a long way too go to earn back the trust and respect of gamers.  What they have done recently is a start, but it's only a start.  Let's see if they follow through.


----------



## Umbran

Johnny3D3D said:


> I'm not sure I'd completely agree.  I do believe how the GM presents material matters a lot.  However, I am also of the belief that mechanics (crunch) can (and often do) impact how fluff feels and how it comes across.




Yes, but look at what was asked for.

"Mystery".  Mystery comes from two things:  a lack of information, and some hope that you might gain some of that information.  The game rules, then, cannot create mystery - if anything knowledge of the rules of any system removes some mystery from play.  Only by stepping outside the realm of the rules known by the players can the GM hope to create mystery.  And, of course, the rules cannot make the GM step outside the rules.

"A sense of agency and accomplishment".  This is largely about whether player choices have a an noticeable effect, and thus lands in the realm of adventure and campaign design, not in the individual mechanics for task resolution.  The game rules, for example, don't determine how much of a railroad any particular adventure is, or whether the player's choices within the adventure impact the game world outside the adventure in a meaningful way.


----------



## howandwhy99

Umbran said:


> In my experience, those have little or nothing to do with rules, and are mostly issues of how the GM presents material to the players.




Well, how the DM presents material is much of the rules. But I agree it isn't 3e or 4e mechanics that hinder mystery, agency, etc. It's a matter of presentation by the GM and one of perspective by the players. Detailing those, even as optional play, isn't a bad way to go if we're being inclusive and looking to move forward.


----------



## Truth Seeker

And they have a Longgggggggggggg way to go.



talok55 said:


> I totally agree. WotC has a long way too go to earn back the trust and respect of gamers. What they have done recently is a start, but it's only a start. Let's see if they follow through.


----------



## gamerprinter

Umbran said:


> Yes, but look at what was asked for.
> 
> "Mystery". Mystery comes from two things: a lack of information, and some hope that you might gain some of that information. The game rules, then, cannot create mystery - if anything knowledge of the rules of any system removes some mystery from play. Only by stepping outside the realm of the rules known by the players can the GM hope to create mystery. And, of course, the rules cannot make the GM step outside the rules.
> 
> "A sense of agency and accomplishment". This is largely about whether player choices have a an noticeable effect, and thus lands in the realm of adventure and campaign design, not in the individual mechanics for task resolution. The game rules, for example, don't determine how much of a railroad any particular adventure is, or whether the player's choices within the adventure impact the game world outside the adventure in a meaningful way.




I think this kind of thing is possibly accomplished within an adventure, or a campaign style rather than an aspect of the rules.

In my Kaidan trilogy for example, the PCs find themselves in a village right before an assault upon it, how they handle the situation, and if they save the village from destruction has many ramifications in the later adventures. NPCs of the countryside may offer aid to the PCs in their escape of the evil lord, but only if they successfully repulsed the assault in adventure 1.

This is accomplished in the story, not the rules.


----------



## TerraDave

3E&4E versus the retros:

Older editions can play faster (which, by itself, can be a huge advantage for some tables) and, for_ some people_, the fact that less is spelled out opens up more room for improvisation.

Older editions (well, pre 2E and some of the 2E settings) also, and this is clearly a taste thing, still have the edge on style and presentation. There is just sort of a blandness to a lot of later stuff. And there are reasons why those early adventures are seen as classics that go beyond nostalgia. (though I have to admit, with 1000s to choose from, 3E/PF also has some pretty good adventures). 

There are also other differences in details.  Spell disruption and various damage immunities and reductions in many higher level creatures meant that casters were arguably _more_ balanced compared to 3E, at least versus well equipped fighters.


----------



## gamerprinter

While it makes clerics weaker in the overall game, I've always preferred clerics with access and limited access to various 'spheres of influence' based on the portfolios of the gods worshipped, like it had been in 2e and prior. The fact that Thor the god of lightening provides the exact same spell access as a priest of Anubis, just doesn't make sense, thematically speaking. I'd rather differentiate clerics by the influence of their deities, providing specialtists like wizards, instead of all clerics being 'generalists'. And perhaps having granted powers (Su) and (Sp) more closely hewn to their gods influences and specific goals, in place of some of the loss of spell access.

I understand that this was changed in 3x to make clerics more playable and inviting to an adventure group. I think this diminishes cleric in flavor, despite enhancing them in power.

I don't expect this to change in 5e, but thought it was worth mentioning.


----------



## catsclaw227

talok55 said:


> Really? You must search the forums a lot more than me.  I have not seen one thread or heard of one instance of this.  Not a single one.



I am not going to go digging around again, but I have seen it at least 6-7 times in the past couple of weeks.  Though in some instances it has been a person describing his/her experience and then another quoting and saying "me too" or adding XP saying "My experience too".


----------



## pauljathome

gamerprinter said:


> I understand that this was changed in 3x to make clerics more playable and inviting to an adventure group. I think this diminishes cleric in flavor, despite enhancing them in power.




I like the balance in Pathfinder. Almost all clerics are good healers (of both hit points and conditions) but there are enough differences in their Domain abilities that clerics of different Gods actually DO feel somewhat different.

I play a lot of PFS, though. In that context it is very valuable that the simple statement "cleric" implies a LOT about the character. Many, many sessions start with people negotiating what characters they will play.


----------



## gamerprinter

pauljathome said:


> I like the balance in Pathfinder. Almost all clerics are good healers (of both hit points and conditions) but there are enough differences in their Domain abilities that clerics of different Gods actually DO feel somewhat different.
> 
> I play a lot of PFS, though. In that context it is very valuable that the simple statement "cleric" implies a LOT about the character. Many, many sessions start with people negotiating what characters they will play.




Believe me, I prefer PF myself - I just preferred a wider difference than exists now. I'm not so interested in 5e, but to put in my 2 cents - that's all I could think of.


----------



## MichaelSandar

At this point, if they make a gaming system that brings all of my players (who are fans of various editions with distinct dislikes of certain editions) to the same table at the same time, I'm a happy DM.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I just want to add:

if they just won´t take away the CB, most 4e fans will not be upset.
Taking it away would be really be frustrating. The plan however is to retain it. And 60000 people subscribing to it are 60000 people subscribing to it...
If 5th edition is a success, no need to take it away. If it is not, also no reason. Just make sure, that the old edition CB is somewhere on a page where new people don´t stumble about it when they try to seek out, how the current iteration of the game is like.

[MENTION=6762]avin[/MENTION]: for me it was a reason to stay... it is a lot more confortable now... but I understand your decision.


----------



## Walking Dad

gamerprinter said:


> While it makes clerics weaker in the overall game, I've always preferred clerics with access and limited access to various 'spheres of influence' based on the portfolios of the gods worshipped, like it had been in 2e and prior. The fact that Thor the god of lightening provides the exact same spell access as a priest of Anubis, just doesn't make sense, thematically speaking. I'd rather differentiate clerics by the influence of their deities, providing specialtists like wizards, instead of all clerics being 'generalists'. And perhaps having granted powers (Su) and (Sp) more closely hewn to their gods influences and specific goals, in place of some of the loss of spell access.
> 
> I understand that this was changed in 3x to make clerics more playable and inviting to an adventure group. I think this diminishes cleric in flavor, despite enhancing them in power.
> 
> I don't expect this to change in 5e, but thought it was worth mentioning.



I only played AD&D 2nd, but the clerics in this PHB all had the exactly same abilities and spell access. But there were options for different abilities and spells in "Complete Priest" and the Forgotten Realms/ Darksun Setting books at least. Following the intended modularity, I would expect a similar approach for 5e.


----------



## Walking Dad

Bagpuss said:


> To which I respond the increasingly popular Savage Worlds, rules. The core rule book is very thin pretty and only about £6. While you can run a game with it, really if you want to use it, you get a setting book with additional rules or buy one of the many add on rules like they have for Pulp, Supers or Fantasy, so it could almost be called incomplete.



I vastly prefer Savage Worlds Deluxe over the Explorer's Edition you are mentioning. AFAIK, I'm not alone on this and many fans who already had the small book "upgraded".
So Savage Worlds is a sample of a game with good "basic set", but also an available "complete" game in one product (with additional setting and world books available, too).

---

Back to the original thought, are these popular retroclones really thin?

And the currently quite popular Pathfinder has a quite big tome of a basic book.


----------



## Darrin Kelley

I have looked through my 4th Edition D&D books, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. It is a good game, for what it is.

However, what isn't needed is a new edition. That's an absolutely unnecessary step. Which just shows more company jackassery.

I'm going to outline what is needed. And I'm going to be concise.

A basic set. One that is a complete game in and of itself. Which can be enhanced at the buyer's option with additional books and accessories. But this basic game should be the core of the property. Easy to get into, and easy to understand.

Removal of the focus on miniatures. Make them the entirely optional accessory they are. There is no need for pressure tactics to try and make a buyer believe they need them when they don't.

Return 4th Edition to the OGL. Release a true SRD for it. And give up on the absolute jackassery of trying to repeal the OGL. Because it was those actions that caused the core fanbase to believe the company gave them a big middle finger.

Give us full products. None of this garbage about "exclusive online content". When I buy a game book, I want all of the information that was supposed to be in it. No trickery, no BS.


----------



## SlyDoubt

I bought 4E because it was the new edition.

I will do the same. I look forward to checking it out and reading through it. I think everyone that follows the d&d world saw this coming at least a year ago. 

Really pumped to see Monte Cook on the list of designers. 

Just hoping this isn't Essentials v2.0. 4E has always felt awkward to me and I am worried 5E won't actually tread a whole lot of new water. The way things are being phrased actually makes it sound awful. Trying to please people of multiple editions equally is going to be an incredible task. 

I'm not sure it's really possible though I do wish them the best. Hopeful that the end result isn't a diluted and uninteresting product that's stretched in too many directions to feel fully developed.

Should be fun though. It'll be an exciting year for sure.


----------



## Spinachcat

bhandelman said:


> I think it's highly debatable that a VTT is "the only thing that can possibly invigorate D&D in the current era" or is even that relevant.  There are tons of VTTs out there, some pretty decent, and they aren't making an impact.  They also didn't say anything to lead one to believe there won't be a VTT, only that they consider tabletop gaming the most important part of their market.




It's not debatable. We live in an era of digital gaming. People expect to be able to play their favorite game 24/7 from home. If you can't give them that experience, your game will just be yet another dead tree product in the tiny, shrinking niche of TTRPGs. The money is in the digital realm.

Also, there are no VTTs with any kind of marketing or advertising so they essentially don't exist in the marketplace. The 4e PHB promised us a VTT and 4e failed because WotC did not deliver it. 



bhandelman said:


> Can't happen, as the GSL doesn't allow it to happen.  This is the major criticism of the OGL, it allowed someone else to pick up the previous addition and make DnD it's own competitor.




Using the OGL to recreate 4e can be done easily and legally. If you aren't sure, go pick up OSRIC and compare it to AD&D. More importantly, the GSL is a non-issue and was proven a non-issue when PDF publishers cranked out 4e stuff without the GSL. 

The only question is whether an existing RPG company thinks creating 4.5e is a good investment of capital.


----------



## enrious

Spinachcat said:


> It's not debatable.




And you have the empirical evidence that proves beyond all doubt that a VTT is absolutely required for a successful 4e/5e?  

Great, please provide it, otherwise you're merely providing an opinion and guess what?  That is debatable.



> Also, there are no VTTs with any kind of marketing or advertising so they essentially don't exist in the marketplace. The 4e PHB promised us a VTT and 4e failed because WotC did not deliver it.




Post hoc fallacy.


----------



## TrippyHippy

Spinachcat said:


> It's not debatable. We live in an era of digital gaming. People expect to be able to play their favorite game 24/7 from home. If you can't give them that experience, your game will just be yet another dead tree product in the tiny, shrinking niche of TTRPGs. The money is in the digital realm.
> 
> Also, there are no VTTs with any kind of marketing or advertising so they essentially don't exist in the marketplace. The 4e PHB promised us a VTT and 4e failed because WotC did not deliver it.




It's arguable that WotC hesitated in releasing the VTT because of the reception the tabletop game recieved, and made them think twice about investing in a system that they couldn't persude a bulk of their target market to buy into. 

It seems a moot point to refer to recent comments by the new D&D development team that they are committed to a face-to-face tabletop gaming experience, which somewhat refutes your claims a bit. Beyond this, there is no actual evidence that VTT are necessarily direct competitors to tabletop gaming, any more than gamers prefering to spend their money at McDonalds instead. A gamer who wants access 24/7 to a VTT, might _also_ want a weekly Tabletop gaming session for a different experience.


----------



## talok55

Return 4th Edition to the OGL. Release a true SRD for it. And give up on the absolute jackassery of trying to repeal the OGL. Because it was those actions that caused the core fanbase to believe the company gave them a big middle finger.

The GSL was a big middle finger to the gaming community, but it was only one of many things WotC did to cheese off their customers.  It does seem like they really were actively trying to "fire the audience" with 4E. The problem is that they fired a lot of their audience and the MMO crowd they were trying to appeal to did not rush in to fill the void.  I suspect most of them still don't even know what D&D is and if they do, they don't have any interest in playing a table top game when they could be playing their MMO.  This shows just how out of touch WotC has grown with their fan base.  Now, it at least seems they are learning from these mistakes.  Let's hope it's not too late to save the D&D brand.

They do need a new edition. 4E failed because a lot of D&D players don't like the mechanics and fluff, and some are just ticked off at the company, itself.  I don't know if they can do much about gamers actively disliking the company, but to win back the people that don't like the game, they have to make a game that is distinctly not 4E.  Making a basic 4E will not win back any customers, it will only waste money and show just how clueless they are about their customers. Besides, they basically tried that with Essentials. It was poorly received and failed to revive the brand. A new edition may not save the brand, but it is the only option they have right now.


----------



## qstor

I'm happy with Pathfinder but I signed up for the playtest. If there's defenses, powers and healing surges though count me out.

Mike


----------



## qstor

Spinachcat said:


> It's not debatable. We live in an era of digital gaming. People expect to be able to play their favorite game 24/7 from home. If you can't give them that experience, your game will just be yet another dead tree product in the tiny, shrinking niche of TTRPGs. The money is in the digital realm.




I think that was a lot of the backlash though the feeling that 4e was just an computer MMO. If they move towards 1st edition. There won't be that easy use on a computer.

Mike


----------



## mudbunny

TrippyHippy said:


> It's arguable that WotC hesitated in releasing the VTT because of the reception the tabletop game recieved, and made them think twice about investing in a system that they couldn't persude a bulk of their target market to buy into.




The VT wasn't released because it wasn't ready. The 3PP that they originally contracted out to work on it didn't get it done in time, and it took time for them to attempt to program it themselves (I assume), realize that they couldn't, and license out a different program for the VT that is currently in open beta for DDI subscribers.


----------



## pauljathome

Spinachcat said:


> It's not debatable.




I just had to point out the irony of somebody declaring, in a debate, that the topic being debated isn't debatable.



> More importantly, the GSL is a non-issue and was proven a non-issue when PDF publishers cranked out 4e stuff without the GSL.




This is very demonstrably false. Several previous publishers of OGL material publicly stated that the GSL was the reason that they weren't supporting 4th ed.

What is acceptable to a small garage company (into which category most pdf publishers fall) is NOT necessarily acceptable to a somewhat larger company with full time employees


----------



## enrious

People (like Kenzer) can publish 4e stuff under Fair Use copyright laws and bet that they have top-notch lawyers (I believe David Kenzer is a lawyer) and reasonably believe they can publish compatible material without violating those laws and thus subjecting themselves to costly and lengthy litigation.

Or people could publish under the OGL/GSL and if they stayed within the provisions of the respective licenses, find themselves in a safe-harbor, where WotC agreed not to sue them.

So yes and no - companies could publish 4e under Fair Use and thus not need the GSL - but if they deemed the effort and possible risk to not be worth it, they wouldn't.

And with the GSL being so horrible when it came out (and still not very good after the revision), it makes sense that companies elected not to.

It's an odd situation - the OGL isn't theoretically required to publish and yet for a most companies, it is required.


----------



## Mallus

Spinachcat said:


> It's not debatable. We live in an era of digital gaming. People expect to be able to play their favorite game 24/7 from home.



The debatable part is: is D&D that kind of game? 

For instance, a virtual tabletop wouldn't help my group much, if at all. It can't manufacture extra time to play our campaign, and the ability to 'drop in' on other persistent campaigns, a la a MMORPG, isn't important. We want to play _our_ campaign.


----------



## bhandelman

Spinachcat said:


> It's not debatable. We live in an era of digital gaming. People expect to be able to play their favorite game 24/7 from home.




It is debatable because there is no evidence for anything you are saying, just conjecture.  Yes, it is a digital era, so it could be argued things like PDFs should be a given, but a VTT?  None of the major TRPGs have a VTT.  Pathfinder is doing just fine, Call of Cthulhu seems to have grown in the last couple of years, and Warhammer FRP seems to be seeing a resurgence recently.  None of those products has a VTT, and it isn't even something you see discussed often.  Most of the time when you see VTTs being discussed, a solid majority of the posts are either indifferent or negative.

Here is another example against your argument: board games.  Monopoly has had plenty of digital editions. yet do you know anyone that plays them?  People play Monopoly as a group, they don't like the idea of playing online very much.  Look at something like chess that seems to be doing fine online with many popular sites, most chess players still only play over a board, and the ones that do play online mostly play blitz because they don't want to be stuck in front of the computer for 4 hours.  This is the closest example I can find, and it leads me to believe VTTs will never be a dominant elemant for TRPGs.


----------



## wingsandsword

Walking Dad said:


> Back to the original thought, are these popular retroclones really thin?




I don't know about retroclones, but I know some editions of D&D have been very thin.

The first edition of D&D I ever owned was the "Black Box" version of Basic D&D from circa 1991.  The rulebook for it was the size of a magazine (I remember it was folded over and bound with staples), and had rules for characters up to 5th level, for the 4 core classes and for Halflings, Dwarves, and Elves in addition to humans (each one as a racial class though), spell lists for magic users and clerics, treasure information, and a small but sufficient bestiary, with heavy emphasis on dungeon crawling over outdoor or urban adventures.  

I have no doubt at all that a relatively simple, but still to modern design aesthetics, version of D&D could be made into a magazine-style design aesthetic, with at least the four most basic classes, the most basic races, and a small but sufficient monster manual.  

The idea of making it modular so it could be scaled up to complexity like 3.x, or to higher-level play, or to use 4e style powers as a optional systems is intriguing.

While I have my skepticism that WotC can stick to ANY long-term plan because of the nature of Hasbro changing the leadership regularly, the idea that WotC has acknowledged they have a seriously broken fanbase and want to fix it.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

I'm hearing lots of talk about Virtual Tables, but no one is talking about the flipside; using digital tools while sitting at the actual, physical table.  I already have players using dice tools to roll damage in game, and I could easily see a point where we'd all have tablets with our character sheets in our laps, while sitting around a big battlemat with painted figs on the tabletop.

I see both things as being important - playing virtually with digital tools and playing locally with digital tools - as well as being able to play without the tools.  If your in middle school and looking to play some D&D, digital tools might be out of your reach, but pen and paper are always cheap.


----------



## wingsandsword

Kid Charlemagne said:


> I'm hearing lots of talk about Virtual Tables, but no one is talking about the flipside; using digital tools while sitting at the actual, physical table.  I already have players using dice tools to roll damage in game, and I could easily see a point where we'd all have tablets with our character sheets in our laps, while sitting around a big battlemat with painted figs on the tabletop.
> 
> I see both things as being important - playing virtually with digital tools and playing locally with digital tools - as well as being able to play without the tools.  If your in middle school and looking to play some D&D, digital tools might be out of your reach, but pen and paper are always cheap.




I like that idea.

I've got an iPad.  I like the idea, for example, of an app which would combine a character generator with a character sheet (make a character, pull it up on one display), with a dice roller (click on a skill or weapon ect. to roll to use it), and HP and spells/abilities used tracker, with access to a full digital copy of the PHB and a quick-reference to relevant "splat" rules for PC's like class and race rules, spell and feat/skill lists and equipment tables.  

Definitely not something that should be essential to the game, but it would be nice to only have to carry an iPad with a slickly produced app instead of an armful of texts and notebooks, but I still like the tactile feedback of a physical tabletop with actual miniatures.


----------



## bouncyhead

Have you seen Character Folio from Dark Theatre?

Welcome to Darktheatre

It's not everything you want but it comes quite close.


----------



## Darrin Kelley

talok55 said:


> They do need a new edition. 4E failed because a lot of D&D players don't like the mechanics and fluff, and some are just ticked off at the company, itself.  I don't know if they can do much about gamers actively disliking the company, but to win back the people that don't like the game, they have to make a game that is distinctly not 4E.  Making a basic 4E will not win back any customers, it will only waste money and show just how clueless they are about their customers. Besides, they basically tried that with Essentials. It was poorly received and failed to revive the brand. A new edition may not save the brand, but it is the only option they have right now.




I disagree.

The general world they created as the "world of D&D" in 4th edition works. It is a good setting, with its own sense of mythology. It at last actually feels mythic, instead of a pastiche. And achieving that was one of the many things that they did absolutely correctly, in my opinion.

I spent the last week rereading my D&D 4th edition books. And honestly? It's a decent game. It does what it sets out to do in a pretty simplified manner. I'm pretty impressed with it overall.

However, the mistakes I feel the company made were in presentation. Which actually can be corrected and the game saved. It will just take a little effort on the company's part. And a lot less resources than it would take to launch a completely new, and unnecessary edition.

Presenting a basic introduction to the game, as a basic set. Simple and  totally playable, in and of itself, would provide a good entry point into the 4th edition experience. (And don't get me started on the basic set they released...)

The Essentials line. Oh what a mess of confusion that caused!

Calling anything "Essential" is an automatic point of confusion. It points the arrow firmly at those products as being absolutely necessary to play the game. When they just weren't. WOTC needs to scrub that word out of its vocabulary entirely and rename those books for what they truly are. A pocket rules compendium, and a few minor other things. They are NOT essential!

Remove the focus on miniatures. As I said above. A basic game would have sample maps and counters. And honestly? It's not that expensive to produce maps and counter sets. It's something low cost that those new to the game would really appreciate.

Putting the game back under the OGL and putting out a real SRD will spur that third party support that the company wanted in the first place. So that situation is fixable.

4th edition can simply be revised, reformatted, and relaunched. So that is not really a big problem.

The hard thing that WotC needs to do is this: Apologize to the gaming community at large. Show real effort with the products that the company will truly make good. And stop being so rediculously money-grubbing!

That is what will save D&D. Not a 5th edition. A 5th edition simply shows that they have rolled over and completely given up. That they learned nothing. That they will totally repeat their folly again. And that they just consider the gaming community drones simply to be be sold to.


----------



## talok55

First of all, I'd have to disagree with you about the implied setting for 4E.  It's too vague and too blah.  It would have been much better to not destroy the Forgotten Realms and have it be the flagship campaign setting for 4E.  I do not see how revamping and relaunching 4E would do them one bit of good.  Besides the massive PR errors that WotC has made, the simple fact is that many people do not like the mechanics of 4E or the flavor of it's implied setting and the 4E Forgotten Realms.  Anything that does not drastically alter both will not win back any fans that left.  Many left because 4E is not D&D to them.  They will not for one second consider buying a revamped 4E because it will still have everything they don't like about the game.  For WotC to be successful with D&D, they have to bring back a lot of customers that bailed because of 4E.  They absolutely cannot do that with a 4.75 (or whatever you call it).  What they are doing now is even better than an apology to all the fans they angered with  their horrendous 4E "marketing" and "ruining" their favorite game.  They are not only saying "We messed up your game, and we're sorry."  They are saying, "We are trying to fix our mistakes by making a game that is D&D to you."  What else can they do that's better than that?


----------



## SlyDoubt

Is there any specific reason wizards can't produce updated versions of the 1e - 3e handbooks/dmg/monster manuals? legally I mean.

I half expected them to decide to simply start producing pathfinderesque adventures for previous editions and just make some kind of single volume resource for each edition. That would be actually giving everyone what they want...

However, 'new' sells really well. I wonder what enworld's traffic is like since the announcement. probably higher than normal as players/dms who have stepped away return to check things out (myself). 'New' is a money grab tactic though and quickly runs its course (4E) so they're really going to have to put their noodles together and making something substantial. 

not just essential essentials.

Edit: I really like the idea posted above about pursuing digital tools for playing at the table. especially for wizard type characters who, when just starting out, will be doing a ton of referencing which really bogs play down. wotc should really pursue this angle. they avoid it because they really hate the idea of anything non-subscription based and digital since it can be pirated. as long as they price it appropriately I am confident players will support the product.

what a dream it would be for all my players with some kind of device (phone, ipod, ipad, whatever) to be able to have both rules reference and character sheet wrapped into one program. they really need to go this route.


----------



## avin

I don't think unite all editions is possible, but it's a damn good starting point.

Dear Monte & Mike, one thing you can do that will please ANY D&D player and DM: don't put the books on print before you are sure they are free of errors.


----------



## avin

UngeheuerLich said:


> [MENTION=6762]avin[/MENTION]: for me it was a reason to stay... it is a lot more confortable now... but I understand your decision.




I Used to prepare a lot of games during my job's travels. Even on plane flights. But  it's hard to find good hotel wireless and there's no such thing as domestic flight Internet on Brazil. 

Was a bit pissed with online CB, but as soon they announced online MB I cancelled my annual DDI subscription... and so, decided to kill my 4E games.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Ok, as I said: i can understand it. For me it is a lot more confortable, because I can log in from my brother´s computer, from my session´s hosts computer etc.
So what is better for one is worse for the other...


----------



## Darrin Kelley

One of the other things I really liked about 4th edition was the changes, simplifacation, and consolidation done to the alignment system. Something I feel has been absolutely needed for a great number of years.


----------



## Walking Dad

What alignment changes? AD&D2nd and 3rd use the exactly same alignments.

BTW, anyone knows what you get for signing up for playtest if you are not in America?


----------



## Anselyn

Walking Dad said:


> What alignment changes? AD&D2nd and 3rd use the exactly same alignments.
> 
> BTW, anyone knows what you get for signing up for playtest if you are not in America?




Try it and see!

I think you get a note that you will subsequently be given access to PDF files. There was also a coment somewhere that _everyone_ signing up will be involved. 

So, what's there to lose from pushing the button and finding out?

Dungeons & Dragons Encounters Update


----------



## Walking Dad

Ok, I pushed the button ...


----------



## Aehrlon

SlyDoubt said:


> Is there any specific reason wizards can't produce updated versions of the 1e - 3e handbooks/dmg/monster manuals? legally I mean.  **---I had this thought as well with some additional thoughts, more on that after the quote...
> 
> Edit: I really like the idea posted above about pursuing digital tools for playing at the table.   **----One of my groups has a DM who uses a virtual tabletop & does this via his laptop and an overhead digital projector that puts a 'to-scale' map right on the table that we use miniatures with.  Simply kicks a$$.





All of the following is IMHO.  Was not a big fan of 4E.  I  applaud WotC's efforts to  appease the fan-base of the various factions of the "Edition Wars".  Bringing back those who have left the game and  being able to have fans of different editions playing at the same table  are both admirable goals.  And there are some very good ideas Mike and  Monte outline in what I've  read online so far.    A way to  deal with higher level characters is long overdue and would be great.   If handled with care, it could be one of the best changes, so long as you don't ham-string them entirely.  

I have to say, a percentage  of their proposed changes I've read about have normally been handled by DMs and players by House Rules.  All 4.5  editions of the game have  had things that worked and things that didn't; House Rules were the  answers to some or many of those problems.  If various organized options  for House Rules can be presented in some sort of comprehensive format  by section, that would be fantastic.  

Something to note Re:  appeasing the fan base: many have collections of books/modules/complete  rogue, etc on their shelves.  The one thing I have not seen thus far  (much to my disappointment) is any mention of compatibility of modules/sourcebooks, 'core-rules' or characters from  earlier  editions.  I suppose from a business standpoint it makes sense;  why make it compatible with old stuff if you want customers to buy the  new?  But I digress:  If you have a beloved character from the days of yore, will you be able to convert him/her to this new  iteration of the game?  IMHO it would behoove Hasbro/WotC to have some  mechanics built into this new edition which would make it possible.   

Seriously, many of us have collections we'd love to have of use (not just with an old version of the game).  What about someone (such as my great friend Jimmy D.) who has nearly the  entire  collection of 3.5 expansion books.... all those books should not just be  dust  collectors & souvenirs.  This new iteration of D&D should be able to  incorporate some of or at  least partially utilize past materials for more than just  "for storyline".  Jimmy still DMs a 3.5 Realms game I play in twice a  month.    If this can be done along with having character options  for fans of whichever edition, WotC/Hasbro will bring players back to the game.   And they will bring their friends.  AND many of them will buy 5E  products, myself among them.  I only bought the 4th Ed PHB... then  passed it on.  IF they appease the factions of the Edition Wars sufficiently, the hatchet could be buried, LOL.


----------



## NJCommanderX

*Will they listen to their loyal FANS?*

I am encouraged that WoTC is approaching this new edition with an open ear toward the FANS!  Something they haven't done in a while.

They really need to keep the Fans in Fantasy!


----------



## talok55

Kzach said:


> Naysayer here.
> 
> I do not believe in democracy. I can't go into the reasons why without earning a ban, but suffice it to say that I don't have any, and I mean zero, faith in humanity to make intelligent decisions. People need to be ruled.
> 
> The division within the D&D community isn't because of different editions, it's because people are inherently divisive. Design by committee doesn't work anywhere else so it's not going to work here either. WotC should ignore the community entirely, especially the online community, and just make games.
> 
> Asking people what they want is stupid because people don't know what they want. WotC should become more like Apple and less like a socialist republic.




WotC tried that with 4E and it didn't work out so well for them.  You need to know what your customers like and don't like about an RPG game if you expect to be successful at selling RPG games to them.  Letting the designers (or suits,etc.) make the game with  little to no customer input or market research and trying to get players to like it doesn't work.  Gamers like what they like and don't like what they don't like and trying to get them to like something not to their tastes is a waste of time and money.  4E was a game that had little in the way of customer input (read Mike Mearls's statements about ignoring playtester feedback) and it was received so poorly that another game replaced D&D as the top RPG.  If they ignore their fans again, they do it at their own peril.


----------



## FreeXenon

Actually, for me, 4E is the best version of the game. They greatly distilled the D&D RPG into into an awesome, streamlined and balanced game. I do not think it is perfect by any means, but it is none-the-less awesome. I think 4E is a great success and hails a massive improvement and advancement in what D&D means. 4E in no way was a failure.

Those that stayed with 3E liked the way 3E played better or could not handle the huge change that 4E brought. I have been, unabashedly, an edition fanboy. Every single edition has been awesome in their time.

In some ways I greatly agree with Kzach. WotC definitely needs to listen to us in order to get a feel for how to accomplish their goal, but I do believe that they need to take that all with a grain of salt and use their professional skills to make it happen. 4E rocks and its success shows me that they know what they are doing when it comes to D&D

jmho


----------



## Aehrlon

IF 4E was so great, Hasbro would not be abandoning it like they are.  Character abilities are mainly only usable in combat which took too long and Healing Surges, while certainly handy, seemed to give too much to players while taking away from Clerics.  I'm happy to see them getting rid 4E.  I think Hasbro has seen the success of Pathfinder (OGL made after they moved on after leaving 3.5 D&D) and are jealous.  D&D belongs to them in their opinion.  This is their attempt to reclaim it... and so they're appealing to fans.  Sadly, might be too little, too late.


----------



## FreeXenon

They are getting rid of 4e just like 1E/2E/3E were "gotten rid of". A new edition essentially requires moving on. It is kind of part of the process. I like that they are using an pseudo crowd-source methodology to help create the next version of the game. I think that is awesome and has great potential. There are so may wonderfully talented people just here on EN World alone whose ideas and thoughts the designers can take into account and use. 

5E will most likely be 4E evolved and more streamlined with modules to allow a higher level of abstraction (from a more rules heavy game like 4E currently is) to cater to differing play styles from more rules lite and narrative styles to a more gritty and low magic game. It will take into account the interesting or nostalgic parts of previous editions that players like and create modules that will allow them into the balanced and streamlined 4e evolved rules set. It will be less a reversion back to the 3E.... in my opinion, and more an evolution with modularization to explicitly allow for various play styles.

Reverting back to any form of a 3E (or previous) rules set(s) would be significant loss for D&D. 3E was great in its day and I played well into the Epic tier there, but there are too many advancements that have been made that should not be lost.


----------



## talok55

Exactly.  4E was most definitely not a success, at least not a commercial success, or WotC wouldn't even be seriously contemplating another edition, much less already announced it.  It may have been a success in that some people liked it and enjoyed playing it, but WotC sure doesn't think of it as a success.  The main thing it succeed in doing was sharply dividing the D&D community and losing D&D's place as the number one RPG to Pathfinder.  No wonder WotC wants a reboot that caters to fans of older editions.  I can be pretty sure that 5E will not be a streamlined or evolved 4E, at least not the core of it. For one thing 4E can easily be considered the red headed step child of editions.  It was divisive, had horrible PR, wasn't commercially viable, and was very short lived.  For another thing, all of the playtest reports we've heard sound a lot like earlier editions with the possible inclusion of warlock and warlord classes being the only 4E like thing I've heard of.


----------



## mudbunny

Aehrlon said:


> IF 4E was so great, Hasbro would not be abandoning it like they are.




Companies don't abandon products only because they are not doing great. They also abandon them because they think that they can do better. Obviously WotC (and Hasbro) think that D&D Next can do better than 4E did. Whether it will or not is a different question.


----------



## FreeXenon

What he said.
Thanks for jumping in mudbunny!



mudbunny said:


> Companies don't abandon products only because they are not doing great. They also abandon them because they think that they can do better. Obviously WotC (and Hasbro) think that D&D Next can do better than 4E did. Whether it will or not is a different question.


----------



## Aehrlon

FreeXenon said:


> They are getting rid of 4e just like 1E/2E/3E were "gotten rid of". A new edition essentially requires moving on. It is kind of part of the process.



Yeah, obviously everyone understands that much; my point was, Hasbro ditched 4E in only 4 years... that has to be some sort of a record.  All previous editions were given 10+ years, or darn near (in the case of 3E).  And don't get me wrong, I have played 4E a bunch and have had fun.  There are definitely some good things there... though I confess rolling to hit with area spells as a Wizard was a little hard to take, LOL!


----------



## FreeXenon

mubunny's quote I think covers the first part of your post it pretty good.

Yea, 4E's way of handling wizard's aoe spells is quite a departure from previous editions. I think is significantly more efficient (having only 1 die roll instead of 2 per enemy).



Aehrlon said:


> Yeah, obviously everyone understands that much; my point was, Hasbro ditched 4E in only 4 years... that has to be some sort of a record.  All previous editions were given 10+ years, or darn near (in the case of 3E).  And don't get me wrong, I have played 4E a bunch and have had fun.  There are definitely some good things there... though I confess rolling to hit with area spells as a Wizard was a little hard to take, LOL!


----------



## mudbunny

Aehrlon said:


> Yeah, obviously everyone understands that much; my point was, Hasbro ditched 4E in only 4 years... that has to be some sort of a record.  All previous editions were given 10+ years, or darn near (in the case of 3E).




It's not just how well (or not well) the game did that you need to take into account. You also need to look at the RPG environment. The explosion of pdf bookstores as well as the emergence of Pathfinder (not to mention Dresden Files and Warhammer 3.0 (I think that was the edition)) onto the scene changed it such that the point at which the tail of the curve after which a product becomes no longer profitable gets pushed back substantially.

(Ignore the data, but the point at which it is no longer profitable may have gone from 8 to 5)

Vertical axis is % of maximum sales
Horizontal axis is time


----------



## flyinghitcher

Unfortunately this appears to be simply a publicity stunt, as Admin are being very bias in there removal of content. Hasbro own monopoly, and it is a sad tale of an open game being developed for financial education, until it then got copyrighted and the development has since been very stale. D&D may well fall foul to the same fate. It seems the D&D next forum admin is content with throwing away experienced input if it so happens to disagree with there PR.


----------



## Aehrlon

mudbunny said:


> It's not just how well (or not well) the game did that you need to take into account. You also need to look at the RPG environment



Point taken. Actually, there are a number of factors that affect how well (or not) a particular version of the game does.  Besides the ones you mentioned, Retro-Clones may have taken a bite of the the D&D Next market.  Moving forward, if they can satisfy new customers & 3ED/4ED warriors adequately, they very well might do well on both fronts.  One fact remains: the best predictor of future behavior is PAST BEHAVIOR.   That being said, I'm going to remain optimistic despite how releases & production has been handled in the past... which was poorly IMHO.  With the open player/fan play-testing coming up, it's a good indication the new game is going to be handled differently.  So maybe the glass IS half full... 

Flyinghitcher, when you wrote "removal of content" are you talking about 4E material on the WotC D&D website or something else?  On throwing away input, not sure what you mean... are you talking about Monte leaving (covered in other threads) or something else?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/3...st-no-longer-working-d-d-next-updated-34.html


----------



## flyinghitcher

Aehrlon, I'm egotistically talking about my own input. Looks to me like Monte Cook has made a good decision. I think you will find any attempt to satisfy 3ED/4ED warriors adequately will be impossible if the forum admin take sides - which to me they clearly have. It's impossible to talk about this on there forums if they remove content on the subject. Even worse when they one sided remove content which in my case they have. Even the sticky topics in there forum are quite clearly biased. Encouraging positive feedback on the subjects they like.


----------



## talok55

mudbunny said:


> Companies don't abandon products only because they are not doing great. They also abandon them because they think that they can do better. Obviously WotC (and Hasbro) think that D&D Next can do better than 4E did. Whether it will or not is a different question.




You actually expect us to believe that they are going to do something as risky and expensive as a new edition just because they think they can "do better"?  We both know that is not happening.  The only reason they would do a new edition is if the current one isn't making enough money.


----------



## Aehrlon

Quite possibly right... though I would not be surprised at all if there was at least 10-20% of the reasoning of those at the helm to be: 
Pathfinder has taken over a large chunk of our market; we need to reclaim that income, considering 95% of their game was ours to begin with... We will see what happens.


----------



## talok55

That just goes along with what I said. As a result of Pathfinder taking a large chunk of D&D's market share, D&D doesn't make enough money for Hasbro, so they make a new edition to try and get back that market share.  I'm sure there are other reasons for 4E not doing well (like all the PR blunders WotC has made over the past 5 years, and 4E being an entirely new game instead of a new edition), but stiff competition from Pathfinder seems to be a major reason for 4E's poor performance in the marketplace.


----------

