# 7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?



## delericho (Mar 13, 2015)

They've signed a novel distribution deal with Tor?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 13, 2015)

Chris Perkins said:
			
		

> Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories.




So the next three books then?


----------



## Reynard (Mar 13, 2015)

A publishing strategy built entirely around "stories" holds little or no interest to me. Not that there aren't a place for those, but I am worried that is *all* we'll get -- one AP at a time with tie ins to the video games, novels, comics and board games with no smaller modules, no Dragon or Dungeon and no well detailed campaign setting publications. I mean, only time will tell, but the mention of "D&D stories" leans that way, I think.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Mar 13, 2015)

D&D 5 Forever!!!
Haters will hate, but D&D will always triumph!

Anyway, hoping that CP is working on the _*Mega Multiverse Compendium of D&D Worlds*_ (5e).


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 13, 2015)

Reynard said:


> A publishing strategy built entirely around "stories" holds little or no interest to me. Not that there aren't a place for those, but I am worried that is *all* we'll get -- one AP at a time with tie ins to the video games, novels, comics and board games with no smaller modules, no Dragon or Dungeon and no well detailed campaign setting publications. I mean, only time will tell, but the mention of "D&D stories" leans that way, I think.




Whelp... better move over to Pathfinder then...


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 13, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So the next three books then?



Somebody call an ambulance, I just found a SICK BURN VICTIM!


----------



## neobolts (Mar 13, 2015)

Is a source link possible?


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 13, 2015)

https://twitter.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/576404680453967872

and 

https://twitter.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/576407464712626176


----------



## Manchu (Mar 13, 2015)

LOL I bet "big reveal in the works" refers to a licensed product.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 13, 2015)

Chris Perkins said:
			
		

> "Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories".



So... fourteen more Acquisitions Incorporated games.


----------



## delericho (Mar 13, 2015)

Manchu said:


> LOL I bet "big reveal in the works" refers to a licensed product.




Could well be. Or it could be the official announcement of that "Alice in Wonderland" storyline.

Though, hopefully, it will be some upcoming supplements. Or Dragon/Dungeon coming back. Or the OGL. (Okay, probably not the OGL.)

Guess we're back to wait and see.


----------



## Manchu (Mar 13, 2015)

Oh the Alice thing ... ugh no, Zak S already did it.


----------



## delericho (Mar 13, 2015)

Manchu said:


> Oh the Alice thing ... ugh no, Zak S already did it.




Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that's one of the few things we actually _know_ is coming.


----------



## Manchu (Mar 13, 2015)

I'm just in denial. Instead of Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, or heck even Spelljammer ... we get ... Alice in Wonderland.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 13, 2015)

Manchu said:


> I'm just in denial. Instead of Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, or heck even Spelljammer ... we get ... Alice in Wonderland.



CP mentioned "Alice" as a "spark" for an upcoming story. That could mean freaking anything.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 13, 2015)

More or less exciting than the Paizo "reveal "? The reveal, or the next ASoiF book, which comes first?


----------



## Iosue (Mar 13, 2015)

Reynard said:


> A publishing strategy built entirely around "stories" holds little or no interest to me. Not that there aren't a place for those, but I am worried that is *all* we'll get -- one AP at a time with tie ins to the video games, novels, comics and board games with no smaller modules, no Dragon or Dungeon and no well detailed campaign setting publications. I mean, only time will tell, but the mention of "D&D stories" leans that way, I think.



I see this sentiment a lot, but I don't get it.  For sure, big cross platform stories will be their flagship product, aimed at a mass market rather than the established RPG market.  But that doesn't mean no Dragon/Dungeon, and no other products.


----------



## chriton227 (Mar 13, 2015)

Manchu said:


> I'm just in denial. Instead of Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, or heck even Spelljammer ... we get ... Alice in Wonderland.




To be fair, Alice in Wonderland was in published D&D products long before Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, or Forgotten Realms, and the same year as the original Ravenloft.  Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass were the basis of EX1 Dungeonland and EX2 The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror way back in 1983.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 13, 2015)

Actually, the fact that Perkins says he's working on the next seven years of stories gives me hope for the magazines.  Getting ahead on their plans for the big releases should give him the breathing room to get the magazines up and running again in the near future.


----------



## Manchu (Mar 13, 2015)

chriton227 said:


> To be fair, Alice in Wonderland was in published D&D products long before Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, or Forgotten Realms, and the same year as the original Ravenloft.  Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass were the basis of EX1 Dungeonland and EX2 The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror way back in 1983.



No doubt but ... EX1-2 has not proven so fertile of ground as, say for example, I6.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 13, 2015)

delericho said:


> They've signed a novel distribution deal with Tor?




Maybe we'll get to pay 50% more for the same content too!  Woo-hoo!


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Mar 13, 2015)

The only problem I have with them planning _that_ far in advance is that it doesn't appear to give a lot of room for easy adjustment of their plans due to consumer response/feedback.

I mean, I think someone confirmed there is a campaign setting other than Forgotten Realms next year. But...other than that I'm concerned that we might have 5 years of Forgotten Realms adventure paths plotted out, and things like psionics or another MM with all that content they had to cut from this one (it was said that they left enough on the cutting floor to have a good foundation for another MM) might not start showing up for another 4 or 5 years.

Now, I think that's unlikely, and I think the AP strategy with trans-media tie-ins is the best business plan for them because it takes the _pressure_ off of the TRPG as a money maker. They can put more TLC and fan-sensitivity into their D&D products because their future as a brand isn't riding on their sales. At the same time, too many years of planning ahead might end up being a bad idea if it doesn't leave them room to insert products that a good contingent of the fan-base is clamoring for.


----------



## chriton227 (Mar 13, 2015)

Manchu said:


> No doubt but ... EX1-2 has not proven so fertile of ground as, say for example, I6.





I agree whole heartedly.  I'd prefer something like Ravenloft, Greyhawk, or Mystara long before Alice. I'm not a fan of the sort of camp humor that you usually get in things like EX1, EX2, or the original Castle Greyhawk modules, unless I'm playing a game that is supposed to be campy like Paranoia or a Scooby Doo RPG.


----------



## Barantor (Mar 13, 2015)

Glad I asked the right question . I see it as he is writing out what the next 7 years of stories will be as far as content connected to their brand. He might have something thrown in there that surprises us all since he does love some of the older content and he did rewrite 'Tomb of Horrors' for Next.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 13, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Whelp... better move over to Pathfinder then...




Except for the part where if I wanted to play Pathfinder, I would be. I know some folks think WotC is infallible and whatever they choose to do should be accepted without question or concern by D&D players, but I prefer to think that it is okay to (just to throw out a completely random example here) like the game and wish there was more stuff I would like to buy for it. I am not really sure why that point of view would be considered threatening to anyone.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 13, 2015)

tweet said:
			
		

> "Will we be getting any updates on your Valoreign campaign? Maybe more DM Experience entries?”
> 
> I'm thinkin' Smarch.




That means a new online column soon?


----------



## Reynard (Mar 13, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that's one of the few things we actually _know_ is coming.




On the upside, since it hasn't actually be announced yet, it can still get non-cancelled.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 13, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I see this sentiment a lot, but I don't get it.  For sure, big cross platform stories will be their flagship product, aimed at a mass market rather than the established RPG market.  But that doesn't mean no Dragon/Dungeon, and no other products.




So far it has.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 13, 2015)

Proof they are listen to us when we say we want information on the release schedule?


----------



## Halivar (Mar 13, 2015)

It's gonna be a licensed Buck Rogers RPG! Get excited, y'all!!!


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 13, 2015)

I'm not a fan of Perking or his humour.


----------



## dracomilan (Mar 13, 2015)

Let's see:
8/15 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
8/16 Planescape Campaign Setting
8/17 Spelljammer Campaign Setting
8/18 Greyhawk Campaign Setting
8/19 Birthright Campaign Setting
8/20 Eberron Campaign Setting
8/21 Dragonlance Campaign Setting
8/22 D&D6 Playtest Announce

Yep, they can do that


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 13, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> I'm not a fan of Perking or his humour.



I am the Per King
I can do anything
I made the Realms stop in their tracks
I made the blue dice go away


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 13, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Proof they are listen to us when we say we want information on the release schedule?




Nah.  This was Perkins' personal Twitter account... which means nothing he says is considered official or "announced".  It may turn out to eventually be right, but it's only going to get revealed on their terms not ours.  Heck, he said in a Twitter response months ago that he thought the OGL was coming back, but we've heard nothing official about that either.

Take whatever Chris says on his Twitter account as the equivalent of the movie leaks we'd get from Drew McWeeny at HitFix or Devin Faraci at Badass Digest.  Rumor, not fact.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 13, 2015)

dracomilan said:


> Let's see:
> 8/15 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
> 8/16 Planescape Campaign Setting
> 8/17 Spelljammer Campaign Setting
> ...



View attachment 67396


----------



## Iosue (Mar 13, 2015)

Reynard said:


> So far it has.




Two things: 
1. While working on Tyranny of Dragons and Princes of the Apocalypse, they managed to release 3 Core Books and a mega-adventure for 5 levels.  I'm pretty sure they'll have the wherewithal to release more material in addition to their big stories, which will be outsourced at any rate.
2. "So far" is far too small a time scale to draw any conclusions.


----------



## Manchu (Mar 13, 2015)

Iosue said:


> While working on Tyranny of Dragons and Princes of the Apocalypse



Designed by Kobold Press and Sasquatch Studios respectively. But I know layout is no joke.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 13, 2015)

Reynard said:


> Except for the part where if I wanted to play Pathfinder, I would be. I know some folks think WotC is infallible and whatever they choose to do should be accepted without question or concern by D&D players, but I prefer to think that it is okay to (just to throw out a completely random example here) like the game and wish there was more stuff I would like to buy for it. I am not really sure why that point of view would be considered threatening to anyone.




For what it's worth, I think that sentiment is perfectly valid and share it myself. I would love to have a campaign setting book to buy or a MMII on the horizon, and with no offense intended to Morrus, really the only reason I've backed En5ider on Patreon is because because there's been no announcements about Dungeon or Dragon yet. I'm just of the opinion that what I'd like to see as a fan doesn't line up with what's good for the company and I can't really begrudge them that.



goldomark said:


> Proof they are listen to us when we say we want information on the release schedule?




Well, maybe, if the announcement is the next twelve months of releases, but otherwise probably not. They announced the release dates for the core books, ToD and PotA ~6 months in advance and we're already three months into 2015, so if they're coming out with any further products in 2015 they're going to have to announce them soon.

In other words if they're just going to announce the Alice / Feywild adventure path, or even something like a Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book coming out later this year, such announcements were always going to have come around this time of year and will have nothing to do with what the fanbase is clamoring for.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 13, 2015)

Manchu said:


> Designed by Kobold Press and Sasquatch Studios respectively. But I know layout is no joke.




Well, at least you didn't suggest that they just slap D&D stickers on to the work of others.



dracomilan said:


> Let's see:
> 8/15 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
> 8/16 Planescape Campaign Setting
> 8/17 Spelljammer Campaign Setting
> ...




8/15 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
8/15 First Greyhawk AP
1/16 Relaunch of Dungeon Magazine - Centered around short modules and monsters.  Only available as PDF, but formatted for print and binder.
3/16 Second Greyhawk AP
8/16 Greyhawk Campaign Setting
8/16 First Eberron AP
3/17 Second Eberron AP
8/17 Eberron Campaign Setting
8/17 First Dragonlance AP
3/18 Second Dragonlance AP
8/18 Dragonlance Campaign Setting
8/18 First Dark Sun AP
3/19 Second Dark Sun AP
8/19 Dark Sun Campaign Setting
8/19 First Ravenloft AP
3/20 Second Ravenloft AP
8/20 Ravenloft Campaign Setting
8/20 First Planscape AP
3/21 Second Planescape AP
8/21 Planescape Campaign Setting
3/22 5e Players Handbook - 2nd revision
6/22 5e Monster Manual - 2nd revision
8/22 5e Dungeon Masters Guide 2nd revision
12/22 84th issue of relaunched Dungeon Magazine

EDIT: Campaign Setting are boxed sets that include books, maps, and other things.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 13, 2015)

I'm not holding my breath, but I kind of hope it's OGL. COME ON PERKINS YOU PROMISED. And you know how excited _certain people_ get when all you do is non-anounce the cover of something through a book distributor! OGL! OGL! 

A campaign setting is a possibility. It's something they've probably been thinking about how they want to do for a while now, maybe they've figured out how to do one of 'em. Maybe "Alice in Wonderland" is one of those ideas? (I was thinking how Alice in Wonderland captures the vibe of Planescape rather well in certain ways...). Maybe something totally different.

ANYWAY, I am a little excited to see what is in the mix.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 13, 2015)

Honestly I go back and forth on whether I think we'll ever see 5E under the OGL, but it _would_ solve the issue of ongoing support... Wizards wouldn't have to invest any more resources into 5E than they are now, and the floodgates would open to keep the hardcore gamers satisfied, while still being incredible unlikely that third party books would end up on shelves at Walmart and Toys R Us where they _really_ want to see 5E...


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 13, 2015)

Jesus, there is literally NOTHING WOTC can say that will fail to elicit a negative reaction from some people.  They could say they're mailing out $100 bills to everyone on EnWorld, and people would bitch it's not $500 or that it would be better if they spent that money on producing X or this is just a secret plot to get our mailing addresses or see this is proof they agree with us that they've been doing a bad job or whatever.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 13, 2015)

Manchu said:


> Designed by Kobold Press and Sasquatch Studios respectively. But I know layout is no joke.




I don't get why people act as if books written by freelancers is something new for D&D. Ed Greenwood has never been employed by Wizards or TSR, and yet there are literally dozens of books written by him that people have no problem giving TSR/Wizards credit for. The same goes for Keith Baker, though on a smaller scale. I think most of the Known World Gazetteers were written by freelancers. D&D has always been built on a foundation of freelance work.


----------



## ccooke (Mar 13, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Jesus, there is literally NOTHING WOTC can say that will fail to elicit a negative reaction from some people.  They could say they're mailing out $100 bills to everyone on EnWorld, and people would bitch it's not $500 or that it would be better if they spent that money on producing X or this is just a secret plot to get our mailing addresses or see this is proof they agree with us that they've been doing a bad job or whatever.




Don't be silly. $500 would be too greedy, and nobody here would do that.

Besides, anyone with a functioning brain can see that it should *clearly* be two $50 bills. I mean, what if we lose one?


[size=-3]Sorry. It's been a long week.[/size]


----------



## Grimjack99 (Mar 13, 2015)

From what's been said, I think the days of massive settings with aggressive release schedules, like we saw in 2nd edition, are not in the immediate business plan.  I think that they'll return, but later on down the road.  It seems the AP approach is the direction they're taking for now.  That said, Chris is working on revisiting one of the old settings, and coming out with a revised and updated version.  My best bets would first be on Planescape, or second  Spelljammer.  This will probably be a major release, but unsure if it will be an AP, full splat book coverage, or a combination of the two.

5E's tone harkens back to that wonderful flavor of 2E, but with update mechanics that give the game a good flow.  From all the great comments, it sounds like a lot of gamers are missing the feel those big setting releases had.  I still enjoy getting out my box sets for Planescape, Dark Sun, and Spelljammer.  As I look thru them, I think how great it would be to have them updated to a 5E version.  Alas, I don't want to feel the pain, I just want to see the baby.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 13, 2015)

I'm of the opinion that we won't see a full fledged OGL, but something more restrictive.  Like a guide to building modules, APs, and MMs without stepping on WotCs copyright, along with some boilerplate text that needs to be included in every book that explains the 3rd party nature of the publication and a logo to go on the front or back cover indicating that it's 5e compatible, but 3rd party.

I don't think that they're going to put their rules under a open license or anything like that.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 13, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> I'm of the opinion that we won't see a full fledged OGL, but something more restrictive.  Like a guide to building modules, APs, and MMs without stepping on WotCs copyright, along with some boilerplate text that needs to be included in every book that explains the 3rd party nature of the publication and a logo to go on the front or back cover indicating that it's 5e compatible, but 3rd party.
> 
> I don't think that they're going to put their rules under a open license or anything like that.




Because that worked out _great_ for them in 4e.


----------



## Rygar (Mar 13, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Jesus, there is literally NOTHING WOTC can say that will fail to elicit a negative reaction from some people.  They could say they're mailing out $100 bills to everyone on EnWorld, and people would bitch it's not $500 or that it would be better if they spent that money on producing X or this is just a secret plot to get our mailing addresses or see this is proof they agree with us that they've been doing a bad job or whatever.




For many years people in the Magic the Gathering community insisted that WOTC could put $100 bills in Mtg packs and people would still complain.  Then,  when WOTC released Zendikar,  people discovered WOTC did just that.  And $500 bills.  And $1000 bills.  And even a few $5000 bills.

And people complained about it.

(Zendikar's initial release saw WOTC spike packs with cards from old sets,  all the way up to and including Moxen and Black Lotus,  which sell for thousands)


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 13, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Because that worked out _great_ for them in 4e.




It worked out better than the OGL I'd say.  With the OGL, they're still competing with their licensees.


----------



## HobbitFan (Mar 13, 2015)

Somthing funny....Chris answer about a big revel coming up from marketing was in response to my tweet.  And I didn't realize he responded until I read about it here!

That's funny...I hadn't even checked twitter when I got home or anything.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 13, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> It worked out better than the OGL I'd say.  With the OGL, they're still competing with their licensees.




Licensees that, at least in part, chose to stick with a slightly modified version of 3.5 because Wizards were being non-cooperative with the GSL.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 13, 2015)

Mistwell said:


>



tl;dr Mistwell is giving out $500 to everyone on EN World.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 13, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Licensees that, at least in part, chose to stick with a slightly modified version of 3.5 because Wizards were being non-cooperative with the GSL.




Were we discussing what was good for WotC, or what was good for gamers?


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 13, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> Somthing funny....Chris answer about a *big revel *coming up....



Wait, a "revel"? Apparently Mr. Perkins was talking about a party that the Marketing Department was having.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 13, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> Were we discussing what was good for WotC, or what was good for gamers?




Good for Wizards. If they had said from day one that 4e would continue the success of 3e in being released under the OGL, Paizo might never have decided to create the Pathfinder game, or at least they might have provided parallel support for 4e. Certainly, other publishers would have chosen to stick with the thing being published as "D&D" rather than an untried brand.


----------



## fjw70 (Mar 13, 2015)

Manchu said:


> LOL I bet "big reveal in the works" refers to a licensed product.




Hopefully it's pdfs of their 5e products. Or some non-cloud based electronic version of the books.


----------



## JeffB (Mar 13, 2015)

I stopped being excited about anything 5e months ago. 

7 years of stories worked up, but they cannot produce a decent  standalone adventure module  for  sale this year.


----------



## Manchu (Mar 13, 2015)

Staffan said:


> I don't get why people act as if books written by freelancers is something new for D&D.



Staffan, my point was actually that not everything published by WotC is made by WotC employees.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 13, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Good for Wizards. If they had said from day one that 4e would continue the success of 3e in being released under the OGL, Paizo might never have decided to create the Pathfinder game, or at least they might have provided parallel support for 4e. Certainly, other publishers would have chosen to stick with the thing being published as "D&D" rather than an untried brand.




Your argument is that switching from OGL to SGL is the reason that the Paizo took over as the leading D&D system under a new name.  My argument is that nobody could have done that had WotC not put D&D under something as open as the OGL.

OGL was definitely good for gamers who didn't want move on to buying 4e products and wanted to stay with 3e products instead, but at the same time, it made WotC wonder where the hell all of their customers went.  

I think that neither Hasbro nor WotC would allow that sort of license to happen again.

I don't think they want to be competing with ShmathFinder in 20 years if they decide to dispense with 5e at some point.


----------



## ShaneB (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> A publishing strategy built entirely around "stories" holds little or no interest to me. Not that there aren't a place for those, but I am worried that is *all* we'll get -- one AP at a time with tie ins to the video games, novels, comics and board games with no smaller modules, no Dragon or Dungeon and no well detailed campaign setting publications. I mean, only time will tell, but the mention of "D&D stories" leans that way, I think.




Well the fact we already have how many years of well detailed campaign setting publications, that are easily transferable, is probably why they are not really bothering with those. I personally dont understand why everyone keeps going on about setting material when there is enough material out there to use.


----------



## Slayyne (Mar 14, 2015)

I would be happy with some online tools and/or an allowance for people to make character generators.


----------



## graves3141 (Mar 14, 2015)

I'd be surprised if the "big reveal" is more than just the announcement of their next AP.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 14, 2015)

Manchu said:


> Designed by Kobold Press and Sasquatch Studios respectively.



Precisely.  So I don't see why people assume that working on stories that other companies will flesh out into product means WotC won't put anything else out there.


----------



## procproc (Mar 14, 2015)

Rygar said:


> For many years people in the Magic the Gathering community insisted that WOTC could put $100 bills in Mtg packs and people would still complain.  Then,  when WOTC released Zendikar,  people discovered WOTC did just that.  And $500 bills.  And $1000 bills.  And even a few $5000 bills.
> 
> And people complained about it.
> 
> (Zendikar's initial release saw WOTC spike packs with cards from old sets,  all the way up to and including Moxen and Black Lotus,  which sell for thousands)




Do you have a source for the complaining bit? Zendikar was received overwhelmingly positively. I'm sure someone somewhere probably complained about it, but their "Hidden Treasures" promotion was incredibly popular across the board.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2015)

Iosue said:


> Precisely.  So I don't see why people assume that working on stories that other companies will flesh out into product means WotC won't put anything else out there.




There just aren't enough of them. For, what?, 8 people just early development and then following up with the subs is a lot of work. I don't think anyone is blaming the dev team for the release schedule. That's on Hasbro and/or WotC. And, as I have said previously, it might be the right decision for the company in its current state -- but that does not mean that we can't wish it were otherwise or even wish D&D was owned by a company that put TTRPG first. D&D becoming the property of a giant toy company was never likely to turn out well for fans of spending Thursday nights crawling through tombs in our imaginations.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

JeffB said:


> I stopped being excited about anything 5e months ago.
> 
> 7 years of stories worked up, but they cannot produce a decent  standalone adventure module  for  sale this year.




No. They most certainly could have produced a decent standalone adventure module for sale this year. They chose not to. Big difference. Just because somebody doesn't do what YOU want doesn't mean they are making bad decisions.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Manchu said:


> Staffan, my point was actually that not everything published by WotC is made by WotC employees.




Aaaaaand . . . so what? What relevance at all does your point have? WotC used freelancers for the first two 5E adventures. WotC, and TSR before them, has a long history of using freelancers, and will likely continue to do so. WotC will continue to put out 5E products, some written by freelancers, others written by in-house employees. As has always been the case. So what?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 14, 2015)

JeffB said:


> 7 years of stories worked up, but they cannot produce a decent  standalone adventure module  for  sale this year.




Not cannot.  Choose not to.  Or, to be really accurate - have not announced that they will do so.  We don't know the future.

If their "big reveal" is a decent license, for example, then they probably don't have to do such work.  The market will flood with adventures inside a month of such an announcement, I expect, and them doing it themselves would be kind of a waste.

Or, maybe in a few months they'll change the plan, and do adventures.  Plans don't generally survive contact with reality - which is why I kind of chuckle at the "seven years" thing.  Really?  Unless that's a seven-year *movie* plan, I find it funny they think any plan of stories will hold up for that long.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> No. They most certainly could have produced a decent standalone adventure module for sale this year. They chose not to. Big difference. Just because somebody doesn't do what YOU want doesn't mean they are making bad decisions.



It's yet to proven whether or not it's a good or bad decision. Personally, I think focusing on AP's, IF that's their plan, would be a mistake.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

7 years of stories is ridiculous. That's 14 APs. Attempting that when only the first is out is an act of pure ego and not particularly a good sign. 

Here's the thing: WotC doesn't know how we'll react to the APs. We might dig the first couple and then sales could drop. Or people could really call out for a different genre or type of story. The more the stories are planned out, the harder it will be to shift things. In much the same way it'd be foolish for a DM to plan out their next five campaigns.  
WotC is just getting into the AP/storyline business, and are still very much learning the ropes. 

Very few people are going to play every AP. It's generally a good idea to have a few different types of stories and a range of genres to capture the interest if different groups rather than figuring on epic good versus naughty. But it's hard to gauge how far you can deviate from that core concept and how much latitude the fanbase will give. You just do not know if the majority of the fanbase will be tired of classic fantasy stories and ready for a break or still hungry for some timeless D&D dungeon crawling.

To say nothing of the larger culture. Three years from now (2017) there could be a huge fantasy movie that is a little too similar to a planned  plot line and makes WotC seem like a copycat. Or a new pirate movie franchise might rock the world and everyone wants to run a pirates game, but WotC has to wait years to catch that market. Heck, or Paizo or Green Ronin or Necromancer Games could announce their plans for a very similar story (and since they tend to announce farther in advance than WotC), making D&D seem like it's miming another game.

Heck, I'll go to Paizo as an example. Seven years ago they launched their first Pathfinder AP: Rise of the Runelords. They likely had no idea that the fanbase would want a sandbox AP so badly (Kingmaker) let alone give them enough freedom to make one where the party hops through time and space and travels to Soviet Russia (Reign of Winter) or explores the Starmount (Iron Gods). Heck, three years ago they might not have predicted Iron Gods.
And three years and change ago, they were planning the AP known as "The Fifth Crusade" referring to the 5th Mendevian Crusade into the Worldwound, to tie into their _Mythic Adventures_ product. But that name had to be dropped due to 5th Edition potentially releasing around the same time (or not, as it turned out). 

Rough plans are good. Knowing where you're going in the long term is good. But I hope they're not setting things too much in stone. 7 years feels like Perkins is getting carried away with himself and is letting his creativity and ideas run wild.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Mar 14, 2015)

We don't know Perkins is talking about Adventure paths. Anyway we got a good adventure in the Lost Mines. An ok adventure in hoard of the dragon queen and a another good one in Rise of Tiamat. 

Princes is the Apocolypes is being made by the Red Hand of Doom guys and other experienced designers so I would also give it a chance.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 14, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Well, maybe, if the announcement is the next twelve months of releases, but otherwise probably not. They announced the release dates for the core books, ToD and PotA ~6 months in advance and we're already three months into 2015, so if they're coming out with any further products in 2015 they're going to have to announce them soon.
> 
> In other words if they're just going to announce the Alice / Feywild adventure path, or even something like a Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book coming out later this year, such announcements were always going to have come around this time of year and will have nothing to do with what the fanbase is clamoring for.



Oh, well see if they make any announcement. Without an official announcement they still can non-cancel what they are working on. 

I was talking about Perkins actually talking about a future announcement about the release schedule and being less thight mouth about it. Maybe he talked about a potential future announcement because they actually read forums and critics. That is how low expectations are.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Nellisir said:


> It's yet to proven whether or not it's a good or bad decision. Personally, I think focusing on AP's, IF that's their plan, would be a mistake.




It will never be "proven" good or bad. There will be folks who like the directions WotC is going (like me) and folks who won't. If and when 6E comes around and its a radical reinvention of the game once again . . . still only WotC will know what exactly "failed" from the last go around, and they won't share it with us. But we will debate endlessly, endlessly, endlessly . . .

In a sense, it really doesn't matter what they do, the internet kvetching machine will never stop and they will always be "wrong". At least, on the internet anyways.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> 7 years of stories is ridiculous. That's 14 APs. Attempting that when only the first is out is an act of pure ego and not particularly a good sign.




Heh. Armchair quarterbacking at its best. 7 years of stories doesn't necessarily mean 14 "APs", which is kind of a meaningless term for a product anyway. WotC has been story focused for quite some time now, this isn't new with 5E. Almost the entire 4E cycle had story arc after story arc that drove the organized play and was mirrored in the novels, video games, and to a lesser extent, the main RPG line. Each "story" could be delivered in all sorts of ways over the next 7 years, and WotC is hardly locking themselves in to a rigid product schedule extending almost a decade.

The first 5E story arc, Tyranny of Dragons got two RPG products and tons of tie-ins. The second, Elemental Evil, gets one RPG product and tons of tie-ins. Not much of a precedent has been set yet, and Mearls has already stated that they are experimenting with the best delivery. The third story arc could have a very different release strategy, as could the next after that. And how many "stories" we'll get each year just might vary also. And it doesn't mean we won't get books that aren't tied to the story arc du jour, like a Deities and Demigods or Manual of the Planes.

And, if need be, what's stopping them from swapping the 2016 fall story arc with the 2017 spring story if they need to change things up? Or dropping a story arc, or adding a new one in?

While we of course don't know what the future holds for D&D, I'm not worried in the slightest. I've had fun with every edition since 2nd, and I'm sure I'll continue to play, have fun, and buy new products for many years to come.


----------



## Manchu (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Aaaaaand . . . so what? What relevance at all does your point have? WotC used freelancers for the first two 5E adventures. WotC, and TSR before them, has a long history of using freelancers, and will likely continue to do so. WotC will continue to put out 5E products, some written by freelancers, others written by in-house employees. As has always been the case. So what?



Hi there. One of the cool things about a discussion forum is you can see what people have posted previous to the post you are currently reading. I guarantee making use of this feature will really aid your comprehension of the conversation. But don't take my word for it, try it yourself!


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Heh. Armchair quarterbacking at its best. 7 years of stories doesn't necessarily mean 14 "APs", which is kind of a meaningless term for a product anyway. WotC has been story focused for quite some time now, this isn't new with 5E. Almost the entire 4E cycle had story arc after story arc that drove the organized play and was mirrored in the novels, video games, and to a lesser extent, the main RPG line. Each "story" could be delivered in all sorts of ways over the next 7 years, and WotC is hardly locking themselves in to a rigid product schedule extending almost a decade.
> 
> The first 5E story arc, Tyranny of Dragons got two RPG products and tons of tie-ins. The second, Elemental Evil, gets one RPG product and tons of tie-ins. Not much of a precedent has been set yet, and Mearls has already stated that they are experimenting with the best delivery. The third story arc could have a very different release strategy, as could the next after that. And how many "stories" we'll get each year just might vary also. And it doesn't mean we won't get books that aren't tied to the story arc du jour, like a Deities and Demigods or Manual of the Planes.
> 
> ...



They've been doing the storylines since 2011 or 2012. But now they're planning twice that length of time in the future.
7 years ago 4th edition was just getting started. Had they planned storylines then like they're planning now we wouldn't have had the iconic war vs evil dragons to launch 5e.

While I expect that they can adjust and shift storylines somewhat, my main concern is that they're planning so far ahead without seeking feedback from the community or looking to the fans to see what type of APs are desired. It's slightly arrogant for two or three people to be planning the future of the game that far in advance. And annoying that it's pushing the fans out of the loop. Our opinion's don't matter because the decisions have all been made and no feedback was sought.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> 7 years of stories is ridiculous. That's 14 APs. Attempting that when only the first is out is an act of pure ego and not particularly a good sign.
> 
> Here's the thing: WotC doesn't know how we'll react to the APs. We might dig the first couple and then sales could drop. Or people could really call out for a different genre or type of story. The more the stories are planned out, the harder it will be to shift things. In much the same way it'd be foolish for a DM to plan out their next five campaigns.
> WotC is just getting into the AP/storyline business, and are still very much learning the ropes.
> ...




I agree pretty much with everything you said, but I would bet that he is just working on the outlines of stories. Those can be changed easily.

If they are actually hiring third parties to write the APs now and store them until it is time to release them, they are mad.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> It will never be "proven" good or bad. There will be folks who like the directions WotC is going (like me) and folks who won't. If and when 6E comes around and its a radical reinvention of the game once again . . . still only WotC will know what exactly "failed" from the last go around, and they won't share it with us. But we will debate endlessly, endlessly, endlessly . . .
> 
> In a sense, it really doesn't matter what they do, the internet kvetching machine will never stop and they will always be "wrong". At least, on the internet anyways.




So we do not know if 4e was a financial success?


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> 7 years of stories is ridiculous. That's 14 APs. Attempting that when only the first is out is an act of pure ego and not particularly a good sign.




What if 7 years of stories in 14 5-10 page AP treatments that can be put into production at any time?

Maybe match that up with 7 campaign settings.

Maybe only flesh them out enough right now that they could be handed to a 3rd party to flesh into a full products over the course of 4-5 months.

------

Been listening to this for the last few minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGHZRSDczkM

Very interesting.


----------



## Paraxis (Mar 14, 2015)

There sure is a lot of speculation from two purposefully vague comments.  There are plenty of things 7 years of stories could be, and and almost anything could be a "big reveal", rampant speculation at this time seems silly.


----------



## pming (Mar 14, 2015)

Hiya!

  I think a quiet *meh* is in order. Seriously, I think the marketing guys at WotC now, with regards to D&D, are waaaaay off the actual mark here. It's like they all just got out of marketing school and think that because of X, then Y works for *everything*. I mean...do these "marketing guys" even play the freaking game? Regularly? For fun? Do they have such minimal knowledge of one of the MAIN THRUSTS of an RPG and the type's of people it attracts? I *seriously* doubt it.

  RPG's aren't about reading a story, or reading a script pretending to be some character (like those "How to Host A Murder" type games they use to have a few years ago). RPG's are about the *players* and the *DM* creating _their own_ stories. I remember when the Slave Lords modules were still being put out (original 1e productions; no reprints or compilations...the first printings back when they were, uh, printed). I had talked to some people in person and some online. One thing they all had in common, other than playing A1, A2, A3 and A4....each groups story was different. Some took over the slave lords operation, some went all murder-hobo on them, some went total mercenary. Each story was different, and many of them had completely different outcomes than what was expected. Those "old pre-AP modules" gave a framework but allowed for vastly different stories to emerge.

  With the way WotC seems to be hinting, it's like they don't *want* anyone to create their own stories. They want everyone to just sit back and be spoon fed an "approved story for your enjoyment". They want people to accept this as a new standard for playing RPGs. Buy the first hardback adventure, then the second. And the supplement(s). And don't forget to pick up the novel for extra insight into what was _really_ going on behind the scenes of the 'adventure' you just 'played'. While your at it, grab the video game or video game expansion and "unlock previously unseen story lines, NPC's and locales".

  I really think that if they do try and stick to their whole idea of "one story, filtered through multiple media formats", they are going to shoot themselves in the foot. That would totally suck! I *really* like 5e and would love to see it continue as a "do it yourself" version of D&D that it seems to have a pretty good foothold on.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 14, 2015)

There is nothing wrong with stories and modules but produce them in parallel with supplements so that you cater to those that like to play in modules and those that like to create their own games. 

I think Paul has hit the nail on the head. Wizards seems to be going down this narrow road of one story and they want you to product hop in a straight line and if you don't want to do that then you are just SOL and won't really be getting anything new.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 14, 2015)

pming said:


> With the way WotC seems to be hinting, it's like they don't *want* anyone to create their own stories.




Or if could be that they completely understand that they can't produce story material for people who are making up their own stories.  Because, you know... that's how making up your own stories works.  You're making up your own stories.  Ipso facto ANYTHING they produce that has story elements in it is not helping you because you have to strip those story elements out for the stories you yourself are creating.

Now... if you're going to tell me that as someone who is making up your own stories, you would prefer material with _generic_ story because you believe it is easier to strip out generic story and insert your own, rather than stripping out setting-specific story and inserting your own... fine.  I can buy that.  Especially if the DM already has personal knowledge of the setting in question, and thus their mind reflexively sees how that story material fits in to *that* setting, as opposed to how it might fit into their own personal setting.

But I also do not believe that this inability or reticence to strip out setting material from a setting-specific product and use the information generically for a personal story is really that much better a reason to do so, than placing material in a setting-specific place, for all the players out there for whom an implied setting is a godsend.  I mean... if you were to take the two Tyranny of Dragons books and replace all the setting-specific names and places and insert just made-up names and places... what does that actually gain you?  Those of you who make up your own stories would still need to stripmine those episodes for parts, changing names and places for your own personal campaign... and those who don't now have an _implied setting_ wherein these 15 episodes are all taking place.  So why is having them all in a generic setting with no other prior history to refer to (for those who wanted it) better than having thousands of years and many books and websites of a setting that hundreds of thousands of people already know to refer to?  I mean... a new player can see "Greenest" in the first episode of the book and at a barest minimum do a google search and get _something_ new about that area to help flesh their game out if they wanted.  And I don't see how that's ultimately a bad thing.


----------



## Sonny (Mar 14, 2015)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> I think a quiet *meh* is in order. Seriously, I think the marketing guys at WotC now, with regards to D&D, are waaaaay off the actual mark here. It's like they all just got out of marketing school and think that because of X, then Y works for *everything*. I mean...do these "marketing guys" even play the freaking game? Regularly? For fun? Do they have such minimal knowledge of one of the MAIN THRUSTS of an RPG and the type's of people it attracts? I *seriously* doubt it.
> 
> ...




You do realize that Marketing doesn't dictate content and product line right? It's not like this is an Ad Sales Campaign involving Integrated Marketing.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 14, 2015)

pming said:


> RPG's aren't about reading a story, or reading a script pretending to be some character (like those "How to Host A Murder" type games they use to have a few years ago). RPG's are about the *players* and the *DM* creating _their own_ stories. I remember when the Slave Lords modules were still being put out (original 1e productions; no reprints or compilations...the first printings back when they were, uh, printed). I had talked to some people in person and some online. One thing they all had in common, other than playing A1, A2, A3 and A4....each groups story was different. Some took over the slave lords operation, some went all murder-hobo on them, some went total mercenary. Each story was different, and many of them had completely different outcomes than what was expected. Those "old pre-AP modules" gave a framework but allowed for vastly different stories to emerge.



They're not planning out 7 years of stories because they want to nail down the next dozen or so APs.  They're doing it to have the seeds of what they're going to feed to the video game developers and book writers and board game designers and (possibly?) movie executives to continue to build the idea of "D&D" as a franchise-able shared universe.

After all, who else plans out their story continuity 5 years or more ahead?  Maybe, I don't know, enormous geek franchises like Marvel and Star Wars?  While I have no clue if it's actually a good idea, I think the clues are there that they're aiming high, much higher than just the TTRPG.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 14, 2015)

pming said:


> I really think that if they do try and stick to their whole idea of "one story, filtered through multiple media formats", they are going to shoot themselves in the foot. That would totally suck! I *really* like 5e and would love to see it continue as a "do it yourself" version of D&D that it seems to have a pretty good foothold on.



Hopefully the "if" is the most important part of this.  

There is still a lot of opportunity to make this work out really well.  

But you may be exactly right.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 14, 2015)

pming said:


> I mean...do these "marketing guys" even play the freaking game?




Yes. WotC's brand team plays D&D.


----------



## delericho (Mar 14, 2015)

One of the reasons WotC are currently focusing on their storylines is that D&D doesn't currently have a lot of marketable characters - there's Drizzt, and Strahd, and a few others, but not many. That doesn't give them a huge amount to hang future movies (novels, games, etc) on. So by creating their storylines they create recognisable characters that they can then sell. Eventually, they may hit on one that gains significant traction, and that will give them something to license out.

(Please note: "one of the reasons", not "the reason".  )


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> They're not planning out 7 years of stories because they want to nail down the next dozen or so APs.  They're doing it to have the seeds of what they're going to feed to the video game developers and book writers and board game designers and (possibly?) movie executives to continue to build the idea of "D&D" as a franchise-able shared universe.
> 
> After all, who else plans out their story continuity 5 years or more ahead?  Maybe, I don't know, enormous geek franchises like Marvel and Star Wars?  While I have no clue if it's actually a good idea, I think the clues are there that they're aiming high, much higher than just the TTRPG.




One can argue Marvel is so far-thinking, judging from how their comic lines lurch around. (And before you think I'm bashing: DC is worse. See: Convergence and Secret Wars).


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 14, 2015)

delericho said:


> One of the reasons WotC are currently focusing on their storylines is that D&D doesn't currently have a lot of marketable characters - there's Drizzt, and Strahd, and a few others, but not many. That doesn't give them a huge amount to hang future movies (novels, games, etc) on. So by creating their storylines they create recognisable characters that they can then sell. Eventually, they may hit on one that gains significant traction, and that will give them something to license out.
> 
> (Please note: "one of the reasons", not "the reason".  )




This is a good point most people miss when looking at D&D the Brand.

Marvel can put Spider-man on a T shirt and sell it. They can make a movie about Thor, a TV show about Daredevil, and an action figure of Captain America and each will sell. You can lather-rinse-repeat with DC, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, etc, etc. Each has some iconic characters, settings, villains, and stories that are the lingua-franca to those involved. 

What does D&D have? Well, few recognizable heroes. Elminster, Raistlin, Drizzt, and maybe the Heroes of the Lance? None of them are really Iconic of D&D.  D&D lacks a strong "stable" of heroes, that's usually because the Heroes of D&D are you and your elf, a hard concept to put on a T-shirt. So you go on to other portions. Settings? Well, D&D has an infinite number of them. Even if we just limit to published ones, you still end up with a lot of divergence. I suspect they will one day embrace the "worlds of D&D" concept, but right now, they are focusing on One World (Realms) to keep some cohesion. Villains? Well, that's a little longer list. Tiamat, Lolth, Strahd, Soth, King Snurre, Accerack, Lady Vol, The Anchromentals, Orcus, Asmodeus, all good villains. But a villain alone is never enough, and here is where you get Story. Shared Stories are the only thing D&D has to offer at the moment. People who have played recognize the Wand of Orcus, the Demon Head in the Tomb of Horrors, The sphinx riddle from White Plume Mountain, and yelling Bree-Yark in the Caves of Chaos. 

Thus, the team decided the best way forward in creating a shared vision is to give us all iconic stories to tell. You and your elf go up against Tiamat and the Cult of the Dragons, it becomes a shared experience across players like the 1e modules of Olde Tyme did. No two DMs are going to do it the same way, but the players will (hopefully) be able to share the time THEIR elf stopped Tiamat. 

I admit its not much for the obsessive homebrewer, but I've found (myself included) these guys rarely need much support. I do hope though we get some non-AP supplements.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 14, 2015)

I dunno.  Something doesn't have to be already famous to do well; the Iron Man movies made Iron Man the big name he is now.  You can launch stuff with lesser known characters; it's just a little more of a gamble.

Plus I like seeing new stuff more than I like seeing regurgitated stuff over and over.  I'd love to see new settings, rather than revisiting old ones.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> They're not planning out 7 years of stories because they want to nail down the next dozen or so APs.  They're doing it to have the seeds of what they're going to feed to the video game developers and book writers and board game designers and (possibly?) movie executives to continue to build the idea of "D&D" as a franchise-able shared universe.
> 
> After all, who else plans out their story continuity 5 years or more ahead?  Maybe, I don't know, enormous geek franchises like Marvel and Star Wars?  While I have no clue if it's actually a good idea, I think the clues are there that they're aiming high, much higher than just the TTRPG.



I agree that they need to plan stories a couple years ahead to coordinate with the novels and video games, which have a much longer lead time. 
But 7 years is too far. 

You bring up Marvel and Star Wars, the former being a very good example. Marvel has announced movies *super* far in advance. How far? Five years. But they've been making movies for 6 years, and their long term planning has paid out repeatedly. And some of that was spin: announcing they were planning a movie starring a POC and a woman to offset criticism for the immediate future.
The big multiyear franchises haven't worked out well for other companies. Look at Sony and Spider-man.

WotC has not proved they can plan far ahead. In fact, they've proved the opposite and that they're poor at completing long term plans. And they've been doing big storylines for only 3-4 years. And they seem to be working on storylines for farther in the future than we know Marvel movies.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

delericho said:


> One of the reasons WotC are currently focusing on their storylines is that D&D doesn't currently have a lot of marketable characters - there's Drizzt, and Strahd, and a few others, but not many. That doesn't give them a huge amount to hang future movies (novels, games, etc) on. So by creating their storylines they create recognisable characters that they can then sell. Eventually, they may hit on one that gains significant traction, and that will give them something to license out.
> 
> (Please note: "one of the reasons", not "the reason".  )




I'd agree with this. D&D movies do suffer from both a lack of iconic characters and familiar story, meaning books/ comics/ movies have to invent their own, which defeats the purpose of making an adaptation, and puts the product at the mercy of whomever they get to handle the screenwriting.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I agree pretty much with everything you said, but I would bet that he is just working on the outlines of stories. Those can be changed easily.
> 
> 
> If they are actually hiring third parties to write the APs now and store them until it is time to release them, they are mad.





bmfrosty said:


> What if 7 years of stories in 14 5-10 page AP treatments that can be put into production at any time?
> 
> Maybe match that up with 7 campaign settings.
> 
> Maybe only flesh them out enough right now that they could be handed to a 3rd party to flesh into a full products over the course of 4-5 months.



I'd be very surprised if they were more than outlines, even if some are more detailed than others. 

It's still worrisome. It sounds like storylines are Perkin's job, which is putting everything on his creativity. A creative person could easily think of several really, really good ideas for epic campaigns... but 14? At some point you end up with lemons. I hope he's brainstorming with the rest of the team.
Regardless, we don't know what the fans will be clamoring for in 2016 or 2017, let alone 2021. Planning for that far, beyond the barest of bare bones, seems like a waste of time. Or, as worries me, like they don't care what stories we want.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'd be very surprised if they were more than outlines, even if some are more detailed than others.
> 
> It's still worrisome. It sounds like storylines are Perkin's job, which is putting everything on his creativity. A creative person could easily think of several really, really good ideas for epic campaigns... but 14? At some point you end up with lemons. I hope he's brainstorming with the rest of the team.
> Regardless, we don't know what the fans will be clamoring for in 2016 or 2017, let alone 2021. Planning for that far, beyond the barest of bare bones, seems like a waste of time. Or, as worries me, like they don't care what stories we want.




He may be working on 7 years of storylines, but the order that the stories are in may yet to be determined.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 14, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> What does D&D have? Well, few recognizable heroes.




And that's why D&D is a poor fit for brand-type thinking. After all, who are the heroes of D&D? *Your* characters.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> WotC has not proved they can plan far ahead. In fact, they've proved the opposite and that they're poor at completing long term plans. And they've been doing big storylines for only 3-4 years. And they seem to be working on storylines for farther in the future than we know Marvel movies.




Actually, they're generally planning about 7 years ahead on Magic, and that's been working out well for them.

It's a damn shame they can't clone Mark Rosewater and put him in charge of D&D as well.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> He may be working on 7 years of storylines, but the order that the stories are in may yet to be determined.



If in four years (2019) a new King Arthur movie comes out and everyone is abuzz with thoughts of knights on horseback, crusades, Excalibur, and the like and WotC doesn't have a chivalric adventure in their planned list, then shuffling the order does nothing. 
If, after five years of Realmshaking crossovers and heavily plotted storylines the fans really want a sandbox exploration adventure ala _Isle of Dread_, and one wasn't planned, then shuffling the order does nothing.


----------



## Barantor (Mar 14, 2015)

I think that a lot of folks are stuck with the impression that they are only going to release stories along with the adventure path because that is what we have gotten so far. This isn't to say that we will continue to get this same type of output from them.

I think they are going to be very careful with their licensing since they have created their own competition in the past with them. I hope we do see a license soon though as that will improve the amount of material that folks can buy. I'm wondering if they are going to have something new in store and the wording will be something we haven't seen in the past.

To whoever it was that was asking if the WoTC folks play their own game.... they live-stream several employees playing it, it is on their site....


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Actually, they're generally planning about 7 years ahead on Magic, and that's been working out well for them.
> 
> It's a damn shame they can't clone Mark Rosewater and put him in charge of D&D as well.



Magic is a little easier. They don't have to worry about edition changes or rules bloat, since the content is on a cycle. They don't have to worry as much about people engaging with the story, since it's secondary and only lasts a few months. They don't have as much to worry about in terms of continuity.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 14, 2015)

Staffan said:


> And that's why D&D is a poor fit for brand-type thinking. After all, who are the heroes of D&D? *Your* characters.




D&D is much more than just your campaign, though.  It's hundreds of novels, some movies, dozens of computer games, an old cartoon series, even comics, to varying degrees.  Drizzt is as much part of D&D as your character at home is.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2015)

Staffan said:


> And that's why D&D is a poor fit for brand-type thinking. After all, who are the heroes of D&D? *Your* characters.




Exactly. I'd bet hard money that if you had a booth at GenCon that sold 2 t-shirts and one of them said, "I kicked Vecna's Ass" and the other said "Drizzt kicked Vecna's ass" you would sell ten times the number of the former. D&D is about you and your character, not some wannabe-Moorcock's Mary Sue draw.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> They've been doing the storylines since 2011 or 2012. But now they're planning twice that length of time in the future.
> 7 years ago 4th edition was just getting started. Had they planned storylines then like they're planning now we wouldn't have had the iconic war vs evil dragons to launch 5e.
> 
> While I expect that they can adjust and shift storylines somewhat, my main concern is that they're planning so far ahead without seeking feedback from the community or looking to the fans to see what type of APs are desired. It's slightly arrogant for two or three people to be planning the future of the game that far in advance. And annoying that it's pushing the fans out of the loop. Our opinion's don't matter because the decisions have all been made and no feedback was sought.




Arrogant? Okay.

While I don't think its the case, why couldn't WotC have planned out Tyranny of Dragons years ago? And maybe reworked it from a story arc designed for 4E to the new 5E? More likely, what if they had planned out storylines waaaaay in advance back in the 4E days? Why would that *prevent* them from creating a new story arc for the new edition? You talk as if the act of planning locks out being nimble and responsive, which it doesn't in the slightest.

And I don't WANT them to seek community feedback on storylines. Game design? Yes, and they have been doing an AMAZING job of that. But for stories, I want them to tell me a story that I didn't know I wanted to hear! When I read the Dragonlance Chronicles as a kid, it wasn't because I had been demanding a story about war and dragons, but once I started reading it, I sure as hell did want it!



Jester Canuck said:


> If in four years (2019) a new King Arthur movie comes out and everyone is abuzz with thoughts of knights on horseback, crusades, Excalibur, and the like and WotC doesn't have a chivalric adventure in their planned list, then shuffling the order does nothing.
> If, after five years of Realmshaking crossovers and heavily plotted storylines the fans really want a sandbox exploration adventure ala _Isle of Dread_, and one wasn't planned, then shuffling the order does nothing.




If Hollywood releases an awesome King Arthur movie, the last thing I want WotC to do is feel compelled to jump on the bandwagon and join the trend. Hollywood itself does this all the time and we usually get the one good movie up front and tons of tired imitations. I don't want that for my game.

But, if WotC had an Arthurian style story arc on the back burner, and decided to move it forward to capitalize on this movie's success, what's preventing them from doing this? Or if they got nothing Arthurian in the can, but decide the want to do it anyway . . . again, what exactly is preventing them from doing this?

"Hey, that new King Arthur movie is kicking it in the box office, do we have anything like that we can release to capitalize on this?"

"No, boss, sorry. We don't have any Arthurian stories to tell currently."

"Well, bump that swords-and-sandals thing back and make me an Arthurian D&D story stat!"

"Sorry boss, can't do it. We've already planned out our stories 7 years in advance, and this prevents us from creating new stories and changing our schedule. It's planned, can't be changed. Nothing to do about it. Sorry."

"Darn! Guess we are going to lose out on all that FREE MONEY!"


----------



## Rygar (Mar 14, 2015)

procproc said:


> Do you have a source for the complaining bit? Zendikar was received overwhelmingly positively. I'm sure someone somewhere probably complained about it, but their "Hidden Treasures" promotion was incredibly popular across the board.




I'll dig it up,  it was on mtgsalvation (Though by no means limited to there),  it ran the gamut of complaints about frequency of spiked cards,  "Retailers are the ones that profit from this since they open all the packs!",  to a few people unbelievably complaining about "Useless old $10 cards in the packs".  It may take me a bit to dig up due to their forum move.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Magic is a little easier. They don't have to worry about edition changes or rules bloat, since the content is on a cycle. They don't have to worry as much about people engaging with the story, since it's secondary and only lasts a few months. They don't have as much to worry about in terms of continuity.




Actually, Magic relies heavily on story, and always has. Sure, the card game is a different beast from the D&D rpg and requires different management, but they aren't all that different. And rules errata and bloat IS a problem with the game, although one I think they manage well. Each card has an "oracle" entry listing errata and/or updates to the rulings on the card, and if you are a tournament player, you need to be familiar with this with the cards you're using.

Magic has always relied on story, but the emphasis on story has increased over the years. More than once, a new Magic set has gone back and revisited older story arcs because they were so popular with the fans. In fact, it's happening again this fall as Magic returns to Zendikar (a plane with cthuloid monsters threatening it). This summer's release is ALL about telling backstories for some of Magic's most popular iconic characters, the planeswalkers.

Last year's "Theros" block had me buying more Magic cards than I have in years. Not because of the mechanics, although there were some cool new tricks to play, but because of the story. The story arc and world was heavily influenced by Greek myth and I, and many other fans, ATE IT UP! It was one of their better selling releases and got them to focus EVEN MORE on story after that.

There are Magic fans who play and love the game and don't care about story at all. It's all about new cards and new mechanics for them. But they are not the majority of fans purchasing the game, story is very important to the sustainability of Magic being around for almost 25 years now.


----------



## Rygar (Mar 14, 2015)

Staffan said:


> And that's why D&D is a poor fit for brand-type thinking. After all, who are the heroes of D&D? *Your* characters.




Dragonlance.  One of the most successful novel lines in Fantasy,  spanning more than 100 novels and nearly 30 years,  it's original modules dramatically affected the course of D&D,  and it was all about pre-defined characters.  Dragonlance quite literally sold to people who never played and never would play D&D,  which is why it's always been an enigma to WOTC,  because they never understood how to market a D&D product whose sales were driven by non-gaming factors,  or to put it another way,  by brand-type.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Rygar said:


> I'll dig it up,  it was on mtgsalvation (Though by no means limited to there),  it ran the gamut of complaints about frequency of spiked cards,  "Retailers are the ones that profit from this since they open all the packs!",  to a few people unbelievably complaining about "Useless old $10 cards in the packs".  It may take me a bit to dig up due to their forum move.




Do we really need you to work so hard to "prove" there were complaints about Zendikar's promotion? There is ALWAYS some negative chuckleheads complaining about Magic, D&D, or whatever game is under discussion. Which, was your point I think. No matter what WotC does, no matter how successful they are, no matter how cool their product releases are, there will ALWAYS be a group of fans complaining, with vitriol and hurt feelers to boot.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Arrogant? Okay.
> 
> While I don't think its the case, why couldn't WotC have planned out Tyranny of Dragons years ago? And maybe reworked it from a story arc designed for 4E to the new 5E? More likely, what if they had planned out storylines waaaaay in advance back in the 4E days? Why would that *prevent* them from creating a new story arc for the new edition? You talk as if the act of planning locks out being nimble and responsive, which it doesn't in the slightest.
> 
> And I don't WANT them to seek community feedback on storylines. Game design? Yes, and they have been doing an AMAZING job of that. But for stories, I want them to tell me a story that I didn't know I wanted to hear! When I read the Dragonlance Chronicles as a kid, it wasn't because I had been demanding a story about war and dragons, but once I started reading it, I sure as hell did want it!



Funny thing, Dragonlance came about because there was some fan requests for adventures with more dragons. Dragons had been downplayed for much of the game. So they set out to make a series of modules that focused on dragons. 



Dire Bare said:


> If Hollywood releases an awesome King Arthur movie, the last thing I want WotC to do is feel compelled to jump on the bandwagon and join the trend. Hollywood itself does this all the time and we usually get the one good movie up front and tons of tired imitations. I don't want that for my game.
> 
> But, if WotC had an Arthurian style story arc on the back burner, and decided to move it forward to capitalize on this movie's success, what's preventing them from doing this? Or if they got nothing Arthurian in the can, but decide the want to do it anyway . . . again, what exactly is preventing them from doing this?
> 
> ...



It's just an example. We don't know what's going to be in the cultural zeitgeist, in vogue, out of vogue, overplayed, underused, etc. 

When planning storylines, you really need to look to Paizo to see what they're doing. They pioneered the AP format (excluding Dragonlance) and have not been static in advancing and refining the process. They have two people designing the APs, so it's purposely not a singular voice (plus, managing the workload). They listen to their fans as well, doing the Kingmaker AP when people asked for something more sandboxy, and doing pirates because the fans wanted that. Those ended up being two of their most successful APs. (The Paizo motto is "If you give the fans what they want, they will give you money for it.")

Now, I'm not saying that WotC shouldn't do their own stories or write what they want. But they do *need* to listen to their audience, and see what the audience wants to buy and play. That's key. A couple years to get a feel for writing storylines and establishing the process is fine, along with letting people get a feel for the game. But, after that, they really need to take stock of what there's a demand for at that moment, what can wait, and what people don't really like. 

As an example, I'm hearing a lot of blowback against classic style adventures. Elemental Evil being the Return to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, right after Tyranny being _Scales of War II_ (to say nothing of _Dragonlance Chronicles 2_ and _Red Hand of Doom 3_). So if the summer AP is _Revenge of the Giants Again_ and the 2016 AP is _Tomb of Horrors 4_ then people might get tired and stop buying.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> Exactly. I'd bet hard money that if you had a booth at GenCon that sold 2 t-shirts and one of them said, "I kicked Vecna's Ass" and the other said "Drizzt kicked Vecna's ass" you would sell ten times the number of the former. D&D is about you and your character, not some wannabe-Moorcock's Mary Sue draw.



Yeah, But the people that make the difference between a direct to video D&D movie and a "blockbuster" D&D movie are not at GenCon.

I still think that in the long run, you are right because as D&D slides, the brand value follows.  So it is the D&D players that are the foundation of the value. 

But don't forget that the big play audience is not people who will ever hear of GenCon.

(Also don't forget that WotC took their eye off their existing fan base on the assumption that new fans were a better option.  That did not work out)


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Rygar said:


> Dragonlance.  One of the most successful novel lines in Fantasy,  spanning more than 100 novels and nearly 30 years,  it's original modules dramatically affected the course of D&D,  and it was all about pre-defined characters.  Dragonlance quite literally sold to people who never played and never would play D&D,  which is why it's always been an enigma to WOTC,  because they never understood how to market a D&D product whose sales were driven by non-gaming factors,  or to put it another way,  by brand-type.




Dragonlance did indeed change the course of D&D publishing. It did more than that, it reinvigorated the "shared world" novel line "genre" in bookstores. It's been a LONG time, but from what I remember, before Dragonlance the "shared world" shelves in bookstores were Star Trek novels and more Star Trek novels. After Dragonlance, every fantasy and sci-fi movie, TV, and game property needed tie-in novels and the "shared world" shelves started getting bigger than the shelves offering standalone novels.

I don't think Dragonlance was "always" an enigma to TSR (and later WotC), they were very successful with it. But Dragonlance suffered from the same problems the larger game did, it was mismanaged (or undermanaged) by TSR, and by the time WotC got it, it was a "damaged" property. And despite being a part of Hasbro, WotC isn't bestowed with huge resources to properly manage a large property. And this is a problem WotC is currently trying to fix so that D&D becomes just as large and important a franchise as Star Wars, Marvel, DC, and others.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Actually, Magic relies heavily on story, and always has. Sure, the card game is a different beast from the D&D rpg and requires different management, but they aren't all that different. And rules errata and bloat IS a problem with the game, although one I think they manage well. Each card has an "oracle" entry listing errata and/or updates to the rulings on the card, and if you are a tournament player, you need to be familiar with this with the cards you're using.
> 
> Magic has always relied on story, but the emphasis on story has increased over the years. More than once, a new Magic set has gone back and revisited older story arcs because they were so popular with the fans. In fact, it's happening again this fall as Magic returns to Zendikar (a plane with cthuloid monsters threatening it). This summer's release is ALL about telling backstories for some of Magic's most popular iconic characters, the planeswalkers.
> 
> ...



But the story is optional. Yeah, it's nice if it's good and a benefit to the game if the story and lore are there. But if the story is "meh" you can still play and it will have zero affect on the quality of the cards and your matches. Remove the story and it's still a card game and play is unchanged.

D&D is different as you have to engage in the story to really be playing the game. And if the story is poor, it's harder to just ignore. Remove the story, and D&D is just dungeon delving or a board game. 

In Magic, the story is supplemental to the game. In D&D, the story IS the game. 

(It's worth noting though, in your Magic example the game is returning to an existing world in response to fan feedback. Which means Magic has to be changing it's 7 year plan, as Zendikar was not released 7 years ago, and they're not waiting to 2017-18 to go back.)


----------



## Umbran (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> D&D is different as you have to engage in the story to really be playing the game.




With respect, no, you don't.  There's always been a significant amount of "Kick in the door, kill things, and steal their stuff" RPG playing that goes on, focusing on the tactical wargame aspects and puzzle solving and not really caring or interacting with the story.  Tomb of Horrors was an oft-played scenario, but story?  Not really the focus of the game.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Mar 14, 2015)

I just hope these guys are as excited about what they're doing as their marketing strategy makes them sound.  Because the hype engine is absurd, but as long as it reflects what's going on in R&D I can ignore a little absurdity.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Umbran said:


> With respect, no, you don't.  There's always been a significant amount of "Kick in the door, kill things, and steal their stuff" RPG playing that goes on, focusing on the tactical wargame aspects and puzzle solving and not really caring or interacting with the story.  Tomb of Horrors was an oft-played scenario, but story?  Not really the focus of the game.



Tournament style play exists and happens. As does shared storytelling sessions where the dice never roll. Those are outliers and the percentage of groups that engages solely in that style of play is rare. Generally it'll be somewhere in the middle or varies depending on the session. 

But even the Tomb of Horrors had some NPCs and characters. The demilich at the end had a name. And we haven't seen a lot of Tomb of Horrors style adventures since. That bad boy was written in 1975 when D&D was still new and finding itself, and published in '78 before all the core AD&D books were written. It's about as representative of modern D&D as a 1994 Magic the Gathering set is of current decks.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Yeah, But the people that make the difference between a direct to video D&D movie and a "blockbuster" D&D movie are not at GenCon.
> 
> I still think that in the long run, you are right because as D&D slides, the brand value follows.  So it is the D&D players that are the foundation of the value.
> 
> ...




People keep talking about movies that do not exist and likely never will exist. Hasbro is a toy company and there aren't even any freaking D&D toys. Seriously think about that for a moment. There are big, expensive and complicated board games but no $30 D&D casual family board game. There is a middling FTP MMORPG but no MOBA or even decent CRPG. Paizo is even beating them on the comics rack. There is all this talk about what Hasbro is going to do in other media but they have owned D&D for over 15 years and the greatest penetration D&D has is two episodes of Community.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Now, I'm not saying that WotC shouldn't do their own stories or write what they want. But they do *need* to listen to their audience, and see what the audience wants to buy and play. That's key. A couple years to get a feel for writing storylines and establishing the process is fine, along with letting people get a feel for the game. But, after that, they really need to take stock of what there's a demand for at that moment, what can wait, and what people don't really like.




I probably overstated when saying I don't want WotC listening to customer feedback on stories . . . but I don't want them to rely on feedback on story telling, as I feel that can overly limit creativity. It's why we got "Dragon Magic" in 3E, and why certain story elements get beaten to death and become tired (not just D&D, but in general).

While WotC has revisited Magic story lines in the past, and is doing so again this fall, they won't necessarily be telling the same story again. Same world, probably some returning characters and villains, but a new story. It's a sequel, and there's nothing inherently wrong with sequels, although they are often screwed up (or prequels, right my Stars Wars brothers?!). We've seen other properties fail by over relying on sequels rather than pushing forward, hopefully this won't happen to Magic. They've got that game down to a science over there at WotC, so I'm not overly worried, but there is always the chance . . .

D&D has been mining the nostalgia vein for quite some time now, and it IS starting to get tired, IMO. I'm not sure it's tapped out yet, but "looking backwards" is a part of D&D's DNA at the moment. I'm excited for Elemental Evil, but I'd rather see something new. If the next few story arcs continue to mine things we've seen before several times each in previous editions, my excitement will likely wane. Although, if they do a bang up job, my interest might be kept despite the over reliance on nostalgia. But this is another area where WotC can do no right. We have some fans bitching about tired rehashes, and others bitching about why THEIR favorite setting/story/characters aren't being released for 5E NOW!

Paizo has truly been very successful, and WotC I'm sure has taken note. But mimicking Paizo's style isn't necessarily the way to go. And I think we're looking at Paizo through rosy colored glasses, and at WotC through dark sunglasses. Paizo may have designed their Kingmaker story in response to a fan desire for more sandbox style play . . . but that isn't STORY, that's GENRE (and not story genre, but gaming genre or style). The Kingmaker story itself wasn't designed on player feedback (to my knowledge).

Note: You're right, Dragonlance came about in part because there was fan noise about not enough dragons in Dungeons and Dragons! And the genesis of Dragonlance was very much a marketing driven thing, Weis & Hickman being ASSIGNED the novels rather than the story springing forth from fertile, creative minds. Dragonlance was very much created by committee. I enjoyed it so much as a kid, I had forgotten that. But still, the directions Weis & Hickman took that story outpaced it origins by committee, IMO.

Note: You are worried about WotC relying too heavily on old stories, so am I. But isn't Paizo doing exactly that RIGHT NOW! They are just launching the next AP "Giantslayer" which is coming across as their own version of "Against the Giants". I find that interesting. Don't really have an issue with it, and I'm sure Paizo will knock it out of the park.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> People keep talking about movies that do not exist and likely never will exist. Hasbro is a toy company and there aren't even any freaking D&D toys. Seriously think about that for a moment. There are big, expensive and complicated board games but no $30 D&D casual family board game. There is a middling FTP MMORPG but no MOBA or even decent CRPG. Paizo is even beating them on the comics rack. There is all this talk about what Hasbro is going to do in other media but they have owned D&D for over 15 years and the greatest penetration D&D has is two episodes of Community.




So. Off. Base.

Hasbro is spending big bucks on fighting over the movie rights in court, as are two major Hollywood studios. New D&D movies ARE going to happen. Who will make them and will they be any good? That remains to be seen.

Toy lines are made based on popular movie and TV franchises. There actually ARE D&D toys released by Hasbro, the D&D Kreo figures and sets (off brand Legos), although the line doesn't appear to have done very well (I think). There aren't tons of highly visible D&D toys, like there are for DC and Marvel, because D&D does not yet have a successful movie and/or TV show yet. That's got to come first.

And there IS a D&D casual family board game, it is called "Dungeon". And there is a D&D euro-style game out called "Lords of Waterdeep". And the line of D&D "adventure system" games, like the soon-to-be-released "Elemental Evil" are out there too. Could there be more? Sure, but there are plenty out NOW.

There are two SUCCESSFUL D&D MMOs out now, "D&D Online" and "Neverwinter". Not World of Warcraft popular, but still making good money and with lots of happy players. And they just announced a new MMO-ish release "Sword Coast Legends", which is getting excellent press right now. So there is no MOBA . . . so what? So there is no standalone CRPG? So what? Doesn't mean Hasbro is failing in the video game arena for D&D. Do they have to have representation in every genre? Although, a well done D&D MOBA would be very cool . . . .

D&D does have a successful comic line, the current storyline mixes Tyranny of Dragons, Baldur's Gate, and MINSC and BOO!!! It's awesome, I highly recommend it. There's a decent back catalog too of previous IDW hits (Fell's Five, Dark Sun, Legend of Drizzt) and old Forgotten Realms classics from the 80s as well, all available in your local comic shop and online at Comixology and other vendors.

Your assertion that D&D is invisible in regards to movies, toys, board games, video games, and comics is laughably absurd and simply not true. I guess you see what you want to see.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> I probably overstated when saying I don't want WotC listening to customer feedback on stories . . . but I don't want them to rely on feedback on storytelling, as I feel that can overly limit creativity. It's why we got "Dragon Magic" in 3E, and why certain story elements get beaten to death and become tired (not just D&D, but in general).



I'd agree on the stories vs storytelling to some degree. WotC should still do their own thing, but it should be informed by the desires of the community. 

Well... we got _Dragon Magic_ because books with "Dragon" and "Magic" in the title sold well. It was pure marketing and less listening to customers. I doubt any of the fans were asking for a book remotely like _Dragon Magic_.



Dire Bare said:


> While WotC has revisited Magic story lines in the past, and is doing so again this fall, they won't necessarily be telling the same story again. Same world, probably some returning characters and villains, but a new story. It's a sequel, and there's nothing inherently wrong with sequels, although they are often screwed up (or prequels, right my Stars Wars brothers?!). We've seen other properties fail by over relying on sequels rather than pushing forward, hopefully this won't happen to Magic. They've got that game down to a science over there at WotC, so I'm not overly worried, but there is always the chance . . .



Sequels work and sell for a reason. There's nothing inherently bad about bringing back a favourite, so long as there's life left. I do like my franchises. If the fans want a sequel and you have (good) ideas, then it can work. But sequels for the sake of popularity are not always good. 



Dire Bare said:


> D&D has been mining the nostalgia vein for quite some time now, and it IS starting to get tired, IMO. I'm not sure it's tapped out yet, but "looking backwards" is a part of D&D's DNA at the moment. I'm excited for Elemental Evil, but I'd rather see something new. If the next few story arcs continue to mine things we've seen before several times each in previous editions, my excitement will likely wane. Although, if they do a bang up job, my interest might be kept despite the over reliance on nostalgia. But this is another area where WotC can do no right. We have some fans bitching about tired rehashes, and others bitching about why THEIR favorite setting/story/characters aren't being released for 5E NOW!



I'm fine with Elemental Evil as well. It's a big threat and the Elemental Princes haven't seen a lot of love in D&D in a while (especially since they became primordials in 4e). It's a good idea for a follow-up. 
But three nostalgia adventures in a row would begin to wear on people. And that's the catch, WotC needs to pay attention to what people want from the game. When to go classic and when to try something new. It's all about variety, and it's hard to know how much variety you can have without taking stock of the community. 



Dire Bare said:


> Paizo has truly been very successful, and WotC I'm sure has taken note. But mimicking Paizo's style isn't necessarily the way to go. And I think we're looking at Paizo through rosy colored glasses, and at WotC through dark sunglasses. Paizo may have designed their Kingmaker story in response to a fan desire for more sandbox style play . . . but that isn't STORY, that's GENRE (and not story genre, but gaming genre or style). The Kingmaker story itself wasn't designed on player feedback (to my knowledge).



I don't want direct community feedback on the story. That'd be impossible to collect. But it's worthwhile paying attention to the mood of the fans and the type of game people want. 

There are a couple different ways requests can go: setting and tone.
An example of the former, right now things are set in the Realms. We've seen the Red Wizards and a lot of the Sword Coast and other things. Eventually, there might be a call from Realms fans to return someplace we haven't seen in a while. Like the Sea of Fallen Stars or Sembia. There might be some curiosity of what that place is like post-Sundering and a request for stories there. That should be an easy request, as it still leaves WotC open to tell their own story and do their own thing while responding to feedback. 



Dire Bare said:


> Note: You are worried about WotC relying too heavily on old stories, so am I. But isn't Paizo doing exactly that RIGHT NOW! They are just launching the next AP "Giantslayer" which is coming across as their own version of "Against the Giants". I find that interesting. Don't really have an issue with it, and I'm sure Paizo will knock it out of the park.



Giantslayer is also partly because fans wanted a really classic fantasy adventure after _Reign of Winter_, _Mummy's Mask_, and _Iron Gods_. It was a direct response to feedback. Ditto the follow-up, _Hell's Rebels_, which is a return to the nation of Cheliax and response to people really want to do something with that nation that feels connected to that nation. 
While classic tales, neither seem to be ideas they would have tabled seven (or even three) years ago, and they're coming at the expense of planned APs they've been sitting on since early in the world, like the Aboleth/Azlanti story.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> People keep talking about movies that do not exist and likely never will exist. Hasbro is a toy company and there aren't even any freaking D&D toys. Seriously think about that for a moment. There are big, expensive and complicated board games but no $30 D&D casual family board game. There is a middling FTP MMORPG but no MOBA or even decent CRPG. Paizo is even beating them on the comics rack. There is all this talk about what Hasbro is going to do in other media but they have owned D&D for over 15 years and the greatest penetration D&D has is two episodes of Community.



You may be right.

I'm pretty much focusing on the foundation and impacts on brand value.  But certainly I should say "potential" brand value.


There is no reason to think there will not be a movie once the litigation is resolved.  
But there is no reason to think it will be any time soon.
There is no reason to presume it will be a "blockbuster".
There is no reason to presume that a "D&D blockbuster" will make more revenue than the next Seventh Son (ish) movie.
There is no reason to presume that a meaningful % of the *increase* over a non-branded movie will go from Producer to Hasbro to WotC to D&D TTRPG.

Where are all the other things in the mean time?

If the brand itself is so awesome, where is this stuff?  Good question.  
Maybe the "big reveal" will help?


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Giantslayer is also partly because fans wanted a really classic fantasy adventure after _Reign of Winter_, _Mummy's Mask_, and _Iron Gods_. It was a direct response to feedback. Ditto the follow-up, _Hell's Rebels_, which is a return to the nation of Cheliax and response to people really want to do something with that nation that feels connected to that nation.
> While classic tales, neither seem to be ideas they would have tabled seven (or even three) years ago, and they're coming at the expense of planned APs they've been sitting on since early in the world, like the Aboleth/Azlanti story.




Sooo . . . . Paizo has story arcs planned out in advance, yet they remain adaptive and nimble enough to modify those plans as needed? And WotC's doing the same is a concern?


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Your assertion that D&D is invisible in regards to movies, toys, board games, video games, and comics is laughably absurd and simply not true. I guess you see what you want to see.




If I ask my sister in law what D&D stuff is out there or on the horizon, what do you think her answer would be? Because that is what everyone is talking about here, major penetration into the popular culture a la Marvel. That happened with D&D once already, during the early to mid 80s "fad" period. It is very unlikely to happen again.

Not impossible, of course. Anything can happen. But it certainly hasn't happened in the last 15 years of Hasbro stewarding the IP. My contention is that it is a fool's errand that disrupts and devalues the one good thing D&D does really well: let people to hang out with their friends (and occassionally strangers) pretending to be elves and wizards delving dungeons and killing dragons. When your licensing staff is equal in (small) size to your development staff, you are failing to put the resources where the need to be to make the game great for those that actually want to play it. Hollywood is littered with the corpses of failed licensed properties. D&D is already one of them. Do you really believe that after one theatrical stinker and two cable/DtV crapfests someone holding the massive purse strings necessary to finance a fantasy epic are going to release that money to a proven failure of a property versus some other license? It's a stretch at best.

On the subject of the D&D comic, it debuted with about 10K issues sold in October 2014, issue 2 dropped to 7600, issue 3 5500, and #4 with 4600. Compare that to the #100 ranked book by sales, Punisher #14 with 21K sales -- which is a pretty good comparison since Punisher is a known property that has made a couple of attempts to leap into mainstream success (and is even tied to the larger Marvel Universe) and failed. I don't imagine anyone is looking to cut a check for a new Punisher movie either. Information from here, btw.

My point is that hedging all this hope on making D&D the next Marvel Cinematic Universe or whatever seems like a terrible way to manage the brand and the game. If D&D were in the hands of a smaller company with no designs other than to be the best selling, most played, most beloved RPG on the market, everyone would be better off: the company, the fans and the game itself. And ironically, if that were the case it would be more likely that some media empire would try and make a buck off D&D and license it for a summer tentpole or whatever.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Sooo . . . . Paizo has story arcs planned out in advance, yet they remain adaptive and nimble enough to modify those plans as needed? And WotC's doing the same is a concern?



Because Paizo has proven themselves willing to delay their stories because of the needs of the game of desires of the fanbase. WotC has not. When WotC earns my trust and proves they can do so I'll be more tolerant.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> People keep talking about movies that do not exist and likely never will exist. Hasbro is a toy company and there aren't even any freaking D&D toys. Seriously think about that for a moment. There are big, expensive and complicated board games but no $30 D&D casual family board game. There is a middling FTP MMORPG but no MOBA or even decent CRPG. Paizo is even beating them on the comics rack. There is all this talk about what Hasbro is going to do in other media but they have owned D&D for over 15 years and the greatest penetration D&D has is two episodes of Community.



The D&D movie rights were sold off well before WotC bought TSR. So Hasbro has had little say. 
But, the moment they could argue the rights were not fully exploited, they started work on a new movie and launched a lawsuit to regain their rights. They've seen how profitable MLP and Transformers can be. I imagine they want an "adult" franchise like D&D.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> If I ask my sister in law what D&D stuff is out there or on the horizon, what do you think her answer would be? Because that is what everyone is talking about here, major penetration into the popular culture a la Marvel. That happened with D&D once already, during the early to mid 80s "fad" period. It is very unlikely to happen again.
> 
> Not impossible, of course. Anything can happen. But it certainly hasn't happened in the last 15 years of Hasbro stewarding the IP. My contention is that it is a fool's errand that disrupts and devalues the one good thing D&D does really well: let people to hang out with their friends (and occassionally strangers) pretending to be elves and wizards delving dungeons and killing dragons. When your licensing staff is equal in (small) size to your development staff, you are failing to put the resources where the need to be to make the game great for those that actually want to play it. Hollywood is littered with the corpses of failed licensed properties. D&D is already one of them. Do you really believe that after one theatrical stinker and two cable/DtV crapfests someone holding the massive purse strings necessary to finance a fantasy epic are going to release that money to a proven failure of a property versus some other license? It's a stretch at best.
> 
> ...




Ah, the 80s. Yup, the height of D&D's penetration into pop culture. Or the foundation of the deep penetration it enjoys today.

The "D&D Universe" is most certainly not as successful as the "Marvel Universe" or even the "DC Universe", and many other beloved fantasy, scifi, and supers properties out there right now. And D&D has a long history of being either mismanaged or undermanaged by WotC/Hasbro and TSR before them. But despite this mismanagement, D&D has a very deep penetration into mainstream or pop culture and has survived 40 years as a game and a franchise.

D&D is successful TODAY. The core game is successful TODAY, and the larger franchise is successful TODAY with well received and profitable comics, board games, video games, and other licensed products. Not so successful in movies or toys, at least not yet, but Hasbro is working on that. You don't have to be top dog to be successful.

For Hasbro to want to push D&D into the top tier of money-making franchises is reasonable and very doable. Is it a guaruntee they will pull it off? Of course not, but for them to try is not only reasonable, but responsible and very possible.

And regardless of Hasbro's larger plans for the D&D franchise with movies, video games, party favors and cake toppers. The game itself was on a cycle of diminishing returns, with each edition coming faster and faster . . . with the likelihood of a crash very possible in the not-so-distant future. 5E is an attempt to break the edition treadmill and create a sustainable edition that might forgo some short term profits in favor of more stable long term profits. Will it last? We'll see. I'm both hopeful and positive and very on-board with WotC's decisions behind the new game.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> For Hasbro to want to push D&D into the top tier of money-making franchises is reasonable and very doable.




This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I don't think it is reasonable because I don't think it is doable. And I would not care one whit except I love D&D the game and it appears that all this interest in turning D&D into a property for making other stuff means that resources are not being deployed to support the game. It is certainly possible that I am being pessimistic and D&D has the potential for a massive stature in the pop culture world, but I don't think so. I think D&D is a known quantity, certainly, but it isn't a valuable one (not on the scale of Hollywood, anyway). D&D has proven to be perfect for some kinds of licensing in the past -- some of the greatest CRPGs of all time are licensed D&D games. And, obviously, the novels have a much greater penetration than the game. That said, though, with 40 years of history, that D&D has not made that transition is telling. It is inherently, intentionally niche and is best served, IMO, by a company that doesn't just recognize that but embraces it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I don't think it is reasonable because I don't think it is doable. And I would not care one whit except I love D&D the game and it appears that all this interest in turning D&D into a property for making other stuff means that resources are not being deployed to support the game. It is certainly possible that I am being pessimistic and D&D has the potential for a massive stature in the pop culture world, but I don't think so. I think D&D is a known quantity, certainly, but it isn't a valuable one (not on the scale of Hollywood, anyway). D&D has proven to be perfect for some kinds of licensing in the past -- some of the greatest CRPGs of all time are licensed D&D games. And, obviously, the novels have a much greater penetration than the game. That said, though, with 40 years of history, that D&D has not made that transition is telling. It is inherently, intentionally niche and is best served, IMO, by a company that doesn't just recognize that but embraces it.




I think we also disagree on the impact of Hasbro's desire to push D&D into Marvel level territory. I don't think Hasbro needs D&D to be AS successful as the MCU, although I do think that is what they hope to achieve. Success at a lower level can still be worthwhile and profitable.

I do feel that if Hasbro dropped all of their concerns about D&D movies, TV shows, and video games, we would NOT see those resources of time, money and personnel redirected towards the RPG. We would see the cancellation of the RPG. And even if Hasbro allowed WotC to continue with D&D (which they would, because they are D&D nerds), I think we'd still end up with the 5E we have today. The game alone was in an interesting place with escalating profits but a downward spiral in regards to the edition cycle. Profitable but not sustainable. To attempt to make D&D sustainable over the long term is worthwhile regardless of movie and video game licensing.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. I don't think it is reasonable because I don't think it is doable. And I would not care one whit except I love D&D the game and it appears that all this interest in turning D&D into a property for making other stuff means that resources are not being deployed to support the game. It is certainly possible that I am being pessimistic and D&D has the potential for a massive stature in the pop culture world, but I don't think so. I think D&D is a known quantity, certainly, but it isn't a valuable one (not on the scale of Hollywood, anyway). D&D has proven to be perfect for some kinds of licensing in the past -- some of the greatest CRPGs of all time are licensed D&D games. And, obviously, the novels have a much greater penetration than the game. That said, though, with 40 years of history, that D&D has not made that transition is telling. It is inherently, intentionally niche and is best served, IMO, by a company that doesn't just recognize that but embraces it.




Prior to 2007, would you have predicted Transformers would be a billion dollar name?
Prior to 2010, would you have predicted My Little Pony as a cultural phenomenon? 

Both were brands that peaks in the mid-80s and had some mild resurgences in the '90s and '00s but nothing huge.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Prior to 2007, would you have predicted Transformers would be a billion dollar name?
> Prior to 2010, would you have predicted My Little Pony as a cultural phenomenon?
> 
> Both were brands that peaks in the mid-80s and had some mild resurgences in the '90s and '00s but nothing huge.




I would have guessed than an animated Dragonlance film starring Lucy Lawless and Keifer Sutherland would have been a huge success and catapulted DL back into the mainstream, maybe even paving the way for a live action trilogy. We know how that turned out, right?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Prior to 2007, would you have predicted Transformers would be a billion dollar name?
> Prior to 2010, would you have predicted My Little Pony as a cultural phenomenon?
> 
> Both were brands that peaks in the mid-80s and had some mild resurgences in the '90s and '00s but nothing huge.



And they made a Oujia movie last year. 
How is the Battleship game doing a couple years after that movie?

These things can happen.
These things can also NOT happen.
Just because they have happened does not mean they will happen reliably.

Doing things to create opportunity for them to happen is a VERY good plan.

Undermining things that are working well in order to advance things that *might* happen is not a good plan.
If it comes down to that, they can do both.

Again, WotC assumed just a few years ago that they could afford to lose a large portion of their existing fanbase because their new game was going to replace them many time over from the MMO market.  Only one part of that equation actually happened.  Assuming they can lose fans again because *this time* the movie will make up for it, is far more likely to be the same mistake over again.  
The pot odds may be worth it.
But cherry picking examples doesn't lead to good planning.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> I would have guessed than an animated Dragonlance film starring Lucy Lawless and Keifer Sutherland would have been a huge success and catapulted DL back into the mainstream, maybe even paving the way for a live action trilogy. We know how that turned out, right?




We are only looking at examples that worked out here.  Get with the program.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> I would have guessed than an animated Dragonlance film starring Lucy Lawless and Keifer Sutherland would have been a huge success and catapulted DL back into the mainstream, maybe even paving the way for a live action trilogy. We know how that turned out, right?



I'm not sure how much say Hasbro had in that. It's a good example of poor quality and low budget sinking something with potential. 



BryonD said:


> And they made a Oujia movie last year.
> How is the Battleship game doing a couple years after that movie?
> 
> These things can happen.
> ...



I think a D&D movie could go over very well. But I don't see that guaranteeing the success of the RPG. There's not always a lot of crossover support. But I think there's at least a _chance_ for a good D&D movie that would really bring some attention to the brand and hobby. It's not worth gambling the game on, but it's worth being optimistic. 



BryonD said:


> Again, WotC assumed just a few years ago that they could afford to lose a large portion of their existing fanbase because their new game was going to replace them many time over from the MMO market.  Only one part of that equation actually happened.  Assuming they can lose fans again because *this time* the movie will make up for it, is far more likely to be the same mistake over again.
> The pot odds may be worth it.
> But cherry picking examples doesn't lead to good planning.



Sacrificing an actual audience for a potential audience is always a bad idea. I don't see them currently making that mistake or catering to a possible movie or TV show, and hopefully that doesn't change.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I think a D&D movie could go over very well. But I don't see that guaranteeing the success of the RPG. There's not always a lot of crossover support. But I think there's at least a _chance_ for a good D&D movie that would really bring some attention to the brand and hobby. It's not worth gambling the game on, but it's worth being optimistic.



It could go over well.  But there have been examples already and no evidence to support a lot of optimism.  

But, most importantly, I agree with you that they should not gamble the game.

That they are gambling the game on a movie is a popular assumption right now.  But that may not be it.  But what they are doing certainly doesn;t seem to be focused on driving the game itself.



> Sacrificing an actual audience for a potential audience is always a bad idea. I don't see them currently making that mistake or catering to a possible movie or TV show, and hopefully that doesn't change.



They already did it once.

I hope you are right.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'm not sure how much say Hasbro had in that.




Hasbro is not a film production company. They won't likely have much of a hand in whatever mythical D&D blockbuster happens.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> Hasbro is not a film production company. They won't likely have much of a hand in whatever mythical D&D blockbuster happens.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro_Studios


----------



## Jester David (Mar 14, 2015)

BryonD said:


> It could go over well.  But there have been examples already and no evidence to support a lot of optimism.
> 
> But, most importantly, I agree with you that they should not gamble the game.
> 
> That they are gambling the game on a movie is a popular assumption right now.  But that may not be it.  But what they are doing certainly doesn;t seem to be focused on driving the game itself.



Hasbro owns its own production company, so they can work to oversee quality and exercise creative control. 
And it'll be a different studio in charge, who will hopefully be more liberal with budget and get better writers.

Assuming doom now is like assuming the Daredevil series will be bad because Fox failed to do a good job with the property.



BryonD said:


> They already did it once.
> 
> I hope you are right.



I hope they learned their lesson, and it stays learned.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 14, 2015)

Reynard said:


> I would have guessed than an animated Dragonlance film starring Lucy Lawless and Keifer Sutherland would have been a huge success and catapulted DL back into the mainstream, maybe even paving the way for a live action trilogy. We know how that turned out, right?




There is a small difference in the cases.

For the Dragonlance movie, they went with "Commotion Pictures" for the production company.

For the current D&D movie rights, the wrangling is between Warner Brothers and Universal.  Somewhat bigger guns are involved.

Not that these studios don't make bombs.  But one can expect somewhat greater production quality, at least.


----------



## gweinel (Mar 14, 2015)

I think you are overestimate the surplus value of a DnD movie and the impact to the PnP rpg. Take as an example Lord of the Rings and Hobbit. They have produced two rpgs, one from Decipher and one from Cubicle 7 (which is imo is the best adaptation of Tolkien), but I can't see these to influenced in the tolkien-themed rpg industry. And have in mind that Cubicle 7 adaptation is top notch. The movies helped the fantasy genre but i doubt had so big influence to the rpgs.

The same goes to the dnd movies. I don't think we will see great differance in the rpg. I doubt that even some of the profits of the hypothetical movie will go to the rpg department.
Just my thoughts ofc.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 14, 2015)

Umbran said:


> There is a small difference in the cases.
> 
> For the Dragonlance movie, they went with "Commotion Pictures" for the production company.
> 
> ...



My concern isn't with the production quality (alone). It's that D&D, as a brand, means little more than "pseudo-medieval roleplaying". Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance mean something tangible, from a story/movie/etc. perspective. I have no problem with Hasbro making a "Forgotten Realms" movie and honestly wish them the best and would go see it. All the hubbub around "expanding the impact" of D&D, coupled with the semi-official statement that Forgotten Realms is getting all their attention, right now, really has me worried that D&D is about to become synonymous with the Realms. The day that happens, is the day I walk away from the system -- I may continue to use my old stuff, but won't be buying anything new. The same would happen, whether it was the Realms, Krynn, Eberron, or even Greyhawk. 

D&D isn't about any specific setting and never should be; if anything, it's about the tabletop action and, maybe, each DM's homebrew. Hasbro could take any/all of the D&D settings and make stellar products in other media. Those products could drive interest in the tabletop experience. D&D, itself, can't be made into a book or a movie. D&D is another medium, in its own right. Ignoring that endangers both the products made for other media as well as the RPG.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 14, 2015)

gweinel said:


> I think you are overestimate the surplus value of a DnD movie and the impact to the PnP rpg.




I don't think I do.



> The same goes to the dnd movies. I don't think we will see great differance in the rpg. I doubt that even some of the profits of the hypothetical movie will go to the rpg department.




No direct profits would go to them no.  That's not the point.  And the analogy to the LotR RPGs isn't solid, because those RPGs were not made by people hooked into the movie production.  But, note that there were lots of toys, and computer games, surrounding the LotR movies.  And, let's face it, LotR is not known outside gaming circles as an RPG - D&D is known as an RPG, even to people who don't play RPGs.

The point is that if there is a movie, you'd see a general uptick in *all* the merchandise under the D&D Brand.  Toys, boardgames, the RPG, electronic games, and all.  And, since they may be all under the same roof (depending how that court case comes out), the makers of the RPG would likely want to follow under the same banner - In the business world, they'd be called "all in alignment".  So, settings and adventures in the same world as the movie, for example.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 14, 2015)

gweinel said:


> I think you are overestimate the surplus value of a DnD movie and the impact to the PnP rpg. Take as an example Lord of the Rings and Hobbit. They have produced two rpgs, one from Decipher and one from Cubicle 7 (which is imo is the best adaptation of Tolkien), but I can't see these to influenced in the tolkien-themed rpg industry. And have in mind that Cubicle 7 adaptation is top notch. The movies helped the fantasy genre but i doubt had so big influence to the rpgs.
> 
> The same goes to the dnd movies. I don't think we will see great differance in the rpg. I doubt that even some of the profits of the hypothetical movie will go to the rpg department.
> Just my thoughts ofc.




I agree.

All those comic movies didn't help with comicbook sales to be honest. 

Some movies will leave their impression in society but others will not. D&D is just one of those things that people will have heard of but won't ever take seriously. I don't care what movie companies are after the rights because they can be wrong as well, and have been many many times over the years. D&D is not a place nor is it a specific character or characters like Lord of the Rings or the various comic book characters.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 14, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> I probably overstated when saying I don't want WotC listening to customer feedback on stories . . . but I don't want them to rely on feedback on story telling, as I feel that can overly limit creativity. It's why we got "Dragon Magic" in 3E, and why certain story elements get beaten to death and become tired (not just D&D, but in general).




Personally, I _liked_ Dragon Magic. It's one of the books that have gotten me the closest to make my own setting to take advantage of all the coolness in it.



> It's a sequel, and there's nothing inherently wrong with sequels, although they are often screwed up (or prequels, right my Stars Wars brothers?!).




What's this about Star Wars prequels? That sounds almost as preposterous as a Highlander sequel.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 15, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Personally, I _liked_ Dragon Magic. It's one of the books that have gotten me the closest to make my own setting to take advantage of all the coolness in it.
> 
> 
> 
> What's this about Star Wars prequels? That sounds almost as preposterous as a Highlander sequel.




Highlander 2 *shivers*. I still have nightmares about that movie.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Highlander 2 *shivers*. I still have nightmares about that movie.




There was a sequel?

sorry, just realized I copied a joke right above me.  Not very clever.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 15, 2015)

BryonD said:


> There was a sequel?




They were supposedly aliens in that movie.


----------



## tgmoore (Mar 15, 2015)

Reynard said:


> People keep talking about movies that do not exist and likely never will exist. Hasbro is a toy company and there aren't even any freaking D&D toys. Seriously think about that for a moment. There are big, expensive and complicated board games but no $30 D&D casual family board game. There is a middling FTP MMORPG but no MOBA or even decent CRPG. Paizo is even beating them on the comics rack. There is all this talk about what Hasbro is going to do in other media but they have owned D&D for over 15 years and the greatest penetration D&D has is two episodes of Community.




There are Hasbro's answer to Lego called Kre-O which has D&D themed building play sets.

The Dungeon board game has a MSRP of $25 and is a casual family game.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 15, 2015)

JeffB said:


> I stopped being excited about anything 5e months ago.
> 
> 7 years of stories worked up, but they cannot produce a decent  standalone adventure module  for  sale this year.




The playtest adventures are all (or perhaps almost all) decent to good, and stand-alone.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Highlander 2 *shivers*. I still have nightmares about that movie.



Endgame? It wasn't that bad and I liked seeing Connor and Duncan together.

Or was there another that I'm repressing?


----------



## SirAntoine (Mar 15, 2015)

They are always working on something.  I would bring in as much outside talent as possible.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Endgame? It wasn't that bad and I liked seeing Connor and Duncan together.
> 
> Or was there another that I'm repressing?



Who's Duncan?


----------



## Reynard (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro_Studios




If you actually read that link you provided you will see that Hasbro Films has produced none of their properties into feature length films. It is a subsidiary designed to deal with the legalities of licensing films to actual production companies. You'll not that it is also on the hook for unproduced films for a hefty sum.

Really, though, it is sort of a silly argument. None of us know what is planned and what may happen. My only assertion is that Hasbro will not successfully turn D&D into a top tier brand outside of gaming circles and that resources directed that way are wasted, but I freely admit I hay be totally wrong and 2018 might be the year of the billion dollar Dark Elf international blockbuster hit.

The question is, even if that were to happen, do you think it would actually benefit the RPG?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> I agree.
> 
> All those comic movies didn't help with comicbook sales to be honest.




Ah, but all those movies are having an effect on comic books.  Marvel, right now, has a problem.  When folks pick up an Avengers comic, for example, they don't see something much like the movies, and that's effectively a barrier to picking up those new readers!  The movies take a lot of inspiration from the Ultimates line of comics, which is not part of the main Marvel continuity most of which have already ended their run - the only one left right now is Ultimate Spider Man, if I recall correctly, and his last issue is coming soon too.

Interestingly, Marvel is having a new "Secret Wars" event, that is going to mash things up a bit.  It is expected that this will enable several elements of the Ultimates line to merge into the main continuities.

Thus supporting my point, that if you have continuing IP lines, and you make movies, you'll probably eventually want to move the IP into line with the movies.  The version of the property that has the greatest exposure is apt to drive the rest at least somewhat.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 15, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Ah, but all those movies are having an effect on comic books.  Marvel, right now, has a problem.  When folks pick up an Avengers comic, for example, they don't see something much like the movies, and that's effectively a barrier to picking up those new readers!  The movies take a lot of inspiration from the Ultimates line of comics, which is not part of the main Marvel continuity most of which have already ended their run - the only one left right now is Ultimate Spider Man, if I recall correctly, and his last issue is coming soon too.
> 
> Interestingly, Marvel is having a new "Secret Wars" event, that is going to mash things up a bit.  It is expected that this will enable several elements of the Ultimates line to merge into the main continuities.
> 
> Thus supporting my point, that if you have continuing IP lines, and you make movies, you'll probably eventually want to move the IP into line with the movies.  The version of the property that has the greatest exposure is apt to drive the rest at least somewhat.




Off topic, but the Ultimates influence on the MCU is greatly overstates. Ultimates is a deconstructionist version of the Avengers with a fascist Captain America, a cannibal rapist Hulk, a new age delusional Thor and a self serving, power hungry Iron Man. The MCU has none of that. In fact, the only thing it really retains from the Ultimate line is Sam Jackson as Nick Fury. The MCU is more accurately described as very iconic, distilled versions of the characters, with many decades of continuity sloughed off.

That, I think, is what we will see after Secret Wars -- an MU that looks a lot more like the MCU, rather than the UMU.


----------



## chriton227 (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> It's not worth gambling the game on, but it's worth being optimistic.




Why not?  What does Hasbro have to lose?  Potentially damaging a brand in an extremely small market segment that honestly doesn't bring in that much money?  And what do they have to gain?  If they happen to hit it reasonably big, they get a slice of a box office pie that for a single movie would dwarf the entire tabletop industry, plus a perfect opening for making even more off of associated toys.  It's the equivalent of buying a cheap lottery ticket for them.  If they run the numbers and decide that the (chance of hitting it big) * (projected revenue gain) is greater than (chance of damaging brand) * (reduction in value of damaged brand) then it could easily be a bet they are willing to take.  And the projected revenue gain is probably a much larger number than the potential reduction in brand value, meaning that the chance of pulling off doesn't even need to be particularly good for it to be worth trying.

As a gamer and someone who likes D&D, I'd like to think that the D&D game is really worth something, but to the execs Hasbro it might just be an asset on the balance sheet, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'd be very surprised if they were more than outlines, even if some are more detailed than others.
> 
> It's still worrisome. It sounds like storylines are Perkin's job, which is putting everything on his creativity. A creative person could easily think of several really, really good ideas for epic campaigns... but 14? At some point you end up with lemons. I hope he's brainstorming with the rest of the team.
> Regardless, we don't know what the fans will be clamoring for in 2016 or 2017, let alone 2021. Planning for that far, beyond the barest of bare bones, seems like a waste of time. Or, as worries me, like they don't care what stories we want.




Do they care about the products we want? The minimal release schedule and the exclusive focus on APs seems to indicate that they do not.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 15, 2015)

Reynard said:


> Off topic, but the Ultimates influence on the MCU is greatly overstates. Ultimates is a deconstructionist version of the Avengers with a fascist Captain America, a cannibal rapist Hulk, a new age delusional Thor and a self serving, power hungry Iron Man. The MCU has none of that. In fact, the only thing it really retains from the Ultimate line is Sam Jackson as Nick Fury. The MCU is more accurately described as very iconic, distilled versions of the characters, with many decades of continuity sloughed off.
> 
> That, I think, is what we will see after Secret Wars -- an MU that looks a lot more like the MCU, rather than the UMU.




Side note, with spoilers for Ultimates vol. 2: Ultimate Thor, at first, is believed by many to be delusional and "just" a powerful mutant or something, and there are events in Ultimates 2 that certainly point that way... but as it turns out, he's the real deal, and in a rather spectacular way.

Another side note: Ultimate Cap mellows considerably in later story arcs.


----------



## Irennan (Mar 15, 2015)

chriton227 said:


> Why not?  What does Hasbro have to lose?  Potentially damaging a brand in an extremely small market segment that honestly doesn't bring in that much money?  And what do they have to gain?  If they happen to hit it reasonably big, they get a slice of a box office pie that for a single movie would dwarf the entire tabletop industry, plus a perfect opening for making even more off of associated toys.  It's the equivalent of buying a cheap lottery ticket for them.  If they run the numbers and decide that the (chance of hitting it big) * (projected revenue gain) is greater than (chance of damaging brand) * (reduction in value of damaged brand) then it could easily be a bet they are willing to take.  And the projected revenue gain is probably a much larger number than the potential reduction in brand value, meaning that the chance of pulling off doesn't even need to be particularly good for it to be worth trying.
> 
> As a gamer and someone who likes D&D, I'd like to think that the D&D game is really worth something, but to the execs Hasbro it might just be an asset on the balance sheet, nothing more and nothing less.




Yet another gamble on their side is what I fear at the moment. I feel that if 5e were to fail or to prove not successful enough, that would spell the end of (published, that is) D&D and its settings...


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Endgame? It wasn't that bad and I liked seeing Connor and Duncan together.
> 
> Or was there another that I'm repressing?




There are two others: _Highlander II: The Quickening_, which is the first and only movie I've ever walked out of; and _Highlander III: The Sorcerer_, which ignores _Highlander II_ and has Mario van Peebles as a villain. And then there's the series _Highlander_, which ignores _Highlander II_ and _Highlander III_....

But seriously, people...there's only one movie. No one ever made a sequel to _Highlander_. There can be only one....


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 15, 2015)

Nellisir said:


> There are two others: _Highlander II: The Quickening_, which is the first and only movie I've ever walked out of; and _Highlander III: The Sorcerer_, which ignores _Highlander II_ and has Mario van Peebles as a villain. And then there's the series _Highlander_, which ignores _Highlander II_ and _Highlander III_....
> 
> But seriously, people...there's only one movie. No one ever made a sequel to _Highlander_. There can be only one....




You will accept Highlander 2 with open arms once you've seen Highlander: the Source.


----------



## chriton227 (Mar 15, 2015)

Nellisir said:


> There are two others: _Highlander II: The Quickening_, which is the first and only movie I've ever walked out of; and _Highlander III: The Sorcerer_, which ignores _Highlander II_ and has Mario van Peebles as a villain. And then there's the series _Highlander_, which ignores _Highlander II_ and _Highlander III_....
> 
> But seriously, people...there's only one movie. No one ever made a sequel to _Highlander_. There can be only one....




This person knows too much.  This is for the good of humanity...

<puts on sunglasses and pulls out a neuralyzer>

Okay, I want everyone to look at me for a moment.

<FLASH!>

There was only one Highlander movie.  There were rumors a sequel would be made, but it never happened.  Anyone who thinks they saw a sequel, especially one involving aliens, actually just saw the reflection of a weather balloon being distorted by swamp gas.  Now please carry on with your regularly scheduled gaming conversation.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Mar 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Do they care about the products we want? The minimal release schedule and the exclusive focus on APs seems to indicate that they do not.



They don't care to produce products that *YOU* want. The jury is still out if minimal release schedule and an exclusive focus on APs is what the majority of players want. It's just too early to tell.

For example, the minimal release schedule is something that I want and an exclusive focus on APs is a non-issue for me. So from my perspective, they are taking into account what I want.

We cancel each other out, more or less.


----------



## Irennan (Mar 15, 2015)

Well, there's this: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...cts-You-Would-Like-to-See-WotC-Publish-For-5E

And yes, it's ''just a poll on the internet'' and it is of relative value, but it shouldn't be outright dismissed or ignored just because of that.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Mar 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Do they care about the products we want? The minimal release schedule and the exclusive focus on APs seems to indicate that they do not.




Hmmm, unless Im mistaken, having slower/fewer product releases is exactly what we asked for in the D&D Next playtest. I think Wizards is giving us exactly what we want, so how can you fault them?


----------



## HobbitFan (Mar 15, 2015)

Fans asked for less product true.  
That doesn't mean that all fans agree with THIS slow of a schedule or the specific form and content of support WOTC is doing now.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 15, 2015)

chibi graz'zt said:


> Hmmm, unless Im mistaken, having slower/fewer product releases is exactly what we asked for in the D&D Next playtest. I think Wizards is giving us exactly what we want, so how can you fault them?




The problem is that Wizards seem to be bad at doing things by degree. Player material sells well - so let's make every book have lots of new feats, spells, and prestige classes. People loved Tome of Battle - so let's make all classes have kewl powers and per-encounter abilities in 4e. People want fewer books - so let's go from two books per month to one book per quarter.

They're like a TV with a broken volume button - the only way of getting less than top volume from the TV is to press the mute button, and then you don't get any sound at all.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Do they care about the products we want? The minimal release schedule and the exclusive focus on APs seems to indicate that they do not.



They may be less interested in releasing monthly or bi-monthly roleplaying game books, but that doesn't mean they want the few books they do release to be undesired. That makes it _more_ important that they really release the right books and tell the right stories. 



chriton227 said:


> Why not?  What does Hasbro have to lose?  Potentially damaging a brand in an extremely small market segment that honestly doesn't bring in that much money?  And what do they have to gain?  If they happen to hit it reasonably big, they get a slice of a box office pie that for a single movie would dwarf the entire tabletop industry, plus a perfect opening for making even more off of associated toys.  It's the equivalent of buying a cheap lottery ticket for them.  If they run the numbers and decide that the (chance of hitting it big) * (projected revenue gain) is greater than (chance of damaging brand) * (reduction in value of damaged brand) then it could easily be a bet they are willing to take.  And the projected revenue gain is probably a much larger number than the potential reduction in brand value, meaning that the chance of pulling off doesn't even need to be particularly good for it to be worth trying.
> 
> As a gamer and someone who likes D&D, I'd like to think that the D&D game is really worth something, but to the execs Hasbro it might just be an asset on the balance sheet, nothing more and nothing less.



For Hasbro and even WotC this is true. They're not gambling anything worth losing. For the D&D Team - the ones actually doing the gambling and deciding on the focus of the game and products - they're gambling their careers, their reputation, _and_ their hobby. 
WotC is unlikely to be forgiving of another failure in D&D land. If 5e doesn't do well, they'll likely retire the RPG and focus on side products related to the brand. If they drop the ball now, Mike Mearls will forever be known as the man who killed D&D, becoming more hated in the hobby than even Lorraine Williams. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want that.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> Fans asked for less product true.
> That doesn't mean that all fans agree with THIS slow of a schedule or the specific form and content of support WOTC is doing now.



Two thoughts.

1) It's easier to start slow and build than pull back once you start strong. 
We're seeing blowback to the slow release schedule now after two years of minimal product (and three years since WotC stopped monthly books). If they tried reducing books because they released too many after starting a faster release schedule there'd be even more revolting from the fans. 

2) The schedule we see now might not be the schedule we see this time next year.
People talk of the "slow release schedule" but the fact of the matter is we'll have seen 8 RPG products in 9 months. And if you add the minis, spell cards, and the like we've seen even more. It's only slow in February and when looking ahead beyond March. (But, given when they announcing things, they could have books planned for May and we'd never know.) The D&D was crazy-busy working on the core rulebooks. So crazy-busy that they couldn't write their own launch and follow-up adventures. Now they have time again. So they might increase releases slightly now that they have time to write the books.


----------



## JeffB (Mar 15, 2015)

:toungeincheek

 d&d brand meeting .....

" Here is what we do....

We produce core books using the latest feedback, they sell awesome. We look awesome.

Then we farm out a couple books and card sets a year to others...if the sales suck, we can complain about the 3rd party, and back it up with our core book sales being so good.  Find another 3d party. No increase in staff on our end. Costs kept low. We look awesome.

 If the farmed out products do well, we still look awesome....

We've got 7 years worth of 2 page outlines for stories ...2  stories a year. That's  like what? 28  pages ? It was pretty grueling. But now the bulk of our work is done, and   we have time up the wazoo to play all the  new Pathfinder adventures coming out every month! 

Everyone: golfclap :   "


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 15, 2015)

chibi graz'zt said:


> Hmmm, unless Im mistaken, having slower/fewer product releases is exactly what we asked for in the D&D Next playtest. I think Wizards is giving us exactly what we want, so how can you fault them?



Saying I want to lose weight is not the same as saying I want PB&J for three meals a day for the rest of the year. I've already listed the products I'm interested in, and none of them are APs or incompatible with a slow release schedule.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> They may be less interested in releasing monthly or bi-monthly roleplaying game books, but that doesn't mean they want the few books they do release to be undesired. That makes it _more_ important that they really release the right books and tell the right stories.



Heh, I sort of agree with that. Judging from the reactions about Realmefying adventures/NPCs who were stables of other settings and reclycling over and over the same adventures, I somehow think a psionic handbook and FR campaign setting would be more desired.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 15, 2015)

chibi graz'zt said:


> Hmmm, unless Im mistaken, having slower/fewer product releases is exactly what we asked for in the D&D Next playtest. I think Wizards is giving us exactly what we want, so how can you fault them?




There is slow and there is what we are seeing. Another way to do it slow is to reduce the size of products. Instead of 300 pages, print 60 pages. It will cost us less to buy them too.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

Reynard said:


> If you actually read that link you provided you will see that Hasbro Films has produced none of their properties into feature length films. It is a subsidiary designed to deal with the legalities of licensing films to actual production companies. You'll not that it is also on the hook for unproduced films for a hefty sum.



If YOU had read the link, you'd see that Universal paid a fee to drop that agreement, so Hasbro is not on the hook. (They were only on the hook for movies that were made, and only two of the seven were made.)
And that Hasbro Studios is one of the production companies of _[ulr=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jem_and_the_Holograms_(film)]Jem and the Holograms_[/url], which is only distributed by Universal. 



Reynard said:


> Really, though, it is sort of a silly argument. None of us know what is planned and what may happen. My only assertion is that Hasbro will not successfully turn D&D into a top tier brand outside of gaming circles and that resources directed that way are wasted, but I freely admit I hay be totally wrong and 2018 might be the year of the billion dollar Dark Elf international blockbuster hit.



I think Hasbro is looking at all of their brands and wondering what can be turned into mega-franchises and big hits. They're going with board games (_Battleship_ and _Ouiji_ for some unfathomable reason) but they have a lot of other properties they might consider. 

I think D&D has a better chance Glo Friends, Inhumanoids, COPS, or Visionaries.



Reynard said:


> The question is, even if that were to happen, do you think it would actually benefit the RPG?



Honestly, no. Not much. 
Comic movies are dominating the theaters but that has not translated into the success of the actual comic magazines. 

A big movie might help D&D more than comics. D&D has some advantages. The D&D books are found in most big book stores, while comics tend to be ghettoized into comic book stores (aside from a handful of trades). D&D has a clearer entry point, and seems like a single one-time cost rather than regular pricey purchase. And there's less continuity to worry about working around, and other problems like crossovers and gimmick covers. 
And if you could theoretically bring 10,000 new readers into comics, those readers will spread out their purchases, increasing sales of a handful of books by 2-5000; if 10k people came into D&D they'd all buy the same couple products: the starter set and PHB, which maximizes profits. 

But while comics can be an individual purchase, D&D does require some group buy in. So that's a disadvantage. 

But the _Lego Movie_ did amazing things for the Lego toys, and turned around the company's fortunes. So it's not impossible. Now there's a planned sequel and a Batman movie. D&D could easily follow that model and spin-off popular characters or explore different directions.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 15, 2015)

Doc_Klueless said:


> They don't care to produce products that *YOU* want.



Sure they do. They want my money.



> The jury is still out if minimal release schedule and an exclusive focus on APs is what the majority of players want. It's just too early to tell.



Where did you see a poll that said players wanted exclusive focus on APs? 



> For example, the minimal release schedule is something that I want and an exclusive focus on APs is a non-issue for me. So from my perspective, they are taking into account what I want.



They could produce an psionic handbook and a FR campaign setting and an AP and we would both be happy. Right now I will not buy the AP. They lost a client. 



> We cancel each other out, more or less.



That is not how business works.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Doc_Klueless said:


> They don't care to produce products that *YOU* want. The jury is still out if minimal release schedule and an exclusive focus on APs is what the majority of players want. It's just too early to tell.
> 
> For example, the minimal release schedule is something that I want and an exclusive focus on APs is a non-issue for me. So from my perspective, they are taking into account what I want.
> 
> We cancel each other out, more or less.



Do you?

Does someone who doesn't want to buy something cancel out someone who does when looking at markets?
If you wanted to buy *something else*, then sure.  But that isn't the case here.

Edit: I can see the internal memos now:  In 2016 we were able to not sell products to 1,000,000,000 more people than we did last year.

Of course, being as roughly 99% of society doesn't buy D&D RPG stuff now, it will be hard to move that particular needle.
moving you from the 1% to the 99% side won't make the 99% appreciably larger.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> There is slow and there is what we are seeing. Another way to do it slow is to reduce the size of products. Instead of 300 pages, print 60 pages. It will cost us less to buy them too.



Umm... no. Math fail. 

A 60-page softcover product would probably cost around $25. (Paizo charges $19.99 for their 64-page books, but hasn't raised prices in some time.) So buying the 5 needed to make-up the 320-page accessory would cost $125. Opposed to the $50-60 of the single 320-page book. It would be twice the price, not less.

Given the choice of smaller monthly softcovers or a large hardcovers twice a year, I think I'll go for the hardcovers. It's cheaper, more durable, requires less searching for content (all in one place), easier to finance around, makes store shelves less intimidating. And it's makes the content more anticipated as it's less regular, so it feels more special. 
While it probably takes the same length of time to write, edit, ship, print, etc some of the content will have much more time to be playtested. They could prioritize the crunch and playtest that for an extra month or two and write everything else later. So the final product is more rigourously tested, rather than quickly tested for a monthly schedule. 

But, if you *really* want new content every month, it's easy to buy the big book and only read 50-odd pages every month, saving the rest for later. You have the same experience, only it's cheaper.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

Doc_Klueless said:


> They don't care to produce products that *YOU* want. The jury is still out if minimal release schedule and an exclusive focus on APs is what the majority of players want. It's just too early to tell.
> 
> For example, the minimal release schedule is something that I want and an exclusive focus on APs is a non-issue for me. So from my perspective, they are taking into account what I want.
> 
> We cancel each other out, more or less.





goldomark said:


> That is not how business works.



Sorry [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], but yes it does. 

It's better to produce fewer better selling products that more products. It's better to sell 25,000 copies of a single book than 15,000 copies of two different books even though they have 30,000 total sales in the latter. 

If they release two products, to reach you _and_ [MENTION=261]Doc_Klueless[/MENTION], then they've doubled their production costs and have to double their sales. If they halve their products, so long as they do not halve their sales, then they've made more money. So if they sell an AP with some crunch content in it (like how _Princes of the Apocalypse is expected to come with_ the content from the free PDF), and even a single extra person buys that book, then they've made more profit.


----------



## Michael McGuire (Mar 15, 2015)

remember back in the 90s when TSR was forced to publish anything they could (meaning pumping out crap), just to pay the bills.. and still went bust. WOTC bought TSR and learned a little about how to have a steady, planned,  release schedule... but by the second year of 4th edition, they were starting to fall into that trap again (remember releasing the core books all at once?). they couldn't sell enough to make the system really pay for itself. TODAY, they have a more popular product and a longer-term strategy. they're not trying to pump-out anything they can as fast as they can, they're planning to have quality (purchase-worthy) products for years.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Heh, I sort of agree with that. Judging from the reactions about Realmefying adventures/NPCs who were stables of other settings and reclycling over and over the same adventures, I somehow think a psionic handbook and FR campaign setting would be more desired.



I kinda want psionics as well. But I think they'd want to release a product supporting the existing classes before expanding. 

There's only a handful of writers on the D&D team and there's no way they'd outsource that stuff (psionics and the Realms). It takes a long time to write the amount of crunch that would be in a psionic book and even longer to test. Because I'd want it done as well as possible, I'd hope to see that book held back a year or two. The 3.0 Psionic book was really shaky because it was rushed out the door, and D&D had twice the staff then; we really don't need a repeat of that. 
A public playtest would be cool though. I expect they'll do that.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Sorry [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], but yes it does.
> 
> It's better to produce fewer better selling products that more products. It's better to sell 25,000 copies of a single book than 15,000 copies of two different books even though they have 30,000 total sales in the latter.




But that isn't what he said.

Making player A happy by NOT selling them anything does not cancel out making player B happy by selling him something.

And if you Player A will buy 1 product a year and you make 3, with player A buying 0 or 1 and Player B buying 3, then Player A can't cancel out player B either way.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

BryonD said:


> But that isn't what he said.
> 
> Making player A happy by NOT selling them anything does not cancel out making player B happy by selling him something.
> 
> And if you Player A will buy 1 product a year and you make 3, with player A buying 0 or 1 and Player B buying 3, then Player A can't cancel out player B either way.



You want as many people as possible to buy all your products. Maximum sales. If that means fewer products then that's sound buisness. If more product reduces sales of individual products that means less profit and is problematic.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> But, if you *really* want new content every month, it's easy to buy the big book and only read 50-odd pages every month, saving the rest for later. You have the same experience, only it's cheaper.




Exactly!  Just read one Episode of the Adventure Path at a time!  Read the chapter... then run however many sessions it takes to finish it.  Then read the next chapter and run that.  Both books will take most tables well past the release date of Princes of the Apocalypse, so by the time you're finished you'll have a whole new book waiting for you!


----------



## chriton227 (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> You want as many people as possible to buy all your products. Maximum sales. If that means fewer products then that's sound buisness. If more product reduces sales of individual products that means less profit and is problematic.




Exactly.  The term I've heard used is cannibalization. If you release product Y and it cannibalizes sales from your product X, then you may end up in a situation where once you factor in the development costs of the products neither X nor Y are profitable, while X may have been profitable on it's own if Y was never released.  Every product you buy not only has a per-unit cost (printing, distribution, labor to produce, etc.), but a fixed cost (R&D, SG&A, etc.) that is effectively spread across every unit of that product sold.  You want to sell as many units of each product as possible, since the smaller each unit's share of the fixed cost it, the higher the profit per unit. Cannibalizing sales from your own product serves to effectively increase the cost of each book you produce, and has to be factored in when planning product releases.  This is one of the major problems TSR had in their later days, all the different campaign settings were cannibalizing sales from each other, so instead of having one or two settings making money, they had several settings all losing money.  This is also the reason why two of the same fast food restaraunt opening too close together might result in both locations losing money, even though the total volume of sales may be higher than if only one of them were there.

In publishing you also discover that the unit cost to print a book decreases as the size of the order increases.  A printer may charge $5 each to print a book when you order 5,000, but only $4 each when you order 10,000.  You can even see that on Lulu.com, ordering 1-14 copies of a POD book is full cost, but 60-119 copies is 10% off per copy, and 1200+ copies is 20% off.  One short run printing company I found that has an online quote system (Tigerpress Online), I priced a 32 page letter size black and white book (like the old modules), at 50 copies it was $4.66 each, at 100 copies was $3.51 each, and at 500 copies was $1.84 each.  If you are releasing a larger variety of books at a lower volume of each book, the higher per-unit printing cost might eat the entire profit margin of the book.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Mar 15, 2015)

BryonD said:


> But that isn't what he said.



My comment was entirely aimed at his assertion that he spoke about what gamers in general wanted from WotC. I'll concede that it was poorly worded to carry that intention. My point is that HIS statement that gamers want X and MY statement that gamers (as in me and my circle of gaming friends and acquaintances) want Y pretty much are at odds with each other. I don't think he has any proof one way or the other and that he's just projecting his needs, wants and desires on the greater population because it's what _he _wants, needs and desires.

I've no doubt that some gamers want what he wants. We just have no way of knowing the percentage of gamers that feel that way and if that percentage is enough to have a meaningful impact on business practices.

Which will bring someone traipsing in spouting about the polls in some of the other threads to which I say that anyone who has even remotely studied statistics, samples, sample sizes, sample selection, etc., will see that all those polls are so much hot air and have actually no real statistical significance.

_We_ don't know what gamers in general want. We know what we want and what a very small sample of a self-selecting population who answered a pole want. It's in no way a proven indication of the wants of the larger population of gamers and would be pure folly to use to guide business decisions.

Which brings in someone saying that "Paizo does it this way and they're successful!" Great. I like Paizo. They have a business model that matches their goals. Now show me that the goals of Paizo and the goals of WotC are the same and you'll have an argument. Simply saying that both of them wish to be successful and earn a profit is not enough. How much of a profit? From what? The game or the brand or what? Successful at what? There's a lot of information that's missing from the arguments either way.

In short, don't think to speak for me and other gamers when you're spouting off about how WotC is ignoring the wants of gamers in general because you. just. don't. know. and neither do I. Which might be why I'm not attempting to speak for other gamers unlike some people.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 15, 2015)

The secret to business is to get more people buying your stuff than not and I don't think this go around will be any different. 

I think they are putting out way too little product and they are going to suffer for it.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> The secret to business is to get more people buying your stuff than not




That's not the secret to business.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> The secret to business is to get more people buying your stuff than not...



The secret to business in more in line with Maximize your Return on Investment. But then again I haven't used my MBA in 10 years... and it wasn't a very good MBA even then!


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That's not the secret to business.




Works for us.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Works for us.




Good for you. It's still not the secret to business.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Good for you. It's still not the secret to business.




So because you say it doesn't it's not?

There are several secrets to business but the main secret is to try and put yourself in the minds of your customers and try and predict what they want. If they don't want what I'm selling then they won't buy it and I won't make money. 

Businesses have to guess at what the overall population wants and give it to them.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> So because you say it doesn't it's not?




No, it's not so because I said so. I said so because it's so.

You have causality reversed.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> No, it's not so because I said so. I said so because it's so.
> 
> You have causality reversed.




*chuckles* Sure.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> The secret to business is to get more people buying your stuff than not and I don't think this go around will be any different.
> 
> I think they are putting out way too little product and they are going to suffer for it.



There's more to it than just having people buy:
View attachment 67423


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> There's more to it than just having people buy:
> View attachment 67423




Of course. There is a lot more to it than that, but if you want to sum it up in a few words you want more people to buy your product than not.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 15, 2015)

You can increase sales numbers by reducing price. It's easy. Sell cars for a penny, everybody on the planet will buy one. This does not make it the secret to business. 

Selling premium products is an utterly viable business model. Look at Ferrari, Rolex, London flats which cost tens of millions, iPhones.  None of these companies adopt strategies which solely maximise volume of sales. Indeed, many restrict sales numbers deliberately.

WotC isn't in that league, but in terms of RPGs it opts for higher end products.

And who on earth has more people buying their products than not? There's not a single company on the planet which sells to 50% of the population. That's an absurd thing to say. It doesn't even make sense, let alone constitute the "secret to business" (like that means anything, either).


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> You can increase sales numbers by reducing price. It's easy. Sell cars for a penny, everybody on the planet will buy one. This does not make it the secret to business.
> 
> Selling premium products is an utterly viable business model. Look at Ferrari, Rolex, London flats which cost tens of millions, iPhones.  None of these companies adopt strategies which solely maximise volume of sales. Indeed, many restrict sales numbers deliberately.
> 
> ...





It makes perfect sense. 

If you have less of the D&D buying into your new edition than not then you aren't doing something right. D&D isn't a new product, it's a continuation that has a large audience that has followed it through the years. That's where a lot of the data comes into play. You try and gather a rough estimate of how many people are playing D&D and you try and come up with a plan that will have most of your numbers buying into it and picking up new people along the way. If most of the community don't buy it then you aren't doing something right and you change strategies.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Doc_Klueless said:


> My comment was entirely aimed at his assertion that he spoke about what gamers in general wanted from WotC. I'll concede that it was poorly worded to carry that intention.



Fair enough



> In short, don't think to speak for me and other gamers when you're spouting off about how WotC is ignoring the wants of gamers in general because you. just. don't. know. and neither do I. Which might be why I'm not attempting to speak for other gamers unlike some people.




When did I ever claim to speak for you?  

I did make some predictions about the overall market.  Low production will result in lower participation over time.
This does not in ANY way suggest that there won't be people thrilled with what they have.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Of course. There is a lot more to it than that, but if you want to sum it up in a few words you want more people to buy your product than not.



You want people to buy your product, but you need to sell it at a high enough price to make a profit, and you need sell enough copies to offset production costs. 

Books have two production costs. In addition to the costs of printing, which applies to each book, there is the cost of production: art, writing, editing, layout, etc. So you start out in a financial hole from writing the book, which gets deeper as you print the book, and gradually makes money as you sell copies. 
The larger the print run (more copies printed at one time) the cheaper the printing cost of each book is, but the larger the initial investment. And the printing costs never reach zero. However, after a certain point, you pay off production costs and the more copies you sell, the more money you make. 

Similarly, the cost of increasing the product's size goes down the larger it gets. (To a point.) The initial cost of making a book is high but adding new pages gets cheaper and cheaper. This is why it's cheaper to release one 320-page book rather than two 160-page books (plus you only pay for the cover once). 

I used the earlier example of one product versus two. If you release one book to sales of 25,000 copies versus two books with sales of 15,000 copies each, the latter seems more profitable. You sold 30,000 copies. However, the print run was smaller, so less money was made on each copy. And you still need to pay off production costs. If you needed to sell 10,000 copies to turn a profit you sold 15,000 books for a profit in the former but only 10,000 at a profit: despite selling 5,000 more books you made 5,000 books' less money.

Because of this, less is more. 
It is significantly better to release fewer products that appeal to more people. So it makes much, much more financial sense for WotC to, say, release one 320-page accessory that appeals to players of multiple classes than it would to release four 80-page books each focused on a single class group. The content will be cheaper for the players, the single book will sell better, the book will be more profitable for WotC, etc. 

This is just the straight financials. And it does not consider the effect of diminishing the wall of books intimidating players away, or less frequent books being more anticipated, or having more time between releases allowing for more time to playtest and this increase quality.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> This is just the straight financials. And it does not consider the effect of diminishing the wall of books intimidating players away, or less frequent books being more anticipated, or having more time between releases allowing for more time to playtest and this increase quality.




Your math works.  But the overall evaluation has problems with assumptions.

You are presuming the tradeoff is roughly linear.  If 100 people will buy 1 book and 70 people will buy three, then you are better off selling three.  
There is no reason to presume it is three 100-pg books vs one 300-pg book.

Also, you presume that the overall market is constant for all calculations.  

If 100 people buy 1-book this year and 30% of your market is playing other games that attracted their attention in the past year, then you are losing ground.
And that kind of decline can quickly spiral even people loving the situation move on for lack of supporting community.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Mar 15, 2015)

BryonD said:


> When did I ever claim to speak for you?



You didn't. Sorry if it came across that way.  That was a General You and not a Specific You. You've always been reasonable and I have no beef with you.

On the other hand, I think you may be sorta right in that "Low production will result in lower participation over time." However, I'd substitute the _will _for _may_. It's just too early to tell at this point, I guess.

Lately, I've just seen too many people say "We want this!" and "We want that!" when all they're really saying is "I want this!" and "I want that!" Goldomark is a prime example of this. I firmly believe that what he says he wants he does indeed want and that he is severely disappointed in WotC for not supplying what he wants. That is a very, very valid complaint/opinion/what-have-you. However, he always couches it in terms of "We" and seldom in terms of "I." That's my entire point.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversations everyone! I'm off to watch Return of the Kings extended edition with my daughter and, as most of us know, that'll take a while. An awesome while, but a while nonetheless!

[edit] somehow the order of my paragraphs got all screwy. Hmph. Internet mystery!


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Confirmation bias is a huge problem and it is very difficult to overcome.  

If confirmation bias can convince people bigfoot is real, think what it can do for market evaluations...


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Your math works.  But the overall evaluation has problems with assumptions.
> 
> You are presuming the tradeoff is roughly linear.  If 100 people will buy 1 book and 70 people will buy three, then you are better off selling three.



Again, it depends on the sale cut-off. If you need to sell 50 copies to even cut even, then the 1 book is still the more profitable choice. 
The more you split the audience and spread out sales, the less money you make until you're selling lots and lots of books but losing money. See TSR as an example of this.



BryonD said:


> There is no reason to presume it is three 100-pg books vs one 300-pg book.



4e and to a lesser extent 3e was dominated by lots of small 160-page books focused on small segments of the audience. _Martial Power_ and _Arcane Power_ and _Complete Warrior_ and _Complete Arcane_. Or even _The Complete Fighter's Handbook_ from 2e. All mid-sized books focused deliberately on a small sub-section of the audience. A single 320-page book would have had less content than three Powers books, but if it focused on all three types of class, it might have sold better than any one of the other books. While total sales might have been less than all three books combined (as the price point would have been higher) it should be significantly more profitable. 



BryonD said:


> If 100 people buy 1-book this year and 30% of your market is playing other games that attracted their attention in the past year, then you are losing ground.
> And that kind of decline can quickly spiral even people loving the situation move on for lack of supporting community.



If your fans leave that suddenly for other games, then you have larger problems. 
Plus, we haven't seen any correlation between number of releases and audience retention. 4e had monthly released but hemorrhaged it audience. 

If people aren't having fun playing now, there's no reason to believe they'll have more fun with twice as much content or when they feel obligated to pay more. Regular DLC doesn't encourage people to keep playing a videogame they don't enjoy.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> If your fans leave that suddenly for other games, then you have larger problems.



Lack of adequate support is one possible "larger problem".
If we presume for sake of argument that 5E is a generally good and popular game and has no other "larger problems", you can still argue that there will be constant new options and competitions for people's time.

Lake of adequate support is a "larger problem" all to itself.



> Plus, we haven't seen any correlation between number of releases and audience retention. 4e had monthly released but hemorrhaged it audience.



As you pointed out other "larger problems" can also be the source of audience loss.  But it is faulty logic to say that because high release failed to save a game with an small fanbase that low release can not be detrimental to a game with adequate fanbase.



> If people aren't having fun playing now, there's no reason to believe they'll have more fun with twice as much content or when they feel obligated to pay more. Regular DLC doesn't encourage people to keep playing a videogame they don't enjoy.



True.  But it has nothing to do with my point.

As to the rest: you are still basing everything on the presumptions that the overall market is stable.  And that is a very bad assumption.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> 4e and to a lesser extent 3e was dominated by lots of small 160-page books focused on small segments of the audience. _Martial Power_ and _Arcane Power_ and _Complete Warrior_ and _Complete Arcane_. Or even _The Complete Fighter's Handbook_ from 2e. All mid-sized books focused deliberately on a small sub-section of the audience. A single 320-page book would have had less content than three Powers books, but if it focused on all three types of class, it might have sold better than any one of the other books. While total sales might have been less than all three books combined (as the price point would have been higher) it should be significantly more profitable.




A small release schedule would not have saved 4th edition. It was the rules themselves that people didn't like, not the amount of content that was put out. 

More content also allows you test the game in new ways. Everyone likes to test out new classes, or subclasses, or feats etc.. 

One thing 3rd edition did wrong was it put out content that made other content either redundant, or contradicted it. If the road 3rd edition was going down was so bad then how come is spawned a game that took the number 1 spot in RPG's?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> 4e had monthly released but hemorrhaged it audience.



I'd also add that Pathfinder has monthly releases and at going on six years is almost certainly the gold standard for success in a modern RPG.

I do NOT suggest that the monthly schedule is a significant factor in that success.  
I do suggest that it didn't hold it back.

The monthly schedule may in fact be helping.  It may be that slightly less would be even better.  It seems unlikely that their very heavy release schedule is a negative element.

It is also worth noting that their mix of APs to fluff heavy campaign material to crunch heavy material is very much to the former.
One serious crunch book per year plus a monster manual (or alternate similar cousin ) plus the two AP support pdfs (assuming there is now precedent) plus a small monthly L&L would be on the order of PF.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Of course. There is a lot more to it than that, but if you want to sum it up in a few words you want more people to buy your product than not.




*cough*Apple*cough*

Apple iPhones sell a fraction of Google Android phones.  Yet, Apple is valued as one of the highest valued companies in history.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 15, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> A small release schedule would not have saved 4th edition. It was the rules themselves that people didn't like, not the amount of content that was put out.
> 
> More content also allows you test the game in new ways. Everyone likes to test out new classes, or subclasses, or feats etc..
> 
> One thing 3rd edition did wrong was it put out content that made other content either redundant, or contradicted it. If the road 3rd edition was going down was so bad then how come is spawned a game that took the number 1 spot in RPG's?




What does number 1 spot mean when WOTC is not producing any product at all?  Big fish in a small pond does not make you a big fish.  Did Paizo rocket up to top spot, or did WOTC's sales shrink to the point where Paizo took top spot?

Time will tell.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Hussar said:


> *cough*Apple*cough*
> 
> Apple iPhones sell a fraction of Google Android phones.  Yet, Apple is valued as one of the highest valued companies in history.



Ok, so what is the lesson learned for D&D?

What individual company sells more android phones than Apple?  How does the combined value of Android phone companies compare to Apple?  

Are you advocating the WotC should want *fewer* players?  (They already had that)


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Hussar said:


> What does number 1 spot mean when WOTC is not producing any product at all?  Big fish in a small pond does not make you a big fish.  Did Paizo rocket up to top spot, or did WOTC's sales shrink to the point where Paizo took top spot?
> 
> Time will tell.



What evidence do you have that the RPG market shrunk?  Are you saying that 4E managed to shrink the entire industry that badly that it was used to be a big pond and now it is a small pond?


If the entire pond stayed the same size, WotC's share shrunk and Paizo was the biggest one, then that is comparable.  It is possible that the pie is more evenly divided.  But, then again, you just[/] pointed at Apple as an example when their product is being compared to competition across numerous other companies.  

So, if being the biggest one in the same total pond is not a good thing, then your standards are biased.
If you are saying 4E shrunk the pond, then your view of 4E is far worse than mine.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Lack of adequate support is one possible "larger problem".
> If we presume for sake of argument that 5E is a generally good and popular game and has no other "larger problems", you can still argue that there will be constant new options and competitions for people's time.
> 
> Lake of adequate support is a "larger problem" all to itself.



Ah yes, the "adequate support" buzzword, a vital part of the "not enough product drinking game". Because there's an amount of support that is exactly adequate and will make everyone happy. No one seems to know what that is or agree, but they know the almost monthly products we've seen are not "adequate" and we need to keep churning out product like Goldilocks with an eating disorder testing porridge until everyone is agreed we have reached "adequate" for everyone. 



BryonD said:


> As you pointed out other "larger problems" can also be the source of audience loss.  But it is faulty logic to say that because high release failed to save a game with an small fanbase that low release can not be detrimental to a game with adequate fanbase.



Do you have an example of a game with a low release being detrimental to one with an adequate fanbase? 



Sailor Moon said:


> More content also allows you test the game in new ways. Everyone likes to test out new classes, or subclasses, or feats etc.



Actually, I find new classes detrimental, as they dilute the archetypes of the core classes and generally lead to overspecialization. I was exceedingly happy with Paizo when they said they were going to limit new classes and exceedingly disappointed when they decided to reverse that decision and churn out new classes.
And, there's no shortage of classes already in the game for me to test. More than I will ever be able to use. With a dozen classes and at least two subclasses for each, you could run four 1-20 campaigns without seeing a subclass repeat itself. And I very much doubt anyone will be able to run four 1-20 campaigns before WotC releases an expansion. Heck, according to their last survey, most people haven't even hit level 10 and they've already released one new archetype and seven new races. 



Sailor Moon said:


> One thing 3rd edition did wrong was it put out content that made other content either redundant, or contradicted it. If the road 3rd edition was going down was so bad then how come is spawned a game that took the number 1 spot in RPG's?



Pathfinder took the #1 spot in part because it was solid and in part because people were leaving D&D. More people just left D&D than went to Paizo. Had all the people who left D&D but didn't switch to Pathfinder had instead bought, say, 13th Age, that would have handily become the #1 RPG. And Paizo managed to take the #1 spot before they switched to monthly content. Heck, they held onto the #1 spot for well over a year before they opted to make the Player Companions monthly.



BryonD said:


> I'd also add that Pathfinder has monthly releases and at going on six years is almost certainly the gold standard for success in a modern RPG.



Pathfinder reference. And drink! 

Paizo grew into monthly releases (beyond APs). It did not start with them. When they launched the RPG and took the #1 spot they were barely releasing more content than 5e is (and much of that was world specific). 
And the monthly content from Paizo has become increasingly unnecessary. I've all but stopped buying Player Companions as the content I'll use in them has dropped to zero. Pathfinder is a success for Paizo. It's a success for a company that has set the bar much lower and is happy with whatever they get for as long as they get. Paizo the company almost went under several times before Pathfinder, and things looked very bad when 4e was announced. Any month they remain in business is a triumph. WotC likely views D&D with slightly higher expectations than "not going under" or "lasting one year longer". 

5e needs to last as long as possible. I doubt WotC will give the D&D RPG a fifth chance to succeed. 



BryonD said:


> I do NOT suggest that the monthly schedule is a significant factor in that success.
> I do suggest that it didn't hold it back.
> The monthly schedule may in fact be helping.  It may be that slightly less would be even better.  It seems unlikely that their very heavy release schedule is a negative element



Has it held it back in the short term? No.
Has it held it back in the long term? Maybe. 

Pathfinder is running out of steam. After this coming summer, there's not a lot of need for new hardcovers, and the player companions, monster books, and most of the campaign books have already become unnecassary. The edition is pretty much done (if not already tapped out). All they have left is their setting; Paizo has become the Golarion company. 
Had they held off on monthly releases, they could have survived for a couple more years before they had to gamble on a revised edition. And boy will that be a gamble.

And that's the catch. An RPG can support a finite number of releases. There's no hard number, but a game cannot continue indefinitely without revision. The faster you release product the faster you hit that finite number and the game collapses in on itself. Settings can last longer, as can adventures. But the game itself can only manage so many books.



BryonD said:


> One serious crunch book per year plus a monster manual (or alternate similar cousin ) plus the two AP support pdfs (assuming there is now precedent) plus a small monthly L&L would be on the order of PF.



And that seems like a perfectly *ahem* adequate amount of content. And there's a very real possibility that's what we're getting. I would not be surprised if they yanked all the sublasses from the _Adventurer's Handbook_ to release a larger (and much more tested) Big Book of Subclasses and options this summer. Really, a single book of subclasses expanding on the PHB is really all we need and cover all the basic archetypes and concepts. And in 2016 the crunch book could be psionics. 

Well, I don't think we need an annual Monster Manual. Pathfinder has managed to do a good job keeping those going by having NPC and monster statblocks, but that wouldn't work as well for 5e. After 3 monsters books things get a little ridiculous and the books become pure filler. A new monster book every other year would be fine.

Which gets back to my "board game style releases" thread, where, after a certain point, they should just stop releasing new accessories and try alternate products. When you're trying to cobble together a _Magic of Incarnum_ or pad out the monsters for a fifth _Monster Manual_ the content is just no longer worth it. What it adds is no longer benefitial.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 15, 2015)

BryonD said:


> What evidence do you have that the RPG market shrunk?  Are you saying that 4E managed to shrink the entire industry that badly that it was used to be a big pond and now it is a small pond?



Well, we know how many PHBs sold during 3.0 and 3.5e. And we know that 4e somehow outsold 3e on its launch. And we know how many Pathfinder Core Rulebooks have sold and that every year Paizo sold more Pathfinder CRBs than the year before. 
The number of CRB was around half the number of 3.0 PHBs. So the number Paizo sold several years earlier - when they started beating 4e - would be much lower. So the number of people who stopped buying 4e was greater than the number of people who bought Pathfinder. 
So the total number of people buying RPG books either shrank or became much, much more spread out. Likely a bit of both.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Ah yes, the "adequate support" buzzword, a vital part of the "not enough product drinking game". Because there's an amount of support that is exactly adequate and will make everyone happy. No one seems to know what that is or agree, but they know the almost monthly products we've seen are not "adequate" and we need to keep churning out product like Goldilocks with an eating disorder testing porridge until everyone is agreed we have reached "adequate" for everyone.



Complete strawman.

You don't need to know anything close to "exactly" to have less than adequate.  

You are the one using buzzwords like "churning" and bogus emotionally laden claims about "eating disorders".  
I just described a level of *ONE* hardback a year.  But you are going "eating disorder".

That speaks for itself.



> Do you have an example of a game with a low release being detrimental to one with an adequate fanbase?



No, they don't last long enough.




> Actually, I find new classes detrimental,



What does "I" have to do with anything?



> 5e needs to last as long as possible. I doubt WotC will give the D&D RPG a fifth chance to succeed.



Same thing was said about 4E.




> Has it held it back in the short term? No.
> Has it held it back in the long term? Maybe.



6 years?  Please define "long term"?
How long must 5E last under your zero release schedule (and yes, we have ZERO announced splat books, all I'm asking for is something above zero as binge and purge as ONE may be to you)




> Pathfinder is running out of steam.



Agreed.  Six years is a damn good run.



> And that seems like a perfectly *ahem* adequate amount of content.



Not if too many people move on to the next interesting thing before they ever buy it.




> And there's a very real possibility that's what we're getting. I would not be surprised if they yanked all the sublasses from the _Adventurer's Handbook_ to release a larger (and much more tested) Big Book of Subclasses and options this summer. Really, a single book of subclasses expanding on the PHB is really all we need and cover all the basic archetypes and concepts.



Without comment on personal preference, you called my request an eating disorder and now you are describing the exact level I proposed.  What does that say?




> A new monster book every other year would be fine.



Is this you binging or purging?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Well, we know how many PHBs sold during 3.0 and 3.5e. And we know that 4e somehow outsold 3e on its launch. And we know how many Pathfinder Core Rulebooks have sold and that every year Paizo sold more Pathfinder CRBs than the year before.
> The number of CRB was around half the number of 3.0 PHBs. So the number Paizo sold several years earlier - when they started beating 4e - would be much lower. So the number of people who stopped buying 4e was greater than the number of people who bought Pathfinder.
> So the total number of people buying RPG books either shrank or became much, much more spread out. Likely a bit of both.



I don't agree that you can measure the market by PHBs.

But if you both think 4E made the market shrink.  Noted.


----------



## Ristamar (Mar 16, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Everyone likes to test out new classes, or subclasses, or feats etc...






Jester Canuck said:


> Actually, I find new classes detrimental, as they dilute the archetypes of the core classes and generally lead to overspecialization. I was exceedingly happy with Paizo when they said they were going to limit new classes and exceedingly disappointed when they decided to reverse that decision and churn out new classes.




I agree.  As a DM, I don't want to test new stuff all the time.  I'm still settling in with the new ruleset, and there is something to be said for stability and simplicity.


----------



## GlobeOfDankness (Mar 16, 2015)

calling it as an announcement about the official Realms book. will probably focus on the sword(boring)coast and will have optional material for the core classes.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 16, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I don't agree that you can measure the market by PHBs.
> 
> But if you both think 4E made the market shrink.  Noted.




Wow. Considering the lengths you go to complain about others putting words in your mouth, that's pretty brutal. 

The rpg market has shrunk over the last five to ten years. The market was pegged at 30 million per year and is now pegged at about twelve. At least that's what's been stated. 

I really don't think pointing fingers is productive or even plausible. You're confusing correlation with causation.


----------



## Warbringer (Mar 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Wow. Considering the lengths you go to complain about others putting words in your mouth, that's pretty brutal.
> 
> The rpg market has shrunk over the last five to ten years. The market was pegged at 30 million per year and is now pegged at about twelve. At least that's what's been stated.
> 
> I really don't think pointing fingers is productive or even plausible. You're confusing correlation with causation.




Where're you getting hose numbers from?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 16, 2015)

http://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&so...l4DoAQ&usg=AFQjCNE2JKE11O2Q7oZW2pcnpqsWPPLfYw

Hope that link works. Pegs RPGs at 15 million. Sorry misremembered.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 16, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Complete strawman.



"Strawman" is overused in online discussions. Too often it's just used as an excuse to just ignore what someone said (for right or wrong), only while drawing attention to the fact you're ignoring it rather than just not replying or cutting that part out of your reply. I always have to fight not to just ctrl-W when I see "strawman" pop up. But that's my baggage...



BryonD said:


> You are the one using buzzwords like "churning" and bogus emotionally laden claims about "eating disorders".
> I just described a level of *ONE* hardback a year.  But you are going "eating disorder".



You described one hardback a year in the post following the one I was replying to. I hadn't read that yet. 



BryonD said:


> No, they don't last long enough.



How about, oh, Basic D&D? 
You had levels 1-3 from 1977 to 1981, then 4-14 until '83, 26-36 in '84, and 36+ in 1985. Some revisions in 1991 and that lasted until Basic ended in 2000 with 3e. Two or three rules accessories for 23 years, with only minor revisions to the ruleset. Almost everything released for Basic was either an adventure or related to the world of Mystara. 

The only accessories I can find are the _Creature Catalogue_, some character sheets, a couple books of magic items, and a monster book that focused solely on Dragons and Giants. 



BryonD said:


> 6 years?  Please define "long term"?
> How long must 5E last under your zero release schedule (and yes, we have ZERO announced splat books, all I'm asking for is something above zero as binge and purge as ONE may be to you)



So it's less a matter of releases, but of announced releases?

_Princes of the Apocalypse_ isn't even in stores yet! We haven't seen their next product and WotC hasn't begun previews on their website and you want to start speculation on the next?!
Especially with the fervour over _Adventurer's Handbook_ being cancelled (depite never being officially announced) WotC has every reason to be hesitant to pull the trigger on their GenCon release.

Especially since the needing to know what's coming out in five months is information only the smallest segment of the fanbase really cares about. The average play does not care about that. Heck, the average player likely wouldn't even know what _Princes of the Apocalypse_ is. 
I play Pathfinder with some pretty dedicated gamers, and PFS with others, and none of them have any clue about what Paizo is doing five weeks from now, let alone five months. 



BryonD said:


> Agreed.  Six years is a damn good run.



Six years is nothing. I've purchased new rulebooks books too many times in the fifteen years. 5e was my last. It's simple enough that it'll make a good first RPG for my son (in 6-8 years) but classic enough to be D&D and introduce him to the hobby. If we see 6e in 2021 I'm so done. 

You asked how long is long term? I think at least a decade is good. If not more. 
If ever, really. I'll happily accept some small revisions (ala the Basic changes or even 4e to Essentials), some reprints with errata and small tweaks. But I don't see why we really *need* a new edition. They got this one right. 1e and 2e were full of warts, 3e had some balance issues, 4e was... divisive. But 5e is just right. I don't think we *need* a new edition so much as a revision or reprinting with minor tweaks. D&D isn't a game console where the tech keeps changing and you need to upgrade. While game design evolves over time, 5e's mix of modern and nostalgia keeps it timeless and its modularity should make it easy to accommodate new innovations in gaming. 
I wonder if people think we'll see a 6e only because we've seen edition changes before so it's accepted. We *think* editions need to change and so we accept 6e as inevitable. 

But this is likely off topic, or worthy of its own thread.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> There's more to it than just having people buy:




You know, if those guys had a bigger shop then their success would be assured!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 16, 2015)

GlobeOfDankness said:


> calling it as an announcement about the official Realms book. will probably focus on the sword(boring)coast and will have optional material for the core classes.




Possible given the recent announcement of the Sword Coast CRPG with (reportedly) decent GMing tools. A TTRPG give seems like a good and likely candidate.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> http://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&so...l4DoAQ&usg=AFQjCNE2JKE11O2Q7oZW2pcnpqsWPPLfYw
> 
> Hope that link works. Pegs RPGs at 15 million. Sorry misremembered.




So theoretically Pathfinder Adventures could be outselling the RPG.

That is....kinda cool actually.  I really like that game.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> So theoretically Pathfinder Adventures could be outselling the RPG.
> 
> That is....kinda cool actually.  I really like that game.




Well, no, actually.  Since Pathfinder Adventures would be included in that number.  That's the total size of the RPG market which does include all sales channels.  Why wouldn't Pathfinder Adventures be included in there.

My personal take on it is that the market shrank pretty much by the size of WOTC's involvement.  IOW, the market with WOTC (and D&D) is about 30 million).  When WOTC stopped publishing, the market shrank to 15 million, because the biggest single player wasn't in the market anymore.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Well, no, actually.  Since Pathfinder Adventures would be included in that number.  That's the total size of the RPG market which does include all sales channels.  Why wouldn't Pathfinder Adventures be included in there.




Well going off the link that you provided, Pathfinder Adventures was listed as the second ranking item in the Card-Dice game section which is estimated at having $35 million in sales per year as compared to the RPG section at $15 million per year.

So why would you lump them together when the article that you provided does not?


----------



## Carlsen Chris (Mar 16, 2015)

delericho said:


> They've signed a novel distribution deal with Tor?




"Have no fears, we've got stories for years!"


----------



## Hussar (Mar 16, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Well going off the link that you provided, Pathfinder Adventures was listed as the second ranking item in the Card-Dice game section which is estimated at having $35 million in sales per year as compared to the RPG section at $15 million per year.
> 
> So why would you lump them together when the article that you provided does not?




Oops, sorry, my bad.  I got PF Adventures mixed up with the RPG line.  My total bad.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Sorry [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], but yes it does.



Um, no.

Me not buying an AP will not cancel out someone else's purchase. That purchase will appear on the distributor's ledger and on Hasbro's.



> It's better to produce fewer better selling products that more products. It's better to sell 25,000 copies of a single book than 15,000 copies of two different books even though they have 30,000 total sales in the latter.



It is also more profitable to seel two books that sell will 25,000 copies than one book that sells 25,000. 



> If they release two products, to reach you _and_ [MENTION=261]Doc_Klueless[/MENTION], then they've doubled their production costs and have to double their sales. If they halve their products, so long as they do not halve their sales, then they've made more money. So if they sell an AP with some crunch content in it (like how _Princes of the Apocalypse is expected to come with_ the content from the free PDF), and even a single extra person buys that book, then they've made more profit.



Which one do you think will sell more copies? PotA or a Forgotten Realms campaign setting book?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Well, we know how many PHBs sold during 3.0 and 3.5e. And we know that 4e somehow outsold 3e on its launch. And we know how many Pathfinder Core Rulebooks have sold and that every year Paizo sold more Pathfinder CRBs than the year before.
> The number of CRB was around half the number of 3.0 PHBs. So the number Paizo sold several years earlier - when they started beating 4e - would be much lower. So the number of people who stopped buying 4e was greater than the number of people who bought Pathfinder.
> So the total number of people buying RPG books either shrank or became much, much more spread out. Likely a bit of both.



At launch, 4e out sold the number of PHB 3.x sold during its entire 8 years of existence? According to a post [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION], 3e or 3.x sold 700k copies, if I remember correctly. 

Now if I remember correctly, someone paraphrasing WotC said that 5e's launch out sold 4e's. According to the novelrank numbers you commented on, about 90k PHB might have been sold during 5e's first six months of existence. Even if we say that the numbers are higher, that those, say double or triple, we are not above 700,000. Are you sure it is not "4e's launch sells out sold 3e's launch sells"?

What are Paizo numbers for their corebook? Does it count their PDFs? Seems to me all we have is a lot of conjecture.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Which one do you think will sell more copies? PotA or a Forgotten Realms campaign setting book?




If Wizards marketed it right, the AP could easily outsell.  It has legs far beyond die-hard FR fans.  But historically Wizards' marketing has been sub par.  The FRCS5 is the safer bet, due to the sheer number of those die-hard FR fans who will buy it regardless of how anemically Wizards pitches it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Umm... no. Math fail.
> 
> A 60-page softcover product would probably cost around $25. (Paizo charges $19.99 for their 64-page books, but hasn't raised prices in some time.) So buying the 5 needed to make-up the 320-page accessory would cost $125. Opposed to the $50-60 of the single 320-page book. It would be twice the price, not less.



Up front the cost is less. That is a fact. And who is to say WotC will make 5 60 pages books? Remember, your argument making too making too many books is bad. We should forget that WotC doesn't sell PDFs and they probably sell more physical unites than Paizo. So they print more and that means economy of scale, so cheaper products for customers.



> Given the choice of smaller monthly softcovers or a large hardcovers twice a year, I think I'll go for the hardcovers. It's cheaper, more durable, requires less searching for content (all in one place), easier to finance around, makes store shelves less intimidating.



It also means a lot of people won't buy them cause they cost too much. It is just fact. Not everyone can shell out 50$ or save that sum up. 

Also, that whole intimidating shelve is a argument from forums. It is just as valid as an argument saying that empty shelves will mean games won't buy books cause they feel the edition is not supported. They might be even more numerous than the "intimidated ones".


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 16, 2015)

All the numbers that people discuss about how much of this book sold at that point are pretty meaningless - because we're living in a rapidly evolving world where people are changing how they play this game every year - and how they obtain gaming materials.

If you ask me, WotC's best approach is to make the gaming materials cheap and high quality - basically selling at minimal profits - so that they can try to rebuild the brand and gain more marketshare back.  Why?  Because their best bet to make money is to Marvel D&D.  

They should be using the game to draw together fans and then spinning that off into TV and major movies.  It is ridiculous that such a well known character as Drizz't has not made it to the big screen, yet.  Dragonlance, if done right, could be a pretty darn good TV series on cable or a good movie series (animated version is NOT a good example of this...) 

To that end, they want to make the game as pervasive as possible.  D&D, the game, should be their marketing, not their product.


----------



## delericho (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> At launch, 4e out sold the number of PHB 3.x sold during its entire 8 years of existence? According to a post [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION], 3e or 3.x sold 700k copies, if I remember correctly.




I believe it was the 3.0e PHB specifically, so the vast majority of those sales would have been before 3.5e came along. But it's important to note that that figure did _not_ come from WotC.

Having said that, Ryan Dancey has said the 3.0e PHB sold 300k of those sales in the first 30 days or so.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> If Wizards marketed it right, the AP could easily outsell.  It has legs far beyond die-hard FR fans.




I doubt it. WotC isn't known for APs and has a bad rep with adventures. Their first AP for 5e wasn't that well received and some of their Adventure League modules are worse. Producing adventures only is a risky bet, as they appeal only a fraction of gamers.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

delericho said:


> I believe it was the 3.0e PHB specifically, so the vast majority of those sales would have been before 3.5e came along. But it's important to note that that figure did _not_ come from WotC.
> 
> Having said that, Ryan Dancey has said the 3.0e PHB sold 300k of those sales in the first 30 days or so.




Ah, thank you.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 16, 2015)

I had an idea earlier about a revival of Dungeon.  A PDF product monthly, with a quarterly collected softcover (call it a kickstarted quarterly).  I found a company that does small print run magazines.  I specced out a 192 page magazine on glossy paper.  In color it was about $10 an issue shipped to WotC.  In B&W it wasn't a whole lot cheaper.

I guess the end point was that having these printed isn't as cheap as one might assume.

Here's a link to play with if you want to understand some costs associated.

http://www.printpelican.com/magazine-8-11.html


----------



## DMZ2112 (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I doubt it. WotC isn't known for APs and has a bad rep with adventures. Their first AP for 5e wasn't that well received and some of their Adventure League modules are worse. Producing adventures only is a risky bet, as they appeal only a fraction of gamers.




Yeah, I hear that a lot.  If it were that black and white I think Paizo's model would look a lot different and Goodman Games would not have had the capital (financial or otherwise) to be pitching their own RPG these days.  But that's neither here nor there.

An AP is not a module.  It's a cross-demographic product.  Part module series, part gazetteer, part lore expansion.  I'll grant you that Wizards needs to do better with Elemental Evil than they did with Tyranny of Dragons but that was kind of my /point/.

Properly marketed, fans would buy PotA because they are interested in D&D.  Properly marketed, fans are still only going to buy an FRCS5 if they are interested in FR.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> Yeah, I hear that a lot.  If it were that black and white I think Paizo's model would look a lot different and Goodman Games would not have had the capital (financial or otherwise) to be pitching their own RPG these days.  But that's neither here nor there.
> 
> An AP is not a module.  It's a cross-demographic product.  Part module series, part gazetteer, part lore expansion.  I'll grant you that Wizards needs to do better with Elemental Evil than they did with Tyranny of Dragons but that was kind of my /point/.
> 
> Properly marketed, fans would buy PotA because they are interested in D&D.  Properly marketed, fans are still only going to buy an FRCS5 if they are interested in FR.



Reputation is big in this. Paizo had a good rep, and still does, when it comes to APs and adventures. WotC starts with a bad one, even before 5e was released. They are putting all their eggs in a pierced basket. 

Also, WotC is just recycling adventures. We saw the theme of elemental evil/Tharizdun a couple of times before. Heck, Tharizdun was not too long a go at the center of the Abyssal Plague, a cross-setting set of adventures and novels during 4e's reign that didn't generate much enthousiasm. Now they just set the same adventures in the Realms and do not even bother with previous cannon. The issue goes beyond marketing and having some crunch a bit of fluff in their AP.


----------



## delericho (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Reputation is big in this. Paizo had a good rep, and still does, when it comes to APs and adventures. WotC starts with a bad one, even before 5e was released. They are putting all their eggs in a pierced basket.




Yeah, but if they don't continue to produce adventures, they'll never be able to improve their rep.

(Of course, the other part of that is to make sure they produce _good_ adventures.)


----------



## the Jester (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Reputation is big in this. Paizo had a good rep, and still does, when it comes to APs and adventures. WotC starts with a bad one, even before 5e was released. They are putting all their eggs in a pierced basket.
> 
> Also, WotC is just recycling adventures. We saw the theme of elemental evil/Tharizdun a couple of times before. Heck, Tharizdun was not too long a go at the center of the Abyssal Plague, a cross-setting set of adventures and novels during 4e's reign that didn't generate much enthousiasm. Now they just set the same adventures in the Realms and do not even bother with previous cannon. The issue goes beyond marketing and having some crunch a bit of fluff in their AP.




Did they have any adventures involving the Abyssal plague? I was curious at the time what the deal was, but thought it was all novel tie-ins and stuff like that. I saw absolutely nothing, outside a few references about the Abyssal plague in Monster Vault 2, that indicated that it had anything to do with, well, anything, really.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Reputation is big in this. Paizo had a good rep, and still does, when it comes to APs and adventures. WotC starts with a bad one, even before 5e was released. They are putting all their eggs in a pierced basket.




It's worth noting that Wizards is not actually writing these adventures, and that anyone with enough investment in the history of the game to know about Wizards' past failings is also going to know that.  I apologize if that sounds dismissive; it's not my intention to suggest you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm just trying to make a point.  I'm sure we both know and respect some of the names behind Sasquatch just like we both know and respect some of the names behind Kobold Press.  I feel like Wizards has recognized their shortcomings and made a good faith effort to overcome them.



> Also, WotC is just recycling adventures. We saw the theme of elemental evil/Tharizdun a couple of times before. Heck, Tharizdun was not too long a go at the center of the Abyssal Plague, a cross-setting set of adventures and novels during 4e's reign that didn't generate much enthousiasm. Now they just set the same adventures in the Realms and do not even bother with previous cannon. The issue goes beyond marketing and having some crunch a bit of fluff in their AP.




I really don't want to be in the position of defending Wizards on this because I do feel that they are hiding behind FR and it pains me greatly to see lore from other established settings sucked into FR without even the barest attempt at justification beyond, "The forces of Elemental Evil tried to invade Oerth and failed, so now they're giving Toril a try."  That's not an acknowledgement of the D&D multiverse; that's what we call not having the strength of your convictions.

I have every confidence that we will eventually see APs from other established D&D settings, but in the interim it's clear that we're going to see a lot of core fluff -- material that, for instance, would have found its way into Nerath in 4th Edition -- absorbed by the ravening gelatinous cube that is WotC's Forgotten Realms.  And of course the real tragedy there is that once a product is produced you're obviously not going to see that same product produced for another setting.  So the move is permanent, at least until D&D6.  Disappointing.

With that little rant complete...

What Wizards is doing is not recycling adventures.  They are recycling /themes/, which is exactly what you do when you have a strong brand like D&D.  You wouldn't find it unusual for a future iteration of the Transformers franchise to have a story involving the All-Spark or energon, and you wouldn't find it unusual for an X-Files reboot to involve black oil or feature a mysterious power player who chain smokes cigarettes.  I may take issue with how they are doing it, but what they are doing makes good sense.

Saying that this is recycling adventures is like saying every adventure to feature an orc horde -- or a lost temple, or underdark dungeoneering -- is the same adventure.


----------



## Manchu (Mar 16, 2015)

If somebody points out WotC didn't design these APs in-house, someone else will come along to post that WotC still puts in a lot of work on them (usually to answer the point that WotC doesn't invest enough in 5E). But if somebody points out that WotC's reputation for APs will suffer because their APs are no good, someone else will come along to post that WotC didn't design them. Who designed the AP isn't the only thing that matters. WotC either rubber stamped it or approved it after consideration. Either way, WotC deserves a share in being criticized for any bad APs they publish.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Um, no.
> 
> Me not buying an AP will not cancel out someone else's purchase. That purchase will appear on the distributor's ledger and on Hasbro's.



No. As I explained, the costs of making that other book mean they need to sell significant copies of both to make the same profit. See below.



goldomark said:


> It is also more profitable to sell two books that sell will 25,000 copies than one book that sells 25,000.



However, if they only release one, they might sell more copies of the first book. D&D has one big audience and not everyone buys every book released every month or other month. One purchase comes at the expense of another. So if you can sell 50,000 copies of two books, that means you might be able to sell 30,000 or even 40,000 copies of one. And that IS more profitable. 

Or, and here's the thing, delay the second book by 6 months and have _both_ sell 30-40,000 copies. This ends up with you having the most money. Oh, and because releases are spaced out, the edition lasts longer and the hobby is more stable. And you avoid edition bloat that causes sales to flag. And you avoid the intimidation factor that costs sales (see later in this post). Spacing out releases is all gravy.

Releasing two competing products *only* works if there's no overlap between the two audiences. Like releasing an action movie and romcom on the same weekend. If D&D had two so incompatible segments of their audience, they've have big problems. (And, arguably, this is what they're doing by releasing the board game and minis along with the RPG products.)



goldomark said:


> Which one do you think will sell more copies? PotA or a Forgotten Realms campaign setting book?



PotA. 
Because no one is going to buy a turd of a Forgotten Realms campaign setting rushed out the door in two months. 

PotA is being written by a licenced publisher. Because the D&D team is not large enough to have a book of that size (or the planned two books) ready for March so closely after finishing the DMG and other core books. So why expect them to be able to finish an even larger book that has to be more carefully written and require even more research and feedback? 

A FRCS is going to take some time. Talking about it like it's a possibility now is pure fantasy. 



goldomark said:


> Up front the cost is less. That is a fact.



Up front cost only matters to small publishers who have to worry about paying bills while waiting for sales profits to come in. It's not a factor to WotC who has enough disposable capital to order large print runs and let them pay off over time. 



goldomark said:


> And who is to say WotC will make 5 60 pages books? Remember, your argument making too making too many books is bad.



I went with five 64-page books because that's the same content as one 320-page rulebook. 64 x 5 = 320. So releasing five 64-page accessories takes roughly the same amount of work and manpower as writing a single 320-page book. So the production costs for WotC are the same. Which makes comparing the price difference to consumers ($50 vs $125) more dramatic.

Paizo has noted that sales of the first volume in an AP sell best, and later volumes go down in sales. They're doing the same work for less and less money. If they printed APs as a single volume it would have the same production requirements but potentially sell better than the later volumes, leading to higher overall profit. 



goldomark said:


> We should forget that WotC doesn't sell PDFs and they probably sell more physical unites than Paizo. So they print more and that means economy of scale, so cheaper products for customers.



If this was true, wouldn't the D&D books be cheaper than Paizo's books of the same size?  

WotC sells far more books for many reasons, not just PDFs. It's audience is just much larger. However, Paizo sells directly. Selling a book from their e-store makes them 3x as much money per copy. And Paizo makes far, far more money per copy from PDFs of adventures and the like, and comparable amounts for PDFs. So they're making money multiple ways that offset the lower sales.



goldomark said:


> It also means a lot of people won't buy them cause they cost too much. It is just fact. Not everyone can shell out 50$ or save that sum up.



A one-time $50 fee for a 320-page book is far easier to shell out for than $25 for a 64-page book five times. Or even three times. 
Yeah, some smaller price point items might be nice. But I'd much rather get more bang for my buck.



goldomark said:


> Also, that whole intimidating shelve is a argument from forums. It is just as valid as an argument saying that empty shelves will mean games won't buy books cause they feel the edition is not supported. They might be even more numerous than the "intimidated ones".



Do you have any research to back that up? 

The intimidation factor of choice has been well researched for academic papers. People are a tenth as likely to buy when confronted by too many choices.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 16, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Did they have any adventures involving the Abyssal plague? I was curious at the time what the deal was, but thought it was all novel tie-ins and stuff like that. I saw absolutely nothing, outside a few references about the Abyssal plague in Monster Vault 2, that indicated that it had anything to do with, well, anything, really.



The Abyssal Plague was one of their first attempts at having a seasonal story. At the time I thought the lack of adventures was kind of a mistake. It looks like they thought so too.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yeah, but if they don't continue to produce adventures, they'll never be able to improve their rep.
> 
> (Of course, the other part of that is to make sure they produce _good_ adventures.)




I agree, but they are jumping off a cliff without a second parachute in case the first one isn't working. I mean they could have made a safe product like the a FR campaign setting book while still doing the APs. Edge their bets while they are getting better at APs and getting a better rep. Right now they are just charging head first against Paizo who has much more experience and a better reputation. Very risky.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

the Jester said:


> Did they have any adventures involving the Abyssal plague? I was curious at the time what the deal was, but thought it was all novel tie-ins and stuff like that. I saw absolutely nothing, outside a few references about the Abyssal plague in Monster Vault 2, that indicated that it had anything to do with, well, anything, really.




The Encounters season at the time focused on The Elder Elemental Eye. WotC made fortune cards called Spiral of Tharizdun. http://www.amazon.com/Fortune-Cards-Spiral-Tharizdun/dp/B007BQNSN2


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> It's worth noting that Wizards is not actually writing these adventures, and that anyone with enough investment in the history of the game to know about Wizards' past failings is also going to know that.  I apologize if that sounds dismissive; it's not my intention to suggest you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm just trying to make a point.  I'm sure we both know and respect some of the names behind Sasquatch just like we both know and respect some of the names behind Kobold Press.  I feel like Wizards has recognized their shortcomings and made a good faith effort to overcome them.



They still propose the stories, edite the adventures and publish them. They have WotC stamp all over them. Heck, all the guys at Sasquatch Games are ex-WotC employees. At Kobold Games, it was ex-WotC employees with good rep that screwed up Tiamat. 



> I really don't want to be in the position of defending Wizards on this because I do feel that they are hiding behind FR and it pains me greatly to see lore from other established settings sucked into FR without even the barest attempt at justification beyond, "The forces of Elemental Evil tried to invade Oerth and failed, so now they're giving Toril a try."  That's not an acknowledgement of the D&D multiverse; that's what we call not having the strength of your convictions.



It certainly boost confidence in WotC. 



> What Wizards is doing is not recycling adventures.  They are recycling /themes/, which is exactly what you do when you have a strong brand like D&D.



Or when you do not know what to do anymore. Look at Hollywood and all the remakes.  



> You wouldn't find it unusual for a future iteration of the Transformers franchise to have a story involving the All-Spark or energon, and you wouldn't find it unusual for an X-Files reboot to involve black oil or feature a mysterious power player who chain smokes cigarettes.  I may take issue with how they are doing it, but what they are doing makes good sense.



Actually, a TV series is the medium like the is the medium. The X-Files is the adventure, the theme if you prefere. Doing a X-Files reboot only shows how much they can't innovate and just recycle stuff.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> How about, oh, Basic D&D?
> You had levels 1-3 from 1977 to 1981, then 4-14 until '83, 26-36 in '84, and 36+ in 1985. Some revisions in 1991 and that lasted until Basic ended in 2000 with 3e. Two or three rules accessories for 23 years, with only minor revisions to the ruleset. Almost everything released for Basic was either an adventure or related to the world of Mystara.



You've some major fallacy and several errors packed in there.

Holmes' Basic covers 1-3, was available in 1977, but was never intended to stand alone -  it was supposed to be lead-in to AD&D, but it was really a synthesis of the Original D&D with supplements, and those continued to be available new-in-print through 1981. AD&D PHB was 1978. Sadly, Dr. Holmes' edition was left to stand alone.

1981 we get Moldvay's Basic Set - primarily covering levels 1-3, but including levels 4&5 in the DM section.
1982 we get Cook's Expert Set - Levels 4-14. 

To this point, Mystara isn't a thing. Yes, there's the Grand Duchy of Karameikos - at 6 miles per hex - but it's not the same Karameikos as in the Mystaran GAZ line. Kind of a proto-mystara.

1983 We get the first Mentzer set
May 1983 Basic 1-3
July 1983 Expert 4-14 - we get the first mystarran map here.
April 1984 Companion 15-25
June 1985 Master 26-36
June 1986 Immortal i1-i36

1988 sees the first actual Mystara centered products - Elves of Alfheim, Dwarves of Rockhome. Really, tho', Mystarra is already 5 years old, as the map and places in the Mentzer Expert map are simply being detailed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> No.



Um, yes. You need to re-read what the other guy wrote. Me not buying a product will not cancel out the purchase someone else made. WotC still gets the money from the purchase. If I were to seal a book they made, that would cost them. But than again theft is sometimes calculated in the prices right off the bat.



> However, if they only release one, they might sell more copies of the first book. D&D has one big audience and not everyone buys every book released every month or other month. One purchase comes at the expense of another. So if you can sell 50,000 copies of two books, that means you might be able to sell 30,000 or even 40,000 copies of one. And that IS more profitable.



Yes, that argument as been made multiple times. But it is a guess. They could just as well sell 50k copies of two books. Heck, making less books might mean they sell less of them because people will lose interest in the edition.



> Releasing two competing products *only* works if there's no overlap between the two audiences. Like releasing an action movie and romcom on the same weekend. If D&D had two so incompatible segments of their audience, they've have big problems. (And, arguably, this is what they're doing by releasing the board game and minis along with the RPG products.)



Or releasing one action flick one weekend and another the other or a month later. Which is pretty much what Hollywood is doing, to take our example. No one is saying WotC needs to release two products the same week. Heck, that was there plan until they cancelled the Adventurer's Handbook! Double heck, they are releasing the adventure, the boardgame and a MMO at the same. They are dividing their audience as we speak! LoL!




> PotA.
> Because no one is going to buy a turd of a Forgotten Realms campaign setting rushed out the door in two months.



Duh! Wow, that is quite the strawman. And no I'm not dodging, just saying this argument is seriously in no relations to what I said. Of course, they need to develop the book over a longer period. Duh! What I said is that if they made a FR setting a priority instead of PotA, the FR setting that would be release in April would sell more than PotA. Of course, they can't make it now. They would have needed working on it a year or two ago.

Seriously. That was some mental gymnastic to contradict me and say PotA would sell more books. 

I tell, you kids these days. 



> PotA is being written by a licenced publisher.



All exployees of WotC. 



> Because the D&D team is not large enough to have a book of that size (or the planned two books) ready for March so closely after finishing the DMG and other core books.



Yeah, I know.



> So why expect them to be able to finish an even larger book that has to be more carefully written and require even more research and feedback?



Because they would have started working on it like a year or two ago. 



> Up front cost only matters to small publishers



I was talking of the cost to customer. If a book cost 25$ it cost less than 50$. It is a simple fact. That 25$ makes it more affortable for more people. Also a simple fact. 



> I went with five 64-page books because that's the same content as one 320-page rulebook.



Yes, I understand that, but I only said one 60 pages book. It would be fun if you debated what I actually said. 

And the added value of a 60 page book is less bloat. Something people seem to really care about. 



> Paizo has noted that sales of the first volume in an AP sell best, and later volumes go down in sales. They're doing the same work for less and less money. If they printed APs as a single volume it would have the same production requirements but potentially sell better than the later volumes, leading to higher overall profit.



Better go tell them that. It seems they think otherwise. 



> If this was true, wouldn't the D&D books be cheaper than Paizo's books of the same size?



Or they printed less than Paizo, knowing they weren't as popular. Or they it justa cash grab. You know, starve fans, print a book they want, over charge them, go into dormency again. A sort of boom and bust model. 



> WotC sells far more books for many reasons, not just PDFs.



Considering they do not sell PDFs of this edition, I would say they sell less than Paizo's current edition.



> A one-time $50 fee for a 320-page book is far easier to shell out for than $25 for a 64-page book five times. Or even three times.



Hey look, that argument I didn't make. You are arguing with yourself.



> People are a tenth as likely to buy when confronted by too many choices.



You'd have a point if there were choices, but there are no choices. It is AP or screw you.


----------



## delericho (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I agree, but they are jumping off a cliff without a second parachute in case the first one isn't working.




Actually, we don't know that. All we know is what they _have_ confirmed - we won't know if they have a second parachute until the first fails to deploy.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> All employees of WotC.



_Princes of the Apocalypse_ was written and edited (and likely laid out and more) by Sasquatch games, which is an independent company from WotC. They are not employees, they are hired help. 
WotC is willing to trust a licenced company to make an adventure. They're very unlikely to trust one with their big money making campaign setting.



goldomark said:


> Double heck, they are releasing the adventure, the boardgame and a MMO at the same. They are dividing their audience as we speak! LoL!



Different audiences (kinda). There's overlap but people who play the MMO and board game might not play the TTRPG. They're not focusing on a single group of people, which is problematic.



goldomark said:


> You'd have a point if there were choices, but there are no choices. It is AP or screw you.



It is AP _*for now*_. More stuff will be coming, almost certainly in August for GenCon. That we don't know what is is doesn't change that it's coming.

WotC isn't going to risk missing the con. Even when 5e wasn't ready they had product for the con.


----------



## delericho (Mar 16, 2015)

Manchu said:


> WotC either rubber stamped it or approved it after consideration. Either way, WotC deserves a share in being criticized for any bad APs they publish.




Agreed. The books have the shiny new D&D logo on them and are published by Wizards of the Coast. It doesn't matter whether their failings (if any) were caused by WotC or their licensee; it's WotC who would get the blame.

(And, conversely, it's WotC who will get much of the credit should they produce a new classic somewhere along the line. It does cut both ways.)


----------



## DMZ2112 (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> They still propose the stories, edite the adventures and publish them. They have WotC stamp all over them. Heck, all the guys at Sasquatch Games are ex-WotC employees. At Kobold Games, it was ex-WotC employees with good rep that screwed up Tiamat.




Okay, but what are we talking about here?  Are you suggesting that no one who has ever worked at WotC can write a good adventure?  That they are all somehow tainted?  Because that knocks a lot -- and I mean a LOT -- of RPG companies out of the running, including the folks behind both Pathfinder and 13th Age.



> It certainly boost confidence in WotC.




I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.



> Or when you do not know what to do anymore. Look at Hollywood and all the remakes.
> Actually, a TV series is the medium like the is the medium. The X-Files is the adventure, the theme if you prefere. Doing a X-Files reboot only shows how much they can't innovate and just recycle stuff.




To quote Stuart Bloom from The Big Bang Theory, "Okay, if you're gonna question the importance of an actor's signature on a plastic helmet from a movie based on a comic book, then all of our lives have no meaning!"

Dungeons & Dragons is Dungeons & Dragons.  That's not to say that there can't be original thought in D&D products, but without the recurrence of certain themes, original fantasy is just original fantasy, not D&D, and some of us, at least, are here because we are /fans of D&D/.  Not fans of fantasy roleplaying, but fans of D&D.

I can and often do develop my own fantasy stories and gaming supplements that have nothing to do with D&D lore, but why on Earth would I want to buy a product like that from someone else?  I'm here for the themes.  Remove the themes and it's just someone else's fantasy setting, and while I'm sure you are all brilliant people, out there in ENWorld, for the most part I could care less about your ideas.  It's not personal, it's just that I'd rather use my own.

But D&D, like any other entertainment brand, is different.  It has 40 years of history, stories, characters, and worlds that are a shared experience among its fans.  Furthering those concepts to increase the volume of material available to those fans is not a sin.  It's not even recognizably flawed as a strategy.

And what's more, and what I think Wizards is finally starting to realize, is that fandom is to some degree self-sustaining.  Capitalize on that shared experience, and it brings new blood in on its own.  Geeks are curious, and as they pursue the answers to their questions they become fans.


----------



## Manchu (Mar 16, 2015)

delericho said:


> (And, conversely, it's WotC who will get much of the credit should they produce a new classic somewhere along the line. It does cut both ways.)



That said, I'd love to own the design studio that created a beloved 5E AP. Best advertising ever.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> If D&D had two so incompatible segments of their audience, they've have big problems. (And, arguably, this is what they're doing by releasing the board game and minis along with the RPG products.)




Diversifying might acutally work out. A portion of my disposable income is going towards both board games and video games. Got a hunch that's pretty common overlap.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 16, 2015)

neobolts said:


> Diversifying might actually work out. A portion of my disposable income is going towards both board games and video games. Got a hunch that's pretty common overlap.



That's my thoughts. Different pools of disposable income, even when the same people are in play.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

delericho said:


> Actually, we don't know that. All we know is what they _have_ confirmed - we won't know if they have a second parachute until the first fails to deploy.




It takes about a year to produce and release a book? If APs do not work, it is not like plan B is right around the corner.


----------



## Prism (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> They still propose the stories, edite the adventures and publish them. They have WotC stamp all over them. Heck, all the guys at Sasquatch Games are ex-WotC employees. At Kobold Games, it was ex-WotC employees with good rep that screwed up Tiamat.
> .




Having just had a quick look, Princes of the Apocalypse is looking much more open than HotDQ. Plenty of hooks, chose which to follow in any order etc. Maybe you are being a bit harsh since I would say Wotc have only released one adventure path so far so its hard to judge yet. Even then some liked it while others didn't so not a complete fail as you suggest


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> _Princes of the Apocalypse_ was written and edited (and likely laid out and more) by Sasquatch games, which is an independent company from WotC.



Yeah, I know. But all the guys who work at SG are all ex-employees of WotC, I believe. I made a mistake when I said employees. They are ex-employees.



> Different audiences (kinda). There's overlap but people who play the MMO and board game might not play the TTRPG. They're not focusing on a single group of people, which is problematic.



I'd be curious to see how much overlap there is. I mean they could have continued with the boardgames even when 4e wasn't being printed. If they didn't need the RPG, why not continue? If they need the RPG has a sort of train that pulls the rest, well, it means there is more overlap than we might think. But then, three books or an adventure, a boardgame and a MMO at the same time, twice a year, what is the difference saturation-wise?



> It is AP _*for now*_. More stuff will be coming, almost certainly in August for GenCon. That we don't know what is is doesn't change that it's coming.



The info that random house (I think it was random house) released said that 8 products were beign released in 2015. Difficult to know what is a product. We know it included PotA and the Adventurer's handbook. Did they count the three novels that are being released this year? That would make five products. Did they count the spell cards and the DM deluxe screen and the minis? If not, well it could some space for another AP and a companion plus one mysterious product. But since none of them have been announced, they could all be non-cancel by now.



> WotC isn't going to risk missing the con. Even when 5e wasn't ready they had product for the con.



They could announce something instead of releasing something. at GenCon If they release something in October it would put six months between PotA and the new AP. They could always announce something for 2016. Too many books hurt D&D, right?


----------



## delericho (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It takes about a year to produce and release a book? If APs do not work, it is not like plan B is right around the corner.




Assuming they don't have two of their eight people working on it right now. It seems they have a very small team, but when you consider the list of things we know they're working on, that actually still leaves some leeway. Maybe.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> They could announce something instead of releasing something. at GenCon If they release something in October it would put six months between PotA and the new AP. They could always announce something for 2016. Too many books hurt D&D, right?



The Encounter season for PotA is from March to August, so the next storyline will be then.

Even in 2013, when 4e had been dead for over a year, they still managed to have a physical release at GenCon. They're almost certain to have a big book of crunch released in and around then.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 16, 2015)

They also seem to be working with considerably less lead time than in the past. I mean, they announced a delay of the DMG by a couple of weeks, _after the MM was released_, because they still had tweaking to do.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> Okay, but what are we talking about here?  Are you suggesting that no one who has ever worked at WotC can write a good adventure?  That they are all somehow tainted?  Because that knocks a lot -- and I mean a LOT -- of RPG companies out of the running, including the folks behind both Pathfinder and 13th Age.



Nah. All I'm saying is that subcontract doesn't mean WotC gets to escape its reputation with adventures, because the guys writting it are from WotC and WotC is overseeing the whole thing. 



> I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.



It was sarcasm. What you said didn't boost confidence.



> To quote Stuart Bloom from The Big Bang Theory, "Okay, if you're gonna question the importance of an actor's signature on a plastic helmet from a movie based on a comic book, then all of our lives have no meaning!"
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons is Dungeons & Dragons.  That's not to say that there can't be original thought in D&D products, but without the recurrence of certain themes, original fantasy is just original fantasy, not D&D, and some of us, at least, are here because we are /fans of D&D/.  Not fans of fantasy roleplaying, but fans of D&D.
> 
> ...



Not sure this is what they are doing by rehashing Tharizdun so sooon after the last rehashing (Abyssal Plague), and the previous one... To be honest, I was actually enthousiastic with the Abyssal Plague's premise of cross-setting novels/adventures. It just didn't have traction. Now I'm meh.

What D&D is about is sword and sorcery/fantasy. Why not further those concepts? The most iconic thing that comes to mind is PCs ended up on Earth in 1918 fighting Rasputin to free Baba-Yaga. That is some new iconic material right there with some familiar faces. Tharizdun, Tiamat, Lolth, Castle Ravenloft, Undermountain, they've been done. Give them a rest.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> The Encounter season for PotA is from March to August, so the next storyline will be then.



There were a few months between the begining of the current Encounter and the end of the previous one, if I am not mistaken.



> Even in 2013, when 4e had been dead for over a year, they still managed to have a physical release at GenCon. They're almost certain to have a big book of crunch released in and around then.



Maybe. Maybe not. Remember, too many books hurt D&D. Maybe one AP is a year is more than enough and nothing has been announced, so it all can be non-cancel.


----------



## Bugleyman (Mar 16, 2015)

fjw70 said:


> Hopefully it's pdfs of their 5e products. Or some non-cloud based electronic version of the books.




If only.  I'm pretty sure that is never going to happen...though in this case I'd love to be proven wrong.


----------



## Halivar (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Nah. All I'm saying is that subcontract doesn't mean WotC gets to escape its reputation with adventures, because the guys writting it are from WotC and WotC is overseeing the whole thing.



That doesn't seem to be hurting Paizo or Monte Cook Games.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> There were a few months between the begining of the current Encounter and the end of the previous one, if I am not mistaken.



The Hoard of the Dragon Queen Expeditions accessory puts that season from August 20th to March 11th. The Elemental Evil one puts the season March 2015 to August 2015. 
So there's no real gap. 



goldomark said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. Remember, too many books hurt D&D. Maybe one AP is a year is more than enough and nothing has been announced, so it all can be non-cancel.



Too many books is bad. One big splatbook per annum isn't likely to be too many. Especially if they stop after a couple years. 
But if they want to just release the next AP and give us a free PDF, I'm cool with that too. More room for me to design my own stuff.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Wow. Considering the lengths you go to complain about others putting words in your mouth, that's pretty brutal.



But the direct quote from you comparing Paizo to WotC was that it was a smaller pond.  And I clearly said "if you both think".

If you DON'T think that, please clarify and I'll happily retract.

If you do think that, do you have the honesty to retract your complaint about putting words in your mouth?



> The rpg market has shrunk over the last five to ten years. The market was pegged at 30 million per year and is now pegged at about twelve. At least that's what's been stated.



So after saying I was "brutal" to put words in your mouth, you are putting those same words in your own mouth.  Ok.



> You're confusing correlation with causation.



I'm not even saying it is true.  So how could I possibly be proclaiming anything about causation?

But it is beyond amusing that you insist on no evidence whatsoever that Essentials and 3.5 may only possibly have one matching causation and then say this when it isn't remotely true of me.

Again, you clearly have yourself wrapped in knots.


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 16, 2015)

GAMA Trade show just started today. Wizards is a Cosponsor. ( They're higher on the marquee than any other publisher. ) They have a two hour block of time in a room today, 7-9pm. They have an entire room tomorrow, 11am-7pm. I expect news to begin to trickle out pretty soon. Furthermore, I'm sure they're readying a public announcement of their plans over the coming year. Just a little more patience.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> "Strawman" is overused in online discussions. Too often it's just used as an excuse to just ignore what someone said (for right or wrong), only while drawing attention to the fact you're ignoring it rather than just not replying or cutting that part out of your reply. I always have to fight not to just ctrl-W when I see "strawman" pop up. But that's my baggage...



So don't use strawmen.  
Bad use of the term doesn't mean correct use does not exist.  And pointing at bad use of the term doesn't excuse using straw men.



> You described one hardback a year in the post following the one I was replying to. I hadn't read that yet.



You quote me saying that in the same reply.  Clearly you read it before you clicked "submit".

But that aside, when did I at any point say anything to justify you emotionally charged "eating disorder" claims?
You should have known what I meant if you were paying attention and being thoughtful instead of knee-jerk reactionary.
But at best you simply had no idea.  



> How about, oh, Basic D&D?
> You had levels 1-3 from 1977 to 1981, then 4-14 until '83, 26-36 in '84, and 36+ in 1985. Some revisions in 1991 and that lasted until Basic ended in 2000 with 3e. Two or three rules accessories for 23 years, with only minor revisions to the ruleset. Almost everything released for Basic was either an adventure or related to the world of Mystara.



Funny how you dropped "modern market" from the conversation in a hurry.
And funny how you don't count all the continuations of basic.
And funny how you ignore that Basic was being crushed in market presence by the flooded (to the point of oversaturation) alternative of AD&D.





> Six years is nothing. I've purchased new rulebooks books too many times in the fifteen years. 5e was my last. It's simple enough that it'll make a good first RPG for my son (in 6-8 years) but classic enough to be D&D and introduce him to the hobby. If we see 6e in 2021 I'm so done.



First, I've heard the "I'm done" from a lot of people before.  We saw 5E in less than 6 years from 4e.  Why are you not done already?  

That said, I don't know if a 5E drop would bring on 6E or just push D&D into a few years of dormancy.  So I can't predict much on that.
But I can predict that if the 5E release schedule stays aligned with the currently publicized rate, the market presence will have shrunk very notably in far less than 6 years.
(And I think that the release schedule part of that will change quickly before we get there)



> You asked how long is long term? I think at least a decade is good. If not more.
> If ever, really. I'll happily accept some small revisions (ala the Basic changes or even 4e to Essentials), some reprints with errata and small tweaks. But I don't see why we really *need* a new edition. They got this one right. 1e and 2e were full of warts, 3e had some balance issues, 4e was... divisive. But 5e is just right. I don't think we *need* a new edition so much as a revision or reprinting with minor tweaks. D&D isn't a game console where the tech keeps changing and you need to upgrade. While game design evolves over time, 5e's mix of modern and nostalgia keeps it timeless and its modularity should make it easy to accommodate new innovations in gaming.
> I wonder if people think we'll see a 6e only because we've seen edition changes before so it's accepted. We *think* editions need to change and so we accept 6e as inevitable.
> 
> But this is likely off topic, or worthy of its own thread.




Agreed that this is a different topic.

But, ultimately, if they don't go up to some level of minimal "splat" type support, it will hurt the market presence (by which I mean how many people are playing) of the game.


----------



## Jester David (Mar 17, 2015)

BryonD said:


> So don't use strawmen.
> Bad use of the term doesn't mean correct use does not exist.  And pointing at bad use of the term doesn't excuse using straw men.



Aaaaand we're done here. Good day sir.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 17, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> GAMA Trade show just started today. Wizards is a Cosponsor. ( They're higher on the marquee than any other publisher. ) They have a two hour block of time in a room today, 7-9pm. They have an entire room tomorrow, 11am-7pm. I expect news to begin to trickle out pretty soon. Furthermore, I'm sure they're readying a public announcement of their plans over the coming year. Just a little more patience.



That is very exciting.  I'll cross my fingers for some sort of announcement.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Aaaaand we're done here. Good day sir.




Cool

Use logical fallacy.  Coverup logical fallacy by leaving conversation in feign disgust over having your logical fallacy flagged.

Actually quite fitting and much easier than defending.

If that is all you got, then yeah, me too.  

*Mod Note:*  Ladies and Gents, we expect our posters to *show respect* for each other.  There is precious little of that here, so please do not use this as a model for your own discussions.    ~Umbran


----------



## Bugleyman (Mar 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Aaaaand we're done here. Good day sir.




You, sir, are a wiser man than me.


----------



## graves3141 (Mar 17, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> GAMA Trade show just started today. Wizards is a Cosponsor. ( They're higher on the marquee than any other publisher. ) They have a two hour block of time in a room today, 7-9pm. They have an entire room tomorrow, 11am-7pm. I expect news to begin to trickle out pretty soon. Furthermore, I'm sure they're readying a public announcement of their plans over the coming year. Just a little more patience.




I hope you're right... some news about their future products would be very cool and also give us something new to talk about.  I'm hoping for a campaign setting confirmation myself, maybe in the form of a boxed set the same size as the Starter Set?  That would be about perfect.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 17, 2015)

graves3141 said:


> I hope you're right... some news about their future products would be very cool and also give us something new to talk about.  I'm hoping for a campaign setting confirmation myself, maybe in the form of a boxed set the same size as the Starter Set?  That would be about perfect.



That would be really damn sexy.  Having something new to argue about other than everyone's straw man arguments.


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 17, 2015)

graves3141 said:


> I hope you're right... some news about their future products would be very cool and also give us something new to talk about.  I'm hoping for a campaign setting confirmation myself, maybe in the form of a boxed set the same size as the Starter Set?  That would be about perfect.




Box sets are too expensive to be general RPG products. Besides starter sets and anniversary sets, who's made a box set RPG in the past ten years? ( And I'm quite certain someone will turn some up. Doesn't matter, they're too expensive for general use. )


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 17, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> Box sets are too expensive to be general RPG products. Besides starter sets and anniversary sets, who's made a box set RPG in the past ten years? ( And I'm quite certain someone will turn some up. Doesn't matter, they're too expensive for general use. )



I just think of them as a good way to package maps with a campaign setting.


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 17, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> I just think of them as a good way to package maps with a campaign setting.




These days, it's all about sticking a map in the back of the book with snot. ( I *think* that's the technical term. Sure feels like it. )


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 17, 2015)

Believe me, I miss box sets, too. But there's a reason you don't really see them all that often these days.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 17, 2015)

Halivar said:


> That doesn't seem to be hurting Paizo or Monte Cook Games.




So the problem is just WotC.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 17, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> The Hoard of the Dragon Queen Expeditions accessory puts that season from August 20th to March 11th. The Elemental Evil one puts the season March 2015 to August 2015.
> So there's no real gap.



The last downloadable adventure for play in stores was released December 1st 2014. http://dndadventurersleague.org/tyranny-of-dragons-premier-adventures/ The other adventures are available only at Cons if I understood correctly. 

For EE it is a bit unclear. Adventures could be available in March in Cons and maybe April for stores. 
http://dndadventurersleague.org/storyline-seasons/elemental-evil/

I see Tyranny stopping in december for most people, but I guess March could work if we just consider Cons.

So I guess they are planning release in September if all goes well with the developement. October wasn't too far off. It is true March was the the original month of release. 



> Too many books is bad. One big splatbook per annum isn't likely to be too many.



Who knows?



> Especially if they stop after a couple years.





Spoiler



View attachment 67449





> But if they want to just release the next AP and give us a free PDF, I'm cool with that too. More room for me to design my own stuff.



I'm not sure other APs will get a free PDF. This PDF was supposed to be a splatbook, but it got cancelled. Instead of shelving it and wasting the money invested in it, they decided to give people free goodies. If too many books are bad, the next AP just won't see a companion being develop, so no free PDF to give people.

The other reason why it could have been dropped is that it was too hard to develop two books at a time for SG and/or WotC. So maybe they could be more prepared for the next release. If it happens.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm not sure other APs will get a free PDF. This PDF was supposed to be a splatbook, but it got cancelled. Instead of shelving it and wasting the money invested in it, they decided to give people free goodies. If too many books are bad, the next AP just won't see a companion being develop, so no free PDF to give people.
> 
> The other reason why it could have been dropped is that it was too hard to develop two books at a time for SG and/or WotC. So maybe they could be more prepared for the next release. If it happens.




Perhaps, but those spells and the genasi are both from the Princes of the Apocalypse book, so they may continue to produce new material for the modules and then put it in the pdfs. 

I mean, the only "cancelled" material that was in the pdf that wasn't in PotA is the goliath, deep gnomes, ans aarakroca.


----------



## Halivar (Mar 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So the problem is just WotC.



I was implying that Paizo and MCG, being stacked with ex-WotC employees, are disproofs of your assertion that ex-WotC employees have a Curse of Doom reputation.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 17, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I was implying that Paizo and MCG, being stacked with ex-WotC employees, are disproofs of your assertion that ex-WotC employees have a Curse of Doom reputation.




Heh, that is not what I said. Better check the posts again.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 17, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Perhaps, but those spells and the genasi are both from the Princes of the Apocalypse book, so they may continue to produce new material for the modules and then put it in the pdfs.
> 
> I mean, the only "cancelled" material that was in the pdf that wasn't in PotA is the goliath, deep gnomes, ans aarakroca.




But originally, were they supposed to be in the AP or in the Handbook that got cancelled? 

From The original ad copys, the splatbook was supposed to have the races 







> An accessory that expands the number of options available for character creation for the Elemental Evil story arc, providing expanded backgrounds, class builds, and races meant specifically for this campaign.




and the AP was supposed to be DM centric 







> A super-adventure for the Elemental Evil story arc, Princes of the Apocalypse provides everything a Dungeon Master needs to create an exciting and memorable play experience.



.

It seems they transfered stuff from the splatbook to the AP once it got flushed. At least plausibly.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. Remember, too many books hurt D&D. Maybe one AP is a year is more than enough and nothing has been announced, so it all can be non-cancel.




I think our problem is that we want a fairly rapid release schedule, but we don't want dozens of books in stores in a year or two. Unfortunately, the latter kind of follows from the former.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 17, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> Box sets are too expensive to be general RPG products. Besides starter sets and anniversary sets, who's made a box set RPG in the past ten years? ( And I'm quite certain someone will turn some up. Doesn't matter, they're too expensive for general use. )




In the first post-release survey, they _did_ ask about boxed sets.

Personally, I love them, at least if they're done right. In order to justify the box, you need doodads - a box with just one or two books (that could easily have been one big book) plus a map is rather pointless. I'm thinking several maps - the 2e FRCS had four of them, two large-scale (90 miles per inch) covering all of Faerûn and two small-scale (30 miles per inch) covering the Heartlands - as well as handouts and stuff.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 17, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> Box sets are too expensive to be general RPG products. Besides starter sets and anniversary sets, who's made a box set RPG in the past ten years? ( And I'm quite certain someone will turn some up. Doesn't matter, they're too expensive for general use. )




Slipcover Sets:  Cubicle 7  (The One Ring core, 1E).
Boxed Sets proper: Cubicle 7 (Dr Who) and Green Ronin (Dragon Age). Oh, and when it comes out, Flying Buffalo's T&T Deluxe.

Those are just the ones that come immediately to mind. Several others are out there, mostly as kickstarters, but not always.


----------



## delericho (Mar 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm not sure other APs will get a free PDF. This PDF was supposed to be a splatbook, but it got cancelled. Instead of shelving it and wasting the money invested in it, they decided to give people free goodies. If too many books are bad, the next AP just won't see a companion being develop, so no free PDF to give people.




I think we will. I'm inclined to think that the non-cancellation was due to a replanning that saw them shift to a free PDF player's guide instead of an in-print supplement.

It's a good idea to provide a limited amount of player-side material for your current storyline - this helps players tie their characters in with that specific campaign, and also gives them the interest of playing with some new options. And by keeping it small and free, they also have easy justification for saying that groups can use the PG for the current campaign but not for previous campaigns, which helps mitigate bloat (even the very slow bloat of a 25-page PDF every six months).

It's a good strategy, and it works for Paizo. So I think they'll continue with it.

But... I suspect the amount of _new_ material in the Player's Guides may well decrease as some things are repeated over time. For example, they may reuse Deep Gnomes for their "Underdark" storyline.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 17, 2015)

Staffan said:


> I think our problem is that we want a fairly rapid release schedule, but we don't want dozens of books in stores in a year or two. Unfortunately, the latter kind of follows from the former.




I'm not really seeing people asking for a "rapid release schedule".

As far as I can tell, "people" want two things:

1) To have some fairly solid idea as to what is coming out (as in the nature of the product, not just a vague name) and when. Why wouldn't hurt, either.

2) For those books to not just be attached to some WotC-decided "D&D story", but rather to support us telling our own stories.

I also personally feel like there's a desire for any splatbooks/rules expansions to be a bit more, well, solid, than the free one. I mean, fair play, it was free, but had someone tried to sell me that, in hardback, for say, £15 or more, I'd have been very irritated. If future splatbooks will be similarly lightweight but actually charged for? Yikes...


----------



## BryonD (Mar 17, 2015)

delericho said:


> I think we will. I'm inclined to think that the non-cancellation was due to a replanning that saw them shift to a free PDF player's guide instead of an in-print supplement.
> 
> It's a good strategy, and it works for Paizo. So I think they'll continue with it.



I think you are exactly right as to the plan.

But "it works for Paizo" still includes more new things to buy.  There is something new every month if you count everything, and one solid hardback "splat" a year if you are very selective in your counting.

I expect something in this direction will inevitably appear because the demand will drive it.


----------



## jayoungr (Mar 17, 2015)

Personally, I'm expecting all the new modules/APs will have free PDFs.  HotDQ and RoT both did, and PotA is continuing the trend.

The content of the free PDFs will probably vary in amount and variety, though.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Mar 17, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I was implying that Paizo and MCG, being stacked with ex-WotC employees, are disproofs of your assertion that ex-WotC employees have a Curse of Doom reputation.






goldomark said:


> Heh, that is not what I said. Better check the posts again.




If it's not what you said, you did a pretty terrible job of saying what you did say.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 17, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> If it's not what you said, you did a pretty terrible job of saying what you did say.




Me: WotC has a bad rep with adventures.
Others: WotC is subcontracting.
Me: WotC is supervising/editing and the freelancers hired are ex-WotC employees. 
Others: You saying ex-WotC are a Curse of Doom reputation! 
Me: Not what I said. lol. 
You: Nuh-huh!
Me: Me: WotC has a bad rep with adventures.
Others: WotC is subcontracting.
Me: WotC is supervising/editing and the freelancers hired are ex-WotC employees. 
Others: You saying ex-WotC are a Curse of Doom reputation! 
Me: Not what I said. lol. 
You: Nuh-huh!


----------



## DMZ2112 (Mar 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Me: WotC has a bad rep with adventures.
> Others: WotC is subcontracting.
> Me: WotC is supervising/editing and the freelancers hired are ex-WotC employees.
> Others: You saying ex-WotC are a Curse of Doom reputation!
> ...




Hm.  Okay.



			
				DMZ2112 said:
			
		

> Okay, but what are we talking about here? Are you suggesting that no one who has ever worked at WotC can write a good adventure? That they are all somehow tainted? Because that knocks a lot -- and I mean a LOT -- of RPG companies out of the running, including the folks behind both Pathfinder and 13th Age.






			
				goldomark said:
			
		

> Nah. All I'm saying is that subcontract doesn't mean WotC gets to escape its reputation with adventures, because the guys writting it are from WotC and WotC is overseeing the whole thing.






> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-Big-Reveal-quot-Coming/page27#ixzz3UfrLGYfd




For what it is worth, I believe that you do not think ex-employees of WotC have a "Curse of Doom reputation."  I can get that much from your tone.  But make no mistake, you are failing to communicate that point in text, even in your entirely self-manufactured back and forth dialogue at the top of this post.  I hope that is clear.  I'm not accusing you of anything beyond poor rhetoric.  

Neither Halivar nor myself can be faulted for assuming that your opinion is exactly what you state it to be.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 17, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> For what it is worth, I believe that you do not think ex-employees of WotC have a "Curse of Doom reputation."  I can get that much from your tone. But make no mistake, you are failing to communicate that point in text, even in your entirely self-manufactured back and forth dialogue at the top of this post. I hope that is clear. I'm not accusing you of anything beyond poor rhetoric.
> 
> Neither Halivar nor myself can be faulted for assuming that your opinion is exactly what you state it to be.



What is clear is that people are trying to make me say what I didn't say.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 17, 2015)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm not really seeing people asking for a "rapid release schedule".




I do. Most folks don't seem to be asking for a return to the full volume of the 2E - 4E era, but certainly a more rapid release than we are getting now. Of course, what the "correct" volume of product is, changes with each fan.



> 1) To have some fairly solid idea as to what is coming out (as in the nature of the product, not just a vague name) and when. Why wouldn't hurt, either.




I do think a lot us, even those of us who aren't complaining, would love to see more information about WotC's release plans, that much is obvious. I certainly would. But we do not have a "right" to this information, and we can go on living our lives and playing our D&D games in a happy and healthy manner without it. The folks who are just cranking out the whine, the complaints, and the "WotC is stoopid" vitriol have become more than irritating. Move on, worry about something real for a change.



> 2) For those books to not just be attached to some WotC-decided "D&D story", but rather to support us telling our own stories.




Eh, YMMV. Different fans want different things. WotC's marketing is pretty top notch, and I think they do a pretty good job of giving the fanbase what it wants and needs. If they had more resources, we would probably see more product volume (although, not a lot more), with more variety. And the "quality" of the work produced is always subjective, lots of complaints that Tyranny of Dragons is awful, and also lots of kudos that Tyranny of Dragons is awesome. As usual, again, YMMV.



> I also personally feel like there's a desire for any splatbooks/rules expansions to be a bit more, well, solid, than the free one. I mean, fair play, it was free, but had someone tried to sell me that, in hardback, for say, £15 or more, I'd have been very irritated. If future splatbooks will be similarly lightweight but actually charged for? Yikes...




_"I won't complain about free stuff, but here's my complaint about the free stuff."_

If we had got a hardback Elemental Evil Player's Guide, it would have been more meaty. It may not have been more crunchy, but it would have been a full book. And I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks the amount of elemental crunch we got is PERFECT. Avoiding bloat is not just about a high volume of splat products, but also limited the crunch in the products you do deliver.


----------



## jayoungr (Mar 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Me: WotC is supervising/editing and the freelancers hired are ex-WotC employees.



As a non-involved outsider reading this thread, my question from this summary is--what is the significance of the freelancers being ex-WotC employees, if you're not saying that ex-WotC employees have a Curse of Doom?  I believe you when you say that's not what you mean, but it's hard to see why you bring it up if that's not meant to suggest that ex-WotC writers make the adventures worse somehow.  And if you do think it makes the adventures worse, I'm not sure in what way.  So ... can you clarify?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 17, 2015)

jayoungr said:


> As a non-involved outsider reading this thread, my question from this summary is--what is the significance of the freelancers being ex-WotC employees, if you're not saying that ex-WotC employees have a Curse of Doom?  I believe you when you say that's not what you mean, but it's hard to see why you bring it up if that's not meant to suggest that ex-WotC writers make the adventures worse somehow.  And if you do think it makes the adventures worse, I'm not sure in what way.  So ... can you clarify?



Sigh.

Why I said that matters. 

I said: WotC has a bad rep when it comes to adventures. 

The response to what I said was this: Yeah, but WotC isn't designing the adventure. Outsiders are. 

My response to that can be read as: They aren't really outsiders. They are ex-WotC employees. They aren't bringing an outsider's perspective to WotC's adventure. Notice, and it will be mind blowing when you'll read it, that I never said that ex-designers, or current ones for that matter, have a bad rep! Very complex obviously. Word used mean what they were ment to say and not some nefarious subtext bashing your favorite brand of RPG! I also added that WotC is involved in the process, so that is another argument to defend my original point that WotC's bad rep is still a concern.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 18, 2015)

Goldomark - it is not the responsibility of the reader to try to read your mind.  More than one person has told you directly that they are reading what you are saying a certain way.  That you didn't mean that doesn't really matter.  What it means is that your intended meaning is not clear and you need to step back, and try to clarify or reiterate your point in another manner.

It is the responsibility of the speaker to be understood, not the listener's to try to second guess what you mean.  If you think people are putting words in your mouth, then obviously there's been a breakdown in communication somewhere and it's up to you to fix that.

--------

And, sure, we'd all love for WOTC to be more forthcoming.  But, guess what?  After the past four or five years, do you think there's the slightest chance of that happening?  Really?  After the crucifying that people did of WOTC during 4e over every perceived slight?  Heck, look at the whole Morningstar debacle.  Morningstar approaches WOTC (not the other way around) to do some sort of electronic character generator and rules package.  Morningstar announces what they are doing and engages with the fans quite extensively - posting here on En World, talking about the product, background on the developers, and then a beta test of the system.  Fans are all excited.

Then something goes sideways.  We don't know what.  But, now the product is cancelled.  You get several passive aggressive "fanfic" style communications from the Morningstar team basically putting all the blame on WOTC and, now, what, six months later, people are still bitching about it.

Note, at no point in time did WOTC actually say or do anything.  Yet the failure is blamed on them.  They didn't announce this product.  They didn't hype it.  They didn't try to build up anything.  Yet, when it went sideways, they take the blame and we get cries of "Vaporware" and "WOTC can't do electronic products!" over and over again.

So, again, do you really think it's in their interests to be 100% transparent with fans who will make no attempt whatsoever to be reasonable?  That no matter what WOTC does, unless it's precisely what that group of fans wants, that group of fans will rabidly attack WOTC endlessly?  I mean, good grief, you've got a 30 page thread right now bitching about what WOTC's doing.  Imagine how bad it would be if they actually DID start saying things.

Honestly, you don't have to imagine.  All you have to do is surf back to the 4e days of En World and you'll see exactly what happens when WOTC actively engages the fandom in an attempt to be transparent.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 18, 2015)

And, in case anyone's going to start jumping on me for white knighting WOTC, I'll point to you exhibit A:  At Least 4 Months for Conversion Documents

Here we have WOTC being forthcoming and explaining why we don't have a conversion document.  Fair enough, this is exactly what people have been asking for - more clarity.  And here's a selection of responses:



GlobeOfDankness said:


> wouldn't it be easier to just pass the work onto someone who doesn't have jury duty? this seems more like PR lies to me than anything.






Mark CMG said:


> If it were someone who only needed authority and not actual D&D knowledge, I would think they could pass it over or up to someone else to get it done.  This is the edition that was supposed to bring everyone back home.  So, one would think that having a conversion doc in place was a priority at some stage.  On the other hand, since the concern has been on the back burner this long already, I'm guessing it holds little importance to WotC to get it done.  Either having it in a timely manner simply has never been a priority or it runs counter to other priorities.






Mark CMG said:


> It's two weeks early for April Fools Day.






Zaran said:


> So I guess they are just sitting around the office looking at all the empty cubicles playing solitaire and working on their home campaigns until the boss comes back.




See how fans come together and are understanding when WOTC actually does try to engage?


----------



## Greatwyrm (Mar 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> See how fans come together and are understanding when WOTC actually does try to engage?




I've been gone for a while.  Is Mike Mearls ruining everything again?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Here we have WOTC being forthcoming and explaining why we don't have a conversion document.  Fair enough, (. . .)





"Fair enough" that a division of a multi-billion dollar, international corporation leaves something sitting on someone's desk for four months because the employee can't make it to work?  That's not what I called a reasonable explanation.  You seem to conflate being transparent with not being expected to operate competently.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

Quote Originally Posted by Ruin Explorer View Post
I'm not really seeing people asking for a "rapid release schedule".

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-Big-Reveal-quot-Coming/page30#ixzz3UhLD4jZa




Dire Bare said:


> I do. Most folks don't seem to be asking for a return to the full volume of the 2E - 4E era, but certainly a more rapid release than we are getting now.




So you are saying that anything above what we are seeing now meets the definition of "rapid"?
You have changed "rapid" to "more rapid".  But if you are honestly disputing his statement then your "more rapid" is more absolute than relative.

Or are you just defining the center as the extreme?

Seriously, there are ZERO anticipated splats.  If you think ZERO is the right number, then cool, say so.  But please engage the chorus of calls for "something" on a fair and reasonable basis.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> See how fans come together and are understanding when WOTC actually does try to engage?




Track record is important.  They really need to establish a run of where they "engage" in ways that don't involve dropping the ball.

The request is just "say something....  anything, just speak."  There is a (apparently unreasonable) expectation of treating customers like people that should be catered to.

The whole company is bottle-necked by ONE GUY with zero contingency even in the case of an extended absence?



5E is awesome.    I personally don't care anymore about the conversation tools.  
But, sheesh, give us something to applaud.
If the DMG was the end of the good run, just say that even.


----------



## chriton227 (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> "Fair enough" that a division of a multi-billion dollar, international corporation leaves something sitting on someone's desk for four months because the employee can't make it to work?  That's not what I called a reasonable explanation.  You seem to conflate being transparent with not being expected to operate competently.




Maybe because in the overall scheme of things for a multi-billion dollar international company, approving a giveaway document for a small product line for a small division is a low priority, especially if the primary purpose of that document is to allow people to use stuff they already own instead of purchasing new products when they are brought to market? Only someone who really understands the D&D customers and the long term positive impacts of a conversion document would understand the value and need to prioritize the document, and I wouldn't expect the vast majority of the  staff at Hasbro to have that level of understanding of such a niche brand.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

chriton227 said:


> Maybe because in the overall scheme of things for a multi-billion dollar international company, approving a giveaway document for a small product line for a small division is a low priority, especially if the primary purpose of that document is to allow people to use stuff they already own instead of purchasing new products when they are brought to market? Only someone who really understands the D&D customers and the long term positive impacts of a conversion document would understand the value and need to prioritize the document, and I wouldn't expect the vast majority of the  staff at Hasbro to have that level of understanding of such a niche brand.





That's what I would call a fascinating level of transparency, if that was their explanation but they said someone is out of the office and no one is covering that aspect of his job.  I suppose one might take it to imply what you have posted rather than that they have cut their staff to the bone and can't free up someone else to cover for the person out of the office.  You're right that we don't know what truly is happening in their offices or what the situation truly is.  All we do know is what they told us and that they obviously think their customer base would think the explanation is adequate.  I certainly can't believe they'd give us such an explanation if they thought it would produce a backlash.


----------



## chriton227 (Mar 18, 2015)

BryonD said:


> The whole company is bottle-necked by ONE GUY with zero contingency even in the case of an extended absence?




One freebie product being held up doesn't equate to "the whole company is bottle-necked", and that sort of intentional hyperbole does nothing but muddy the discussion and undermine your position. In the last month the EE Players Companion came out, the mass combat Unearthed Arcana was posted, they processed the results of their first feedback survey and put together the second survey, posted several other announcements and minor articles on their website (I count 21 postings total in the last month), had some of the WotC staff do a live game at PAX East (effectively a marketing appearance), and I'm sure they spent a fair amount of effort prepping for their presentations at the GAMA Trade Show this week.  Looking forward all signs still point to Princes of the Apocalypse still releasing in 3 weeks.  That doesn't sound too bad to me for a product division that only has a little over a dozen staff, especially if you consider that the list was only what is visible to the public and doesn't include anything they aren't ready to talk about yet or any of the boring day-to-day time consuming things that go on behind the scenes at any company.



BryonD said:


> Track record is important. They really need to establish a run of where they "engage" in ways that don't involve dropping the ball.
> 
> The request is just "say something.... anything, just speak." There is a (apparently unreasonable) expectation of treating customers like people that should be catered to.




So which is it? Do you want them to only engage when they have something to say that isn't "dropping the ball" like an announcement of a product delay, or do you want them to "say something.... anything, just speak"?  Unless I am completely misunderstanding what you wrote, it sounds to me like like you are asking them to do two contradictory things, to only give good news but then to also say anything. 

One lesson that just about every successful business learns at some point is that there are some customers that are not worth catering to, whether it is because of unreasonable demands, an excessive amount of your employees time they consume relative to their purchases, unnecessary stress the particular customer inflicts upon your staff through their attitude, or even that the customer's presence drives off other customers.  The customers here on EN World complaining about WotC's engagement amount to a very small portion of their overall customer base (a couple dozen people at most out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of tabletop gamers), and if WotC doesn't think the folks complaining here are representative of their broader customer base they may have decided that the demands of this particular subset of the customer base aren't worth catering to.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 18, 2015)

Personally I think it explains why Chris ended up producing 7 years of stories - no one was there to tell him to stop! =;0)


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

chriton227 said:


> One freebie product being held up doesn't equate to "the whole company is bottle-necked", and that sort of intentional hyperbole does nothing but muddy the discussion



For the topic at hand they "one freebie product" but the whole company (apparently) can't move it along because of one person.  This is the definition of "bottle-necked, when a large system is stopped by one small gateway.



> So which is it? Do you want them to only engage when they have something to say that isn't "dropping the ball" like an announcement of a product delay, or do you want them to "say something.... anything, just speak"?  Unless I am completely misunderstanding what you wrote, it sounds to me like like you are asking them to do two contradictory things, to only give good news but then to also say anything.




It isn't an either or.  Who says it is an either or?  In my opinion, if they want good feedback they need to BOTH communicate and succeed at doing things.  I'm sorry of you find that not reasonable.



> One lesson that just about every successful business learns at some point is that there are some customers that are not worth catering to, whether it is because of unreasonable demands, an excessive amount of your employees time they consume relative to their purchases, unnecessary stress the particular customer inflicts upon your staff through their attitude, or even that the customer's presence drives off other customers.  The customers here on EN World complaining about WotC's engagement amount to a very small portion of their overall customer base (a couple dozen people at most out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of tabletop gamers), and if WotC doesn't think the folks complaining here are representative of their broader customer base they may have decided that the demands of this particular subset of the customer base aren't worth catering to.




Ah yes, the ever popular, we don't need you "you're fired" response.  

Good luck with that.

If you want to pretend that a couple dozen people have zero representation of the overall market, you are fooling yourself.
It is funny that half the replies I get are about how my predictions of WotC losing fans is wrong and the other half (mostly from the same people) are about how outrageous it is that fans are not more patient with WotC.


One lesson that consistently successful business people learn is you have to go the extra mile to make customers happy.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> That's what I would call a fascinating level of transparency, if that was their explanation but they said someone is out of the office and no one is covering that aspect of his job.  I suppose one might take it to imply what you have posted rather than that they have cut their staff to the bone and can't free up someone else to cover for the person out of the office.  You're right that we don't know what truly is happening in their offices or what the situation truly is.  All we do know is what they told us and that they obviously think their customer base would think the explanation is adequate.  I certainly can't believe they'd give us such an explanation if they thought it would produce a backlash.




Why isn't the explanation adequate in your eyes? There's eight people working on D&D, and the one who was in charge of the conversion docs isn't going to be able to do it for a couple of months. How much more detail do they need to go into? What situation is "truly is happening in their offices" that you're uncertain of, besides the obvious, that there's a very small team working on D&D stuff right now?


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Ah yes, the ever popular, we don't need you "you're fired" response.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> ...




Except that those couple dozen people (and by extension the segment of the overall market they represent) have all bought the core books already, so Wizards can and should safely tune them out at this point. It would be one thing if they were still trying to cater to that market with the sort of supplements they're looking to purchase, but they're clearly not interesting in selling those kinds of products. Instead they're targeting another market with an entirely different set of products and so should probably just focus on that instead getting absolutely nothing out of taking steps to address riotous online fanboy outrage that probably can't be quieted no matter what they do.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Why isn't the explanation adequate in your eyes? There's eight people working on D&D, and the one who was in charge of the conversion docs isn't going to be able to do it for a couple of months. How much more detail do they need to go into? What situation is "truly is happening in their offices" that you're uncertain of, besides the obvious, that there's a very small team working on D&D stuff right now?





I find that to be more than enough to foster incredulity.  They're a subsidiary of an international, multi-billion dollar corporation that lays off staff on a cyclical basis as a matter of course for their business plan that has no fallback position when their release schedule is crippled by the loss of one of their skeleton crew other than to tell their customers that they're just SOL for four months.  And, again, this is an edition that was intended to bring forward the players from all of the previous editions and the first thing to go is the conversion doc that likely should have been available six months ago when the edition was first released.  It's ludicrous.


----------



## bogmad (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I find that to be more than enough to foster incredulity.  They're a subsidiary of an international, multi-billion dollar corporation that lays off staff on a cyclical basis as a matter of course for their business plan that has no fallback position when their release schedule is crippled by the loss of one of their skeleton crew other than to tell their customers that they're just SOL for four months.  And, again, this is an edition that was intended to bring forward the players from all of the previous editions and the first thing to go is the conversion doc that likely should have been available six months ago when the edition was first released.  It's ludicrous.




I think the Free Release schedule is of a much smaller priority of a multi-billion corporation than the timely launching of products that people actually pay for.  Notice how no one is saying wait 4 months for the Elemental Evil storyline.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I find that to be more than enough to foster incredulity.  They're a subsidiary of an international, multi-billion dollar corporation that lays off staff on a cyclical basis as a matter of course for their business plan that has no fallback position when their release schedule is crippled by the loss of one of their skeleton crew other than to tell their customers that they're just SOL for four months.  And, again, this is an edition that was intended to bring forward the players from all of the previous editions and the first thing to go is the conversion doc that likely should have been available six months ago when the edition was first released.  It's ludicrous.



I'm half of a 2 person IT department.  If I'm out sick or on jury duty, my projects don't get done. They just get pushed back.  I suspect its similar for these guys.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> I'm half of a 2 person IT department.  If I'm out sick or on jury duty, my projects don't get done. They just get pushed back.  I suspect its similar for these guys.





You're saying that you're half of a two person IT department for a division of a multi-billion dollar, international corporation and if you were out for four months they wouldn't find a way to get done what you would normally do.  Particularly if one of your tasks was to take care of something that likely should have been accomplished six months prior and in between their were staffing reductions.  Interesting.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

bogmad said:


> I think the Free Release schedule is of a much smaller priority of a multi-billion corporation than the timely launching of products that people actually pay for.  Notice how no one is saying wait 4 months for the Elemental Evil storyline.





Bearing in mind that some of the products they have already released (core books) have in the past been accompanied by such a conversion guide even when the edition wasn't being touted (as this one is) of being the one meant to scratch the itch of all players from all previous editions.  And further bearing in mind that they have a thinner release schedule by far than they have ever had in the history of their owning the property.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> You're saying that you're half of a two person IT department for a division of a multi-billion dollar, international corporation and if you were out for four months they wouldn't find a way to get done what you would normally do.  Particularly if one of your tasks was to take care of something that likely should have been accomplished six months prior and in between their were staffing reductions.  Interesting.



Day to day things get done, but projects that have no internal visibility past my minion and my boss don't get done. They just don't. Giving a conversion freebie the a thorough review and stamp of approval just isn't something I would expect to get done in this type of circumstance.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> Day to day things get done, but projects that have no internal visibility past my minion and my boss don't get done. They just don't. Giving a conversion freebie the a thorough review and stamp of approval just isn't something I would expect to get done in this type of circumstance.





Yeah, some folks keep referring to it as a freebie while others look on it as a already-long-overdue part of the edition roll out.  Maybe some people don't understand that an edition that is being touted as the one that will bring everyone back to the brand, or forward from older versions of the brand, might apparently benefit from having a conversion doc that has seemingly been in the pipeline since at least just before the edition release (maybe much longer if they were looking ahead during the playtest).  I'm not surprised that some folks who apparently do *not* need it are sloughing off the announcement as insignificant.  It happens every time they make an announcement and some folks (not all) that aren't affected by the failure look on it as a non-issue. Not everyone is going to agree and that's fine.

As a D&D fan for quite some time, though, I have to say that there appears to be a steady stream of problems that stem from them cutting budgets and laying off employees.  One of the most prominent being the advent of a rival company made up mostly of former employees that seemingly serves half of their former customer base.  I guess it is a comfort for WotC employees to know that there are other places to work if/when the lay offs get around to them eventually.  I find it all amazingly absurd.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Goldomark - it is not the responsibility of the reader to try to read your mind.



I suggest they read my words and stop inventing words I did not say. It always help. 



> And, sure, we'd all love for WOTC to be more forthcoming.  But, guess what?  After the past four or five years, do you think there's the slightest chance of that happening?  Really?



Yes. The backlash they had with 4e has nothing to do with communications. It was about crunch and fluff. 4e's failure was because of bad content, not bad communications or too much content (but it didn't help).

Good communications is good business, especially in a niche business like PnP RPGs where everyone knows everyone. Yes, that is a hyperbole.



> After the crucifying[...]



I see. WotC is a martyr now. No wonder it needs defenders. 



> Then something goes sideways.  We don't know what.  But, now the product is cancelled.  You get several passive aggressive "fanfic" style communications from the Morningstar team basically putting all the blame on WOTC and, now, what, six months later, people are still bitching about it.



In a perfect world everyone would be polite and bla bla bla. It is not a perfect world. Part of the job is handling communications. If they can't handle that, they should find another job or become permanent jurors. If they want a better attitude from people, they should have better communications. Seriously. People forgive people who are honest. Easily at that.

*Take a look at a failed product from Paizo and Erik Mona talking about its cancellation*: 







> No. Sales on the Campaign Cards have, unfortunately, been pretty terrible, so we're giving the concept a rest for a while and focusing on other types of card decks that seem to be more appealing.
> 
> I'm glad you enjoyed them (doubly so because they were my idea).
> 
> I only wish there were more folks like you out there!



http://paizo.com/products/btpy88r4/discuss?Pathfinder-Cards-Subscription#46

Paizo must be going bankrupt, right? Nerdrage, right? No. People understand. They get mad when they do not undertand (from lack of communications). They speculate or just get frustrated. And it is understandable*.



> Note, at no point in time did WOTC actually say or do anything.



Part of the problem.  



> So, again, do you really think it's in their interests to be 100% transparent with fans who will make no attempt whatsoever to be reasonable?



Yes. People are reasonable. It is WotC's refusal to communicate that is unreasonable. This thread, and probably Perkins' tweet wouldn't exist with better communications. 



> I mean, good grief, you've got a 30 page thread right now bitching about what WOTC's doing.



Is it officially what WotC is doing? Cause if it is not, it could be unofficially non-cancelled. 


*Notice I said understandable and not excusable. A nuance that is important.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> And, in case anyone's going to start jumping on me for white knighting WOTC, I'll point to you exhibit A:  At Least 4 Months for Conversion Documents
> 
> Here we have WOTC being forthcoming and explaining why we don't have a conversion document.  Fair enough, this is exactly what people have been asking for - more clarity.  And here's a selection of responses:
> 
> See how fans come together and are understanding when WOTC actually does try to engage?



Didn't he know that jury duty was going to be a problem back in January when it was a problem for the Warforged? 







> "Yes, warforged will be up first - jury duty has messed with our plans, but stuff is moving along."



http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2272-Warforged-Coming-to-D-D-Soon!#.VMI6ES686YQ

A conversion document seems much larger than a 6 pages PDF. Who is so important that they slow down the release of a 6 pages PDF?

At some point, unofficial vague tweets just become that.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 18, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I suggest they read my words and stop inventing words I did not say. It always help.
> 
> Yes. The backlash they had with 4e has nothing to do with communications. It was about crunch and fluff. 4e's failure was because of bad content, not bad communications or too much content (but it didn't help).
> 
> ...




That's Paizo. A small, independent company made by and run by gamers that love gaming. Their CEO plays the game. Practically everyone in the company plays the game. They're entirely devoted to the game. 


WotC is owned by Hasbro now. Hasbro bean counters that don't see the game as anything other than a vehicle for profit decide the budget. 

Paizo is unique as a company because they are run by gamers and run efficiently and profitably. Main reason WotC and TSR failed was they had the run by gamers part down, but not the run efficiently and profitably part.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> WotC is owned by Hasbro now. Hasbro bean counters that don't see the game as anything other than a vehicle for profit decide the budget.




The problem with that argument is that WotC was owned by Hasbro in 2006 and had good communications and much better relations with their fanbase then.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Except that those couple dozen people (and by extension the segment of the overall market they represent) have all bought the core books already, so Wizards can and should safely tune them out at this point. It would be one thing if they were still trying to cater to that market with the sort of supplements they're looking to purchase, but they're clearly not interesting in selling those kinds of products. Instead they're targeting another market with an entirely different set of products and so should probably just focus on that instead getting absolutely nothing out of taking steps to address riotous online fanboy outrage that probably can't be quieted no matter what they do.




If you think saying that WotC can "safely tune out" that "segment of the overall market" from all future sales, then ok.

It is easy for you to throw around words like "riotus" "fanboy" "outrage"  and "no matter what they do".
It is a lot harder to actually justify those therms when the reactions are justified but what has actually been done.

But I guess that is why there is zero conversation about what is actually happening in your reply. 
I'm sure if you stick to enough name-calling and slander, reality will eventually change to suit you.

In the mean time, the customer business relationship will remain unchanged.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> I'm half of a 2 person IT department.  If I'm out sick or on jury duty, my projects don't get done. They just get pushed back.  I suspect its similar for these guys.




Does the revenue flow the same whether you do you job or not?
If you r work does not happen at all, does it make any difference to the company?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> (. . .) Wizards can and should safely tune them out at this point. It would be one thing if they were still trying to cater to that market with the sort of supplements they're looking to purchase, but they're clearly not interesting in selling those kinds of products.





There's an acronym for that practice: Probably Aren't Interested, Zo Out!

Oh, okay.  I just got that . . .




Trickster Spirit said:


> Instead they're targeting another market with an entirely different set of products and so should probably just focus on that instead getting absolutely nothing out of taking steps to address riotous online fanboy outrage that probably can't be quieted no matter what they do.





"Targeting another market" meant to be made up, in part, by crossover customers.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 18, 2015)

Did the reveal happen? I can't make it through all the pages of discussion.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Zaukrie said:


> Did the reveal happen? I can't make it through all the pages of discussion.




Yeah. The conversion guide has been delayed by 4 months. We're all very excited.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 18, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> That's Paizo. A small, independent company made by and run by gamers that love gaming. Their CEO plays the game. Practically everyone in the company plays the game. They're entirely devoted to the game.
> 
> WotC is owned by Hasbro now. Hasbro bean counters that don't see the game as anything other than a vehicle for profit decide the budget.
> 
> Paizo is unique as a company because they are run by gamers and run efficiently and profitably. Main reason WotC and TSR failed was they had the run by gamers part down, but not the run efficiently and profitably part.




This is a somewhat general response, not specific to just Celtavian. The idea some of the fans on the internet have that WotC has "failed" is overstatement at its finest. 3E, 4E, and now 5E were all successful releases of a major game. 3E ran through its cycle, 4E was successful in its own right, but didn't end up meeting the goals the company had for the game. 5E is just beginning, but all rational accounts, it has been very successful. Where there specific products that didn't work out? Of course, but overall D&D has been a success since WotC purchased TSR and then later was purchased itself by Hasbro.

Paizo and WotC are two differently structured companies with very similar products with different sales goals and expectations. But the idea that the Hasbro "bean counters" or "suits" are just holding WotC back from being the game company we could all get behind is internet myth. Ever since WotC was purchased by Hasbro they have put out excellent product, run successful game lines, and the guys making the decisions are gamers who love the game, just like Paizo.

A major difference in fan reaction to Paizo and WotC's communications is that Paizo is seen as the underdog, and WotC is seen as the evil overlord. TSR was treated the same way back in the day. Paizo and WotC could release identical press releases and Paizo would mostly be praised while WotC would mostly be damned, except by us few WotC "apologists". (Hint: never trust an argument from somebody namecalling with the term "apologist")


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 18, 2015)

Zaukrie said:


> Did the reveal happen? I can't make it through all the pages of discussion.






delericho said:


> Yeah. The conversion guide has been delayed by 4 months. We're all very excited.




Just in case you weren't sure, no, the "big reveal" has not been revealed . . . yet.

This thread is pretty standard fare, folks complaining about minor things that don't really have any sort of impact on the game, the brand, or how we play it. We just like to complain, blame, and argue the small stuff, as usual.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> This is a somewhat general response, not specific to just Celtavian. The idea some of the fans on the internet have that WotC has "failed" is overstatement at its finest.



WotC has not "failed".  

Why is it that their defenders keep feeling obliged to completely redefine the issues rather than dealing with what has been said?

WotC is on a run of dropping the ball and doing things that are fair to criticize.



> Paizo and WotC are two differently structured companies with very similar products with different sales goals and expectations. But the idea that the Hasbro "bean counters" or "suits" are just holding WotC back from being the game company we could all get behind is internet myth.



Probably very very true.  

But saying you have a bottleneck of ONE PERSON locking something down does nothing to help dispel the myth.  



> A major difference in fan reaction to Paizo and WotC's communications is that Paizo is seen as the underdog, and WotC is seen as the evil overlord. TSR was treated the same way back in the day. Paizo and WotC could release identical press releases and Paizo would mostly be praised while WotC would mostly be damned, except by us few WotC "apologists".



First, apologizing when something is bad is not a bad thing itself.

But that aside it is funny that you take offense to name calling when it is going both ways and you are using hollow labels of "underdog" and "evil overlord" to obfuscate the actual events.
If Paizo released an identical press release tomorrow, they WOULD get a lot more slack because they have a vastly better track record and established relationship and trust with their fan base.

But it is important to keep in mind that Paizo IS NOT releasing this kind of statement.  

If one guy drops the ball 15% of the time for a couple years running and a new guy comes out and drops the ball 7 times in a row, when they both drop the ball at the same time a few minutes later, one of those guys is going to get more slack than the other.  If Paizo got on a run of not giving their fans what they want, their fate would turn quickly.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> A major difference in fan reaction to Paizo and WotC's communications is that Paizo is seen as the underdog, and WotC is seen as the evil overlord.




That might have been true five years ago, but anyone who still thinks of Paizo as the underdog is behind the times, and I don't get the feeling from my observations of the industry and forums that anyone really still holds to that view. The roles switched a few years back. And I don't know that they have switched back yet. Paizo was the industry leader for a while at least, and if they are not still the leader, they are certainly co-equal captains of the industry with WotC at this point.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Just in case you weren't sure, no, the "big reveal" has not been revealed . . . yet.




True. I should probably have said that.



> This thread is pretty standard fare, folks complaining about minor things that don't really have any sort of impact on the game, the brand, or how we play it. We just like to complain, blame, and argue the small stuff, as usual.




You do get that I was joking, right? Hence the smiley at the end, that you elected not to quote. Especially ironic since you'll find me defending them over on the other thread.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> (. . .) folks complaining about minor things that don't really have any sort of impact on the game, the brand, or how we play it.





You had such great intentions when you began posting to help make sure Zaukrie didn't misunderstand and then you had to marginalize the folks who think the conversion is important (as well as the staffing issues) under the thin veil of laughing at gamers in general.  Oh, Brian!  You are such a rascal!


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> You do get that I was joking, right? Hence the smiley at the end, that you elected not to quote. Especially ironic since you'll find me defending them over on the other thread.




No, sorry, I knew you were joking, and I found it funny! Just with all of the negativity in this thread, I felt that the humor might be lost.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 18, 2015)

Wicht said:


> That might have been true five years ago, but anyone who still thinks of Paizo as the underdog is behind the times, and I don't get the feeling from my observations of the industry and forums that anyone really still holds to that view. The roles switched a few years back. And I don't know that they have switched back yet. Paizo was the industry leader for a while at least, and if they are not still the leader, they are certainly co-equal captains of the industry with WotC at this point.




I disagree. The roles never switched. When Paizo had the top-selling fantasy RPG for a while, we all knew it was ONLY because D&D was essentially on hiatus. And, as expected, as soon as D&D started publishing again, Paizo is once again #2.

Paizo is an awesome company that deserves the good vibes most fans have for it. They make awesome games, they are awesome people . . . but they are still a small company playing second fiddle to the major industry leader. Being an underdog in American culture isn't a negative thing, we all love to root for the underdog, but it is cultural myth.

IMSO (In My Strong Opinion), Paizo gets a pass from fans because it has always been seen as the plucky underdog wrestling success from the 800-lb WotC gorilla. WotC gets crapped on every decision they make because they are seen as "The Man", the corporation run by unfeeling suits and bean counters, the evil overlord. If you can't see this behavior constantly directed at WotC, I think you aren't just looking hard enough!

The above has NOTHING to do with actual quality of game products. It's just how many folks characterize the companies subconsciously. I am fan of both companies and love the Pathfinder line and the D&D line. I'm disappointed when either company has to cancel products or lines that I've come to love. Paizo isn't in the business of pulp fiction or board games anymore, sadly, because I loved the Planet Stories line and I always appreciate good board games. WotC still struggles (licensed or internal) to provide decent digital tools. There are more examples from both companies. Who gets all the grief? WotC. I'm sure the Paizo boards have their fair share of complainers, but nothing on the scale that WotC has to deal with on EVERY SINGLE DECISION they make, left or right.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> No, sorry, I knew you were joking, and I found it funny! Just with all of the negativity in this thread, I felt that the humor might be lost.




Sorry, a bit over-sensitive there. Too much going on.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 18, 2015)

BryonD said:


> If you think saying that WotC can "safely tune out" that "segment of the overall market" from all future sales, then ok.




What future sales are you even expecting? The only products that have been announced are the biannual adventure paths, which are aimed at a completely different customer base. The people who are vocal about Wizards' lack of communication and product are not the target audience for the adventure paths - I suspect that audience is the casual audience who just needs a sourcebook to base the next six months of campaign off of and little else.

Maybe Wizards will put out a FRCS or a Monster Manual II this year, maybe not. Wizards' behavior is not that of a company that is really relying on those products to sell well. At this point the only sales I think they're really concerned about are D&D movie tickets and board game / video game sales.




BryonD said:


> It is easy for you to throw around words like "riotus" "fanboy" "outrage" and "no matter what they do".
> It is a lot harder to actually justify those therms when the reactions are justified but what has actually been done.




The reactions are pretty overblown, in my opinion. People are working themselves up into a tizzy over the release schedule of Dungeons & Dragons, and it's resulting in people slinging insults at and making nasty about the character of the folks over at WotC. I would indeed characterize that as fanboy outrage that's best ignored.

I actually think it's pretty great that people are passionate enough about D&D that they're willing to eviscerate the D&D team the same way they'd rake their favorite sports team's coaching staff over the coals after a big loss.

To pursue that metaphor a bit, after several lousy seasons, they've relaunched with a great team to widespread acclaim but are limiting themselves to a couple of exhibition matches a year, and at the same time looking to get the players featured in movies, cartoons and l̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶g̶a̶m̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶P̶A̶X̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶v̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ fan appearances.

Stop holding the Harlem Globetrotters to the same standard as the Lakers.



BryonD said:


> But I guess that is why there is zero conversation about what is actually happening in your reply.
> I'm sure if you stick to enough name-calling and slander, reality will eventually change to suit you.
> 
> In the mean time, the customer business relationship will remain unchanged.




My apologies if you felt like I was calling you names or otherwise insulting you, that wasn't my intent but if that's how it came across I am sorry.

That said, people are acting as if D&D is an ongoing subscription or crowdfunded project that isn't delivering to them what was promised. There's been a lot of snarky comments about "can't cancel things that were never announced", but the fact of the matter is: WotC put out some books. People purchased those books. WotC may or may not put out further books, and have no obligation to let us into their internal discussions about the future of the product line.

The level of acrimony over the whole thing is simply not justified.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> When Paizo had the top-selling fantasy RPG for a while, we all knew it was ONLY because D&D was essentially on hiatus.





And most of the top RPG creative talent that used to work for WotC and approx half the people who used to play 3.XE and didn't want to transition to 4E and a better perceived PR dynamic and production values as high as anything in the industry and a direct sales program that seems to insulate them from a flagging three-tier distribution model and-

Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought your "ONLY" was meant as a springboard to brainstorm all of the major reasons Paizo managed to compete on WotC's level not that you truly believed it was just because WotC was taking a nap.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> I disagree. The roles never switched.




Heh. Who should I believe? You or my lying eyes?  




> When Paizo had the top-selling fantasy RPG for a while, we all knew it was ONLY because D&D was essentially on hiatus.




Paizo took the top spot while 4e was still a thing, well before the hiatus started, so speak for yourself when you speak about what we all knew. 

 I remember commenting on it at the time and being told it was just a fluke. I then remember the subtle change in language in the industry when people begin talking about the industry leader and it was clear who people were looking to for leadership. (hint: it was not WotC). 



> They make awesome games, they are awesome people . . . but they are still a small company playing second fiddle to the major industry leader.




Hmm, which company right now actually has the most people making RPG material? 

Heh. I wouldn't be surprised if FFG didn't employ almost as many people as WotC in their RPG department. And actually, while I don't claim to know numbers, I also wouldn't be too surprised if FFG didn't do almost as much business as WotC marketwise across the whole of the game market spectrum (note I am not claiming FFG is bigger, I am saying I would not be surprised if their market share wasn't close) (though those MtG numbers have to be daunting) and with the merger of FFG into Asmodee, the Asmodee Group continues to be a player to watch as an up and coming leader in the gaming market. 

But for RPGs divisions alone, Paizo beats out just about everyone else right now for company size, including WotC.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> IMSO (In My Strong Opinion), Paizo gets a pass from fans because it has always been seen as the plucky underdog wrestling success from the 800-lb WotC gorilla. WotC gets crapped on every decision they make because they are seen as "The Man", the corporation run by unfeeling suits and bean counters, the evil overlord. If you can't see this behavior constantly directed at WotC, I think you aren't just looking hard enough!




It's not just that. Paizo have spent years, and a great deal of effort, building a very strong relationship with their fans. Their designers make sure to be active on their website forums, they make sure to communicate things clearly and well in advance, and their customer support is the best I have ever encountered. I'm actually not a huge fan of the game (too complex for me these days), but I'm definitely a fan of the company.

Equally, it's not as simple as saying that WotC are "the Man", because if we look back to 2006 things were different. Yes, there were some complainers, but they tended to be easier to spot and easier to dismiss (Razz). But for the most part they were being recognised because they had a strong product line, they were communicating it well in advance, and the products they were releasing were generally very well received.

WotC had a lot of goodwill. Unfortunately, they've gradually lost much of it in the intervening years - admittedly, not entirely through their own fault.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 18, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Does the revenue flow the same whether you do you job or not?
> If you r work does not happen at all, does it make any difference to the company?




Yes.  If it's short term important, then it gets done, but if it's something that can be delayed or deferred then it gets to wait until I'm back *and* I have time.

Every week I have a meeting with my boss and my minion, and we reorganize a spreadsheeted list of projects by priority, and anything below an arbitrary line doesn't get worked on.

I suspect when this unknown employee went on jury duty they took a list of what he had on his plate, and assigned out whatever was deemed important to whomever they could.

The conversion guide must have not been deemed important.


----------



## Bugleyman (Mar 18, 2015)

I am among those who believe that WotC's execution is poor.  In fact, I'd go as far as to say comically so. 

 Others see things differently.

It seems very, very unlikely that the two sides are going to agree.  Besides, it is by the market -- not a message board thread -- that 5E's fate will be decided.  Just as 4E's was before it.  All we have to do is wait and see.

In the meantime, I'm interested in seeing what this "big reveal" turns out to be...


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> What future sales are you even expecting? The only products that have been announced are the biannual adventure paths, which are aimed at a completely different customer base. The people who are vocal about Wizards' lack of communication and product are not the target audience for the adventure paths - I suspect that audience is the casual audience who just needs a sourcebook to base the next six months of campaign off of and little else.
> 
> Maybe Wizards will put out a FRCS or a Monster Manual II this year, maybe not. Wizards' behavior is not that of a company that is really relying on those products to sell well. At this point the only sales I think they're really concerned about are D&D movie tickets and board game / video game sales.



If you are correct then the conversation becomes largely moot.
That said, I'm not sure that you can make the generalization that people complaining about WotC's poor communication are people who won't buy APs.

If they announce a splat in 2015, will that make you wrong?

If they don't announce a splat and D&D starts falling in 2016 (APs don't sell as well either), will that make you wrong?




> The reactions are pretty overblown, in my opinion. People are working themselves up into a tizzy over the release schedule of Dungeons & Dragons, and it's resulting in people slinging insults at and making nasty about the character of the folks over at WotC. I would indeed characterize that as fanboy outrage that's best ignored.



I think the same thing could be said about people sling insults at anyone who dares complain when things go poorly.
Shouldn't you check your own characterizations if it bothers you when others do it?



> Stop holding the Harlem Globetrotters to the same standard as the Lakers.



I'm holding someone who wants to sell recreational material to the public to the standards of someone who wants to sell recreational material to the public.



> My apologies if you felt like I was calling you names or otherwise insulting you, that wasn't my intent but if that's how it came across I am sorry.



I've got no worries about me.
But if you are using the terms you are using and then turning around and saying you don't mean them for what they are, then that makes it that much worse that you are being critical of others for doing the exact same thing.



> That said, people are acting as if D&D is an ongoing subscription or crowdfunded project that isn't delivering to them what was promised. There's been a lot of snarky comments about "can't cancel things that were never announced", but the fact of the matter is: WotC put out some books. People purchased those books. WotC may or may not put out further books, and have no obligation to let us into their internal discussions about the future of the product line.
> 
> The level of acrimony over the whole thing is simply not justified.



They are acting like they are customers dealing with someone who is not living up to expectations.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> Yes.  If it's short term important, then it gets done, but if it's something that can be delayed or deferred then it gets to wait until I'm back *and* I have time.
> 
> Every week I have a meeting with my boss and my minion, and we reorganize a spreadsheeted list of projects by priority, and anything below an arbitrary line doesn't get worked on.
> 
> ...



Cool.

You initially said they simply don't happen.  I'm glad to see that you have clarified that because this is a big and important difference.

I think it is ok to would-be paying customers to express dissatisfaction when material (even free support material) is promised and is then deemed "not important".

WotC is of course free to do that.  But it is silly to condemn people for complaining.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 18, 2015)

Yes, that was clear to me........


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 18, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Cool.
> 
> You initially said they simply don't happen.  I'm glad to see that you have clarified that because this is a big and important difference.
> 
> ...




The priority list is god.  All bow down to the priority list.

Sometimes things fall off the priority list altogether.  Sometimes things get delayed until the lukewarm death of the universe.  So and so would really like us to upgrade the software on such and such a server.  They no longer work here.  Drop it from the list.

Is this the announcement that everyone is talking about:

http://suvudu.com/2014/07/interview...-5e-to-be-fast-flexible-and-easy-to-play.html

Or was there something more concrete than the D&D boss spouting off during an interview?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 18, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> That's Paizo. A small, independent company made by and run by gamers that love gaming. Their CEO plays the game. Practically everyone in the company plays the game. They're entirely devoted to the game.
> 
> 
> WotC is owned by Hasbro now. Hasbro bean counters that don't see the game as anything other than a vehicle for profit decide the budget.
> ...




This idea that Paizo is a small compagnie is a bit out dated. They have more people working on their PRG than D&D. I'm pretty sure Paizo exist to make money too. 

I'd also defend D&D's designers. I do believe they are gamers and that they love the game they are working on.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> The priority list is god.  All bow down to the priority list.



Remind me again, please, which side is full of hyperbole on this?



> Sometimes things fall off the priority list altogether.  Sometimes things get delayed until the lukewarm death of the universe.  So and so would really like us to upgrade the software on such and such a server.  They no longer work here.  Drop it from the list.



And making customers happy is challenging.  
How does your position mitigate the need to make customers happy?


----------



## Staffan (Mar 18, 2015)

BryonD said:


> One lesson that consistently successful business people learn is you have to go the extra mile to make customers happy.



An extra mile, yes. An extra two miles... maybe. An extra three miles? Probably not. At that point the customer is probably more trouble than they're worth, at least if their complaint isn't really about something your company did wrong.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

Staffan said:


> An extra mile, yes. An extra two miles... maybe. An extra three miles? Probably not. At that point the customer is probably more trouble than they're worth, at least if their complaint isn't really about something your company did wrong.



Noted.

Now if WotC would just go *the original* mile.  

Your comment doesn't score as very clever when this issue is that WotC keeps announcing things that they are NOT doing.  
They seem to be at around negative two miles right now.



All that aside, the unending theme that the customers are the problem remains an interesting take on marketing.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 18, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Remind me again, please, which side is full of hyperbole on this?




I was joking about the priority list that I work by.  Did you think I was saying something else?


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 18, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Heh. Who should I believe? You or my lying eyes?
> 
> Paizo took the top spot while 4e was still a thing, well before the hiatus started, so speak for yourself when you speak about what we all knew.




I'm not calling you a liar, I'm simply saying you are wrong. Heh. All IMO, of course. 

D&D did slip below Paizo numbers as 4th edition WOUND DOWN into nothingness. 4E was on the way out, everybody knew it, not many were terribly sad about it, and Paizo took top spot and stayed there while very little was published for D&D. IMO, the wise amongst us knew that when the D&D machine roared back to life, Paizo would slip back into the 2nd spot.

It's not about hard work, product quality, or who "deserves" to be number one. It's like comparing Coca-Cola to Shasta Cola. I'm sure Shasta is a great company filled with hard-working folks who put out a cola many people like, but Coke is the big dog and it would take almost an act of god to change the situation. D&D is #1 in brand recognition and sales because the game is the industry originator and the name everybody recognizes. D&D is to roleplaying what Coke is to soda and Kleenex is to facial tissue.

Paizo deserves all of the sales and customer loyalty they have earned. Being #2 isn't a judgment or a booby-prize, it's just the way of things. Paizo IS an industry leader, but is not THE industry leader.



> Hmm, which company right now actually has the most people making RPG material?




What's that got to do with anything? If you compare Paizo to Hasbro, Hasbro is bigger. If you compare Paizo to WotC, WotC is (probably) bigger. If you compare Paizo to the D&D team at WotC, Paizo is bigger. Who cares?

Bigger means you can put out more product, and Paizo does that. But it has jack squat to do with product quality, overall sales and brand recognition, and who "deserves" to be #1 (which is nobody).


----------



## BryonD (Mar 18, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> I was joking about the priority list that I work by.  Did you think I was saying something else?



Yes I did.

Your comment "The priority list is god. All bow down to the priority list." seemed completely in line with numerous other the customers expect to be worshiped and are unreasonable and not worth having as customers.

I do hope you can see how I took it as parroting other comments.

If it was simply an inside joke, then I missed and I apologize.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> It's not just that. Paizo have spent years, and a great deal of effort, building a very strong relationship with their fans. Their designers make sure to be active on their website forums, they make sure to communicate things clearly and well in advance, and their customer support is the best I have ever encountered. I'm actually not a huge fan of the game (too complex for me these days), but I'm definitely a fan of the company.
> 
> Equally, it's not as simple as saying that WotC are "the Man", because if we look back to 2006 things were different. Yes, there were some complainers, but they tended to be easier to spot and easier to dismiss (Razz). But for the most part they were being recognised because they had a strong product line, they were communicating it well in advance, and the products they were releasing were generally very well received.




Paizo is a great company by all sorts of measures. Great product, great employees, and they do work very hard to insure the success of the flagship game, Pathfinder. I'm a fan too. They have earned my respect, fandom, and money. But they are still the underdog, still #2 to D&D. Still given a pass on "mistakes" (choices, really) that WotC doesn't.

WotC is a division within a larger company, and the D&D team an even smaller group within WotC. I have NEVER seen a year go by without folks complaining about how the "suits" or "bean counters" at Hasbro or even within WotC are destroying some part of the game. Sure, the level of vitriol rises and falls like the tide, but it is always very present on D&D forums and in FLGS across the nation.

My favorite example is during the launch of 4E. Many fans took the choices made during 4E's development as an attack on their lifestyle hobby. And when during the marketing somebody said, "4E is the best version of D&D ever!" (I think it was Mearls), that was taken as an insult by a loud (although not necessarily large) group of 3E fans. The myth of WotC "dissing" 3E fans during the 4E launch exists to this day, when nothing of the sort happened. The 4E team was simply excited about what they were doing, and honestly felt they were delivering the awesomest version of D&D ever (at the time). Never did any of them insult the fans by telling them 3E sucked or fans who preferred 3E to 4E were somehow damaged goods.

If Paizo eventually releases Pathfinder 2.0, I'm sure most fans will love it, although not all will. But Paizo will not withstand the level of internet hate that WotC does over each choice in game development.

Hell, we're mostly arguing over a small, FREE, not really necessary supplement to 5E and the level of hurt is catastrophically ridiculous!



> WotC had a lot of goodwill. Unfortunately, they've gradually lost much of it in the intervening years - admittedly, not entirely through their own fault




Kinda my point. IMO, WotC's goodwill lasted about 5 seconds after they purchased TSR and D&D and went from being the underdog themselves to the "D&D Company". And when Hasbro purchased them . . . . all remaining traces of the small company done good were washed away (all perception, not necessarily reality).


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 18, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Yes I did.
> 
> Your comment "The priority list is god. All bow down to the priority list." seemed completely in line with numerous other the customers expect to be worshiped and are unreasonable and not worth having as customers.
> 
> ...




I was really making a joke about priority lists.  It wouldn't surprise me if they had a staff meeting every week and verified where everyone was on their projects and adjusted as needed, but I don't know how they run their business internally.


----------



## delericho (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Kinda my point. IMO, WotC's goodwill lasted about 5 seconds after they purchased TSR and D&D and went from being the underdog themselves to the "D&D Company". And when Hasbro purchased them . . . . all remaining traces of the small company done good were washed away (all perception, not necessarily reality).




I was with you up until here. Because for me the high water mark was 2006, which was a good long way after the WotC buyout and even the Hasbro one (which actually predates 3e, though not by much).


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> WotC is a division within a larger company




That's actually something I'd like to see clarification on.

What sort of autonomy does WotC have, and what sort of autonomy does the D&D product group have within WotC?

I don't think anyone here could answer that.  Chris Sims or Jennifer Clarke Wilkes could maybe?  Maybe they're NDAd.  Maybe they don't post places like this.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 18, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not calling you a liar,




I never said you did. 

I was expressing the opinion that my actual experiences over the past few years and in interacting with people make me question the accuracy of your situational assessment. 




> What's that got to do with anything? If you compare Paizo to Hasbro, Hasbro is bigger. If you compare Paizo to WotC, WotC is (probably) bigger. If you compare Paizo to the D&D team at WotC, Paizo is bigger. Who cares?




As we are talking about RPG industry leaders, then bringing non-rpg aspects of WotC's business is nothing but sleight-of-mind and irrelevant. If Paizo is bigger than WotC's RPG department, then your assertion that Paizo is a small fish compared to WotC in the arena of the RPG field is factually inaccurate. As I said to begin with, the situation has changed. Your assessment is about five years out of date as conventional wisdom and Paizo is at least a co-captain of the industry, sharing the leadership position with WotC. Right below them are FFG (and Green Ronin has done some very respectable things in recent years as well, though I don't think their sales are anywhere near the top 2 spots.)

Making a Coke to Shasta comparison is hardly accurate. We are in Coke and Pepsi territory. Sure Coke is #1 at the moment, but they have to take the competition seriously at this stage of the game.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 18, 2015)

Wicht said:


> As we are talking about RPG industry leaders, then bringing non-rpg aspects of WotC's business is nothing but sleight-of-mind and irrelevant. If Paizo is bigger than WotC's RPG department, then your assertion that Paizo is a small fish compared to WotC in the arena of the RPG field is factually inaccurate. As I said to begin with, the situation has changed. Your assessment is about five years out of date as conventional wisdom and Paizo is at least a co-captain of the industry, sharing the leadership position with WotC. Right below them are FFG (and Green Ronin has done some very respectable things in recent years as well, though I don't think their sales are anywhere near the top 2 spots.)




You've missed my point, I think. I did state that Paizo is bigger than the D&D Team at WotC, which is a part of what you quoted. My point is that it does not matter. I still feel that how many employees a company has is irrelevant to the discussion. Paizo could have 100 times the personnel that D&D does, and it still wouldn't make them the industry leader or even a "co-captain". It's not company size, or how hard they work. It simply boils down to, IMO, overall sales and brand recognition. While technically possible, I really don't think Pathfinder will EVER eclipse D&D as the industry leading RPG, EVER. Not because D&D is better, as that's pretty subjective, but because D&D is the OG RPG.

Pathfinder is a beloved and best-selling RPG and probably will continue to be for quite some time, but it isn't serious competition to D&D.


----------



## delericho (Mar 19, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> You've missed my point, I think. I did state that Paizo is bigger than the D&D Team at WotC, which is a part of what you quoted. My point is that it does not matter. I still feel that how many employees a company has is irrelevant to the discussion. Paizo could have 100 times the personnel that D&D does, and it still wouldn't make them the industry leader or even a "co-captain". It's not company size, or how hard they work. It simply boils down to, IMO, overall sales and brand recognition. While technically possible, I really don't think Pathfinder will EVER eclipse D&D as the industry leading RPG, EVER. Not because D&D is better, as that's pretty subjective, but because D&D is the OG RPG.




Yep, this. For an awful lot of people, D&D = RPG and RPG = D&D. Heck, you'll find some people saying "we're playing D&D" when they're actually playing Pathfinder - I doubt you'll find the reverse.


----------



## Halivar (Mar 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yep, this. For an awful lot of people, D&D = RPG and RPG = D&D. Heck, you'll find some people saying "we're playing D&D" when they're actually playing Pathfinder - I doubt you'll find the reverse.



This is false, fallacious, and a slanderous lie. We play _Pathfinder_ and _Pathfinder only_ at my table!

*pulls out RIFTS books*


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> While technically possible, I really don't think Pathfinder will EVER eclipse D&D as the industry leading RPG, EVER. Not because D&D is better, as that's pretty subjective, but because D&D is the OG RPG.
> 
> Pathfinder is a beloved and best-selling RPG and probably will continue to be for quite some time, but it isn't serious competition to D&D.



Things change

Before getting hung up on that, keep in mind that it is not a yes/no question.  The brand recognition issue is entirely about shades of grey.  D&D can be number 1 for a very long time and still be worth a lot less than its full potential.

But D&D will always be #1 to *you and the people you know*.  The people who will be leading the economy 20 years from now have not heard of RPGs yet.  

But in even shorter term than that, the "OG" gamers are doing nothing but aging.  A few more will be gone (from the market at least) by the end of the month.  And new players who have never heard of RPGs will discover it this month.  They will hear of D&D.  But they will also hear of PF.  And neither one will have a special place in the heart as the original.  They are both "old school" games as far as the new player is concerned.

At the same time, people do evolve in their focus.  Not everyone is you and history is loading with people who were shocked when society passed them by.
History is is also loaded with brand kings that faded into being just part of the pack.  (or even complete oblivion).
It can happen quite suddenly.

Also, don't get hung up on Pathfinder.    Pathfinder is big in play right now, but there could be another game (or three) that take over the industry.  There is constantly a push of innovation and ideas and a few of them are actually good.  The leader must always stay in the now and ahead of the pack.

Also, it can just take one major technology change for the entire marketplace to change their view of what they want, and being OG suddenly becomes either irrelevant, or even an albatross.

The presumption that these things can not change, that brands are not fragile in the overall market is really short-sighted and naive.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yep, this. For an awful lot of people, D&D = RPG and RPG = D&D. Heck, you'll find some people saying "we're playing D&D" when they're actually playing Pathfinder - I doubt you'll find the reverse.




You don't need to find the reverse.  You just need to find people who simply say anything other than D&D.

There was a time when finding someone who said they used Netflix instead of Blockbuster was an interesting example of someone bucking the trend.
I doubt there was ever a time when people said they used Blockbuster instead of Netflix


----------



## delericho (Mar 19, 2015)

BryonD said:


> You don't need to find the reverse.  You just need to find people who simply say anything other than D&D.




Fair point. You'll still not find any more than a tiny minority who do that - far fewer than those who say D&D when they mean something else.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a big fan of Paizo. They've done extremely well, and Pathfinder is a good game. It was deservedly the top selling RPG for the past few years, and indeed it may very well be again before too long. Indeed, that's probably inevitable unless WotC start putting out some more books.

But in terms of brand awareness, and thus in terms of being the "industry leader", Paizo and Pathfinder are way behind. And, indeed, they always will be, unless and until WotC take D&D out of print for a period of several years.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> Fair point. You'll still not find any more than a tiny minority who do that - far fewer than those who say D&D when they mean something else.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, I'm a big fan of Paizo. They've done extremely well, and Pathfinder is a good game. It was deservedly the top selling RPG for the past few years, and indeed it may very well be again before too long. Indeed, that's probably inevitable unless WotC start putting out some more books.
> 
> But in terms of brand awareness, and thus in terms of being the "industry leader", Paizo and Pathfinder are way behind. And, indeed, they always will be, unless and until WotC take D&D out of print for a period of several years.



I'm a huge fan of Paizo and 5E.

It is naive to assume that the future will depend on your assessment.  
And, again, I'm not putting my bet of Pathfinder, I am just saying that D&D can become the next Blockbuster faster than you think.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 19, 2015)

BryonD said:


> The presumption that these things can not change, that brands are not fragile in the overall market is really short-sighted and naive.




Yes, but... (there's always a but)

There's more to overtaking brand awareness than selling more books to current customers.  Pathfinder is, at the moment, doing nothing that WotC is not also doing.  Pathfinder, specifically, does not seem to be doing anything that takes their name *beyond* their traditional customers.  The MMO might do that, if it is a _fantastic_ game, but otherwise the only word is what's sitting on bookstore shelves - and we know how many people actually look at bookstores these days, right?

Meanwhile, D&D gets mentioned on highly-rated national TV shows.  And someone is apt to make a major motion picture with "D&D" on it in the not-too-distant future.

So, while it is possible for the brand awareness to change, I don't see it as happening due to current actions on the part of either company.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but... (there's always a but)
> 
> There's more to overtaking brand awareness than selling more books to current customers.  Pathfinder is, at the moment, doing nothing that WotC is not also doing.  Pathfinder, specifically, does not seem to be doing anything that takes their name *beyond* their traditional customers.  The MMO might do that, if it is a _fantastic_ game, but otherwise the only word is what's sitting on bookstore shelves - and we know how many people actually look at bookstores these days, right?
> 
> ...



They are putting out RPG books monthly.

That is something more.  

But I'm not disputing your point here.
D&D absolutely has the strong inside track and *IF* they stay modern and proactive the leading position is theirs to own.


----------



## delericho (Mar 19, 2015)

BryonD said:


> It is naive to assume that the future will depend on your assessment.




Of course. I'm not claiming the gift of prophecy here, just giving an opinion.



> And, again, I'm not putting my bet of Pathfinder, I am just saying that D&D can become the next Blockbuster faster than you think.




If that's the case, then we have to look at _why_ Netflix has eclipsed Blockbuster. And the reason for that is actually quite simple: the technology moved on.

There is an analogy for that as regards RPGs, and it has in fact _already happened_. It's called "World of Warcraft".


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Anecdotal evidences of the truthiness of what BryonD is saying...

This past week, the conversation turned in our house to whether or not we play Dungeons and Dragons when we play Pathfinder. My oldest girl, 16 on the 16th, was defending that when we play Pathfinder we play Dnd, but her siblings (14 and 17) were adamant that we do not play Dungeons and Dragons, that we play Pathfinder. 

I talked with my son (17) about my desire to buy the 5e books, if only for nostalgic reasons. He had no such compulsion or loyalty to Dungeons and Dragons as a brand. He is firmly in the Pathfinder camp, nostalgically, even though his first exposure to roleplaying was 3e.

My niece and nephew's (10) exposure to rpgs was the Pathfinder Basic Box. You think when they think of RPGs their mind is going to say "DnD?" 

The Pathfinder brand has grown and we kid ourselves if we think things do not change marketwise. That does not mean that it will always be thus, but the experiences of those of us who grew up in the 80s(or 70s for some of you) playing ADnD are not the experiences of those forming their brand recognition right now. You look in the stores and WotC shares equal shelf-space with Paizo. People getting their first exposure to the industry are not aware of the legacy of the brands. They simply know what they see at the moment of their introduction.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> Of course. I'm not claiming the gift of prophecy here, just giving an opinion.



OK, Dire Bear said it won't happen EVER (all caps), and you said "this".  so I took that as you strongly endorsing his all-caps level certainty.



> If that's the case, then we have to look at _why_ Netflix has eclipsed Blockbuster. And the reason for that is actually quite simple: the technology moved on.



No, technology moved AND blockbuster didn't appreciate the need to keep up.
Blockbuster had just as strong of an inside track as D&D has now.  If they had stayed ahead of the market, they *could* have been the streaming company of today.  (A lot of other things would have to happen, but they had the upper hand)



> There is an analogy for that as regards RPGs, and it has in fact _already happened_. It's called "World of Warcraft".



This is the same mistake of looking at the past and thinking it tells you everything you need for the future.
You don't know what the next technology change will be.

And, more importantly, it may be some other change (not technology) that plays the same role.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> My niece and nephew's (10) exposure to rpgs was the Pathfinder Basic Box. You think when they think of RPGs their mind is going to say "DnD?" .



I don't care what they call it, so long as they keep off my lawn.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> My niece and nephew's (10) exposure to rpgs was the Pathfinder Basic Box. You think when they think of RPGs their mind is going to say "DnD?"




My initial exposure to RPGs was Tunnels and Trolls.

But, strangely, my mind doesn't go to that when I think of RPGs now.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> My initial exposure to RPGs was Tunnels and Trolls.
> 
> But, strangely, my mind doesn't go to that when I think of RPGs now.




Yes, and my son's first exposure was to 3e.  

Tunnels and Trolls solo? Or with a DM?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> My initial exposure to RPGs was Tunnels and Trolls.
> 
> But, strangely, my mind doesn't go to that when I think of RPGs now.




But D&D gave you reasons to play D&D so you played D&D a lot after you played T&T and  thus D&D became the default.
Do you presume that kids coming up today will be driven to D&D the way you were?

It is not an good comparison.

It *could* happen, but the presumption would be deeply flawed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

Brand awareness and being industry leader are two different things. Being the industry leader means people in the industry follow your example, while brand awareness is about knowledge of the brand in the general population. 

Considering that initially WotC wanted to produce two APs a year and have a companion to go with the APs, that it did public playtests for its edition, that we keep comparing staff numbers and WotC's business model to Paizo's, it would seem that the industry leader is Paizo, not WotC, even if in the general population D&D is more known.


----------



## delericho (Mar 19, 2015)

BryonD said:


> OK, Dire Bear said it won't happen EVER (all caps), and you said "this".  so I took that as you strongly endorsing his all-caps level certainty.




Fair point, though I had already watered it down from "EVER" to "unless and until WotC take D&D out of print for a period of several years". 



> No, technology moved AND blockbuster didn't appreciate the need to keep up.




Nonetheless, the tech moving on was one of two required conditions. If it had not, there would be no need for them to keep up!



> This is the same mistake of looking at the past and thinking it tells you everything you need for the future.




You miss my point. D&D has already faced the technology change that renders it obsolete. And it has survived, after a fashion - it's now the king of a very small, and diminishing, niche. And despite repeated attempts D&D has not, and will not, become a big player in the MMO field - and it certainly (okay, near-certainly) won't ever be the _dominant_ player in that field. And neither will Pathfinder - their MMO will probably do okay, and make quite a lot of money for a few years, but it won't threaten WoW.

The people who are left are the ones who have chosen not to adopt the new technology and the ones who get something from it that the new technology doesn't, and maybe can't, offer. As I said, we're a small and diminshing bunch. But that gives D&D a certain immunity to further technology advances.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Tunnels and Trolls solo? Or with a DM?




With a GM.  I have an older brother who found it to be a pleasant way to spend some structured time with his younger siblings.  Later on, he introduced us to AD&D.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Brand awareness and being industry leader are two different things. Being the industry leader means people in the industry follow your example, while brand awareness is about knowledge of the brand in the general population.
> 
> Considering that initially WotC wanted to produce two APs a year and have a companion to go with the APs, that it did public playtests for its edition, that we keep comparing staff numbers and WotC's business model to Paizo's, it would seem that the industry leader is Paizo, not WotC, even if in the general population D&D is more known.




There is more than a little truth to this, though it is possible for the industry leader to still steal ideas from smaller competitors if they are good. But there is no doubt that within the industry, as opposed to within the market, Paizo is seen as a leader in a way that no other company except for WotC is perceived

For me, I knew the roles had reversed, not when Paizo had the #1 RPG, but when individuals, not all of whom liked Pathfinder, began talking about the responsibility of Paizo to bring new blood into the market.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> And neither will Pathfinder - their MMO will probably do okay, and make quite a lot of money for a few years, but it won't threaten WoW.




I think its always a mistake to make blanket statements about what, or who, will, at some point in the future, threaten the current status quo.  While I could cite many examples, I will stick with the subject at hand and mention that I recall those who said, with absolute certainty, Pathfinder will never threaten Dungeons and Dragons.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> Fair point, though I had already watered it down from "EVER" to "unless and until WotC take D&D out of print for a period of several years".



Ok, that really is an important distinction.

But I'd add that having other game (or games, and not just "Pathfinder") being neck and neck for several years will have very similar long term effects.



> Nonetheless, the tech moving on was one of two required conditions. If it had not, there would be no need for them to keep up!



Sure, but this is just one example.  




> You miss my point. D&D has already faced the technology change that renders it obsolete. And it has survived, after a fashion - it's now the king of a very small, and diminishing, niche. And despite repeated attempts D&D has not, and will not, become a big player in the MMO field - and it certainly (okay, near-certainly) won't ever be the _dominant_ player in that field. And neither will Pathfinder - their MMO will probably do okay, and make quite a lot of money for a few years, but it won't threaten WoW.
> 
> The people who are left are the ones who have chosen not to adopt the new technology and the ones who get something from it that the new technology doesn't, and maybe can't, offer. As I said, we're a small and diminshing bunch. But that gives D&D a certain immunity to further technology advances.



I don't think I missed that point at all.  I'm just saying that past performance is no indicator of future results.
Another change (technology or other) could hit tomorrow and WotC needs to react wholly anew.  
If they use Dire Bear's assurance that being OG will bring them through, then they will be in a very bad position.

I am not saying that WotC is not more savvy to this than Dire Bear.  I was replying to Dire Bear and your "this".
(I'm not saying WotC is adequately savvy either)


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> With a GM.  I have an older brother who found it to be a pleasant way to spend some structured time with his younger siblings.  Later on, he introduced us to AD&D.




So your brother was, I would guess, introducing it to you as a simpler form of ADnD, a game which you could, in a sense, work yourself up to? Would that be a fair guess, or is it off the mark?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I think its always a mistake to make blanket statements about what, or who, will, at some point in the future, threaten the current status quo.  While I could cite many examples, I will stick with the subject at hand and mention that I recall those who said, with absolute certainty, Pathfinder will never threaten Dungeons and Dragons.




Yep.  It is funny how history repeats itself.

There were a lot of comments on these very boards about how Paizo was committing not just suicide but STUPID suicide because everyone knows that D&D is D&D.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Considering that initially WotC wanted to produce two APs a year and have a companion to go with the APs, that it did publicplaytests for its edition, that we keep comparing staff numbers and WotC's business model to Paizo's, it would seem that the industry leader is Paizo, not WotC, even if in the general population D&D is more known.




Well, that does bring up an interesting question or two:  

If we consider "the industry" to be WotC and Paizo, we could debate that - I think there's a significant argument that Paizo isn't a clear leader, but that the two tend to leapfrog each other - the basic *idea* for an AP was WotC's - actually, TSR's.  While Paizo did public playtests, I think it was WotC who first did out-of-house wide playtesting.  While Paizo does good business with its model, WotC does more *experimentation* with models (DDI subscriptions, for example).  And surely, WotC has been in the forefront of experimenting with rules design and structure.  So, who is leading, and who is adapting what has been shown to by the other to work?  I don't think it is clear.

If we consider the various publishers who aren't WotC and Paizo (not that they compete in sales, but they do exist), then.... well, most others just don't have the resources to do these things, and are not following suit - can you be an industry leader when nobody's following you?


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Yep.  It is funny how history repeats itself.
> 
> There were a lot of comments on these very boards about how Paizo was committing not just suicide but STUPID suicide because everyone knows that D&D is D&D.




Yes. I remember those.


----------



## delericho (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I think its always a mistake to make blanket statements about what, or who, will, at some point in the future, threaten the current status quo.




The problem with taking statements out of context is that you miss the context:



delericho said:


> And despite repeated attempts D&D has not, and will not, become a big player in the MMO field - and it certainly (*okay, near-certainly*) won't ever be the _dominant_ player in that field. And neither will Pathfinder...




I've added emphasis. But you'll see that I actually _didn't_ make a blanket statement - the caveat is right there.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> If we consider the various publishers who aren't WotC and Paizo (not that they compete in sales, but they do exist), then.... well, most others just don't have the resources to do these things, and are not following suit - can you be an industry leader when nobody's following you?




You can't lead if nobody follows, but there are different ways of following.

On a slight tangent, I would observe that the OGL has helped make Paizo the leader it is today as there are several companies producing material dependent on the material Paizo produces. The 3pps certainly look to Paizo as both inspiration (part of leadership) and as the current center of the OGL universe.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> I've added emphasis. But you'll see that I actually _didn't_ make a blanket statement - the caveat is right there.



Fair enough.  
But I still think even near-certainty is too certain.


----------



## delericho (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Fair enough.
> But I still think even near-certainty is too certain.




Nah. If and when WoW falls it will be because of another tech change (probably VR or virtual presence technology), and it will be at the hands of someone we've never heard of. Unless they're _spectacularly_ lucky, neither D&D nor Pathfinder will be at the forefront of this technology change, because it would depend on them licensing their product to a no-name developer _just_ as they happen to pioneer it. It's much more likely someone will get there first and then D&D and Pathfinder will be left playing catchup again. (And that's assuming WoW don't see the potential of the new tech quickly and use their clout to force themselves back into a dominant position there, in the same way that Microsoft have been able to become one of the big players in console gaming.)

And now the obligatory disclaimers: IMO, YMMV, probably, and even near-certainly.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> On a slight tangent, I would observe that the OGL has helped make Paizo the leader it is today as there are several companies producing material dependent on the material Paizo produces. The 3pps certainly look to Paizo as both inspiration (part of leadership) and as the current center of the OGL universe.




Yes, but Paizo didn't originally create the OGL.  WotC seems to have been the first to openly license RPG content (I don't think any notable publisher used a creative commons license before them, someone correct me if I am wrong).

So, who is the "leader"?  Who is creating more innovations?  I don't think it is clearly one or the other.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 19, 2015)

What D&D has, that Pathfinder will never have is several years in which parents groups and and national news programs accuse it of corrupting the morals of the American youth. 

This is the reason that D&D is seared into the American conscious.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> So your brother was, I would guess, introducing it to you as a simpler form of ADnD, a game which you could, in a sense, work yourself up to? Would that be a fair guess, or is it off the mark?




I don't know if the working up was planned.  I think it was more, "Hey, my brothers might like this.  But they are young, and AD&D is too complicated.  Let's use a simpler game."  

We did happen to like it, so when we were old enough, AD&D books became a no-brainer for X-mas one year.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but Paizo didn't originally create the OGL.  WotC seems to have been the first to openly license RPG content (I don't think any notable publisher used a creative commons license before them, someone correct me if I am wrong).
> 
> So, who is the "leader"?  Who is creating more innovations?  I don't think it is clearly one or the other.




I think we (speaking only for myself and you) may be using Leader in a different way. I don't necessarily mean innovator when I speak of an industry leader. Coke is an industry leader but they are hardly innovative. 

And I have said from the outset that I think at the moment the industry has two leaders. Which, personally I think is a healthy sign.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> And I have said from the outset that I think at the moment the industry has two leaders. Which, personally I think is a healthy sign.




And the irony as I see it is that I don't think anyone within the industry even really *cares* who the "Leader" is.  It always seems to come down to all of us fans outside of it who keep debating who is in First Place, or Second Place, or whatever... while everyone within the industry wants everyone to do well, because inevitably it helps everyone in the end.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And the irony as I see it is that I don't think anyone within the industry even really *cares* who the "Leader" is.  It always seems to come down to all of us fans outside of it who keep debating who is in First Place, or Second Place, or whatever... while everyone within the industry wants everyone to do well, because inevitably it helps everyone in the end.




I want everyone to do well as both a fan and a writer. When I opine on who is serving as "an industry leader," I am not doing so because I have an emotionally vested interest in a particular team (though I do play Pathfinder) but because I think it interesting to observe how these things change and to analyze why they have changed. This does have a tendency to bleed into or flow out of various forum arguments between fans but I try to remain emotionally unattached from my own analysis of the situation if possible. 

As far as "in industry" goes, on the one hand you are right in that it is not a matter of giving out prizes. On the other hand, it does behoove a person to pay attention to the market and where it is going (for instance, if WotC releases the OGL for 5e I will most certainly get up to speed on the game to be able to better produce material for it as I am certain that there will be a demand for it; as they have not I have not bothered). And sometimes the decision of one company is more likely to help everyone than the decisions of another company. Which is why there is a clamoring from other publishers for WotC to release an OGL and disappointment that they have not already. So the viewpoint is different but not the issue is not, I don't think, entirely unimportant. 

And don't discount the possibility of publishers being fans also. It is a small community and a relatively small hobby.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but Paizo didn't originally create the OGL.  WotC seems to have been the first to openly license RPG content (I don't think any notable publisher used a creative commons license before them, someone correct me if I am wrong).



 While you can use the qualifier 'notable' to exclude either or both of these if you like, FUDGE, which later led to FATE, was wide open from the beginning (1992), and Hero launched Fuzion, an open-source version of their system nominally combined with R.Talsorian's Interlock, in 1998. 

D&D hasn't really innovated since 1974.  But, it's kiinda *the* innovation of all RPG innovations, so it's not like it'll ever be out-innovated.  



Wicht said:


> Paizo took the top spot while 4e was still a thing, well before the hiatus started



 Not exactly.  Piazo took the top spot in one quarter - the one quarter when D&D changed directions from 4e to Essentials.  And it was another 3 before it consistently started doing so.  By then, D&D had gone from 20+ releases a year down to 4, shortly thereafter, it went out of print.

4e - with the fanatical campaign of vitriol, lies, hatred and misinformation that was the edition war in full swing - beat out Pathfinder's big release and core books.  Y'know, the core books that always sell best according to common industry wisdom.  

Now, D&D's core books have it back on top.  D&D fans, though, have a record of buying up the core quickly, and ignoring a lot of what follows, though, while Piazo's fans are a lot more consistent in their loyalty.  Pathfinder could easily re-claim the top spot in in-store sales if it keeps up its rapid pace, its fans remain staunch in their commitment to buy absolutely everything released, and 5e just puts out two books a year.



> I then remember the subtle change in language in the industry when people begin talking about the industry leader and it was clear who people were looking to for leadership. (hint: it was not WotC).



 I remember that, too.  It was the late 90s, and people thought WWGS was leading the industry in the vacuum left by TSR.  Then WotC bought out TSR, and, in 2000, boom, 3.0, d20 OGL, and D&D was right back on top again.  



> But for RPGs divisions alone, Paizo beats out just about everyone else right now for company size, including WotC.



I don't doubt it.  WotC's model right now is to produce & sell a few titles to a large number of D&D fans, and it's giving them the top spot.  Paizo's is to produce and sell a large number of of titles, which requires more developers, and means lower margins, and that's giving them the #2 spot.  The conclusion is clear:  WotC may have more fans, but Paizo fans have greater brand loyalty, they eagerly buy each new release.  (Unless they get to game 30 hours a week, I don't see how they can blow through that much material, that fast.  Must be nice.)

Ultimately, though, even if Paizo permanently takes the Icv2 in-store sales lead in the $15million TTRPG market, it's still doing it with a version of D&D, just one that can't technically have D&D on the cover.  Really, when thinking about which game is the biggest in the TTRPG hobby, D&D (all eds), Pathfinder, and OSR games should all be added together.  They're all D&D in some very real sense - certainly they all are to the indifferent perceptions of the mainstream, for whom /all/ RPGs are D&D.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> What D&D has, that Pathfinder will never have is several years in which parents groups and and national news programs accuse it of corrupting the morals of the American youth.
> 
> This is the reason that D&D is seared into the American conscious.




Or if a diverse group of youngsters have a Saturday morning roller coaster mishap and end up in the magical land of Golarion.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not exactly.  Piazo took the top spot in one quarter - the one quarter when D&D changed directions from 4e to Essentials.  And it was another 3 before it consistently started doing so.




If you go strictly by the ICV2 numbers, you can make that case. 

But there were some other indicators (anecdotal and observational) besides the ICV2 chart which gave one (me) the feeling that Pathfinder was pulling even with WotC if not outselling it in 2010. To buttress this claim (which relies largely on my own personal read of the situation), I would note that Lisa Stevens (who is a fairly straight shooter I think) is on record as saying that she knew from her own records and contacts that Pathfinder had pulled ahead of DnD before the ICV2 charts said it was so.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> What D&D has, that Pathfinder will never have is several years in which parents groups and and national news programs accuse it of corrupting the morals of the American youth.
> 
> This is the reason that D&D is seared into the American conscious.



 Well, that too, yes.

Maybe Paizo can secretly sponsor a Bothered About Pathfinder organization to whip up some hysteria?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> If you go strictly by the ICV2 numbers, you can make that case.



 If you don't go strictly by Icv2 numbers, you can't make the case that Pathfinder /ever/ pulled ahead of D&D.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Ultimately, though, even if Paizo permanently takes the Icv2 in-store sales lead in the $15million TTRPG market, it's still doing it with a version of D&D, just one that can't technically have D&D on the cover.  Really, when thinking about which game is the biggest in the TTRPG hobby, D&D (all eds), Pathfinder, and OSR games should all be added together.  They're all D&D in some very real sense - certainly they all are to the indifferent perceptions of the mainstream, for whom /all/ RPGs are D&D.




That only goes so far.  

As I said, I see evidence in my children of the shift in perceptions towards how the game is defined.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> If you don't go strictly by Icv2 numbers, you can't make the case that Pathfinder /ever/ pulled ahead of D&D.




Except for the CEO of Paizo saying that it was so, and the evidence of multiple book-stores, including national chains selling more of one than the other, and the Amazon rankings, and the evidence of notable Game Stores like Black Diamond selling more of one than the other, and the evidence of multiple online Polls telling us who on the forums was playing what, and the convention evidence of who was playing what and talking with people who switched from one to the other you are absolutely right that there is no way to ever make that case.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, that too, yes.
> 
> Maybe Paizo can secretly sponsor a Bothered About Pathfinder organization to whip up some hysteria?




As long as it has hysterical parents groups and PTA meetings devoted to it, I think it could work.  Maybe an episode of 60 minutes about it as well?  

Possibly someone claiming that their son summoned demons by playing Pathfinder and that the demons made him gay.  

That would get the game some real attention.

https://archive.org/details/60_minutes_on_dungeons_and_dragons


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> That only goes so far.



 It's gone for 40 years



> As I said, I see evidence in my children of the shift in perceptions towards how the game is defined.



How the game is defined among folks who are playing it (and their kids - congratulations on that, BTW, you do more to grow the hobby by teaching it to your kids than WotC or Piazo can ever do) doesn't matter to the mainstream - and growing the franchise outside of the miniscule TTRPG market depends on mainstream perception, and that doesn't shift easily.

Like [MENTION=6788547]bmfrosty[/MENTION] said, it'd take a few years of associating Pathfinder with Satanism and teen suicide to get it noticed by the mainstream...


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, that does bring up an interesting question or two:
> 
> If we consider "the industry" to be WotC and Paizo, we could debate that - I think there's a significant argument that Paizo isn't a clear leader, but that the two tend to leapfrog each other - the basic *idea* for an AP was WotC's - actually, TSR's.  While Paizo did public playtests, I think it was WotC who first did out-of-house wide playtesting.  While Paizo does good business with its model, WotC does more *experimentation* with models (DDI subscriptions, for example).  And surely, WotC has been in the forefront of experimenting with rules design and structure.  So, who is leading, and who is adapting what has been shown to by the other to work?  I don't think it is clear.
> 
> If we consider the various publishers who aren't WotC and Paizo (not that they compete in sales, but they do exist), then.... well, most others just don't have the resources to do these things, and are not following suit - can you be an industry leader when nobody's following you?




But there is a distinction between industry and market.

Within reasonable conversation, Paizo and WotC are providing the overwhelming majority of needs of the market.  Thus they are "the industry".  
But if market demands are not adequately met then new options will emerge in the industry side to service the needs.
This is a bit different, but at the same time quite similar to thew whole Paizo PF launch.    To many ti was *obviously true* that D&D was "the name" in RPGs, end of conversation.  Paizo could not possibly compete with the 800 hundred pound gorilla because, duh, that is why they call it the 800 pound gorilla.  But it is up to the gorilla to give the market what it wants.  Because the gorilla failed to adequately do that, the "impossible" happened and we now talk about Paizo and WotC as being comparable.  

And yet we now presume that the collective of Pazio/WotC is the new 800 pound gorilla and just as impossible to replace.    As long as they satisfy the market, that is pretty much true.  But the MARKET controls the industry.  And it could change again.   If there is a demand not being met, resources not available now will be made available.

This isn't the only way it can play out.  For example, someone could come up with a vastly more appealing game tomorrow and, in effect, redefine "satisfy the market" such that WotC and Paizo are no longer up to par.

Whatever.  The point is, you can't talk about industry leaders and their resources without keeping the current and the EVOLVING market in mind.

Yes, they are in the driver's seat.  So long as they remain forward thinking, savvy and smart, they can control their destiny.

But it is on them to achieve that. (and it is a what have you done for me lately issue)


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e - with the fanatical campaign of vitriol, lies, hatred and misinformation that was the edition war in full swing



Clearly a rational and open minded conversation will follow.....

The reality is that a whole lot of people strongly disliked 4E, for a variety of reasons.

The failure to deal with as an honest issue and instead live in the whole "it is just h4te" mentality hurt the ability for the game to grow and adapt to differing ideas.

Maintaining that debilitating bias now prevents understanding, learning and applying the lessons of the past.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Ultimately, though, even if Paizo permanently takes the Icv2 in-store sales lead in the $15million TTRPG market, it's still doing it with a version of D&D, just one that can't technically have D&D on the cover.  Really, when thinking about which game is the biggest in the TTRPG hobby, D&D (all eds), Pathfinder, and OSR games should all be added together.  They're all D&D in some very real sense - certainly they all are to the indifferent perceptions of the mainstream, for whom /all/ RPGs are D&D.





You're not wrong.  That being the case, does the ongoing debate seems to become more about who is doing D&D best?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> depends on mainstream perception, and that doesn't shift easily.



That simply isn't true.

It is a simple and common misconception.  

But maintaining brand identity is quite difficult and it can vanish remarkably fast.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2015)

BryonD said:


> The reality is that a whole lot of people strongly disliked 4E, for a variety of reasons.



 As evidenced by the lengths they were willing to go in the edition war, yes.



> The failure to deal with as an honest issue and instead live in the whole "it is just h4te" mentality hurt the ability for the game to grow and adapt to differing ideas.



 It'd be more accurate to say that it was caving to one side of the edition war that hurt the ability of the game to grow and adapt to differing ideas.  That contributed to D&D failing to achieve the breakout growth it was aiming for (though WotC's inability to roll out any of its vaporware also had a lot to do with it), and why it lost to Pathfinder in one quarter by suddenly changing direction and muddling presentation with Essentials, and why it tapered off production & went out of print years early - and, most conclusively, that's why it's back to so closely resembling what it was 15 years ago.   

But that's not the point.  The point was that /even with the edition war raging/, D&D still beat out Pathfinder until it suddenly changed direction, and even then, recovered until it started winding down the pace of releases.  And, even when Pathfinder won in the miniscule in-store-sales of TTRPGs Icv2 measure of the market, and D&D went on hiatus for two years, ceding the whole thing to Pathfinder, it was D&D that remained the brand with mainstream name recognition.  No one ever played Pathfinder on Parks & Recreation or the Big Bang Theory.



> Whatever. The point is, you can't talk about industry leaders and their resources without keeping the current and the EVOLVING market in mind.



 That's just it, the market /isn't/ evolving.  It's dominated by a 40 year old game and it's 15 year old clone.  The most energized segment of the market is a revival of the play styles typical of that 40yo game's earliest iterations.  If anything, the TTRPG market is atavistic. 



> But maintaining brand identity is quite difficult and it can vanish remarkably fast.



 D&D has done little to maintain a mainstream identity since the fad (and controversies) of the 80s, but it's held on all this time.  Really, though, the mainstream name recognition D&D has isn't really a brand identity, it's the identity of the whole TTRPG hobby in the minds of the mainstream.  WotC might be trying to leverage it into a more profitable franchise with a movie deal, or some faster-growing segment of the hobby games market (half a billion compared to the 15 million for TTRPGs, though WotC's CCGs already have a big slice of that), or an MMO  ($11 billion market) or whatever.  Doing that isn't dependent on D&D winning the TTRPG market though, just on it remaining recognized by the mainstream, which it is, and that shows no sign of changing.

Unless the BAP website goes viral and people start picketing Piazo...


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> If you don't go strictly by Icv2 numbers, you can't make the case that Pathfinder /ever/ pulled ahead of D&D.




How do you explain D&D going dormant for two years?


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> How do you explain D&D going dormant for two years?




That's a bit of a non-sequitur.  The only numbers we have are the Icv2 numbers right?  

Unless you can convince walmart and amazon to give up their numbers (the video game industry struggled for years with this) you're kind of SOL.  Really, the only people who know how much product is selling are Paizo and WotC, they don't know how much sold through until much later, and they're not going to share their numbers with the world.  Best you're going to get is a revenue mention in a quarterly stockholders meeting from Hasbro, and they're more likely than not going to just lump it in with all of WotC.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> That's a bit of a non-sequitur.  The only numbers we have are the Icv2 numbers right?



 Right.  Everything else is anecdotes and vague claims by folks promoting one or the other. 




goldomark said:


> How do you explain D&D going dormant for two years?



 The line failed to meet an unrealistic revenue goal, it's production resources were slashed, and it took that long to cobble together 5e.  You do remember the long Next playtest, right?  One could also speculate that they figured a two year hiatus would allow some demand to build back up, or give Pathfinder time to bloat itself to death, but I don't think anything so Machiavellian is required.  Lack of resources is reason enough.  Also explains the slow pace of releases and the farming out of everything but the core rules.


Not that it matters:  D&D still remained the mainstream vision of the hobby, even when out of print.  

5e is more than enough to anchor the franchise, even if Pathfinder edges it out of the top spot eventually - or, if, improbably, some other, better game finally does so.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> That's a bit of a non-sequitur.



It is sequitur. If it had sold well it wouldn't have gone dormant while the small fries up star kept producing material and hiring people. Now the up star as more employees than the other. It becomes difficult to say that WotC sold more books. 



> The only numbers we have are the Icv2 numbers right?



ICv2 doesn't give numbers, only ranks.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It is sequitur. If it had sold well it wouldn't have gone dormant while the small fries up star kept producing material and hiring people. Now the up star as more employees than the other. It becomes difficult to say that WotC sold more books.




That's a flawed interpretation.  The correct interpretation is this:  If it made enough profit it wouldn't have gone dormant.  

Selling books is only part of that equation.  You can sell plenty of books, but if you have too many returns or your cost of production is cumulatively too high, then you're dead in the water.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The line failed to meet an unrealistic revenue goal, it's production resources were slashed, and it took that long to cobble together 5e.  You do remember the long Next playtest, right?  One could also speculate that they figured a two year hiatus would allow some demand to build back up, or give Pathfinder time to bloat itself to death, but I don't think anything so Machiavellian is required.  Lack of resources is reason enough.  Also explains the slow pace of releases and the farming out of everything but the core rules.



If demands needs to grow, it is because it is to low. 

But if you really are saying that D&D always out sold Pathfinder even during 4e darkest days, this conversation is fruitless. Reality needs to be looked directly so that errors can become teachable moments. 4e tanked. And it tanked for various reasons, the main one is its content. 



> Not that it matters:  D&D still remained the mainstream vision of the hobby, even when out of print.



I have to disagree vigoriously. Paizo's vision became the mainstream vision of the hobby. They became the leader. D&D is trying to emulate them to some degree now because Paizo is the leader.

D&D has the potential to come once again the leader of the RPG industry, but it needs to take the crown from Paizo first. That hasn't happened yet and all the debates around the products they want to release and the OGL are signs of doubt in their method of reclaiming it.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Right.  Everything else is anecdotes and vague claims by folks promoting one or the other.






			
				Lisa Stevens November 1 said:
			
		

> Another negative for 2010 was the ongoing "edition war." The online arguing between fans of D&D 4th Edition and the Pathfinder RPG goes all the way back to our announcement of the Pathfinder RPG, but it took on new fervor in 2010 as 4E floundered a bit and Pathfinder challenged it in the marketplace. I need to make one thing clear—Paizo never wanted anything to do with the edition war. We weren't trying to take down D&D ; we were just trying to make a game that we enjoyed and that allowed us to tell the stories that we wanted to tell. I would be lying if I said we didn't enjoy the passion and loyalty of our customers defending their game—it was very flattering... but we really hoped that the edition war would just go away so everyone could enjoy their favorite game without attacking the other.
> 
> This will be news to most readers: By the end of 2010, the Pathfinder RPG had already overtaken D&D as the bestselling RPG. It would take almost half a year before industry magazine ICv2 first reported it, and several quarters more before some people were willing to accept it as fact, but internally, we already knew it was true. We'd heard it from nearly all of our hobby trade distributors; we'd heard it from buyers at book chains like Barnes & Noble and Borders; we could see it using industry sales trackers such as BookScan; we were even regularly coming out on top on Amazon's bestseller charts. Each individual market we sold in had us either tied with or outselling D&D, and none of those sources counted our considerable direct sales on paizo.com. Put all of those things together, and it was clear: Pathfinder had become the first RPG ever to oust D&D from top spot. It wasn't our goal, but here we were. And as we started planning for 2011, we knew that if we were going to be the industry leader, we were going to have to step up our game and act like a leader. 2011 would be our first chance to show what we could do with that position....




I don't think that's completely vague...


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> That's a flawed interpretation.  The correct interpretation is this:  If it made enough profit it wouldn't have gone dormant.
> 
> Selling books is only part of that equation.  You can sell plenty of books, but if you have too many returns or your cost of production is cumulatively too high, then you're dead in the water.




They've been a producer of books for a long time. I think they know how to manage cost of production by now. If they did indeed sell enough books, that wouldn't of been a issue. 

But, again, if you really want to debate the popularity of 4e, that conversation has happened and it is settled. Time to move on and learn from past errors instead of staying in denial.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> They've been a producer of books for a long time. I think they know how to manage cost of production by now. If they did indeed sell enough books, that wouldn't of been a issue.
> 
> But, again, if you really want to debate the popularity of 4e, that conversation has happened and it is settled. Time to move on and learn from past errors instead of staying in denial.




TSR was a producer of books for a long time.  You'd have thought that they'd know how to manage the costs of production by 1997.  However, they produced more books than they could sell to a degree that they went  up and WotC bought the corpse.

That's just the most relevant example.  This happens over and over again.

EDIT: Didn't expect that a mention of mammaries would hit the language censor.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If it had sold well it wouldn't have gone dormant ....




I don't think that necessarily follows.  It is one plausible explanation, but there are a great many things that go into business choices that are *not*, "how good are current or recent sales", so that I don't think we can say this with any certainty, especially with the vague definition of "well".  

One major such question is this: How much more content could they have designed for sale?  With high volume release schedules, editions saturate.  It can sell really, really well up until that point, but then you have to ask yourself if it will continue to sell going forward, and whether the edition in hand will continue to fit the business in the long-term.  

And that's just one example - we can contrive enough plausible others that I don't think there's certainty that it didn't sell well.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2015)

Sell 'well' is relative.  If your sales last year were $1 million, and you launch a product you hope will sell $3 million, but it sells $3.5 million, that's selling fantastically well.

If your sales last year were $7 million, and you pour a huge investment into a new product you hope will sell 50-100 million, then selling $9 million is a disaster.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

It also goes against what WotC emloyees/ex-employees have said about 4e's success. Here Mearls says: 







> "Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all of our fans and replace them.' That was never the intent,"



http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/issues/issue_271/8109-Red-Box-Renaissance

It is implied that they lost a lot of fans. And that means lost sells. 


Here he says that people are playing other games: 







> The result of this philosophy is that, perhaps more than ever before, gamers are playing different games than the official D&D coming out of the Wizards of the Coast.



http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9294-The-State-of-Dungeons-Dragons-Future

At what point can we move away from denial and just accept what has happened?


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 19, 2015)

Y'all have amazing stamina. .....


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

Zaukrie said:


> Y'all have amazing stamina. .....




That is what she said.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It'd be more accurate to say that it was caving to one side of the edition war that hurt the ability of the game to grow and adapt to differing ideas.  That contributed to D&D failing to achieve the breakout growth it was aiming for (though WotC's inability to roll out any of its vaporware also had a lot to do with it), and why it lost to Pathfinder in one quarter by suddenly changing direction and muddling presentation with Essentials, and why it tapered off production & went out of print years early - and, most conclusively, that's why it's back to so closely resembling what it was 15 years ago.



Ok, if you think so.



> That's just it, the market /isn't/ evolving.  It's dominated by a 40 year old game and it's 15 year old clone.  The most energized segment of the market is a revival of the play styles typical of that 40yo game's earliest iterations.  If anything, the TTRPG market is atavistic.



I'm not surprised that you can't see the modern evolutions in gaming.  

So be it.

You have on multiple occasions personally called me a h4ter and to this day you are controlled by that closed-minded preconception.
So I'm not going to get anything interesting from you are you are not going to be capable of overcoming your intense bias.

I don't mind pointing out when your comments don't add up.  But there is no point in me actively engaging with anyone coming from your point of bitterness.

I hope you greatly enjoy your games.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 19, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I think its always a mistake to make blanket statements about what, or who, will, at some point in the future, threaten the current status quo.  While I could cite many examples, I will stick with the subject at hand and mention that I recall those who said, with absolute certainty, Pathfinder will never threaten Dungeons and Dragons.




Humans are, as a rule, pretty crap at predicting the future.

You would be better off with either a dart board or a trained monkey (untrained monkeys tend to bite too much!).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I'm not surprised that you can't see the modern evolutions in gaming.



 Feel free to elucidate.

I mean, there are always some niche games innovating something somewhere.  FATE and 13th Age and many an indie game come up with cool ideas.   They're not 'industry leaders' though, especially not in sales.  You could fill a warehouse with copies of out-of-print games that did something cooler or more innovative or just plain better than D&D.  But, D&D is still the only TTRPG game the mainstream outside the hobby has any awareness of, and D&D and it's clones take the lion's share of the market and have done, every year, for 40 years - however small that market may be, notwithstanding.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 19, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Humans are, as a rule, pretty crap at predicting the future.
> 
> You would be better off with either a dart board or a trained monkey (untrained monkeys tend to bite too much!).





Can we triple our prescience with unchained monkeys flinging darts?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Feel free to elucidate..



Your powers of obfuscation are too much for me.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 19, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It also goes against what WotC emloyees/ex-employees have said about 4e's success. Here Mearls says:  http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/issues/issue_271/8109-Red-Box-Renaissance
> 
> It is implied that they lost a lot of fans. And that means lost sells.
> 
> ...




I'm unsure as to what point you're trying to make.

I think we can say that in 2007/8 4e launched and burned brightly until it fizzled out in 2011/12, and during the time between then and when 5e launched Pathfinder carried the torch and made more money than D&D for that time.

I also don't think anyone would argue that the release of 4e didn't cause a schism between editions and that some significant percentage of people stayed with 3e in the form of Pathfinder instead of going to 4e.

I also don't think that you'd find anyone arguing that the transition from OGL to GSL didn't cause a lot of 3rd party publishers to stick with what they knew and move on to supporting Pathfinder.

There are a lot of things that we know, and a lot of things that we don't.  Including how D&D will do over the next 9 months.  Including how Pathfinder will do over the next 9 months.

We don't know if Pathfinder 1.1 or 2.0 or whatever will be forthcoming in the next couple of years.

We don't know what's coming at Gen Con this year.

Lots of unknowns out there.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> I also don't think anyone would argue that the release of 4e caused a schism between editions and some significant percentage of people stayed with 3e in the form of Pathfinder instead of going to 4e.



 I think you left out a negative in there (there was certainly a schism).  I mentally added it in the first time I read it...


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think you left out a negative in there (there was certainly a schism).  I mentally added it in the first time I read it...




Thanks.  Should be corrected now.  Need to read over it again and make sure I didn't goof up somewhere else.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> I think we can say that in 2007/8 4e launched and burned brightly until it fizzled out in 2011/12,



If this is accurate, why is there so much conversation from Mearls about addressing "disgruntled fans" in an article from late 2010.  And he doesn't just say they are out there, he is talking about it as a serious issue needing a solution.

This doesn't dispute that there was a segment of the market that LOVED 4E.  But you don't get good replies from an echo-chamber.  You need to step back and look at the market as a whole as a legitimate beast with important differing views.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 19, 2015)

BryonD said:


> If you are correct then the conversation becomes largely moot.
> That said, I'm not sure that you can make the generalization that people complaining about WotC's poor communication are people who won't buy APs.
> 
> If they announce a splat in 2015, will that make you wrong?




Might as well make my predictions here, feel free to mock me in a year or two when I'm proven wrong!

I actually am expecting them to (well, hoping) put out one non-adventure hardcover product, if only because I'm skeptical that that all they're doing right now is supervising the third party publishers working on the adventure path (that seems like it would require less than the whole team of 8).

I'd be very surprised to see two such books, and will be firmly "wrong" if they release anything more than that in 2015.  We're still far enough out from next year that I can't really predict whether or not they'll up the release schedule in 2016, but March 2015 Trickster Spirit will go on record as saying he thinks the cap will still be two non-adventure path supplements (that is, a max of two non-"Players' Companions" books). Future Trickster Spirit might change his views based on WotC as we get closer to next January.

I don't have any ideas as to what this hypothetical 2015 supplement might be, though if I have to share a wild guess I'd put my money on a Forgotten Realms Campaign setting. No idea if that's the case - they could pull a fast one and release a non-Forgotten Realms setting, or put out a Monster Manual instead. 

To be honest I really don't see any evidence to indicate they're releasing anything this year that's not an adventure path or an accompanying player's companion, but hey I'm as subject to wishful thinking as much as the next guy so I'll say 1-2 products this year. With a six month announcement lead time that gives us until the end of June before my hopes start sinking. If the "big reveal" in the works is an announcement of several non-adventure path products in 2015-2016, I'll eat crow.



BryonD said:


> If they don't announce a splat and D&D starts falling in 2016 (APs don't sell as well either), will that make you wrong?




I will say yes, though let me clarify - what I am actually saying is that Wizards doesn't care about ICv2 ratings whatsoever and isn't pursuing a strategy towards saying at the top of those charts. That said, even with only the core books and adventure paths I personally suspect D&D has recaptured the top spot for some time.

So I will be solidly wrong about my personal assessment on the relative size of D&D's customer base vs. Pathfinder's, but right about Wizards interest in the tabletop publishing arena. 

Now if Pathfinder takes the top spot and Wizards reacts by putting out more product to reclaim it, I will have been proven fully wrong, since in that situation I would expect Wizards to stay the course - my actual position is that tabletop book sales are mostly irrelevant to them, and that they'd rather invest in and earn the profits from things like "Sword Coast Legends" than they do pen and paper splatbooks, and that 5E will be a nominally supported "token" RPG line to center the brand around.



BryonD said:


> I think the same thing could be said about people sling insults at anyone who dares complain when things go poorly.
> Shouldn't you check your own characterizations if it bothers you when others do it?
> 
> I've got no worries about me.
> But if you are using the terms you are using and then turning around and saying you don't mean them for what they are, then that makes it that much worse that you are being critical of others for doing the exact same thing.




Didn't really see any of the aforementioned words ("riotous", "fanboy", "outrage") as particularly insulting, just descriptive - some folks are clearly emotionally invested and upset over what Wizards is doing ("outraged"), and those folks happen to be the hardcore devotees of the game ("fanboys", or to be more gender-inclusive, "fanchildren", a title I'll happily apply to my own self), who are being extremely vocal ("riotous") about Wizards perceived botching of the game line and being neglectful of their customers' desires.

I don't really think that my point - that if Wizards isn't planning on selling further products to those customers (making them ex-customers), they'd probably do best to ignore them and not take their criticisms into account when deciding on how to grow the brand - was as insulting towards those critics as some of those critics were being towards Mike Mearls personally, whom many of the WotC-critics have said seems like a nice guy who shouldn't be taken to task for what WotC executives decide to do with the product line.



BryonD said:


> They are acting like they are customers dealing with someone who is not living up to expectations.




Well, an adjustment has to occur somewhere. Either Wizards has to start living up to those customers' expectations, or those customers have to realize that their expectations are faulty.

Since I've seen no indications that WotC is about to release a steady stream of supplements, I'm leaning towards the latter.



BryonD said:


> I'm holding someone who wants to sell recreational material to the public to the standards of someone who wants to sell recreational material to the public.




The recreational material, in the form of the core books, has already been sold to the public, and seemed to have been very well received (by tabletop RPG standards).

The new material they're looking to sell to the public are the Adventure Paths. What lofty standards do they need to achieve to sell adventure paths? They've got a pretty good organised play system set up at various FLGSs, and folks'll be able to buy it at stores or from online retailers. 

Arguing that they need to sell more product for 5E to be a success is using an outdated definition for success (the 3E/4E business model). Everything we've seen so far leads me to believe that 5E just needs to make a modest profit from core book sales and the adventure paths every year to be a "success" in WotC's new model. 

I've used Monopoly as the model before, but Monopoly is kind of notorious for releasing tie-in editions so it's not the best comparison. Battleship or Clue would be a better fit. Neither need supplementary extensions, expansion decks or new mechanics to make a profit. People buy the game, and the transaction is complete. Maybe you lose some pieces or the box gets ruined in a flood or you like the Star Wars version so you go buy another one, but there is no dependence on Parker Brothers' behalf you being an ongoing Battleship or Clue customer.

The fact that they've not announced any supplements so far, and don't have the staff to produce more than one or two a year, if any, means that they're not viewing those supplements as critical to 5E's continued success _under their revised metric for success_. They're putting out adventure paths for perplexed players who just purchased the game and are wondering now what do they do with it, but that looks to be all the "recreational material" they're interested in putting out and they seem to be on track to sell it just fine.


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 19, 2015)

BryonD said:


> If this is accurate, why is there so much conversation from Mearls about addressing "disgruntled fans" in an article from late 2010.  And he doesn't just say they are out there, he is talking about it as a serious issue needing a solution.
> 
> This doesn't dispute that there was a segment of the market that LOVED 4E.  But you don't get good replies from an echo-chamber.  You need to step back and look at the market as a whole as a legitimate beast with important differing views.




Both happened.

It sold a bunch for a few years (2-4?) and then fizzled.  There was a schism.  Both happened.  Multiple reasons for the schism and for the fizzling including a few that were directly connected.  Both have been very well covered in this thread.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 19, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Can we triple our prescience with unchained monkeys flinging darts?




As long as we are willing to lose a certain percentage of monkeys to dart injuries, it sounds like a plan with no visible drawbacks!


----------



## bmfrosty (Mar 19, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Might as well make my predictions here, feel free to mock me in a year or two when I'm proven wrong!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The fact that they've not announced any supplements so far, and don't have the staff to produce more than one or two a year, if any, means that they're not viewing those supplements as critical to 5E's continued success _under their revised metric for success_. They're putting out adventure paths for perplexed players who just purchased the game and are wondering now what do they do with it, but that looks to be all the "recreational material" they're interested in putting out and they seem to be on track to sell it just fine.




I think we'll see 2 AP a year as the minimum.  I also think that we'll see Campaign Settings, but at a more measured rate.  Maybe 1 per year.

I would like to also see monster, modules, and howtos on how refluff a race/class into something else.  That could be freebies on their site or some sort of subscription PDF, but I wouldn't predict that it would happen.  I just think it would be nice.

Another wishlist item - given that they're they're trying to hold back character generators that cover items that are only in the PHB, but not in the Basic Rules, I think they need to put together something official.  I think they missed an opportunity to put registration cards in the core books.  I think there are some deep marketing opportunities there.  I think there are opportunities to reward their repeat customers there.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 19, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> As long as we are willing to lose a certain percentage of monkeys to dart injuries, it sounds like a plan with no visible drawbacks!




Except that we all know that monkeys don't just fling darts. And that *will* be a visible drawback.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 19, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Except that we all know that monkeys don't just fling darts. And that *will* be a visible drawback.




I thought that was why we had interns? =;0)


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> Both happened.
> 
> It sold a bunch for a few years (2-4?) and then fizzled.  There was a schism.  Both happened.  Multiple reasons for the schism and for the fizzling including a few that were directly connected.  Both have been very well covered in this thread.




Both can happen is one is it fizzled in 2011/2012 and another is that it fizzled before late 2010.  

It certainly launched as a blockbuster.  But your "few years" is guesswork and evidence doesn't support it very well.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 19, 2015)

bmfrosty said:


> I'm unsure as to what point you're trying to make.




View attachment 67522

My point was that there were some people still questioning the success/failure of 4e and Pathfinder. That debated was settles a while back.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Might as well make my predictions here, feel free to mock me in a year or two when I'm proven wrong!
> 
> I actually am expecting them to (well, hoping) put out one non-adventure hardcover product, if only because I'm skeptical that that all they're doing right now is supervising the third party publishers working on the adventure path (that seems like it would require less than the whole team of 8).
> 
> I'd be very surprised to see two such books, and will be firmly "wrong" if they release anything more than that in 2015.



I think this is a very safe prediction.  I think two major (non-AP) releases in 2015 is virtually impossible.   they could be playing a lot of stuff really secret, but that doesn't seem at all in line with any comments.



> We're still far enough out from next year that I can't really predict whether or not they'll up the release schedule in 2016, but March 2015 Trickster Spirit will go on record as saying he thinks the cap will still be two non-adventure path supplements (that is, a max of two non-"Players' Companions" books). Future Trickster Spirit might change his views based on WotC as we get closer to next January.



Again, fair enough.  I'd say another "major" book and a Monster Manual II by that or some other name.  
I think we aligned enough to call it the same ballpark estimate.



> I don't have any ideas as to what this hypothetical 2015 supplement might be, though if I have to share a wild guess I'd put my money on a Forgotten Realms Campaign setting. No idea if that's the case - they could pull a fast one and release a non-Forgotten Realms setting, or put out a Monster Manual instead.



I'd bet AGAINST a campaign setting because the APs offer a lot of that and they wouldn't be covering their bets as well. 



> To be honest I really don't see any evidence to indicate they're releasing anything this year that's not an adventure path or an accompanying player's companion, but hey I'm as subject to wishful thinking as much as the next guy so I'll say 1-2 products this year. With a six month announcement lead time that gives us until the end of June before my hopes start sinking. If the "big reveal" in the works is an announcement of several non-adventure path products in 2015-2016, I'll eat crow.



I don't see any evidence yet either.
My predictions are more along the lines of: if they are no planning some support now, they will when they start to see fans wander off to other alternatives.  so it could be late 2016 if they have to "wake up" and then get started.



> I will say yes, though let me clarify - what I am actually saying is that Wizards doesn't care about ICv2 ratings whatsoever and isn't pursuing a strategy towards saying at the top of those charts. That said, even with only the core books and adventure paths I personally suspect D&D has recaptured the top spot for some time.



I don't know what could make a strong competition against them for two or three quarters, just using core alone.

They don't care about ICv2.  But (and this is "its all about the movie" aside) I think they do care about sales and overall game popularity.  And is ICv2 is going down, metrics they DO care about are going down.




> So I will be solidly wrong about my personal assessment on the relative size of D&D's customer base vs. Pathfinder's, but right about Wizards interest in the tabletop publishing arena.
> 
> Now if Pathfinder takes the top spot and Wizards reacts by putting out more product to reclaim it, I will have been proven fully wrong, since in that situation I would expect Wizards to stay the course - my actual position is that tabletop book sales are mostly irrelevant to them, and that they'd rather invest in and earn the profits from things like "Sword Coast Legends" than they do pen and paper splatbooks, and that 5E will be a nominally supported "token" RPG line to center the brand around.



There is reason to believe this is the plan.
If this is the plan a lot of people will (yet again) be making up reasons why it isn't the plan's fault when the plan fails a few years from now.




> Didn't really see any of the aforementioned words ("riotous", "fanboy", "outrage") as particularly insulting, just descriptive



But doesn't that undercut your own complaint?
When you use words you don't care what they mean to other people, you only care what you say you intended them to mean.
When other people say similar things they are "slinging insults".  You can't have it both ways.

Again, as I said before, it is fine by me if you want people to chill and not over-react to what you said.    But if that is what you want them you should offer the same attitude and not accuse others of "insult flinging".



> Well, an adjustment has to occur somewhere. Either Wizards has to start living up to those customers' expectations, or those customers have to realize that their expectations are faulty.
> 
> Since I've seen no indications that WotC is about to release a steady stream of supplements, I'm leaning towards the latter.



There is no such thing as faulty customer expectations.  There are customer expectations that you meet and there are customer expectations that your competitors meet.
It may be flawed to think that WotC plans to meet this expectations, but if that is the case WotC is either planning to lose customers (again) or they have badly miscalculated.





> The recreational material, in the form of the core books, has already been sold to the public, and seemed to have been very well received (by tabletop RPG standards).
> 
> The new material they're looking to sell to the public are the Adventure Paths. What lofty standards do they need to achieve to sell adventure paths? They've got a pretty good organised play system set up at various FLGSs, and folks'll be able to buy it at stores or from online retailers.



APs are also recreational material.  It seems decidely odd that you are not calling it that.   And if a lot of people turn to other games, less APs will sell.



> Arguing that they need to sell more product for 5E to be a success is using an outdated definition for success (the 3E/4E business model). Everything we've seen so far leads me to believe that 5E just needs to make a modest profit from core book sales and the adventure paths every year to be a "success" in WotC's new model.



You don't know that.  But, again, if people are playing other games, it is entirely possible that even this standard of success will not be met.

My definition of success is maximizing revenue and overall return on investment.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 20, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Both can happen is one is it fizzled in 2011/2012 and another is that it fizzled before late 2010.
> 
> It certainly launched as a blockbuster.  But your "few years" is guesswork and evidence doesn't support it very well.




The schism happened at launch.  It came out and half the people playing 3.5e at the time said "No way I'm buying that crap!".  4e made up for it by attracting a LOT of new people.  Most of the stores I went to were filled with people playing D&D Encounters who had never played D&D before 4e.

But 4e was still going strong.  WOTC just got a lot of complaining from people who opted out of 4e or bought only the PHB and then decided the edition wasn't for them.  They hung around, constantly complaining that 4e wasn't 3.5e.  So, when Mearls was talking about finding a way to heal the schism, he was talking mostly about trying to bring the people who liked 3.5e back into the game.  Most of them had switched to Pathfinder but some went to 4e with their friends but weren't entirely enjoying themselves.

Which is why they started coming up with the idea for 5e around 2010.

They probably could have stuck with 4e and continued selling books fairly well.  But Mearls felt it was more important to have an edition of D&D that would bring back those they had alienated with 4e.


----------



## delericho (Mar 20, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The schism happened at launch.  It came out and half the people playing 3.5e at the time said "No way I'm buying that crap!".




Before even that, I'm afraid. The Edition Wars seemed to kick off shortly after the announcement of the edition, never mind the release.

Also, put me down as another who doesn't think 4e fizzled so much as it just didn't meet expectations. And I'm inclined to blame the DDI for that: by putting all the mechanical stuff into the Compendium and accessible for a low monthly price, WotC _must_ have eaten into their splatbook sales quite significantly, and since those are normally the safest bets as far as supplements go, I can't imagine that helped. At the same time, although the DDI managed tens of thousands of subscribers (which would have delighted anyone else), I fear it may have been sold to management on a promise of hundreds of thousands and so may also have been considered a disappointment.

But 4e did seem to be going reasonably well until Essentials, which appears to have bombed, rather than fizzled.


----------



## Uchawi (Mar 20, 2015)

I agree essentials bombed. But the focus was applied in the wrong spot. A lot of the criticisms behind 4E were based on mechanical bias. They would have been better off smoothing out some of the rough edges and adding more options to the game, like allowing casters more spells, or martial characters more attacks. Or add more options for story pacing and healing. But worse of all, you had a feeling that the developers did not want to stand behind their product. That may have been due to some unrealistic expectations set by Hasbro, or the developers promised to much. I believe an attempt was made to branch out to entice another group of players like Magic the Gathering to come into the fold. That would explain the micro management necessary from round to round to manage conditions, interrupts, etc.

But on the other hand 5E threw away most of the strengths and rules consistencies of 4E from the perspective of transparent and easy to understand rules (no DM gets to decide mumbo jumbo), and also dumbing down martial characters and enhancing spell casting classes.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 20, 2015)

I will say that 5th edition is a testament to how bad 4th edition was. If the previous edition failed because of high expectations or product bloat, then we would have seen a very similar game with 5th edition, we don't. We actually see a game that more resembles 2nd and 3rd edition which means Wizards must have realized that the gaming community weren't finished with those editions. 

Sometimes companies believe whenever they create something new that people will automatically take to it and never really look back. That was proven wrong because a lot of people simply got out their old books, played Pathfinder, or got into the retro clones.


----------



## delericho (Mar 20, 2015)

Uchawi said:


> I agree essentials bombed. But the focus was applied in the wrong spot. A lot of the criticisms behind 4E were based on mechanical bias. They would have been better off smoothing out some of the rough edges and adding more options to the game, like allowing casters more spells, or martial characters more attacks. Or add more options for story pacing and healing.




I'm not familiar enough with 4e to comment.



> But worse of all, you had a feeling that the developers did not want to stand behind their product.




I don't think that's fair. I'm sure they genuinely wanted to produce the best product they could, they genuinely put in their best efforts, and it just didn't work out.



> But on the other hand 5E threw away most of the strengths and rules consistencies of 4E from the perspective of transparent and easy to understand rules (no DM gets to decide mumbo jumbo), and also dumbing down martial characters and enhancing spell casting classes.




Actually, I think this goes back to your first point: with 4e they tried to formalise an awful lot of the game, what with all those grid movements, the rolling revisions as they endlessly tweaked the game, and the corrections for those criticisms of mechanical bias.

And at the end of all that work, after years of tweaking and lots of complaints about there being too much errata, they ended up with a game that _still_ wasn't perfect, that _still_ suffered lots of complaints of mechanical bias, feat taxes, and the like.

At which point I suspect they concluded that the notion of perfecting the mechanics is a chimera - the more they fix some things the more others will pop out of alignment. Because any sufficiently complex piece of software always has infinite bugs. Much better, then, to simply skip all that effort - to note that the game will always need a human DM to fix some issues, so why not just built that in from the outset?

Either that, or Mearls just has a preference (either in general, or just now) for a more rules-light version of the game.


----------



## delericho (Mar 20, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Humans are, as a rule, pretty crap at predicting the future.
> 
> You would be better off with either a dart board or a trained monkey (untrained monkeys tend to bite too much!).




I suppose monkeys would do. Sadly, our last true prophet is now dead.


----------



## Halivar (Mar 20, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> I will say that 5th edition is a testament to how bad 4th edition was..



You may say so, but the experience of thousands of gamers will disagree. It was not what enough of the market wanted to suit WotC; that is the most you can say.

This is the part of the Edition Wars I think I will enjoy the least: the endless schadenfreude and "I told you so's" that come from its conclusion.


----------



## Raunalyn (Mar 20, 2015)

So, what was the big reveal (since I'm too lazy to scan through all the comments on this thread)?


----------



## Halivar (Mar 20, 2015)

Raunalyn said:


> So, what was the big reveal (since I'm too lazy to scan through all the comments on this thread)?



So far? The reveal is that there will be a reveal. Soon(tm).


----------



## Wicht (Mar 20, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The schism happened at launch.  It came out and half the people playing 3.5e at the time said "No way I'm buying that crap!".



I think it was closer to 30% actually, at least initially. There were several polls that showed it to be in that Ballpark upon release.  Over the course of a year and a half the number dissatisfied with the game grew, contrary to many people's expectations (that being the people who thought 4e was great and those people who assumed the DnD name alone was enough to carry any edition). At the same time, while new 4e players were coming in, Pathfinder was also bringing in new blood and it is obvious in hindsight which one was actually doing it better.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 20, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The schism happened at launch.  It came out and half the people playing 3.5e at the time said "No way I'm buying that crap!".  4e made up for it by attracting a LOT of new people.  Most of the stores I went to were filled with people playing D&D Encounters who had never played D&D before 4e.




 [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] brings up a good point, was the rate of new players being brought in by 4e enough to not only make up for the players that were lost at launch but also those who grew dissatisfied with the game and moved onto not only Pathfinder but also other versions of "D&D".  Personally I fall into that group... I started out buying the 4e corebooks and even some of the supplemental stuff but as time went on I liked 4e less and less... but I also didn't switch to Pathfinder instead I moved to 13th Age (a game in the same vein of 4e that I and my group enjoyed much more than 4e) and DCC rpg.  I think the implications of the fact that the dislike of 4e grew and that there was a definite rise in the number of of various other versions of D&D (most if not all of which are still around with fan bases) outside of just Pathfinder during 4e's lifetime is often overlooked... 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> But 4e was still going strong.  WOTC just got a lot of complaining from people who opted out of 4e or bought only the PHB and then decided the edition wasn't for them.  They hung around, constantly complaining that 4e wasn't 3.5e.  So, when Mearls was talking about finding a way to heal the schism, he was talking mostly about trying to bring the people who liked 3.5e back into the game.  Most of them had switched to Pathfinder but some went to 4e with their friends but weren't entirely enjoying themselves.
> 
> Which is why they started coming up with the idea for 5e around 2010




Again the interesting question is how many people was that?  I would assume it had to be a considerable amount to shape the major design direction of a new edition?





Majoru Oakheart said:


> They probably could have stuck with 4e and continued selling books fairly well.  But Mearls felt it was more important to have an edition of D&D that would bring back those they had alienated with 4e.




But why... why was it worth the risk of loosing all these supposed new players that had been gained as well as the hardcore fanbase of 4e... in order to get those lapsed fans back?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 20, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The schism happened at launch.  It came out and half the people playing 3.5e at the time said "No way I'm buying that crap!".  4e made up for it by attracting a LOT of new people.  Most of the stores I went to were filled with people playing D&D Encounters who had never played D&D before 4e.
> 
> But 4e was still going strong.  WOTC just got a lot of complaining from people who opted out of 4e or bought only the PHB and then decided the edition wasn't for them.  They hung around, constantly complaining that 4e wasn't 3.5e.  So, when Mearls was talking about finding a way to heal the schism, he was talking mostly about trying to bring the people who liked 3.5e back into the game.  Most of them had switched to Pathfinder but some went to 4e with their friends but weren't entirely enjoying themselves.
> 
> ...




I really can't see this interpretation fitting the events that we know occurred. If 4e really was doing that well overall, why scrap it in favor of 2 years of R&D and a very different game? 4e may have done quite well in areas you observed, but the people at WotC should have had a broader view of how well their products were doing across the whole market. And they decided that they needed to make a major change. That tells me that, though 4e may have done well with some segments of the market, it was not meeting their goals.

Your interpretation puts a lot of blame on the complainers as if they had some power over Mearls and WotC or some excessive amount of influence. While the criticism may have stung, if the performance of 4e had met their goals, they wouldn't have scrapped further development of it. It's like trying to say the Vietnam War protesters caused the US to end the war. They didn't. They made a lot of noise and caused a lot of consternation, but the real sea change came from a broader decline in support/growth in opposition among the non-protesting public thanks to constant media coverage, over-optimistic statements from the government, and a total lack of any real sense of progress (particularly once the Tet Offensive indicated that the war was far from over). Similarly, I expect WotC shifted strategies not because of some bitter complaints and edition warring, but because of a broader, market-wide inability to meet their needs and goals.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 20, 2015)

Imaro said:


> [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] brings up a good point, was the rate of new players being brought in by 4e enough to not only make up for the players that were lost at launch but also those who grew dissatisfied with the game and moved onto not only Pathfinder but also other versions of "D&D".  Personally I fall into that group... I started out buying the 4e corebooks and even some of the supplemental stuff but as time went on I liked 4e less and less... but I also didn't switch to Pathfinder instead I moved to 13th Age (a game in the same vein of 4e that I and my group enjoyed much more than 4e) and DCC rpg.  I think the implications of the fact that the dislike of 4e grew and that there was a definite rise in the number of of various other versions of D&D (most if not all of which are still around with fan bases) outside of just Pathfinder during 4e's lifetime is often overlooked...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would presume it was because they saw and knew that the *foundation* of D&D was the same for ALL the editions, and it was oftentimes just the superficial mechanical changes and fluff changes that affected people enough to play or not play the game.  I presume they felt they could build a 5E that not only brought back a lot of foundational things that 3E players felt were missing in 4E... but also kept a lot of the foundational things of 4E that those new players enjoyed.  I mean... speaking for myself, I absolutely see all the parts of 5E that are directly representational of the 3E design mindset, and all the parts of 5E that are from the 4E mindset-- merged together in a wonderful whole.  And I presume they felt that if they did their job correctly, *most* people would see it that way too.

Sure... there will be some players that think 4E begins and ends with AEDU, and since 5E doesn't have that, then the game isn't worth playing.  Likewise, there will be some players that think 3E begins and ends with having classes and prestige classes for almost every single character concept out there, and since 5E doesn't have that, then the game isn't worth playing.  Throw in powered-down wizards for the 3E crowd, the loss of healing surges for the 4E crowd, etc. etc... some of both sets will still find 5E an inadequate replacement for the edition they prefer.  But for the rest of the D&D gaming community (which I presume they think makes up the majority)... those top-level things that are "missing" are not so important as the feeling you get from playing 5E.  That feeling that this is D&D in its purest, foundational form.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 20, 2015)

What is AEDU?


----------



## jayoungr (Mar 20, 2015)

Imaro said:


> But why... why was it worth the risk of loosing all these supposed new players that had been gained as well as the hardcore fanbase of 4e... in order to get those lapsed fans back?



My guess:  while D&D 4E was growing, Pathfinder was growing _faster_.



Wicht said:


> What is AEDU?



The "powers" classifications of D&D 4E.  It stands for *A*t-will, *E*ncounter, *D*aily, *U*tility.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 20, 2015)

It's part of the lexicon of acronyms that was spawned by 4e.

A = At will
E = Encounter
D = Daily
U = Utility

It's a shorthand for the power structure in 4e.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 20, 2015)

It's also French for goodbye, which it was come Essentials.

I see Essentials as the shift back towards pre-4e thinking, but with 4e mechanics in play. The Red Box. "Thief" and "mage" classes. The simple fighters. Elves becoming wizards again. In a lot of ways, Essentials was a signal that a lot of 4e ideas were going to scale back. (Though even I am amazed at how far back they went).


----------



## Wicht (Mar 20, 2015)

Thus far one of my favoritists things about 5e is that I can understand what people are talking about when they discuss the game.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 20, 2015)

Personally, I'm suspicious of broad, simple narratives to explain complex systems like the RPG market and the workings of a large company like WotC.  And a lot of hindsight-analysis of the interactions of 3e/4e/PF/5e seems to fall in that area.

Each edition change is always driven by multiple factors, such as the state of the industry (both gaming in general and RPGs in particular), the state of the economy, market research, and a messy process of in-house decision making.  And it's always an evolving practice.  I don't think WotC has _ever_ looked at the sales and said, "Welp, time for a .5!" or "Time for a whole new edition!"  Each edition change has been driven by different people, with different goals, and different takes on what the best strategy is.  Edition wars, or even what other companies are doing, seem far down the list.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 20, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Thus far one of my favoritists things about 5e is that I can understand what people are talking about when they discuss the game.



I started with 1e and B/X D&D, and left the game in the mid-90s.  When I came back, I had no idea what the hell what 3e players were talking about.  What's a Tier?  What's MAD?  (It's Multiple Ability-score Dependent.)  Oh.  Well, what's _that_?  Fighters tripping with chain whips?  Wizards firing crossbows?  Thieves doing Sneak Attack?  CoDZilla?  Spot check?  Skill ranks?  Swift actions?  Favored souls?  Prestige classes?

Every game is like that, with it's own jargon, plus the jargon made up by the players.  I mean, with 5e do you really understand when I say I have a Folk Hero Champion with Shield Mastery?  Or a Dragonborn Chainlock?


----------



## Wicht (Mar 20, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I mean, with 5e do you really understand when I say I have a Folk Hero Champion with Shield Mastery?  Or a Dragonborn Chainlock?




Sure


----------



## Iosue (Mar 20, 2015)

Since you have yet to buy a PHB, I remain skeptical.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 20, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Didn't really see any of the aforementioned words ("riotous", "fanboy", "outrage") as particularly insulting, just descriptive - some folks are clearly emotionally invested and upset over what Wizards is doing ("outraged"), and those folks happen to be the hardcore devotees of the game ("fanboys", or to be more gender-inclusive, "fanchildren", a title I'll happily apply to my own self), who are being extremely vocal ("riotous") about Wizards perceived botching of the game line and being neglectful of their customers' desires.




"Fanboy" certainly has a negative connotation, and if you use it, you're namecalling, if inadvertently. "Fanchildren" sounds a little weird to me, "fanpeople" redundant, perhaps "fanspawn"? Nah.

How about just "fans"? We're all fans of D&D, even if we call it Pathfinder (oooh, *zing*)!

_Note: serious point with weak attempt at humor._


----------



## Wicht (Mar 20, 2015)

Iosue said:


> Since you have yet to buy a PHB, I remain skeptical.




Why?
"folk hero," "champion", and "shield mastery" are all perfectly normal words.  Dragonborn is a race. Only "Chainlock" is new and its obviously a class. 

In conversation, context and the normal usage of words allows one to keep up very easily with the words you gave. Likewise, most of the words introduced by 3e were fairly intuitive. And things like "MAD" were not actually common words associated with that edition outside of certain small groups (I certainly never used that term).  People playing 3e and people playing 2e could have a conversation about their game and aside from THAC0 they were all talking about the same basic things.

But then came 4e and the parlance completely changed. I would lurk in a 4e thread and it felt like the language was completely different. It was just one of the weird things of that edition. And it was partially, imo, the result of the presentation of the game in the rulebooks themselves. I could, as a player coming out of 2e look at the 3e statblocks and basically understand it. 4e statblocks were never so intuitive for me. Obviously ymmv but that was my experience.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2015)

Imaro said:


> was the rate of new players being brought in by 4e enough to not only make up for the players that were lost at launch but also those who grew dissatisfied with the game?



 I think the Icv2 data that shows D&D continuing to lead Pathfinder until the release of Essentials is consistent with the idea that new players retained by 4e at least made up for the loss of 3.5 hold-outs and those discouraged from trying D&D at all by the edition war.  As for those who 'grew dissatisfied' again, as suggested by the only available (Icv2) data, Essentials /did/ recover the top spot relative to pathfinder after it's initial launch until the pace of publication dwindled away to almost nothing.  That suggests that new players made up the loss of any 4e fans who abandoned the game with the Essentials change of direction or otherwise grew dissatisfied in time to push initial Essentials sales below ongoing Pathfinder sales.  So, a qualified 'yeah, maybe.' 

While 4e hardly seemed to be D&D at all to long-time D&Ders, it was more intuitive and easier to learn for new players coming to the TTRPG hobby 'cold' or cross-pollinating from the orders-of-magnitude-more-popular CCG and MMO hobbies.  So, IMX, I did see significantly more new players retained by 4e and go on to become DMs fairly quickly.  It was startling, really, because, I looked at 4e and saw a very complex game that had many systems you had to do a double-take and give a second or third chance before they made sense (much like 5e's neo-Vancian, actually, but /more/ of them).  

The thing is, that greater retention could never have been enough to make 4e a 'success' - certainly not in the sense of meeting the leaked revenue goals - because there was nothing in WotC's handling of the property to bring in /more/ new players to try it.  Indeed, there was the edition war possibly dissuading some new players from trying D&D at all.  Retaining more new players doesn't make much difference when the trickle of new players remains relatively slow.  In 10 years, 4e might have built up an impressive base of new-to-TTRPG fans, but in only 2?  Not a chance, IMHO, even had it retained 100% of new players who tried it.



> But why... why was it worth the risk of loosing all these supposed new players that had been gained as well as the hardcore fanbase of 4e... in order to get those lapsed fans back?



 What risk?  If there ever was a hardcore 4e fanbase as fanatical as the 3.5 and old-school hold-outs who rejected 4e, it would have already been lost by Essentials.  Besides, even if the edition war were a strong indicator of loyalty, even the most brutal of 4vengers were still essentially(npi) defending 4e from attack, not holding it up as the only way to play the game.  Finally, 4e fans have no 'clone' like Pathfinder or OSR games to flee to.  So, WotC couldn't have seen much risk in alienating 4e fans by un-winding all the advancements made by 4e and presenting a 5e that fit more or less between AD&D and 3e in sophistication and quality.  And, indeed, former 4vengers like myself are actively playing (well, running, in my case) and promoting 5e.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 20, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think the Icv2 data that shows D&D continuing to lead Pathfinder until the release of Essentials is consistent with the idea that new players retained by 4e at least made up for the loss of 3.5 hold-outs and those discouraged from trying D&D at all by the edition war.While 4e hardly seemed to be D&D at all to long-time D&Ders, it was more intuitive and easier to learn for new players coming to the TTRPG hobby 'cold' or cross-pollinating from the orders-of-magnitude-more-popular CCG and MMO hobbies.  So, IMX, I did see significantly more new players retained by 4e and go on to become DMs fairly quickly.  It was startling, really, because, I looked at 4e and saw a very complex game that had many systems you had to do a double-take and give a second or third chance before they made sense (much like 5e's neo-Vancian, actually, but /more/ of them).  The thing is, that greater retention could never have been enough to make 4e a 'success' - certainly not in the sense of meeting the leaked revenue goals - because there was nothing in WotC's handling of the property to bring in /more/ new players to try it.  Indeed, there was the edition war possibly dissuading some new players from trying D&D at all.  Retaining more new players doesn't make much difference when the trickle of new players remains relatively slow.  In 10 years, 4e might have built up an impressive base of new-to-TTRPG fans, but in only 2?  Not a chance, even had it retained 100% of new players who tried it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't turn to IcV2 as a confirmation because it doesn't take into account online sales which is the bulk of Pathfinder's sales.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2015)

Our choices are to look at woefully incomplete data, or no data at all.

Sure, Icv2 misses Amazon sales of Pathfinder and D&D.  And it missed the revenue WotC got from DDI (which, if the size of the DDI 'group' on the old boards was to be believed, must have been bringing in millions every year).  And it's only an indicator of sales, not of people actually playing.  

But, it's available.  :shrug:


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 20, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Our choices are to look at woefully incomplete data, or no data at all.



Then all we can really say is we don't know. Lack of information can lead to wrong results.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Then all we can really say is we don't know. Lack of information can lead to wrong results.



 Sure. To that standard, everyone saying that Pathfinder ever beat D&D or that 4e 'failed' or whatever else - anything else - is dead wrong.  Not a very useful standard.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 20, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sure. To that standard, everyone saying that Pathfinder ever beat D&D or that 4e 'failed' or whatever else - anything else - is dead wrong.  Not a very useful standard.




Lacking confirmation data is not logically or factually the same as being "dead wrong." In point of fact, people do often reach the proper conclusion apart from having all the facts. There is even a word for such a phenomena: "intuition". The correctness of said intuition is most clearly analyzed after the fact, but success (whether predicatively or via accomplishment) is a fairly good indicator of sound intuition in a given arena. 

That aside, your continued insistence that ICV2 is the only available evidence anyone can possibly use in these discussions continues to be mistaken and your over-reliance on it continues to weaken your analysis.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Lacking confirmation data is not logically or factually the same as being "dead wrong."



 Exactly. Thus 'bad standard.'


----------



## Imaro (Mar 20, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think the Icv2 data that shows D&D continuing to lead Pathfinder until the release of Essentials is consistent with the idea that new players retained by 4e at least made up for the loss of 3.5 hold-outs and those discouraged from trying D&D at all by the edition war.




No... what it shows is that D&D continued to outsell Pathfinder in hobby stores (surprisingly (or not) enough where D&D Encounters were being held) but there is plenty of data, as you said admittedly incomplete that points in a different direction...

like amazon rankings which show the Pathfinder corebook being ranked higher that the 4e books for more periods than 4e is ranked higher than Pathfinder.



Tony Vargas said:


> As for those who 'grew dissatisfied' again, as suggested by the only available (Icv2) data, Essentials /did/ recover the top spot relative to pathfinder after it's initial launch until the pace of publication dwindled away to almost nothing.  That suggests that new players made up the loss of any 4e fans who abandoned the game with the Essentials change of direction or otherwise grew dissatisfied in time to push initial Essentials sales below ongoing Pathfinder sales.  So, a qualified 'yeah, maybe.'




I fail to see ho ICV2 rankings show what you are suggesting here... If anything I would say it is suggesting that 4e had a strong showing in hobby shops (probably due to the encounters program), nothing more and nothing less.  It would seem to reason that since there is a concentration of 4e players on a regular weekly basis that the sales for 4e items would be disproportionately higher in these outlets, especially when one factors in the Paizo model for selling books with a free PDF through subs. 



Tony Vargas said:


> While 4e hardly seemed to be D&D at all to long-time D&Ders, it was more intuitive and easier to learn for new players coming to the TTRPG hobby 'cold' or cross-pollinating from the orders-of-magnitude-more-popular CCG and MMO hobbies.




If you say so... I didn't see this with 4e at all when I participated in encounters for a limited time...



Tony Vargas said:


> So, IMX, I did see significantly more new players retained by 4e and go on to become DMs fairly quickly.  It was startling, really, because, I looked at 4e and saw a very complex game that had many systems you had to do a double-take and give a second or third chance before they made sense (much like 5e's neo-Vancian, actually, but /more/ of them).




Again our experiences differ.  I saw alot of players come and go at the hobby shop where I played at, and the same 3 DM's running it each week for the swag.    



Tony Vargas said:


> The thing is, that greater retention could never have been enough to make 4e a 'success' - certainly not in the sense of meeting the leaked revenue goals - because there was nothing in WotC's handling of the property to bring in /more/ new players to try it.  Indeed, there was the edition war possibly dissuading some new players from trying D&D at all.  Retaining more new players doesn't make much difference when the trickle of new players remains relatively slow.  In 10 years, 4e might have built up an impressive base of new-to-TTRPG fans, but in only 2?  Not a chance, IMHO, even had it retained 100% of new players who tried it.




Yeah if it took it 10 years to make up for the fans it lost in one... I'm going to go ahead and call that a failure.



Tony Vargas said:


> What risk?  If there ever was a hardcore 4e fanbase as *fanatical* as the 3.5 and old-school hold-outs who rejected 4e, it would have already been lost by Essentials.  Besides, even if the edition war were a strong indicator of loyalty, even the most brutal of 4vengers were still essentially(npi) defending 4e from attack, not holding it up as the only way to play the game.  Finally, 4e fans have no 'clone' like Pathfinder or OSR games to flee to.  So, WotC couldn't have seen much risk in alienating 4e fans by un-winding all the advancements made by 4e and presenting a 5e that fit more or less between AD&D and 3e in sophistication and quality.  And, indeed, former 4vengers like myself are actively playing (well, running, in my case) and promoting 5e.




Why would it have been lost by essentials when essentials wasn't a new edition but supplements to the 4e core?  At least that was the party line back then to anyone who suggested otherwise... As to "defending 4e from attack" let's just say I saw plenty of "attacks" on 3e by 4e proponents espousing their own "one wayism".  And finally as to 4e's advancements... let's just say if the game becomes less fun for me to play, I don't consider it an advancement.  But just from reading this paragraph above I can tell we probably aren't going to find a middle ground on 4e since I'm not keen on one side playing the victim role...

EDIT: Emphasis Mine...Slinging words like fanatical around for the 3.x and old school fan bases because they didn't share your preferences in gaming  doesn't really give much credence to your cries of victimization... It appears the 4venger continues to be strong in this one.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 20, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> "Fanboy" certainly has a negative connotation, and if you use it, you're namecalling, if inadvertently. "Fanchildren" sounds a little weird to me, "fanpeople" redundant, perhaps "fanspawn"? Nah.
> 
> How about just "fans"? We're all fans of D&D, even if we call it Pathfinder (oooh, *zing*)!
> 
> _Note: serious point with weak attempt at humor._




Fanboy is not an insult unless used as a insult. I would refer to myself as a D&D fanboy, or a tech geek, or a gaming nerd. If I was in high school and Rip Musclejock was calling me a fanboy, geek, or nerd, it would not be the same thing.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 20, 2015)

neobolts said:


> Fanboy is not an insult unless used as a insult. I would refer to myself as a D&D fanboy, or a tech geek, or a gaming nerd. If I was in high school and Rip Musclejock was calling me a fanboy, geek, or nerd, it would not be the same thing.




Sorry, but "fanboy" is a slur. Perhaps in the past it was not, and I'm sure not everyone is aware that the word has gained a negative connotation, and I'm sure there are folks who use it without meaning to be negative . . . . but it's still a slur today. A mild one, but insulting nonetheless. Even worse if you spell it "fanboi".

Innocent words gain negative meanings or connotations all the time. As a teacher, I have to counsel my students to avoid using the words "retarded" and "gay" as they are pretty much exclusively used as slurs nowadays, while the first has a clinical and scientific meaning and the second started out pretty innocent in meaning (and can still be used positively as an identifier, but in middle school its more often used as a slur).

Just like Jay (Silent Bob's sidekick) failed to do in "Clerks 2", you can't just "take it back" if you don't like that the word has become negative.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2015)

Imaro said:


> No... what it shows is that D&D continued to outsell Pathfinder in hobby stores (surprisingly (or not) enough where D&D Encounters were being held)



 The Encounters program was exclusively run in retail establishments, that doesn't mean it was run in every such establishment.  And, the Pathfinder Society was quite active in promoting organized play, as well.  So that doesn't seem like a huge confounding variable.

It does point to it capturing more data about the new players in question, though, since in-store programs are one place they tend to show up.



> but there is plenty of data, as you said admittedly incomplete that points in a different direction...



 Speculation and confirmation bias, yes, data, not so much.  Look, folks crowed over Pathfinder beating the Essentials release on Icv2, so apparently, it's good enough when it aligns with confirmation bias.



> like amazon rankings which show the Pathfinder corebook being ranked higher that the 4e books for more periods than 4e is ranked higher than Pathfinder.



 The Amazon rankings of 5e everyone was going nuts over a while back turned out to involve only a few thousand books - and Amazon is much more significant now than it was back then (and, AFAICK, we have no solid numbers from that period, either).  So, no, a ranking with no attendant volume data means vanishingly little.



> I fail to see ho ICV2 rankings show what you are suggesting here...



 I didn't say 'show' or 'prove,' only 'support.'  That Essentials fell from the top spot only to recapture it, for instance, suggests that new players retained made up for the hard-core 4e fanatics who ragequit over the change in direction.  It could, alternately, support the theory that said 4e hold-outs relented fairly quickly. 



> If you say so... I didn't see this with 4e at all when I participated in encounters for a limited time...



 I did, I was in on it from the second season on.   Like I said, it was something that surprised me.  I never expect to see many new players come back after trying D&D.  It always seemed like it just wasn't for everybody, that we D&Ders were a special breed.  What I saw with new players entering the hobby with 4e made me re-examine that perception.



> Yeah if it took it 10 years to make up for the fans it lost in one... I'm going to go ahead and call that a failure.



 I was thinking 10 years to build up a large fan base of entirely-new fans, not merely make up for the loss of old ones.  It seems making up for the loss happened fairly quickly, either that or the loss just wasn't that large (or both) or 4e wouldn't have held the top spot while pitting supplemental material vs the Pathfinder core release in 2009.




> Why would it have been lost by essentials when essentials wasn't a new edition but supplements to the 4e core?



 Because it was a radical change in direction (and the new direction was arguably 'backwards').  Fanatical 4e fans would not have liked that at all.  

I know I didn't.  



> At least that was the party line back then to anyone who suggested otherwise... As to "defending 4e from attack" let's just say I saw plenty of "attacks" on 3e by 4e proponents espousing their own "one wayism".



 'Attacks' like "4e is no more grid dependent than 3.5 was" or "Yes, 4e has a lot of named conditions to track, but 3.5 had even more?"  I'm sure you did.  Besides, it's not like problems with 3.5 hadn't been long-established.  Fans of 3.5 had been complaining that the "Fighter SUX," that combats were static, that WoCLW dependence was silly, and that prepped casters dominated play, among many other things, for a long time.  Those weren't things made up to defend 4e, they were established shortcomings of D&D that 4e tried to fix or minimize.  You can't defend AEDU on the grounds that it greatly improved class balance without admitting that class balance was always a pretty serious problem, before, for instance, and the same holds true throughout the exchanges of the edition war.  




> And finally as to 4e's advancements... let's just say if the game becomes less fun for me to play, I don't consider it and advancement.



 No one can force you to have fun with a better-balanced, more playable, clearer, and easier-to-run game.  Just like no one can force you to drive fast in a Tesla roadster.  Clinging to pre-conceived notions in the face of evidence to the contrary is easy.  Being open to new ideas is hard - and, often, not worth it at all (if you're completely satisfied with an existing product, the fact that a new one might be objectively better by some quantitative measure doesn't reduce that satisfaction).  
That's just human nature.  



> Slinging words like fanatical around for the 3.x and old school fan bases because they didn't share your preferences in gaming



 What did you think 'fan' was short for?


----------



## Wicht (Mar 20, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Exactly. Thus 'bad standard.'




Is that what you said?
Must have missed that.
I thought you were saying that professing ignorance of all the facts was the same as admitting to being dead wrong.


----------



## pkt77242 (Mar 20, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Then all we can really say is we don't know. Lack of information can lead to wrong results.




I get what you are saying, though I think that you are taking it a bit far, as generally we will never have all of the pertinent information in these discussions.  I also find it funny that you argue that WotC is making bad business decisions in other threads when you lack the information to know that.  Isn't that a double standard?


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 20, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Why would it have been lost by essentials when essentials wasn't a new edition but supplements to the 4e core?  At least that was the party line back then to anyone who suggested otherwise... As to "defending 4e from attack" let's just say I saw plenty of "attacks" on 3e by 4e proponents espousing their own "one wayism".  And finally as to 4e's advancements... let's just say if the game becomes less fun for me to play, I don't consider it an advancement.  But just from reading this paragraph above I can tell we probably aren't going to find a middle ground on 4e since I'm not keen on one side playing the victim role...



There were plenty of 4e fans who considered Essentials as a step backwards due to its abandonment of the full AEDU structure.  It was a pretty contentious topic among the 4e fanbase.

And seriously, there's no winners in the Edition War.  No side is anywhere close to blameless.  There were (and are) angry, loud partisans on both sides, angry and loud enough that even even-keel players get swept up into bad faith arguments.  These sales arguments are simply pedantry framed as historical accuracy disguising the attempt to make a moral judgment on the worth of 4e.  Either

A)  "4e's failure is due to its rejection by the marketplace because it was an inferior game." or
B) "4e was a great game, and its failure was a due to a combination of corporate mishandling and the intransigence of a segment of the playerbase."



Imaro said:


> EDIT: Emphasis Mine...Slinging words like fanatical around for the 3.x and old school fan bases because they didn't share your preferences in gaming  doesn't really give much credence to your cries of victimization... It appears the 4venger continues to be strong in this one.



Victimization is a little harsh.  Most 4e fans just feel some regret that the game didn't get a chance to be further developed so that it really shined, like 3e has had over the last 15 years.  I mean, if you're a fan of consistent AEDU, you only got 2 years of consistent development work, from 2008 until 2010.  And even if you were a fan of Essentials, you only got about an extra year and a half from that.


----------



## pkt77242 (Mar 20, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Sorry, but "fanboy" is a slur. Perhaps in the past it was not, and I'm sure not everyone is aware that the word has gained a negative connotation, and I'm sure there are folks who use it without meaning to be negative . . . . but it's still a slur today. A mild one, but insulting nonetheless. Even worse if you spell it "fanboi".
> 
> Innocent words gain negative meanings or connotations all the time. As a teacher, I have to counsel my students to avoid using the words "retarded" and "gay" as they are pretty much exclusively used as slurs nowadays, while the first has a clinical and scientific meaning and the second started out pretty innocent in meaning (and can still be used positively as an identifier, but in middle school its more often used as a slur).
> 
> Just like Jay (Silent Bob's sidekick) failed to do in "Clerks 2", you can't just "take it back" if you don't like that the word has become negative.




I think that slur is a touch harsh.  I wouldn't mix Fanboy in with all of the other slurs out there.  It is more like calling someone a homer of a sports team.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 20, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The Encounters program was exclusively run in retail establishments, that doesn't mean it was run in every such establishment.  And, the Pathfinder Society was quite active in promoting organized play, as well.  So that doesn't seem like a huge confounding variable.




I never said it was run in every establishment... but it was run exclusively in FLGS's which is where ICV2 collects the lion's share of their data from for the rankings you keep citing as proof.  As the the Pathfinder Society you seem to be selectively choosing the confounding variables you want to address since as I stated before Pathfinder sells directly with both a price reduction and free PDF as incentive.  So there is much less reason to buy Paizo product from a LFGS...



Tony Vargas said:


> It does point to it capturing more data about the new players in question, though, since in-store programs are one place they tend to show up.




Exactly what data concerning new players did it capture?



Tony Vargas said:


> Speculation and confirmation bias, yes, data, not so much.  Look, folks crowed over Pathfinder beating the Essentials release on Icv2, so apparently, it's good enough when it aligns with confirmation bias.




At least it is for you...as you are so aptly demonstrating...



Tony Vargas said:


> The Amazon rankings of 5e everyone was going nuts over a while back turned out to involve only a few thousand books - and Amazon is much more significant now than it was back then (and, AFAICK, we have no solid numbers from that period, either).  So, no, a ranking with no attendant volume data means vanishingly little.




Wait... what, citation please, otherwise I call bull...



Tony Vargas said:


> I didn't say 'show' or 'prove,' only 'support.'  That Essentials fell from the top spot only to recapture it, for instance, suggests that new players retained made up for the hard-core 4e fanatics who ragequit over the change in direction.  It could, alternately, support the theory that said 4e hold-outs relented fairly quickly.




Or it could show that a few/some/many who had lost interest in 4e swung back around to check essentials out once we heard about what it was... I admit I bought the essentials books because many were saying it was much closer to the older editions... so it actually could support numerous conclusions... but doesn't actually support anything. 



Tony Vargas said:


> I did, I was in on it from the second season on.   Like I said, it was something that surprised me.  I never expect to see many new players come back after trying D&D.  It always seemed like it just wasn't for everybody, that we D&Ders were a special breed.  What I saw with new players entering the hobby with 4e made me re-examine that perception.




Anecdotes and examples... we could go round and round all day.  So unless one of us has proof the other is lying this is kind of fruitless discussion...  



Tony Vargas said:


> I was thinking 10 years to build up a large fan base of entirely-new fans, not merely make up for the loss of old ones.  It seems making up for the loss happened fairly quickly, either that or the loss just wasn't that large (or both) or 4e wouldn't have held the top spot while pitting supplemental material vs the Pathfinder core release in 2009.




Ah, because of that incomplete data you keep relying on to prove...sorry support your conclusions.  The funny thing is that when looked at with confirmation bias and incomplete a person can make data support nealy any conclusion they desire.  I'll trust in Lisa Stevens, the CEO of Pathfinder stating that Pathfinder overtook D&D months before ICV2 stated Pathfinder was on top over your inferences from ICV2... I mean that's the actual word of someone who had access to complete data at the time. 




Tony Vargas said:


> Because it was a radical change in direction (and the new direction was arguably 'backwards').  Fanatical 4e fans would not have liked that at all.
> 
> I know I didn't.
> 
> Attacks' like "4e is no more grid dependent than 3.5 was" or "Yes, 4e has a lot of named conditions to track, but 3.5 had even more?"  I'm sure you did.  Besides, it's not like problems with 3.5 hadn't been long-established.  Fans of 3.5 had been complaining that the "Fighter SUX," that combats were static, that WoCLW dependence was silly, and that prepped casters dominated play, among many other things, for a long time.  Those weren't things made up to defend 4e, they were established shortcomings of D&D that 4e tried to fix or minimize.  You can't defend AEDU on the grounds that it greatly improved class balance without admitting that class balance was always a pretty serious problem, before.




Again we could go back with examples but it would be pointless... so you keep painting fans of 4e in the victim role if that's what floats your boat, it's of little consequence to me how you choose to remember the 4e edition wars.  



Tony Vargas said:


> No one can force you to have fun with a better-balanced, more playable, clearer, and easier-to-run game.  Just like no one can force you to drive fast in a Tesla roadster.




Yeah apparently no one could force me to have fun with hour+ long combat, short but numerous condition tracking, and flavorless crunch either... *shrug* but now I have 5e and I am having fun... sorry yours didn't take.  



Tony Vargas said:


> What did you think 'fan' was short for?




Here, let me educate you on the differences between the two words as they are used now...

Definition of FAN

1
:  an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator.
2
:  an ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit).


Definition of FANATIC

:  marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.


One clearly has a more negative connotation than the other... but I think you knew that already and since you are aware of both words I can only assume you intentionally chose to pick one over the other.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Most 4e fans just feel some regret that the game didn't get a chance to be further developed so that it really shined, like 3e has had over the last 15 years.  I mean, if you're a fan of consistent AEDU, you only got 2 years of consistent development work, from 2008 until 2010.  And even if you were a fan of Essentials, you only got about an extra year and a half from that.



That's fair.  It would have been nice to see what 3pps could have done given an OGL, too.  One thing that always made d20 a little balky outside the fantasy genre was the dependence on magical healing, games added things like 'reserves' (a bit like 5e HD, really), 4e's handling of non-magical healing could have been very handy in other genres.  That potential stayed mostly unexplored.  

But, ultimately, 5e is the face of D&D, and thus, the hobby, now, and this whole tangent started with D&D vs Pathfinder in that context.  Which, really, is hardly a 'vs' at all, since Pathfinder is a D&D clone.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 20, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Most 4e fans just feel some regret that the game didn't get a chance to be further developed so that it really shined, like 3e has had over the last 15 years.  I mean, if you're a fan of consistent AEDU, you only got 2 years of consistent development work, from 2008 until 2010.  And even if you were a fan of Essentials, you only got about an extra year and a half from that.




I feel for you. I wish that Wizards had made 4e OGL so that you could have the desires of your heart in this regard.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 20, 2015)

Hey, here's a positive thought. A seven year plan means they aren't planning to do 6e for at least 7+ years!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I never said it was run in every establishment... but it was run exclusively in FLGS's which is where ICV2 collects the lion's share of their data from for the rankings you keep citing as proof.



 Support.  It's easier to de-bunk a claim of proof, though, so I can see why you'd keep changing that.  Your implication is that somehow Encounters is going to unduly skew things.  There's no way of being sure of that.  Encounters exists, so did LFR and the Pathfinder society.  Bias existed in some FLGSs - one of the 3 in my area wouldn't touch encounters and had lots of listings on Warhorn.  There's all kinds of maybes about that data.  If you care to discount it entirely, like [MENTION=30170]sailo[/MENTION]r_Moon did, that's your prerogative.  Remain unconvinced by some of the rare actual numbers we have to work with.



> As the the Pathfinder Society you seem to be selectively choosing the confounding variables you want to address since as I stated before Pathfinder sells directly with both a price reduction and free PDF as incentive.  So there is much less reason to buy Paizo product from a LFGS...



 Sure, Paizo says they were selling oodles of stuff on their website not counted by Icv2.  And, sure, maybe Essentials cannibalized it's own sales with the on-line DDI tools, which were left, likewise, out of Icv2, but - if the wizards community group counter was to be believed - would have added up to millions.  But do we have independent data about either of those things?  

No.



> Or it could show that a few/some/many who had lost interest in 4e swung back around to check essentials out once we heard about what it was...



 Yes, exactly.  The same data can support a variety of equally valid scenarios.



> The funny thing is that when looked at with confirmation bias and incomplete a person can make data support nealy any conclusion they desire.  I'll trust in Lisa Stevens, the CEO of Pathfinder stating that Pathfinder overtook D&D months before ICV2 stated Pathfinder



 Or you can believe whoever at WotC is crowing about how each new edition is a huge success.  Neither of them gave numbers, let alone numbers that could be independently verified.  





> Tony Vargas said:
> 
> 
> > Because it was a radical change in direction (and the new direction was arguably 'backwards').  Fanatical 4e fans would not have liked that at all.
> ...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 20, 2015)

neobolts said:


> Hey, here's a positive thought. A seven year plan means they aren't planning to do 6e for at least 7+ years!



Meh, they also said, when fans complained that 4e was 'too soon' (and, frankly, IMHO, it was) that they weren't planning a new ed for 8-10 years, and absolutely weren't going to do a half-ed.  2 years later, Essentials, 2 years after that, Next was announced.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 20, 2015)

neobolts said:


> Hey, here's a positive thought. A seven year plan means they aren't planning to do 6e for at least 7+ years!




Yeah, that is true. But so many things can happen in seven years that is seems like a waste of WotC resources. I mean, instead of working on 2022's AP, Perkins could work on the conversion documents.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 20, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The schism happened at launch.  It came out and half the people playing 3.5e at the time said "No way I'm buying that crap!".  4e made up for it by attracting a LOT of new people.  Most of the stores I went to were filled with people playing D&D Encounters who had never played D&D before 4e.
> 
> But 4e was still going strong.  WOTC just got a lot of complaining from people who opted out of 4e or bought only the PHB and then decided the edition wasn't for them.  They hung around, constantly complaining that 4e wasn't 3.5e.  So, when Mearls was talking about finding a way to heal the schism, he was talking mostly about trying to bring the people who liked 3.5e back into the game.  Most of them had switched to Pathfinder but some went to 4e with their friends but weren't entirely enjoying themselves.
> 
> ...




It came out huge, but Mearls it talking about the issues with lost players in the 2010 article.
It lost a lot of players right away, correct.

I have not seen any evidence that it pulled in that many new players.  I know that you can find a lot of people who disliked 3E and like 4E.  But in order for your claim to hold water it would have to be a lot more than was lost.
This was highly questionable day 1, even though a ton of people bought it, played it, gave it a fair shot.  It was the "new shiny" and all that.  It went down from there.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 20, 2015)

delericho said:


> Before even that, I'm afraid. The Edition Wars seemed to kick off shortly after the announcement of the edition, never mind the release.



I recall the announcement rather vividly because I was on vacation that Gencon week.

There was the (predicable) chorus of "gouging" and "too soon".
I was quite happy because a new edition and new ideas sounded great to me.  So for about 14 seconds I was a huge 4E defender.

Then conversation started about what the new system would look like.  A lot of people started making suggestions and I thought they were crazy.  
They were right.  (at least about what the plan was)

So yeah, some of the edition wars turned out to even be a bit precognitive.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Yeah, that is true. But so many things can happen in seven years that is seems like a waste of WotC resources. I mean, instead of working on 2022's AP, Perkins could work on the conversion documents.




Sure, but given that they've prioritized seven years of storylines over the conversion documents, they likely view the conversion documents as an afterthought. Something it would be nice to give to fans, with the staff working on it when they have some dead space in their schedule to fill, not a priority with a deadline even. Which would be a possible explanation for why one person's absence could derail the conversion documents - having to shuffle everyone else around might mean assigning more projects to everyone, leaving less time to work on non-priorities like conversion docs.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 20, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I don't think WotC has _ever_ looked at the sales and said, "Welp, time for a .5!" or "Time for a whole new edition!"  Each edition change has been driven by different people, with different goals, and different takes on what the best strategy is.  Edition wars, or even what other companies are doing, seem far down the list.




Even though Monte Cook has stated that WotC had already planned for 3.5e when they were developing 3e?


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 20, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I have not seen any evidence that it pulled in that many new players.  I know that you can find a lot of people who disliked 3E and like 4E.  But in order for your claim to hold water it would have to be a lot more than was lost.
> This was highly questionable day 1, even though a ton of people bought it, played it, gave it a fair shot.  It was the "new shiny" and all that.  It went down from there.




Mearls has talked before about how while the core books and the Red Box sold very well to new players, follow up research showed that those purchases didn't translate to large numbers of new players sticking with the game. There certainly were newcomers between 2008-2014 for whom 4E was their first edition, and have stayed with the hobby since then, but to hear Mearls tell it the jump from the Red Box to the full game was too drastic - you can see how this influenced the design of 5E in the difference between the two games' onboarding curves. 

That said, though I was never a fan of 4E, I will defend it in that I think it probably pulled in as many new players as 3.x before it (at least over the same time period; 3.X lasted nearly twice as long so I suspect that overall it brought in more to the hobby). Anecdotally I have heard of several groups of all new players starting with 4E; anecdotes aren't evidence of course, but in terms of non-gamers walking into the stores and buying their first book of D&D I haven't seen any evidence that 4E turned away more newcomers than 4E. After all, newcomers weren't comparing 4E to preconceived notions of D&D, they were judging it based on whether it was fun or not - I have many criticisms of 4E, chief of which it was that it focused too heavily on tactical gameplay I find personally uninteresting, but I don't think anyonce can say 4E was somehow intrinsically "un-fun", especially not at the low levels first time players would start at.

Rather, I suspect that 4E simply wasn't able to bring in *enough* new gamers to compensate for the edition split. Experienced D&D fans who found it unfamiliar either never adopted the new edition, or, as I saw mentioned recently on ENWorld (don't recall the specific thread) started campaigns with 4E but eventually left after a drawn out period of long-term dissatisfaction. Personally I think 4E's ultimate fatal flaw was combat length - I've read comments from people who have otherwise said 4E was their D&D of choice stating that ultimately it was slogging through hours-long fights that led to them moving on to another game. I think the two streams of attrition (the initial splitting of the player base and groups leaving the game due to grind-y combat) was simply too much for even an otherwise very good rate of new player uptake to make up for.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 20, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Mearls has talked before about how while the core books and the Red Box sold very well to new players, follow up research showed that those purchases didn't translate to large numbers of new players sticking with the game.



I can buy that.  This doesn't mean that the gains offset the losses.



> There certainly were newcomers between 2008-2014 for whom 4E was their first edition, and have stayed with the hobby since then




Sure, and there are new players today whose first experience is 5E.  There are new players all the time.  
And I continue to aggressively agree that for a certain niche of players, 4E hung the moon.  That number is not remotely zero.



> Rather, I suspect that 4E simply wasn't able to bring in *enough* new gamers to compensate for the edition split.



This is what I'm saying.



> Experienced D&D fans who found it unfamiliar either never adopted the new edition, or, as I saw mentioned recently on ENWorld (don't recall the specific thread) started campaigns with 4E but eventually left after a drawn out period of long-term dissatisfaction. Personally I think 4E's ultimate fatal flaw was combat length - I've read comments from people who have otherwise said 4E was their D&D of choice stating that ultimately it was slogging through hours-long fights that led to them moving on to another game. I think the two streams of attrition (the initial splitting of the player base and groups leaving the game due to grind-y combat) was simply too much for even an otherwise very good rate of new player uptake to make up for.



I think there were a lot more issues than just grindy combat.

I know players who simply got a very much "been there done that" feeling.
I think 5E (which I very much enjoy) runs a comparable burn out risk.

(Not saying adding burn out to grind is a complete list of reasons for moving on)


----------



## pkt77242 (Mar 20, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Yeah, that is true. But so many things can happen in seven years that is seems like a waste of WotC resources. I mean, instead of working on 2022's AP, Perkins could work on the conversion documents.




Did you ever think that WotC/Hasbro is requiring the plan?  Many companies demand long-term plans (usually around 5 years or so), so it should not be shocking (or upsetting) that he is working on a detailed business plan for the next 5-7 years.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 20, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> follow up research showed that those purchases didn't translate to large numbers of new players sticking with the game.



As an aside, I was recently told I didn't know what I was talking about regarding new players to 5E automatically becoming long term players and the related idea of players moving on to new things.  

Getting people to stay loyal takes continuous effort.  The core product can make that easier or ultimately impossible for the long term, but effort is required no matter what.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 20, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Sure, but given that they've prioritized seven years of storylines over the conversion documents, they likely view the conversion documents as an afterthought. Something it would be nice to give to fans, with the staff working on it when they have some dead space in their schedule to fill, not a priority with a deadline even. Which would be a possible explanation for why one person's absence could derail the conversion documents - having to shuffle everyone else around might mean assigning more projects to everyone, leaving less time to work on non-priorities like conversion docs.



My comment was half serious. But the serious part about it is that maybe there are more important stuff than the APs for 2022. Mealrs made sense when he said he was working on those of 2018. These things need to be planned in advanced. But 2022 is ridiculus and other things are more important than the conversion documents. Like the OGL or preparing the announced PDFs or even editing the next AP and maybe its companion. They did fire two editors and who knows why the EE's companion was non-cancelled, maybe it wasn't ready for an April launch and had to be dropped. 

Also, if they have enough free time to work on the 2022 APs, maybe Perkins should be worried about his job. Once APs are ready and all you have to do it give a binder to some 3pp, is he needed?

And finally, *ahem* the End is nigh! Be prepared, people! Be prepared!


----------



## billd91 (Mar 20, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Even though Monte Cook has stated that WotC had already planned for 3.5e when they were developing 3e?




I would say so. Planning for 3.5 while developing 3e may predict that sales will flag and a new revision will boost core sales, but it's all based on speculation when that will occur. Plus, there's good justification for a .5 edition anyway. Game development doesn't stop when the game heads out the door on ship date. Revision occurs, mass play uncovers issues, follow-up publications cause rule drift. Pretty soon, it's good time for a clean up release to incorporate the new things learned and developed. In many ways, it's exactly what 2e was to 1e. And it's pretty much exactly what many other games do with editions as well like Champions and Call of Cthulhu. They make incremental updates to tweak rules here and there.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 20, 2015)

pkt77242 said:


> Did you ever think that WotC/Hasbro is requiring the plan?  Many companies demand long-term plans (usually around 5 years or so), so it should not be shocking (or upsetting) that he is working on a detailed business plan for the next 5-7 years.




Shouldn't have this been done when they first started working on 5e? Budgets have been allocated for a bunch of people who were playtesting stuff for two years without much revenues. My guess is a detailed business plan must of been presented then.


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 21, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Even though Monte Cook has stated that WotC had already planned for 3.5e when they were developing 3e?




Incidentally, does anyone have attribution for this? I've seen it bandied about now and again, but have never been able to find the original quote. I can't help but feel it's taken out of context, or is apocryphal.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 21, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> Incidentally, does anyone have attribution for this? I've seen it bandied about now and again, but have never been able to find the original quote. I can't help but feel it's taken out of context, or is apocryphal.




The best I can find is:



> See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning.
> 
> Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?56333-Monte-Cook-reviews-3-5#ixzz3UycMXgqx


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 21, 2015)

Allright, the Wayback Machine comes through again. ( http://web.archive.org/web/20030806073440/http://www.montecook.com/review.html )



> Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.




It seems clear that the "plan" and "what actually happened" are not the same things. So it's at least a small bit disingenuous to point and say that the edition change was planned all along, when the plan was to reissue the books with errata, clarifications, and new art.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 21, 2015)

Fildrigar said:


> It seems clear that the "plan" and "what actually happened" are not the same things. So it's at least a small bit disingenuous to point and say that the edition change was planned all along, when the plan was to reissue the books with errata, clarifications, and new art.




The original claim was "I don't think WotC has ever looked at the sales and said, "Welp, time for a .5!" " and Montes quote shows that actually yes that was exactly what WotC was planning right from the start.


----------



## weldon (Mar 21, 2015)

pkt77242 said:


> Did you ever think that WotC/Hasbro is requiring the plan?  Many companies demand long-term plans (usually around 5 years or so), so it should not be shocking (or upsetting) that he is working on a detailed business plan for the next 5-7 years.




You think Perkins is working on a detailed business plan? He said he is working on storylines. I have no inside knowledge, but I assume that this is done so that Wizards can coordinate with their partners that need longer lead times for video games, miniatures, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 21, 2015)

Wicht said:


> "folk hero," "champion", and "shield mastery" are all perfectly normal words.  Dragonborn is a race. Only "Chainlock" is new and its obviously a class.
> 
> In conversation, context and the normal usage of words allows one to keep up very easily with the words you gave. Likewise, most of the words introduced by 3e were fairly intuitive. And things like "MAD" were not actually common words associated with that edition outside of certain small groups (I certainly never used that term).  People playing 3e and people playing 2e could have a conversation about their game and aside from THAC0 they were all talking about the same basic things.
> 
> But then came 4e and the parlance completely changed. I would lurk in a 4e thread and it felt like the language was completely different.



I don't really understand why.

I can describe the PCs in my 4e game, and I'd be surprised if the descriptions caused any deep puzzlement: fighter/cleric, demigod ranger-cleric, invoker/wizard/divine philosopher/sage of ages, sorcerer/bard who is an emergent Primordial, questing knight paladin of the Raven Queen who is a Marshall of Letherna.

The only thing there that you mightn't recognise is the placename Letherna - the realm of the god of death.

I can talk about the abilities they use - "Blazing Starfall" and Demonsoul Bolts for the sorcerer, Enfeebling Strike for the paladin, Twin Strike for the ranger, weapon AoEs for the fighter, spells like Twist of Fate or Hand of Radiance or Tide of the First Storm for the invoker - and they shouldn't be any more or less opaque than spell and ability descriptions from any other version of D&D.

I'm puzzled as to what the "completely changed" parlance was. Acronyms for ability durations (EoNT, SoNT, etc)? Role labels (striker, defender, controller, leader)? As someone who has played B/X, AD&D and a little bit of 3E, I didn't feel the parlance had changed very much at all. Maybe I have a good tolerance for jargon?

That said, when I read a 3E or PF thread I sometimes have to Google and acronym or a piece of terminology to work out what is being talked about. But that's just part and parcel of not being familiar with a particular game system.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 21, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> These sales arguments are simply pedantry framed as historical accuracy disguising the attempt to make a moral judgment on the worth of 4e.  Either
> 
> A)  "4e's failure is due to its rejection by the marketplace because it was an inferior game." or
> B) "4e was a great game, and its failure was a due to a combination of corporate mishandling and the intransigence of a segment of the playerbase."



I think 4e was a great game, and its "failure" (ie that it is no longer being published) is obviously due to the "intransigence" of a segment of the playerbase (ie they didn't buy it).

What puzzle me about this thread (and not just the sales argument part of it) is the normative overlay on so many comments: "betraying fans", "not meeting expectations", etc.

WotC are a commercial publisher (among other things). They will publish stuff that they think makes money. Because of the other things, their decisions about publication will also be affected by their thoughts about how publication interacts with those other things. But they don't owe any duties to me, or other past customers. They do owe duties to present subscribers (namely, supply the subscription or pay for terminating the contract). But that's about it, really.

If customers are "intransigent" and don't buy stuff, c'est la vie. (Even as we speak I am intransigently not buying any Pathfinder books!)  If WotC is "intransigent" and doesn't publish stuff, well that's its prerogative, and its look out if it goes wrong. (But the idea that it is _obviously_ making a mistake strikes me as ludicrous - no online poster has the access to financial information that WotC's managers do, and that informs their decisions.)

4e, like many other great games before it, is no longer in print. That's what can happen when popular culture is owned by private commercial entities. It doesn't seem to me to have any deeper moral significance.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't really understand why.
> 
> I can describe the PCs in my 4e game, and I'd be surprised if the descriptions caused any deep puzzlement: fighter/cleric, demigod ranger-cleric, invoker/wizard/divine philosopher/sage of ages, sorcerer/bard who is an emergent Primordial, questing knight paladin of the Raven Queen who is a Marshall of Letherna.
> 
> ...




Firstly, I am upfront that this is my experience and that the experience of other people may vary.

Secondly, I think it fair to distinguish here between the conversations of char-op types (or any other small subset of the larger community which develop their own jargon not actually found in the game) and your more regular gamer.  

But here is my take, and its just my opinion on the matter from an outsider's perspective (outsider to 4e)....

4e lent itself to a more mechanically oriented talk than other editions of Dungeons and Dragons. Board Games of a certain type often have this problem, where learning the game involves learning a particular shorthand for how to talk about the game. But while such jargon is useful to players of the game, it does tend to isolate the conversations from those not playing the game. All games have this to some extent, but my observation was that 4e had it far more than BX, ADnD or 3e. I think, and this is just my opinion again, that this was largely due to how the rules were presented in the rule books.

My second observation was that there was a difference in how 4e players tended to describe their games. I know, and you don't have to convince me that it is so, that it is possible for 4e players to talk about the game from a story aspect. I have seen it done and believe it can be done. But my personal observation was that this was not the typical way for 4e players to discuss the game. Most often they seemed to me to be discussing it from a more mechanical or gamist perspective. Again, I think this is simply the nature of the system lending itself to a particular sort of viewpoint and I see it all the time with boardgames. Its not a bad thing, it merely is what it is. 

But I am still glad I have an easier time talking with 5e players about their game.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 21, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Sure, but given that they've prioritized seven years of storylines over the conversion documents, they likely view the conversion documents as an afterthought. Something it would be nice to give to fans, with the staff working on it when they have some dead space in their schedule to fill, not a priority with a deadline even. Which would be a possible explanation for why one person's absence could derail the conversion documents - having to shuffle everyone else around might mean assigning more projects to everyone, leaving less time to work on non-priorities like conversion docs.




Sadly, projects that are going to be sold have to be prioritied. And that's not a "big corporate Hasbro" dig. Any company of any size that needed to back burner a project is going to back burner the freebee first.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 21, 2015)

weldon said:


> You think Perkins is working on a detailed business plan? He said he is working on storylines. I have no inside knowledge, but I assume that this is done so that Wizards can coordinate with their partners that need longer lead times for video games, miniatures, etc.




Yeah, I'm going to agree here and speculate that the tidbit from Perkins is more about R&D planning than sales targets and cycle planning. The positive to this is R&D sees at least a 7 year future for 5e. Of course, the financial situation X years down the road could cause WotC to reassess, but they are optimistic at present.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I'm puzzled as to what the "completely changed" parlance was. Acronyms for ability durations (EoNT, SoNT, etc)? Role labels (striker, defender, controller, leader)? As someone who has played B/X, AD&D and a little bit of 3E, I didn't feel the parlance had changed very much at all. Maybe I have a good tolerance for jargon?




I don't know what EoNT or SoNT are, or most of the other 4e acronyms. The role labels are more accessible.

A lot of it, I think, can be attributed to the internet. Rather than isolated groups of players that require a common language to communicate when they meet, the internet created a single group that was able to rapidly evolve and disseminate it's own jargon


----------



## BryonD (Mar 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't really understand why.




Are you interesting in TRYING, or do you just want to convince him that his opinion can't possibly exist?
It seems the latter.

This closed minded approach has been a bane of 4E from day 1.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 21, 2015)

Nellisir said:


> I don't know what EoNT or SoNT are, or most of the other 4e acronyms. The role labels are more accessible.



End of/Start of Next Turn. These were fairly common durations in 4e (replacing the "1 round" duration of a spell like Command, but much more widespread than in AD&D).


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 22, 2015)

pemerton said:


> End of/Start of Next Turn.




Really??  Honest to god, no sarcasm, I never ever would have guessed that.

Huh.

I learned me somethin' new today.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 22, 2015)

Nellisir said:


> I learned me somethin' new today.



Always happy to contribute to your education!


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 22, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Always happy to contribute to your education!




I take checks.

Edit for our special snowflake kangaroo brethren of the Utter South...I take checks 20.  Also, cheques, cheks, checks, and Czechs.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 22, 2015)

Nellisir said:


> I take checks.



I actually had to read this twice - I'm in Australia ("cheques").

At first I thought it was some strange d20-rolling allusion.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 22, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I think 4e was a great game, and its "failure" (ie that it is no longer being published) is obviously due to the "intransigence" of a segment of the playerbase (ie they didn't buy it).




You seem quite intransigent about this viewpoint, pemerton, which implies that the reason people didn't buy into 4E was out of intransigence, which implies wilfullness, rather than the possibility that they simply didn't jive with the rather specific and historically-divergent approach to D&D that 4E offered.

With regards to 4E, I've seen three general camps:

Camp One loved it and thought it was the creme-de-la-creme of D&D, or at least the best thing so far. 
Camp Two hated it and thought it was an affront to "Real D&D."
Camp Three was somewhere between ambivalent and liking it, enjoying it as an interesting variation of D&D but also feeling that it lacked something that other editions had.

Presumably you are in Camp One, and I am in Camp Three. Your view seems based upon the idea that only Camps One and Two exist, when in truth I think that Camp Two was simply a vocal minority and that most non-Camp Oneists actually liked the game or, at worst, were ambivalent. The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of Camp Three folks played 4E for a year or three but lost interest and moved on to something else. For whatever reason 4E didn't seem to capture this large segment of the community--which may even be a majority--like previous editions did.

So my question is, can you see reasons for 4E's publishing demise that wasn't simply the ire of Camp Two and the supposed intransigence of Camp Three? Or do you think that Camp Three's lack of adoration is also due to intransigence?

EDIT: I think Camp Two was rather large in the first year, but that many moved on to Pathfinder or retro games and didn't look back. So I do think that there is intransigence there, but that Camp Three folks (such as myself) actually played 4E for several years but tired of it. I'm asking you why you think that might be other than intransigence, because playing for two or three years implies that there wasn't intransigence. Not-adopting implies intransigence.

(Now I'm tired of using the word intransigence, which I've used more in this post than in my previous four decades of existence)



Wicht said:


> Firstly, I am upfront that this is my experience and that the experience of other people may vary.
> 
> Secondly, I think it fair to distinguish here between the conversations of char-op types (or any other small subset of the larger community which develop their own jargon not actually found in the game) and your more regular gamer.
> 
> ...




This is all very well said, or at least resonates with my thoughts and experience. Actually, I found this thread because I was going to start a thread about my own first impressions of running 5E, which in many ways are similar to yours. Will get to that in a bit.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 22, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> You seem quite intransigent about this viewpoint, pemerton, which implies that the reason people didn't buy into 4E was out of intransigence, which implies wilfullness



I think you missed my point.

The comment was slightly ironic, and was meant to reinforce the absurdity of normative language in this whole discussion.

_All that "intransigence" can mean in this context_ is that people chose not to buy the game. Which is true. They did not, and wilfully so. (Eg it's not as if they hadn't heard of it, and so simply failed to choose it out of ignorance.)


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 22, 2015)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I guess I did miss your point. "Intransigent" means unwilling to change one's mind. Your use of the word with regards to why 4E didn't last implies that people didn't like it because of stubborn ignorance, which I was saying isn't correct, at least in many cases - although in some, I think. From what I saw, quite a few people wrote 4E off without really giving it a shot, which is a kind of intrasigence.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 22, 2015)

[MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], another way to come to my point is that these are luxury consumption goods. (Although a cunning part of the marketing is to present/disguise them as fee-to-participate activities.)

People buy or don't buy for all the reasons people buy or don't buy any sort of luxury item. They can do it on a whim! They can do it for a considered reason! They can do it out of bloody-mindedness ("WotC's not getting one more red cent out of me!").

None of this is more or less reasonable than any of the rest of it. My purchasing 4e because I like it is no more or less reasonable than my not purchasing PF because I have zero interest in playing it and only very mild interest in talking about it. I bought Savage Species when it came out because I had a spare $30 (or whatever) on me and was curious about how the mechanical aspects had been tackled - that's not more or less reasonable either.

I own a copy of Fate (which I will probably never play, but I wanted to see how it works) but no copy of Savage Worlds (just not that interested, sorry!). Is that intransigence? Unreasonableness? The questions make no sense! In this domain, of luxury consumption of leisure items, there is not basis of right or need or duty that would ground such judgments.

All that follows from the market record of 4e is that not enough people wanted to keep purchasing 4e books to make it worth WotC's while writing and printing more of them. Hence they wrote and printed some different books - the 5e ones. In due course they might write even more new ones, using the same or different ruleset. Good luck to them!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> /snip
> 
> EDIT: I think Camp Two was rather large in the first year, but that many moved on to Pathfinder or retro games and didn't look back. So I do think that there is intransigence there, but that Camp Three folks (such as myself) actually played 4E for several years but tired of it. I'm asking you why you think that might be other than intransigence, because playing for two or three years implies that there wasn't intransigence. Not-adopting implies intransigence.




And, had those in Camp Two simply moved on and never looked back, the history of 4e would have been very different.  But, they didn't move on and never look back.  They constantly attacked 4e in every single place they could find.  You could see edition wars starting in the comments sections of Time Magazine articles about D&D.  "Don't play 4e, 4e is teh suxxorz!" was a pretty common thing to see, even if the article was about the history of the game, rather than 4e specifically.

What I never saw was a constant and never ending diatribe of vitriol on every single forum about Pathfinder.  At worst you might see some shots about Pathfinder on the 4e boards, but, that was about it.  It wasn't really commented on at all.

The campaign of vitriol didn't really stop until 4e finally went out of production and the crowing from the rooftops died down.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> And, had those in Camp Two simply moved on and never looked back, the history of 4e would have been very different.



Unless the people that bruned out on 4E burned out on 4E because of *4E*.  (just maybe)



> But, they didn't move on and never look back.  They constantly attacked 4e in every single place they could find.  You could see edition wars starting in the comments sections of Time Magazine articles about D&D.  "Don't play 4e, 4e is teh suxxorz!" was a pretty common thing to see, even if the article was about the history of the game, rather than 4e specifically.



This is like the whole "Nobody goes there because it is too crowded" argument.

Nobody would have been unhappy with 4E if it wasn't for the people everywhere who didn't like it.   (Go ahead and tell me it was 6 people tracking down every post on every non-gaming site anywhere).
To be clear, I am AGREEING with you that this happened.  I've said before that I was constantly amazed at the attitudes I ran into in meatspace.  I would meet total strangers, D&D would come up and "4E sucks"  was very typical. But when the world is crowded with people who strongly dislike something, it isn't their words that is the problem.  It is that there are so many unhappy people in the first place.

And then others burned out.   I've seen a lot of comments on these very boards from calm and rational people who liked 4E when it started and got to a "been there done that" place.  I truly do not know of anyone who gave into peer pressure and ran away.  I think that is purely wishful thinking.  There is certainly no evidence to support that it was remotely widespread.

There was also PLENTY of serious and legitimate complaints about the way the game worked.  But still acting like that didn't happen here in 2015 is juts par for the course.



> What I never saw was a constant and never ending diatribe of vitriol on every single forum about Pathfinder.  At worst you might see some shots about Pathfinder on the 4e boards, but, that was about it.  It wasn't really commented on at all.



This is called "confirmation bias".  There was a constant droning about the horrors that was 3E.
Now, granted, the number of people feeling that was was much smaller......
But "never" and "at worst" is just silly.



> The campaign of vitriol didn't really stop until 4e finally went out of production and the crowing from the rooftops died down.



Who knows, if the 4E fans had ever once acted like they cared about why people felt that way, maybe the history of 4e would have been very different.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> All that follows from the market record of 4e is that not enough people wanted to keep purchasing 4e books to make it worth WotC's while writing and printing more of them. Hence they wrote and printed some different books - the 5e ones. In due course they might write even more new ones, using the same or different ruleset. Good luck to them!




Hmm...I don't think it is all so random and arbitrary as you imply. As [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] said, there was a whole host of people who stopped playing 4E because they burned out on it for reasons specific to 4E, not out of vitriolic nerdrage (like the Camp Two people). 

5E came along for three reasons: Camp One wasn't large enough, Camp Two hated 4E, and Camp Three lost interest. In designing 5E, I think Mearls & Co tried to account for why Camp Three lost interest and why Camp Two hated it, while still trying to create a product good enough to appeal to a large chunk of Camp One. Remarkably I think they accomplished the first two, not sure about the third.



Hussar said:


> And, had those in Camp Two simply moved on and never looked back, the history of 4e would have been very different.  But, they didn't move on and never look back.  They constantly attacked 4e in every single place they could find.  You could see edition wars starting in the comments sections of Time Magazine articles about D&D.  "Don't play 4e, 4e is teh suxxorz!" was a pretty common thing to see, even if the article was about the history of the game, rather than 4e specifically.
> 
> What I never saw was a constant and never ending diatribe of vitriol on every single forum about Pathfinder.  At worst you might see some shots about Pathfinder on the 4e boards, but, that was about it.  It wasn't really commented on at all.
> 
> The campaign of vitriol didn't really stop until 4e finally went out of production and the crowing from the rooftops died down.




Yeah, it was really quite bad there for awhile and rather puzzling just how much people _hated_ 4E, like it truly did kill Real D&D and take its stuff. But the point I was trying to make is that there wasn't just Camps One and Two, there was also a perhaps larger Camp Three - people who liked but didn't love 4E, played it for awhile, but burned out more quickly than they (we) "should" have. By "should" I mean long enough to support and nourish a healthy edition cycle. 4E was struggling mightily by 2010, just a couple years in, and basically dead in the water by late 2011 - three and a half years into it.

I actually think that 4E was good game, but that it might have proved more successful as a "tactical variant" to core D&D. What WotC could have done is let 3.5 go another couple years, come out with 4E in the form of a game that is a hybrid of board and RPG, and then developed what would become 5E and released it around 2010 or 2011, which would have given 3E a solid decade.  On the other hand, I don't really regret the path they took because it led to interesting times, cool games in 4E and Pathfinder, and of course the gem that is 5E. In the world of psychology, sometimes we need what seems like a "bad" experience in order for further grown and development. I'm not saying that 4E was "bad," but that the whole Edition War era of 2008-11 was pretty difficult, but hopefully also taught people a thing or two. It certainly inspired WotC to make a beautiful game in 5E.



BryonD said:


> Unless the people that bruned out on 4E burned out on 4E because of *4E*.  (just maybe)




Well exactly - this is what I was saying about Camp Three.



BryonD said:


> There was also PLENTY of serious and legitimate complaints about the way the game worked.  But still acting like that didn't happen here in 2015 is juts par for the course.




I notice a tinge of this in the words of some 4E fans and apologists. It reminds me of how I've seen fans of certain tennis players, Rafael Nadal in particular, always find an excuse for when Nadal loses - as if Nadal can't possibly lose if he's healthy, playing well, has his head in the game, rested, etc. I mean, I get it - we all want our "guy" (or edition) to be "the best," even if only subconsciously. While the largest part of the 4E edition wars was due to the irrational hatred of 4E, another prt of the polarization that occurred over 4E, I found, was when fans of the edition couldn't accept the fact that some that didn't love it didn't actually irrationally hate it, but had legitimate complaints about it.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I notice a tinge of this in the words of some 4E fans and apologists. It reminds me of how I've seen fans of certain tennis players, Rafael Nadal in particular, always find an excuse for when Nadal loses - as if Nadal can't possibly lose if he's healthy, playing well, has his head in the game, rested, etc. I mean, I get it - we all want our "guy" (or edition) to be "the best," even if only subconsciously. While the largest part of the 4E edition wars was due to the irrational hatred of 4E, another part of the polarization that occurred over 4E, I found, was when fans of the edition couldn't accept the fact that some that didn't love it didn't actually irrationally hate it, but had legitimate complaints about it.




I agree with this.  As a TSR-D&D guy who enjoyed 4e, it quickly got tiring to talk to anybody.  These days I'm really feeling "a plauge o' both your houses."  Especially in 5e threads.  I'm tired of people using them to throw in barbs about how 5e is good because it's not 4e.  I'm tired of people using of them to throw in barbs about how 5e is not good because it's not 4e.  The complete and total lack of empathy is numbing.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I mean, I get it




You really don't if you ever thought and still think that . . .



Mercurius said:


> (. . .) the largest part of the 4E edition wars was due to the irrational hatred of 4E




Because this is the mark of someone who doesn't get it and doesn't want to get it.

I'm going to be at a convention this weekend and there will be dozens and dozens of different RPGs being played where the attendance is going to be somewhere around a mere 750-800 (maybe a bit more).  There will be tons of indie games and lots of odd duck one-off systems and even some pre-D&D Braunstein and there will be every stripe of D&D with the likely exception of 4E.  5E?  Yup, some folks are interested.  (O)D&D, 1E, BECMI, 2E, 3.XE, PF?  Yup, there will be lots of all of that.

There will be people there who love RPGs of almost every kind and folks who have been designing RPGs and RPG adventures since the very beginnings of RPGs.  The collective years of RPG experience of the people who will be in attendance and gaming and running games at this small convention will rival huge conventions (maybe not Gen Con which might top 60K+ in attendance this year  ).

Most folks I have spoken to about 4E basically agree that 4E was seemingly designed as a set of Minis Skirmish Combat rules with aspirations of appealing to CRPG and MMORPG gamers then squeezed into a very thin tabletop RPG skin.  And as a skirmish game, it's okay but there are many that are better.  But as an RPG, it just doesn't do a very good job at all and used a couple / few of patches to try and fix that, like the oft mentioned Page 42 and Skill Challenges.

I know this doesn't fit your narrative as well as the folks who don't like 4E, the ones you might describe as two word posters on the comments section of a pro-4E articles (back when 4E was still being published).  It's likely most of them even had reasons they just didn't deign to share.  But the reality I have seen regarding the opinions on 4E is very different and very much grounded in the opinions of a lot of people who know quite a bit about RPGs.  I'm not saying everyone who will be at the convention this weekend has an opinion.  Most simply don't care or know much about 4E.  What I am saying the ones who do have an opinion are quite rational indeed.

On the other hand, there are people who like the way 4E is designed and will continue to play it for many years to come.  I hope they enjoy it and that it brings them many years of fun.  I've played dozens and dozens of RPGs in my 40+ years of RPGing, wargaming, card playing, boardgaming, and general tabletop gaming and often gravitate to the games I like better than others, many of which have plenty of flaws not only in the eyes of others but also my own.

The next time I get the itch for a Western Gunfighter RPG, I don't even plan to use an RPG but rather Legends of the Old West, a Warhammer Historical series set of mini skirmish combat rules with some skill system of my own devising (or lifted from somewhere) grafted onto it.  It won't really be an RPG except in the way we play it but I'll make it work because there is something about the rules I really like.

But what I don't need is for many others to like it, nor do I need everyone who doesn't like it to agree that they are being irrational if they don't like it, for me to feel okay about liking it myself.  And that's really what you still don't get.  You can like things that other people don't like without their not liking it having to be a personal attack on you or what you like.  So, really, when you post . . .



Mercurius said:


> (. . .) the largest part of the 4E edition wars was due to the irrational hatred of 4E




. . . I have to wonder why you need to believe this, still, and why you can't just let it go and move on already?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I don't think it is all so random and arbitrary as you imply.



I certainly didn't assert that it's random or arbitrary, and I don't see that I implied that either.

I asserted that it is _not a normative matter_. And hence that language like "turning of the back" or "abandoning" has no work to do.

It would be absurd for me to complain about WotC "abandoning me" by stopping publishing 4e books and starting to publish 5e ones. My partner can abandon me. My friends can abandon me. But all that WotC is doing is making commercial decisions about what books to write and print.



Mercurius said:


> there was a whole host of people who stopped playing 4E because they burned out on it for reasons specific to 4E, not out of vitriolic nerdrage (like the Camp Two people).



And? What is meant to follow from that? That those people were clever? Or silly? That WotC was evil? Or good?

All you are saying is that some people didn't like a game system, either from the start or after the passage of time. 



Mercurius said:


> 5E came along for three reasons



5e came along for one principal reason: WotC formed the view that it could make more money from its ownership of the D&D intellectual property by publishing new books with a new ruleset.

This is much the same reason that 4e came along. And 3E before it.

You can then try and explain this commercial state of affairs, by pointing to different segments of the market and their preferences for purchase (which are probably more than tangentially related to their preferences for play). And that is important information for a commercial publisher like WotC to have and use.

But it does not generate any normative conclusions.

For instance, it doesn't give anyone a reason to play 5e. Nor a reason to play 4e. Nor a reason not to play 4e, or 5e.

It doesn't support any normatively-laden claims like "turning of the back" or "abandonment", either.



Mercurius said:


> there was also a perhaps larger Camp Three - people who liked but didn't love 4E, played it for awhile, but burned out more quickly than they (we) "should" have. By "should" I mean long enough to support and nourish a healthy edition cycle. 4E was struggling mightily by 2010, just a couple years in, and basically dead in the water by late 2011 - three and a half years into it.



I don't really follow this. You define "should" by reference to "healthy edition cycle", but what does that mean? Healthy for whom? And in what sense?

Does anyone know what the profits were, or the rate of return, for the WotC D&D group was between 2008 and 2012? What it was during the time of the 5e playtest? And how this compares to historical rates of return for that commercial group? I certainly don't, and I've never seen such information published. Nor do I know how D&D at those various times compared to WotC as a whole, or to Hasbro as a whole, or to the hobby market or publishing market as a whole?

Without that sort of information, how do you characterise an edition cycle as healthy or unhealthy?

No doubt, in a perfect world from the point of view of Mearls in 2011, Essentials would have become the "evergreen" product it was intended to be, and WotC would have sold hundreds of thousands of books per year while spending no money on system support other than printing and DDI maintenance. But the fact that nothing like that happened, and the WotC had to spend money designing a new system, doesn't mean that they lost money, or went broke, or anything of that sort. Perhaps all that investment has already been recouped, and more, in 5e sales! (Plus ongoing DDI subscriptions. Plus sales of D&D PDFs. Plus sales of D&D novels. And boardgames. Etc.)

I think most posters on these boards would characterise 2nd ed AD&D as a "healthy" edition cycle, yet from the point of view of its publisher that _did_ cause bankruptcy.

Does "healthy" really mean "pleasing to some segment of the fan base that includes you"? That would be fine as far as it goes, but doesn't have any grander normative reach.



Mercurius said:


> I actually think that 4E was good game, but that it might have proved more successful as a "tactical variant" to core D&D. What WotC could have done is let 3.5 go another couple years, come out with 4E in the form of a game that is a hybrid of board and RPG, and then developed what would become 5E and released it around 2010 or 2011



This strikes me as an improbable scenario, for two reasons.

First, the only evidence we have of the financial viability, for WotC, of "letting 3.5 go another couple of years" is that they decided not to do that. What reason is there to think that sales of 3.5 core books + supplements in 2008 to 2010 would have been larger than sales of 4e core books + supplements? I don't know of any (eg PF probably didn't sell as many books as 4e in that time, and I don't see any reason to suppose that WotC could have replicated what Paizo did with PF).

(And a related question - what evidence is there that there was a large demand for a "tactical variant" of 3E? Didn't the Miniatures Handbook and Heroes of Battle already provide that?)

Second, I think that 5e couldn't exist, as a design, without Essentials, and so could not have been invented without 4e. Essentials follows a development pathway sketched by Rob Heinsoo - start with balanced because symmetrical class design, and then branch out:

We weren't always planning to give all characters equal numbers of powers. Many times we experimented with vastly different power acquisition schemes for different classes. And when we decided against those approaches, there were people in R&D, including myself, who sometimes balked and felt like giving different classes different numbers and types of power might be a good way of differentiating between classes. But sentiment didn't pan out. All of our actual experiments with different power-distribution schemes didn't work out, so we moved ahead with the notion that a richer understanding of our system might give us room to experiment in the future.​
5e is the outcome of that experimentation!



Mercurius said:


> another prt of the polarization that occurred over 4E, I found, was when fans of the edition couldn't accept the fact that some that didn't love it didn't actually irrationally hate it, but had legitimate complaints about it.



I'm not sure what the standard is for "legitimate complaint". If people enjoy a game, they will play it (everything else being equal). If they don't, they won't (again, everything else being equal). The notion of "legitimacy" doesn't have much work to do in this domain, in my view. (Nor the notion of "complaint", really. "Complaint" implies some sort of legitimate expectation that was thwarted. The only complaint in this context can be "I'm not enjoying it any more.")

The "edition wars" aren't a function of people not wanting to play a game, however. Most people don't want to play Rolemaster, because they have a legitimate complaint against it - namely, they don't enjoy it - but there are no "edition wars" around Rolemaster. (I mean, if I post that I used to GM Rolemaster I'll get the odd crack about "chartmaster" but nothing vitriolic. Last time I was on the ICE boards there were people who swore by RMSS and others who preferred RM2, but they didn't generally get vitriolic either.)


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2015)

I wonder if BryonD will now start taking others to task for confirmation bias.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> what I don't need is for many others to like it, nor do I need everyone who doesn't like it to agree that they are being irrational if they don't like it, for me to feel okay about liking it myself.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You can like things that other people don't like without their not liking it having to be a personal attack on you or what you like.



This seems true.



Mark CMG said:


> Most folks I have spoken to about 4E basically agree that 4E was seemingly designed as a set of Minis Skirmish Combat rules with aspirations of appealing to CRPG and MMORPG gamers then squeezed into a very thin tabletop RPG skin.
> 
> <sinp>
> 
> But as an RPG, it just doesn't do a very good job at all and used a couple / few of patches to try and fix that, like the oft mentioned Page 42 and Skill Challenges.



The motivations behind the design of 4e are publicly available. I've never seen it described by its designers as a skirmish game. They described it as an RPG. It has all the standard rules of an RPG. Unlike a typical skirmish game, but just like an RPG, the fiction matters to resolution.

Given the bit of your post that seems true, "doesn't do a very good job at all" might have just the same content as "Is not liked by me and some other people I know, many of whom are experienced and clever RPGers."

But if it's meant to carry more weight then simply a statement of preference - eg if you think there are design flaws in 4e that can be rationally analysed and reasonably discussed - then I think you have to start from the premise that it is an RPG and not a skirmish game.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> (. . .) if you think there are design flaws in 4e that can be rationally analysed and reasonably discussed - then I think you have to start from the premise that it is an RPG and not a skirmish game.





Naw.  My own opinion and the one I most hear shared is that it's major flaw is that it is "seemingly designed as a set of Minis Skirmish Combat rules with aspirations of appealing to CRPG and MMORPG gamers then squeezed into a very thin tabletop RPG skin."  That doesn't require me accept your premise.  You're welcome to shrug off my experience as simply my preference.  I'm comfortable with you doing so and don't feel I need to adjust my position to one that suits your needs.  Heck, you're even welcome to suggest I am the only one who has ever thought this way about it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> _All that "intransigence" can mean in this context_ is that people chose not to buy the game. Which is true. They did not, and wilfully so. (Eg it's not as if they hadn't heard of it, and so simply failed to choose it out of ignorance.)




What ever happened to indifference? 

Are people disinterested in indifference nowadays?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Naw.  My own opinion and the one I most hear shared is that it's major flaw is that it is "seemingly designed as a set of Minis Skirmish Combat rules with aspirations of appealing to CRPG and MMORPG gamers then squeezed into a very thin tabletop RPG skin."  That doesn't require me accept your premise.  You're welcome to shrug off my experience as simply my preference.  I'm comfortable with you doing so and don't feel I need to adjust my position to one that suits your needs.  Heck, you're even welcome to suggest I am the only one who has ever thought this way about it.



But if it's a skirmish game, then how can its unsuitability (in your view) as an RPG be a flaw?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> What ever happened to indifference?



I don't see any difference between intransigence and indifference in this context. If you don't care to buy it, then don't! It seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> But if it's a skirmish game, then how can its unsuitability (in your view) as an RPG be a flaw?





It's marketed as an RPG when it is "seemingly designed as a set of Minis Skirmish Combat rules with aspirations of appealing to CRPG and MMORPG gamers then squeezed into a very thin tabletop RPG skin."  Or are you purposefully missing the point?  I can't tell.  So, I'm not going to engage with you anymore.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I think most posters on these boards would characterise 2nd ed AD&D as a "healthy" edition cycle, yet from the point of view of its publisher that _did_ cause bankruptcy.




Is there any actual evidence that 2e caused TSRs bankruptcy?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Is there any actual evidence that 2e caused TSRs bankruptcy?



Ryan Dancey seemed to think so. Here's the link. This passage seems as good as any other:

I discovered that the cost of the products that company was making in many cases exceeded the price the company was receiving for selling those products. I toured a warehouse packed from floor to 50 foot ceiling with products valued as though they would soon be sold to a distributor with production stamps stretching back to the late 1980s. I was 10 pages in to a thick green bar report of inventory, calculating the true value of the material in that warehouse when I realized that my last 100 entries had all been "$0"'s.​


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Ryan Dancey seemed to think so. Here's the link. This passage seems as good as any other:
> 
> I discovered that the cost of the products that company was making in many cases exceeded the price the company was receiving for selling those products. I toured a warehouse packed from floor to 50 foot ceiling with products valued as though they would soon be sold to a distributor with production stamps stretching back to the late 1980s. I was 10 pages in to a thick green bar report of inventory, calculating the true value of the material in that warehouse when I realized that my last 100 entries had all been "$0"'s.​




So nothing about selling boxed sets for less then cost, or producing so many unsold Dragon Dice that WotC was going to use them to pave a courtyard at their building, or printing so many novels that they had no money left to refund the returned stock?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> So nothing about selling boxed sets for less then cost



I don't follow - I quoted Dancey as saying "the cost of the products that the company was making in many cases exceeded the price the company was receiving for selling those products".

In the comment that I linked to Dancey talks about a Random House distribution agreement - I'll leave you to follow up the details, and also his brief comment about Dragon Dice.

EDIT: Here's another passage that seems relevant:

I retreated to my home office; a place filled with bookshelves stacked with Dungeons & Dragons products. From the earliest games to the most recent campaign setting supplements - I owned, had read, and loved those products with a passion and intensity that I devoted to little else in my life. And I knew, despite my best efforts to tell myself otherwise, that the disaster I kept going back to in Wisconsin was the result of the products on those shelves.​


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't follow - I quoted Dancey as saying "the cost of the products that the company was making in many cases exceeded the price the company was receiving for selling those products".
> 
> In the comment that I linked to Dancey talks about a Random House distribution agreement - I'll leave you to follow up the details, and also his brief comment about Dragon Dice.
> 
> ...




So, again, where is the evidence that 2e caused TSR to go bankrupt?  If anything 2e carried the company for a decade before it finally succumbed to chronic miss management, under priced products and over runs in non-rpg product lines.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> under priced products



These were (or at least included) 2nd ed AD&D products. Hence Dancey's comment that "the disasters I kept going back to in Wisconsin was the result of the products on those shelves". As he says, his shelves were "stacked with Dungeons & Dragons products". Not Dragon Dice!


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I wonder if BryonD will now start taking others to task for confirmation bias.



I have.
But you really do make it easy.
Thanks for acknowledging the issue.


----------



## delericho (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> So, again, where is the evidence that 2e caused TSR to go bankrupt?




It wasn't 2nd Edition, although some parts of 2nd Edition were problematic.

As others have mentioned, there were a couple of big hammer blows that fell at just the wrong time: the bottom dropped out of the Dragon Dice fad _just after_ TSR placed a massive order for new dice, and there was an issue with their novel distributor which meant a whole lot of unsold books came back.

But there was also a problem that they were busily supporting a dozen or so settings (which is a problem since most groups don't use any published setting at all, and a vanishingly small number use more than one), storing large amounts of unsold books (and books that would _never_ sell - things like old copies of the "Dungeoneer's Survival Guide" from 1st Ed), and even selling some books at near-zero or even negative profit (the Encyclopedia Magica - though I _think_ it was confirmed as an urban myth that they actually sold those at less than cost; I think they were sold at a tiny, tiny mark-up).

Oh, and they kept doing "Buck Rodgers" RPGs that nobody wanted.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> It wasn't 2nd Edition, although some parts of 2nd Edition were problematic.
> 
> As others have mentioned, there were a couple of big hammer blows that fell at just the wrong time: the bottom dropped out of the Dragon Dice fad _just after_ TSR placed a massive order for new dice, and there was an issue with their novel distributor which meant a whole lot of unsold books came back.
> 
> ...




And that is not even taking into account shewhomustnotbenamed.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> It wasn't 2nd Edition, although some parts of 2nd Edition were problematic.
> 
> snip



all of the above.

It is impossible to say how much longer 2E could have lasted without all of the other baggage.
It does seem quite clear that 2E itself was being bungled from the management side.  
So the case may be that it should have been addressed much sooner than it was, but there was enough financial backup and brand value to keep it plugging along.
Or it may be that despite the overprinting and poor planning it was still hanging in there, just not well enough to make up for a warehouse of Dragon Dice and old BR stuff.

IMO 2E was already well into becoming obsolete as the TTRPG market started to truly evolve.  
The creation of D&D itself was obviously revolutionary and awesome.  But going on two decades later, other companies were starting to build better mousetraps.
But there is no way to know if that was having any impact or not.  Too many other (and bigger) factors in play.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2015)

Just a point about "irrational hatred of 4e"

The truly ironic thing is, so much of 4e appears in 5e without the slightest quibble, despite causing huge outcry in 4e.  

Here's 5 examples:

1.  The Battle Master Fighter and Superiority Dice.  A Battle Master gains 4-6 Sup Dice over the course of his career.  Now, I could, quite easily, spend 4 Sup Dice in a single round - 1 die for Feinting attack, 1 die for precision attack, 1 die for trip attack after the hit, and then burn Action Surge to take a second attack and spend one more Sup Die on another trip attempt.  There, I've blown my Sup dice.  Now, for some bizarre reason, until I rest, I've forgotten how to feint (and gain advantage) how to aim better (Precision attack) and how to trip on an attack.  How is this not disassociated?  Never minding that since this is a non magical character and these are "skills", I now have basically an Essentials Fighter from 4e.  But, because it says 5e on the cover of the book, everyone loves it.

2.  The Barbarian and Rage.  When a Barbarian rages, he takes half damage from all physical attacks.  Huh?  How does that work?  Suddenly I'm really angry so weapons bounce off me?  What's going on in the fiction here?  When 4e introduced this kind of stuff in non-magical characters, critics when ape.  5e completely gets away with it.

3.  Attunement.  All characters are limited to 3 attuned items.  How video gamey is that?  I mean, why 3?  Why not 2 or 5?  How dare WOTC tell us how many magic items we should have.  They are stomping all over people's play styles by dictating how we play the game.  Oh, right, this is done in 5e, so, it's perfectly ok.  When 4e introduced the idea of "slots" all we heard were cries of "Video game!" and "MMO".  But, 5e does virtually exactly the same thing, and WOTC gets a pat on the back.

4.  Bounded Accuracy.  The whole point of Bounded Accuracy is that the numbers don't really scale very much.  A typical challenge for a character yields about a 60% success rate.  So, the AC's for typical opponents fall around that range, save DC's too and difficulty levels for skills.  It's 4e written backwards.  Instead of everything scaling equally so that you always had around a 60% success rate for typical actions, they've simple done away with the number inflation and flat out given you a 60% success rate.  It's not tied to the game and it's certainly not tied to the game world.  4e gets vilified constantly for this, while, again, 5e gets a pat on the back.

5.  Healing Rates.  While there has been some rumbling about the healing rates in 5e, it's been pretty low key.  Despite the fact that 5e healing is virtually identical to 4e mechanically (while the numbers are different, how and when you spend healing dice are virtually identical) and you fully heal over night in both systems.  Yet, again, we heard nothing but criticisms about how 4e healing was totally unbelievable and hurt suspension of disbelief.  It was video gamey and the worst thing ever for role play.  5e does it, and other than a few die hards, you can hear the chirping of the crickets as far as criticisms go.  

So, yeah, when Mercurous talks about the irrational hatred of 4e, I think he has a pretty strong point.  The fact that 5e is getting pats on the back for stuff that got 4e vilified shows just how irrational a lot of the criticisms really were.  People didn't hate the mechanics of 4e.   They just hated 4e and used the mechanics as a scapegoat.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> The fact that 5e is getting pats on the back for stuff that got 4e vilified shows just how irrational a lot of the criticisms really were.  People didn't hate the mechanics of 4e.   They just hated 4e and used the mechanics as a scapegoat.



This is just completely false.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't see any difference between intransigence and indifference in this context. If you don't care to buy it, then don't! It seems pretty simple to me.




In any context there is a difference between intransigence and indifference. Especially when you ascribe them as the motivators of people's actions or lack of actions. One is very negative and the other is not. 

It is like you are saying that everyone who didn't like 4e was some hateful radical.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> So, again, where is the evidence that 2e caused TSR to go bankrupt?  If anything 2e carried the company for a decade before it finally succumbed to chronic miss management, under priced products and over runs in non-rpg product lines.




You are mostly correct. 2e is not the direct cause of TSR's money problems. It was TSR's bad business decisions during 2e's rang that sunk it. Not how 2e was received and liked by players. 

The nuance is important. 

But they also produced too many RPG products too, just too clarified. It wasn't just non-RPG products.


----------



## delericho (Mar 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It is like you are saying that everyone who didn't like 4e was some hateful radical.




Wait, we're not? Crap. I must have missed that memo.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

I've seen a lot of 4E fans say they are not happy with 5E because it is way too much like 3E, or other reasons that boil down to 5E takes away a lot of the innovations of 4E.  And this is completely fair.

But if the mechanics are identical, then everyone who liked 4E should like 5E just as much.
If not, then your argument doesn't hold water.

The only point on your list that comes even close to addressing anything on my 4E issues list is healing.  And I dislike 5E's RAW healing every bit as much as I dislike healing in 4E.  But 5E is vastly more open to houseruling.  And because the rest of system is not loaded with problems, the effort of houseruling is worthwhile.  It isn't even close to the same.

But, as is so typical, your whole case rests on being able to put words in other people's mouths.  You declare a list of things that you approve as the issues other people had with the game, then you shoot down the list that you yourself created.  

We discussed numerous issues with 4E back when it mattered.  You have not resolved any of them and not a single one of them appears in my 5E game.

And, ultimately, just step back and think about how rational your position sounds.  You are actually stating that there was this vast group of people who didn't have anything they actually disliked about the game and yet hated the game itself "just because".  That is absurd.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Just a point about "irrational hatred of 4e"
> 
> The truly ironic thing is, so much of 4e appears in 5e without the slightest quibble, despite causing huge outcry in 4e.
> 
> ...



Sounds like someone's Pa was killed by h4ters. 

Anyway, maybe those who were vocal about their disatisfaction with 4e just do not care about 5e and D&D and have gone elsewhere?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> Wait, we're not? Crap. I must have missed that memo.




Dude! There were all sorts of seminar at ShadowCon, the Shadow Government's conventions. That year we decided to target D&D as our whipping bitch, sanctify Paizo and elevate Monte Cook as a RPG genius. Do people really think he could have raised 500k$ on kickstarter by himself?


----------



## fjw70 (Mar 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> Wait, we're not? Crap. I must have missed that memo.




You are of course. Just not everyone that dislikes 4e.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Anyway, maybe those who were vocal about their disatisfaction with 4e just do not care about 5e and D&D and have gone elsewhere?



The good news is, much to my surprise, those who like 4E see no difference whatsoever between 4e and 5e.  
Everything in the mechanics that anyone could possibly claim to "hate" is right there in 5E in the exact same measure.  

So 5E has 100% of 4E fans plus all the H4ters who've been tricked into liking the new game.  Woo Hoo!!!!!


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2015)

Poe's law!


----------



## jayoungr (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> The truly ironic thing is, so much of 4e appears in 5e without the slightest quibble, despite causing huge outcry in 4e.



I also hang out on another board with a large proportion of 4E fans, and they do not agree that your examples are faithfully translated 4E mechanics.  In fact, the very things you mention are large parts of the reason why many of them have _not_ taken to 5E--they feel that 5E took perfectly good mechanics from 4E and bastardized them for no good reason.  They'll tell you that the 5E mechanics only look, on the surface, like the 4E counterparts but they don't fit into the game in the same way.  The Battlemaster's maneuvers and hit dice replacing healing surges are two particular sore spots.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

jayoungr said:


> I also hang out on another board with a large proportion of 4E fans, and they do not agree that your examples are faithfully translated 4E mechanics.




They are wrong.  Hussar will be there forthwith.
Have no concerns or trepidations.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> You really don't if you ever thought and still think that . . .
> 
> Because this is the mark of someone who doesn't get it and doesn't want to get it.




I can accept that you think I don't get it, but that I don't want to get it? That's a big and pejorative assumption that isn't at all useful for dialogue.



Mark CMG said:


> Most folks I have spoken to about 4E basically agree that 4E was seemingly designed as a set of Minis Skirmish Combat rules with aspirations of appealing to CRPG and MMORPG gamers then squeezed into a very thin tabletop RPG skin.  And as a skirmish game, it's okay but there are many that are better.  But as an RPG, it just doesn't do a very good job at all and used a couple / few of patches to try and fix that, like the oft mentioned Page 42 and Skill Challenges.




All of which I agree with and have said as such, in this very thread as well!



Mark CMG said:


> I know this doesn't fit your narrative as well as the folks who don't like 4E, the ones you might describe as two word posters on the comments section of a pro-4E articles (back when 4E was still being published).  It's likely most of them even had reasons they just didn't deign to share.  But the reality I have seen regarding the opinions on 4E is very different and very much grounded in the opinions of a lot of people who know quite a bit about RPGs.  I'm not saying everyone who will be at the convention this weekend has an opinion.  Most simply don't care or know much about 4E.  What I am saying the ones who do have an opinion are quite rational indeed.




Honestly, Mark, I think it is a mixed bag. I have also spoken to many people who had strong and negative opinions about 4E that was not at all based upon experience, just hearsay. I mean, I hear what you are saying and agree with it to some degree, and thus do think I "get it." I think you are assuming that I am some gung-ho 4E fan, which is strange considering my post on the "three camps" - which presumably you didn't read. One of those camps loves 4E, one hates it (often irrationally), and one tried it, was ambivalent or liked it a bit, but eventually moved on; I consider myself in that third camp. But it seems you are ignoring that second camp - which I think had a strong role in the edition wars through incessant and often nasty (and irrational) bashing of 4E.



Mark CMG said:


> But what I don't need is for many others to like it, nor do I need everyone who doesn't like it to agree that they are being irrational if they don't like it, for me to feel okay about liking it myself.  And that's really what you still don't get.  You can like things that other people don't like without their not liking it having to be a personal attack on you or what you like.  So, really, when you post . . .
> 
> . . . I have to wonder why you need to believe this, still, and why you can't just let it go and move on already?




You're taking one sentence out of context, and out of a larger perspective - in other words, I think you read one line and got upset about it and the made a strawman out of me. Hey, its the internet. But these aren't the droids you are looking for, Mark! Perhaps I should have written "*a large part* of the Edition Wars was due to the irrational hatred of 4E." And I stand by that. You're right, it isn't (necessarily) the "largest part" - but it was a significant factor, at least from the countless threads I've read, and quite a few people I've met. 

I also think you are subtly and falsely equating the edition wars around 4E and why it wasn't more widely adopted. The two aren't necessarily the same, especially in light of my three camps schema.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2015)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], here's a question for you: Why do you think there was such vitriolic edition warring around 4E? What is your explanation? Or do you question the assumption that 4E was particularly prone to edition warring? 



Hussar said:


> So, yeah, when Mercurous talks about the irrational hatred of 4e, I think he has a pretty strong point.  The fact that 5e is getting pats on the back for stuff that got 4e vilified shows just how irrational a lot of the criticisms really were.  People didn't hate the mechanics of 4e.   They just hated 4e and used the mechanics as a scapegoat.




I hate to disagree with someone agreeing with me, but here goes ;-). Well, I don't _fully_ disagree but would merely point out that adopting some of the rules of 4E isn't the same as adopting all or even most. 

But what is more interesting is asking the question, _why_ did they "just hate 4E"? If it wasn't logical or reasoned, or wasn't only or fully logical or reasoned, what was it about 4E that inspired such hatred?

In truth, I think it is a combination - and of course it really depends upon the individual. As I said to [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION], I agreed with his assertion of people having reasoned dislike of 4E, but also say a lot of irrational dislike - which usually turned towards "hatred." And "hatred" is a pretty strong word. I mean, one usually doesn't "hate" something that they dislike for logical reasons - like a game system. Hatred implies an affective aspect, that it goes beyond both rationality and preference - it often implies feeling slighted or personally offended in some way.

It is very tempting to try to over-simplify these questions and come to quick and easy, one-sided and/or reductionist answers. I think that is the norm. But I'd like to see more nuance brought into the conversation, more of an ability to hold contradictory truths. For instance, I think there are two general areas in which people didn't care for 4E (to whatever degree): 1) the game itself, the rules, how it played; 2) the vibe of the game, the aesthetic, how it "feels." In a way, it is the analytical and aesthetic aspect of the game, or intellectual and emotional. Some people disliked it purely for 1, some for 2, and some a combination of both. But I think there were large camps on both sides - and to reduce one to the other is missing an important part of the picture.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 23, 2015)

There's also the well-worn phenomenon of judging one's own group (however that is identified) by its best actors, and judging other groups by their worst actors.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Perhaps I should have written "*a large part* of the Edition Wars was due to the irrational hatred of 4E." And I stand by that. You're right, it isn't (necessarily) the "largest part" - but it was a significant factor, at least from the countless threads I've read, and quite a few people I've met.



I'd like to ask: would it be fair to say that virtually none of the people not playing 4E were irrationally motivated, but once people have developed an opinion, the debates become emotional and the content of an emotional debate quickly becomes irrational.

In other words, irrational edition wars is one thing, but lack of completely rational foundations for why people take their positions is quite another.  

Irrational edition wars existed.  
Not playing 4E for irrational reasons did not (significantly) exist.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> (. . .) the largest part of the 4E edition wars was due to the irrational hatred of 4E






Mercurius said:


> That's a big and pejorative assumption that isn't at all useful for dialogue.




You understand the irony of suggesting  that?  The difference is that I only need to be right about one person and you need to be right about the "largest part" of the people who don't like 4E.  Even if you only broad brush to "large" it is absurd to assume that most folks don't have rational reasons even if you consider their actions to be irrational (like posting two words in a comment without giving reasons, essentially using shorthand).  You don't get it.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> But what is more interesting is asking the question, _why_ did they "just hate 4E"? If it wasn't logical or reasoned, or wasn't only or fully logical or reasoned, what was it about 4E that inspired such hatred?
> 
> In truth, I think it is a combination - and of course it really depends upon the individual. As I said to [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION], I agreed with his assertion of people having reasoned dislike of 4E, but also say a lot of irrational dislike - which usually turned towards "hatred." And "hatred" is a pretty strong word. I mean, one usually doesn't "hate" something that they dislike for logical reasons - like a game system. Hatred implies an affective aspect, that it goes beyond both rationality and preference - it often implies feeling slighted or personally offended in some way.





I'm more inclined to believe that the person painting so many others with the broad brush and tagging them as irrational haters has some sort of persecution complex.  You're looking for a way to explain a sweeping feeling you have regarding people who didn't (don't?) like 4E.  You're going out of your way to open old wounds you have and in the process purposefully insulting people with whom you disagreed in the past.  That is what you don't get.  Let it go, man.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> So, yeah, when Mercurous talks about the irrational hatred of 4e, I think he has a pretty strong point.  The fact that 5e is getting pats on the back for stuff that got 4e vilified shows just how irrational a lot of the criticisms really were.  People didn't hate the mechanics of 4e.   They just hated 4e and used the mechanics as a scapegoat.




I never hated 4e.  

I never played it, but there was no hatred. 

Disappointment was probably the strongest emotion. And it was not solely mechanics. The whole timbre of the edition, from the world-view, to the dropping of alignment, to the assumed style of play, rubbed me wrong and made me feel uninterested in trying it. But there was never animosity. Its not in my nature to wish ill on others, or even to cheer against the other guys in sports. I want everyone to do their very best. But 4e was not the game for me.

However, when one says that, there are others who have consistently jumped to the conclusion that you must be some sort of irrational hater and who close their ears to actual conversation about the reasons. Such close-mindedness leads to some other problems, like an inability to see that the number of people who grew tired of 4e swiftly approached the number of those who simply did not care for it. It also leads to a lack of empathy and a lot of bad assumptions about what it was that made the edition more unpopular than popular.

My 30+ years of gaming doesn't quite have Mark's pedigree, but I see a lot of what he sees. As a RPG, 4e lacked something that a lot of RPGers actually want. One can explain it by pointing to the combat styles. Personally, I am not sure that completely explains it. But instead of pointing to the similarities between 4e and 5e and use those to justify 4e, it is probably more worthwhile to look at what they did different and try to understand those differences (at least assuming 5e continues to have success). (One could say the same about the success PFRPG enjoyed that 4e did not. Look at what was different and try to understand why the one was more popular.  Hint - if you think it was "validation" keep looking. 2nd Hint - notice what people are clamoring for from 5e at the moment, and what they are excited about).


----------



## Wicht (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Honestly, Mark, I think it is a mixed bag. I have also spoken to many people who had strong and negative opinions about 4E that was not at all based upon experience, just hearsay. I mean, I hear what you are saying and agree with it to some degree, and thus do think I "get it." I think you are assuming that I am some gung-ho 4E fan, which is strange considering my post on the "three camps" - which presumably you didn't read. One of those camps loves 4E, one hates it (often irrationally), and one tried it, was ambivalent or liked it a bit, but eventually moved on; I consider myself in that third camp. But it seems you are ignoring that second camp - which I think had a strong role in the edition wars through incessant and often nasty (and irrational) bashing of 4E.




In the interest of promoting peace and harmony - let me try to interject a thought...

I think the actual disagreement is on Camp Two. Camp Two is actually two seperate groups. Granted that there is a group who "hated" 4e. They are actually a rather small group imo. There is a larger group of us who disliked 4e.  As well, it is presumptuous to assign irrationality to the opinions people have concerning 4e. Such an assumption poisons the discussion. Rather than labeling such feelings as irrational, it is better to simply accept that they exist and, either move on, or try and understand the causes. By labeling it as irrational you do a disservice to your own potential understanding and empathy.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Irrational edition wars existed.
> Not playing 4E for irrational reasons did not (significantly) exist.



Disagree.  There were plenty of people who made rational, considered decisions to not like 4e.  There were plenty of people who tried 4e and eventually found it not to meet their needs.  There were plenty of people who rejected 4e off of hearsay and or negative initial preferences and never revisited the issue.  It's that third group that's the most tiresome online, as the people who found 4e's divergence from being the next evolution of the 3e paradigm as a personal attack are disproportionally drawn from that group.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I'd like to ask: would it be fair to say that virtually none of the people not playing 4E were irrationally motivated, but once people have developed an opinion, the debates become emotional and the content of an emotional debate quickly becomes irrational.
> 
> In other words, irrational edition wars is one thing, but lack of completely rational foundations for why people take their positions is quite another.
> 
> ...




Except I met people who disliked 4E but had never actually played it. Isn't that irrational? They heard negative things about it and just assumed they were true - and many couldn't even pinpoint what those negative things were! Humans beings are often irrational. 



Mark CMG said:


> You understand the irony of suggesting  that?  The difference is that I only need to be right about one person and you need to be right about the "largest part" of the people who don't like 4E.  Even if you only broad brush to "large" it is absurd to assume that most folks don't have rational reasons even if you consider their actions to be irrational (like posting two words in a comment without giving reasons, essentially using shorthand).  You don't get it.






Mark CMG said:


> I'm more inclined to believe that the person painting so many others with the broad brush and tagging them as irrational haters has some sort of persecution complex.  You're looking for a way to explain a sweeping feeling you have regarding people who didn't (don't?) like 4E.  You're going out of your way to open old wounds you have and in the process purposefully insulting people with whom you disagreed in the past.  That is what you don't get.  Let it go, man.




Wow, you are really off base about me - to the point that I'm wondering if there's any point in having this conversation, because you're creating a complete straw man. You don't know me at all and seemingly aren't interested in hearing what I'm actually saying. It is actually quite astonishing to me to what degree you are falsely categorizing me as some kind of 4E crusader. Mark, I have no wounds about 4E. The "edition wars" didn't affect me all that much.  I can't help but think it is massive projection on your part. Who has old wounds here? 

Once more, and please pay attention: I am NOT saying that all people didn't or don't like 4E had irrational hatred for it. I am saying that SOME did/do, and that this vitriol was a major part of the edition wars. As I was arguing to pemerton up thread, many people who didn't (don't) like 4E actually gave it a shot and didn't hate it, even liked it for awhile, but grew weary of it. 

If you want to have an actual conversation, PLEASE don't assume you know what I think or what my position is off one sentence taken out of context. You are simply way off based about what I actually think. If you need a straw man, find that elsewhere.


----------



## Rejuvenator (Mar 23, 2015)

This is what happens when a judgment label (like "irrational") is applied to a given reason, and then argued over.

People have reasons to like or dislike 4E. Why is it important if it's rational or not? I think it seems important, because then you can draw a line between reasons that are legitimate or illegitimate, or between people are who are being reasonable or wrong headed. And then you know if you're on the "correct" side of the Edition War, or can judge if someone is on the wrong side of the War.

Unless there's some unspoken criteria for rational behaviour underpinning the roleplaying of elves with pointy years that I'm unaware of.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Except I met people who disliked 4E but had never actually played it. Isn't that irrational? They heard negative things about it and just assumed they were true - and many couldn't even pinpoint what those negative things were! Humans beings are often irrational.




That's not necessarily irrational. After all, that's what the industry of criticism - whether of movies or books or anything else - is all about. Someone publishes an opinion and people who trust that opinion react to it. It isn't inherently irrational to look at a critic, evaluate how well your own opinions and tastes have matched theirs, and then conclude that their negative opinion of <movie, book, TV show, RPG, etc> is good enough for you to avoid said product.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Except I met people who disliked 4E but had never actually played it. Isn't that irrational?




No.  In all honesty it does not have to be irrational. 

There are plenty of ways to analyze a game prior to playing it and if the game fails in the analysis before it gets to the table, that is not a sign of irrationality.

Lets move out of RPGs a moment and consider Boardgames.   There are thousands of board games published every year. It is impossible to play all of them. It is certainly not likely one is going to own all of them. Decisions must be made. The intelligent gamer operates by word-of-mouth, considers reviews, takes into account prior preferences, and examines the artwork and production of a game all before ever deciding to play. None of these are the totality of a decision. Spyfall has yet to be published in the US, but word of mouth and reviews convinced me to write up my own copy on note cards and give it a shot with the family. Other games look stellar, but I know from analyzing the game beforehand that I will likely not enjoy it (Chaos in the Old World comes to mind). 

There are, of course, far less RPGs published each year, but analysis can be done in the same way and is quite rational and common.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Once more, and please pay attention: I am NOT saying that all people didn't or don't like 4E had irrational hatred for it. I am saying that SOME did/do, and that this vitriol was a major part of the edition wars.




And let me once more, kindly, point out that you are poisoning the well of your own conversation by making this point. It is an assumption on your part, and one done in bad faith, as it assumes faulty motivations in others. Once you have made such an assumption you must then also try and figure out whether the person you are discussing the issue with are guilty of the irrationality you have accused others of, and it just goes downhill from there. 

The edition wars, in my opinion, were not so much caused by vitriol as by a lack of empathy.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2015)

There is an excessive amount of edition warring and personal sniping going on in this thread, apparently mostly among some old-timers who should know better, and seem not able to put down wars that have now extended over years.  Maybe they think their comments are under the radar - this is to tell them they aren't.  They have been noticed, and marked upon.

If they don't put aside their warring ways in this thread (and, really, elsewhere, as we are kinda tired of the repeated headbutting), they can expect tempbans without further ado or warning.

This may surprise a couple of them, as they don't *think* they are warring.  But they are incorrect - the long-term pattern says otherwise.

So, really, folks - play nice.  Play *RESPECTFULLY*.  Speak as if the people who disagree with you actually matter.  Thank you.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2015)

[Umbran and I crossed in the post]


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Except I met people who disliked 4E but had never actually played it. Isn't that irrational? They heard negative things about it and just assumed they were true - and many couldn't even pinpoint what those negative things were! Humans beings are often irrational.



I'm not going to argue that human beings are rational.
But are these also the people who are participating in edition wars?
I think there are significant leaps of logic occurring here.  
My wife would qualify as one of the people you describe.  She plays in my game and will think about her character away from the table, but she doesn't spend a lot of time on it.  She greatly enjoys playing and spends a lot of time not thinking about it at all.  She has been in conversation with just me or me and larger groups of gamers and it was clear that she didn't like a lot of things she heard about 4e.  If you walked up to her today and asked her to talk about 4E I doubt she could say much more than: "I know I heard a lot of things that didn't sound good to me, I don't recall the details."   And while blind faith in people you trust *IS* adequate for something as trivial as an RPG, that would not describe this circumstance.  She knows she had conversations about specific things and had her own clear opinion on them.  She just doesn't care enough to dwell on it.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Disagree.  There were plenty of people who made rational, considered decisions to not like 4e.  There were plenty of people who tried 4e and eventually found it not to meet their needs.  There were plenty of people who rejected 4e off of hearsay and or negative initial preferences and never revisited the issue.  It's that third group that's the most tiresome online, as the people who found 4e's divergence from being the next evolution of the 3e paradigm as a personal attack are disproportionally drawn from that group.



I don't think you have any evidence that people rejected 4E purely off hearsay AND those same people spent month after month blasting it online.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I don't think you have any evidence that people rejected 4E purely off hearsay AND those same people spent month after month blasting it online.



Of course not.  It's purely anecdotal.  I still think I'm right, though, since it's my anecdote.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2015)

Just a quick reply to something [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] wrote before erasing his post. With regards to your assertion that I went from "largest" to "large" to "some," those qualifiers were used for different referents. "Largest" and "large" were in reference to a part, factor or aspect (of the edition war), not a quantity of people. I changed it because I think the less specific "large" is more accurate than "largest." "Some" referred to an actual quantity of people, of which I didn't specify. 



billd91 said:


> That's not necessarily irrational. After all, that's what the industry of criticism - whether of movies or books or anything else - is all about. Someone publishes an opinion and people who trust that opinion react to it. It isn't inherently irrational to look at a critic, evaluate how well your own opinions and tastes have matched theirs, and then conclude that their negative opinion of <movie, book, TV show, RPG, etc> is good enough for you to avoid said product.




Fair enough, although I think actual "hatred" based on someone else's opinion is somewhat irrational. If don't see a movie because it gets bad reviews, that's one thing, but if I hate or even dislike a movie because of reviews, that's another. Further, I like what Wicht says...



Wicht said:


> No.  In all honesty it does not have to be irrational.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to analyze a game prior to playing it and if the game fails in the analysis before it gets to the table, that is not a sign of irrationality.
> 
> ...




Good stuff. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for timely irrationality! 



Wicht said:


> And let me once more, kindly, point out that you are poisoning the well of your own conversation by making this point. It is an assumption on your part, and one done in bad faith, as it assumes faulty motivations in others. Once you have made such an assumption you must then also try and figure out whether the person you are discussing the issue with are guilty of the irrationality you have accused others of, and it just goes downhill from there.
> 
> The edition wars, in my opinion, were not so much caused by vitriol as by a lack of empathy.




Fair enough - and the last sentence may be true, although would say it is a combination of (perhaps excessive) sensitivity with a lack of empathy. Bad combo. 

As I said, I don't really see irrationality as negative. If anything, I was simply surprised about some of the actual _hatred_ of 4E. Dislike or ambivalence is one thing, but it is astonishing just how upset people got over the whole thing - on both "sides" of the line.



BryonD said:


> I'm not going to argue that human beings are rational.
> But are these also the people who are participating in edition wars?
> I think there are significant leaps of logic occurring here.
> My wife would qualify as one of the people you describe.  She plays in my game and will think about her character away from the table, but she doesn't spend a lot of time on it.  She greatly enjoys playing and spends a lot of time not thinking about it at all.  She has been in conversation with just me or me and larger groups of gamers and it was clear that she didn't like a lot of things she heard about 4e.  If you walked up to her today and asked her to talk about 4E I doubt she could say much more than: "I know I heard a lot of things that didn't sound good to me, I don't recall the details."   And while blind faith in people you trust *IS* adequate for something as trivial as an RPG, that would not describe this circumstance.  She knows she had conversations about specific things and had her own clear opinion on them.  She just doesn't care enough to dwell on it.




Right. This goes back to an angle I was taking in conversation up-thread. We tend to focus on the extremes of pro vs. con, but there was a large group of "moderates" in the middle that ran the gamut from like through ambivalence through mild dislike towards 4E. The edition war seemed to be waged by extremes on either side of that "mild majority," many of whom would find themselves unintentionally getting involved on some occasions (I speak from experience!).


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2015)

Wicht said:


> In the interest of promoting peace and harmony - let me try to interject a thought...
> 
> I think the actual disagreement is on Camp Two. Camp Two is actually two seperate groups. Granted that there is a group who "hated" 4e. They are actually a rather small group imo. There is a larger group of us who disliked 4e.  As well, it is presumptuous to assign irrationality to the opinions people have concerning 4e. Such an assumption poisons the discussion. Rather than labeling such feelings as irrational, it is better to simply accept that they exist and, either move on, or try and understand the causes. By labeling it as irrational you do a disservice to your own potential understanding and empathy.




Almost missed this one (which often happens to promotions of peace and harmony ). 

Anyhow, sure. I think part of what happened here is that the word "irrational" has more negative connotations to some than it does to me. I don't see it as particularly negative at all. Plenty of wonderful things are "irrational." In fact, I would say the very best things in life are irrational (so to speak): love, imagination, eating ice cream.

I'm not sure how the "hate" part of Camp Two isn't part of Camp Three. If we are going to split Camp Two into two groups, I'd say there are those that liked (but didn't love) 4E, played it for awhile, then grew tired of it. This is my experience. Then there those that had an overall negative association but didn't necessarily "hate" it.

Anyhow, as far as irrationality goes, perhaps a better way of putting what I was trying to say is that when actual "hate" is involved, usually there's something more going on than a reasoned opinion, usually there some element of emotion or affect. I can dislike a person if I find them annoying or if they do things that are abhorrent to me, but to actually "hate" them they either have to do something truly awful or they have to rub something in me the wrong way.

That "in me" part is what I'm getting at. A lot of folks seemed personally offended by 4E, whether the game itself, the vibe and look of it, or WotC's handling of it. Again, I can understanding liking or disliking all of that, but when we get to actual _hatred_, clearly there's more going on.


----------



## Rejuvenator (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> As I said, I don't really see irrationality as negative. If anything, I was simply surprised about some of the actual _hatred_ of 4E. Dislike or ambivalence is one thing, but it is astonishing just how upset people got over the whole thing - on both "sides" of the line.



It may also be difficult to differentiate between intense dislike for an edition vs giving off intense emotion when discussing said edition vs another's interpretation of said feeling.

So if I was extremely passionate about "traditional" D&D, and 4E drew my ire, then I might dislike it to some level of intensity, but actual impressions of "hatred" might only emerge as a by-product of arguing online against those equally but oppositely passionate. (This is not something I personally experience, but I'm just speculating.)


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Just a quick reply to something [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] wrote before erasing his post.





What's wrong with you?  I've asked you to let it go and Umbran has told us to drop the discussion.  You're discussing something that isn't even posted and dropping a "mention" on top of it.  I can't discuss this anymore based on Umbran's moderator request so, please, let it go already.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Of course not.  It's purely anecdotal.  I still think I'm right, though, since it's my anecdote.




Really?  
I respect your personal experience and I'm not going to get worked up on that.
But you actually know someone who frequently and over a long term continuously posts "4E sucks" type comments without knowing anything about the game?


----------



## Rejuvenator (Mar 23, 2015)

Nevermind


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Right. This goes back to an angle I was taking in conversation up-thread. We tend to focus on the extremes of pro vs. con, but there was a large group of "moderates" in the middle that ran the gamut from like through ambivalence through mild dislike towards 4E. The edition war seemed to be waged by extremes on either side of that "mild majority," many of whom would find themselves unintentionally getting involved on some occasions (I speak from experience!).



Sure, but you are now putting my wife in the "moderate" camp, which isn't perpetuating edition wars.  That is the point I was making.
There are people without deep and highly educated opinions on the matter.  But these are not the people waging edition wars.  The case being made seems to be that there are uneducated people (true) and people waging edition wars (true), therefore the edition wars are being waged by people who are uneducated on the issue (not true)


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Really?
> I respect your personal experience and I'm not going to get worked up on that.
> But you actually know someone who frequently and over a long term continuously posts "4E sucks" type comments without knowing anything about the game?



Absolutely, yes.  Not on this forum, so much, but several others.  The more 4e-positive threads you read, the more likely you are to see it.  So there may be some, dare I say, selection bias.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2015)

Rejuvenator said:


> It may also be difficult to differentiate between intense dislike for an edition vs giving off intense emotion when discussing said edition vs another's interpretation of said feeling.
> 
> So if I was extremely passionate about "traditional" D&D, and 4E drew my ire, then I might dislike it to some level of intensity, but actual impressions of "hatred" might only emerge as a by-product of arguing online against those equally but oppositely passionate. (This is not something I personally experience, but I'm just speculating.)




So you're saying, "the internet?" ;-)

But what you say here reminds me that there's also a matter of style. Some people are very passionate, and to them saying "I Hate" isn't really about hating, just feeling strongly about something. Hey, I work with teenagers and some of them say "I hate" to a lot of stuff!




Mark CMG said:


> What's wrong with you?  I've asked you to let it go and Umbran has told us to drop the discussion.  You're discussing something that isn't even posted and dropping a "mention" on top of it.  I can't discuss this anymore based on Umbran's moderator request so, please, let it go already.




OK, I misunderstood. I read your post in my email then started to reply, wanted to clarify my word usage which wasn't in any way negative or "edition warry" - if anything, it was meant to defuse not anger! Then your post was gone. Anyhow, no hard feelings - nothing's "wrong" with me, or at least not massively so . Letting go and moving along...


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> OK, I misunderstood. I read your post in my email then started to reply, wanted to clarify my word usage which wasn't in any way negative or "edition warry" - if anything, it was meant to defuse not anger! Then your post was gone. Anyhow, no hard feelings - nothing's "wrong" with me, or at least not massively so . Letting go and moving along...





Fair enough.  I had replied to an email from you the same way and only after posting, noticed Umbran's warning was right above mine and so deleted my post immediately lest I be one of the ones he was discussing (it's vague, so I didn't know).  Anyway, going forward, leave me out of it.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Sure, but you are now putting my wife in the "moderate" camp, which isn't perpetuating edition wars.  That is the point I was making.
> There are people without deep and highly educated opinions on the matter.  But these are not the people waging edition wars.  The case being made seems to be that there are uneducated people (true) and people waging edition wars (true), therefore the edition wars are being waged by people who are uneducated on the issue (not true)




Yeah, that's not what I mean to be implying. 

Anyhow, I think the people waging the edition wars are extremes on either side, with a rotating cast of moderates that get drawn into the fray.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Yeah, that's not what I mean to be implying.
> 
> Anyhow, I think the people waging the edition wars are extremes on either side, with a rotating cast of moderates that get drawn into the fray.



Cool

There are people absolutely claiming this, and you didn't really seem to be embracing that point.  
I absolutely agree that there are "extremes" and that due to emotion the conversations can become highly irrational regardless of the merits (or lackthereof) for the initial opinion.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I absolutely agree that there are "extremes" and that due to emotion the conversations can become highly irrational regardless of the merits (or lackthereof) for the initial opinion.



Cookies for everyone!

Some of you will get your cookies recharged in 5 minutes, and some of you in an hour, but that's just the way it goes.


----------



## Rejuvenator (Mar 23, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Cookies for everyone!
> 
> Some of you will get your cookies recharged in 5 minutes, and some of you in an hour, but that's just the way it goes.



Except all cookies are the same for lava. If you fall into lava, you die. No save.

http://www.livescience.com/34031-person-fell-volcano.html


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 23, 2015)

The only part I HATED about 4e was the fact that it split a gaming group I was very fond of. Maybe that's the same for a lot of other people who at first got angry at a game that was not for them to play (I tried, didn't have fun at all). 

Of course eventuelly my group, and others, would have split due to different game preferences anyway. But I didn't see it that way at the time.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Just a point about "irrational hatred of 4e"
> 
> The truly ironic thing is, so much of 4e appears in 5e without the slightest quibble, despite causing huge outcry in 4e.



 That shouldn't be surprising.  Many of the things that caused outrage in 4e had already existed in prior editions, as well.  Grid dependence, DS mechanics, classes that gained resources in near lock-step, math glitches, etc, etc...



> Here's 5 examples:
> 
> 1.  The Battle Master Fighter and Superiority Dice.
> 2.  The Barbarian and Rage.
> ...



 To be fair, the healing rates do draw some flack from the usual suspects.



> So, yeah, when Mercurous talks about the irrational hatred of 4e, I think he has a pretty strong point.  The fact that 5e is getting pats on the back for stuff that got 4e vilified shows just how irrational a lot of the criticisms really were.  People didn't hate the mechanics of 4e.   They just hated 4e and used the mechanics as a scapegoat.



 It's not so much the 'hatred' (rejection) of 4e that was irrational.  There are some very rational reasons for a classic D&D fan or a 3.x fan to reject 4e (and, those reasons apply less to 5e in spite of the mild similarities you point out), maybe not reasons to hate it, but rational reasons not to want 4e as the face of D&D and to want to discourage others from playing it.   It was the reasons or rationalizations given for that rejection that came off as 'hatred' and didn't necessarily hold together too well.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> It wasn't 2nd Edition, although some parts of 2nd Edition were problematic.





goldomark said:


> You are mostly correct. 2e is not the direct cause of TSR's money problems. It was TSR's bad business decisions during 2e's rang that sunk it. Not how 2e was received and liked by players.



I think there is a possible confusion between _reception of a set of RPG rules_ and _commercial viability of pubishing material for an RPG system_.

A lot of people liked 2nd ed AD&D. A lot of people liked buying products for 2nd ed AD&D. Nevertheless, as Ryan Dancey said (in the comment that I linked to), it was those products that (among other things) killed TSR. Not because they were poor products (though some of them may have been) but because they were not commercially viable.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I've seen a lot of 4E fans say they are not happy with 5E because it is way too much like 3E, or other reasons that boil down to 5E takes away a lot of the innovations of 4E.  And this is completely fair.
> 
> But if the mechanics are identical, then everyone who liked 4E should like 5E just as much.



 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] did not assert that 4e and 5e are identical. He did, correctly, point to mechanical features of 5e that are derived from 4e, and particularly the Essentials variation.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> In any context there is a difference between intransigence and indifference.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is like you are saying that everyone who didn't like 4e was some hateful radical.



I feel you have missed my point. When it comes to the purchase of luxury consumer goods, the concept of _intransigence_ has no work to do.

Describing someone as "intransigently" refusing to buy 4e books _can't_ mean anything other than that a person chose not to buy those books.



Rejuvenator said:


> This is what happens when a judgment label (like "irrational") is applied to a given reason, and then argued over.
> 
> People have reasons to like or dislike 4E. Why is it important if it's rational or not?
> 
> ...



Absolutely. Some people chose not to buy a luxury item for leisure consumption. End of story. It's something that has interesting commercial significance for WotC, but it has no moral or normative significance.



Mercurius said:


> pemerton, here's a question for you: Why do you think there was such vitriolic edition warring around 4E? What is your explanation? Or do you question the assumption that 4E was particularly prone to edition warring?



What do you mean by "edition warring"?

Do you mean "Why did some people not buy 4e products despite having a history of buying WotC/D&D-branded RPG books?" If that is the question, then I've already answered it - because they didn't care to do so.

Do you mean "Why did some people make lots of internet posts setting out reasons for not liking 4e, or criticising WotC for publishing 4e?" then I'd rather leave that alone. I don't think it's a profitable topic of conversation, and it's not one that I've pursued in this thread.



Mercurius said:


> I think there are two general areas in which people didn't care for 4E (to whatever degree): 1) the game itself, the rules, how it played; 2) the vibe of the game, the aesthetic, how it "feels." In a way, it is the analytical and aesthetic aspect of the game, or intellectual and emotional. Some people disliked it purely for 1, some for 2, and some a combination of both.



This may be so. There are any number of other RPGs, too, which generate response (1) and/or (2) in prospective players. That's why people don't buy them.

Of course, some other people may buy them. From the fact that some people have response (1) and/or (2) we can't tell whether or not a game made profits for its publisher.



billd91 said:


> that's what the industry of criticism - whether of movies or books or anything else - is all about. Someone publishes an opinion and people who trust that opinion react to it.





Rejuvenator said:


> It may also be difficult to differentiate between intense dislike for an edition vs giving off intense emotion when discussing said edition vs another's interpretation of said feeling.



I think these posts both point to the true character of the "edition wars". Neither is an observation about a game's commercial prospects, nor an observation about WotC's financial health. They are observations about the social practice of expressing an opinion about a game.

Analysis of the "edition wars" belongs to the same broad genre as understanding why some novels or paintings or movies or TV shows generate pages and pages of controversy in Time magazine, while others which seem superficially comparable draw comment only in some boutique or avant garde professional journal.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

[MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], thanks for the XP - I've quoted you in my following post, and I hope that I've managed to make it clearer to you what I'm saying.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I feel you have missed my point. When it comes to the purchase of luxury consumer goods, the concept of _intransigence_ has no work to do.
> 
> Describing someone as "intransigently" refusing to buy 4e books _can't_ mean anything other than that a person chose not to buy those books.



Interesting logic. So, if someone said that they were indifferently refusing to buy 4e books, it can't mean anything other than that person discriminates against 4e books?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] did not assert that 4e and 5e are identical. He did, correctly, point to mechanical features of 5e that are derived from 4e, and particularly the Essentials variation.




He said that people who were unhappy with 4E should also be unhappy with 5E.  
If this is true, then people who are happy with 4E should be every bit as happy with 5E.

If the changes in the derivation process are such that the systems are no longer identical, then the entire argument collapses.  As it does.

In completely typical fashion, he wildly overstates and misrepresents the equivalence of the final comparison.

He ignores the difference in the context of the overall game system.
He ignores the changes in specific implementation.
He ignores the huge fundamental difference in a game in which individual retooling is a root design presumption, as opposed to 4E which was easy to reskin, but the core math was "fine tuned".

There is not one thing on his list that doesn't EASILY fit into a 3E feel game at my table.  And yet 4E doesn't come close to matching that achievement.

I ask you, as a fan of 4E, do you equally love 5E because of his list?
If the changes are so minor that you must feel the same way towards them, that must apply to you as well.  
Do you love 5E as much as 4E?  Or do you disagree with Hussar?  Or are you simply being hypocritical?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Interesting logic. So, if someone said that they were indifferently refusing to buy 4e books, it can't mean anything other than that person discriminates against 4e books?




I must confess, I am a My Little Ponist.

I'm sorry.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Or do you question the assumption that 4E was particularly prone to edition warring?




I can handle this one.  4e was prone to edition warring, but *NOT* because of anything related to the game's design.  

Remember that the communities required to support the edition warring we saw didn't exist at the time 3e rolled out.  There was a goodly bit of arguing over 3e at the time, but there was not what we think of today as a solidly established online community of players highly invested in 2e.  The lines of communication that enable such displays just didn't exist in 2000.  They did exist in 2008 - so 4e was more prone to it because of the internet environment and social habits to support the conflict existed.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I think these posts both point to the true character of the "edition wars". Neither is an observation about a game's commercial prospects, nor an observation about WotC's financial health. They are observations about the social practice of expressing an opinion about a game.




You are correct.  Edition wars are a social phenomenon among fans, not a game-design or a business phenomenon.  They are about how we communicate on the internet, not about the innate quality of games or companies.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I can handle this one.  4e was prone to edition warring, but *NOT* because of anything related to the game's design.
> 
> Remember that the communities required to support the edition warring we saw didn't exist at the time 3e rolled out.  There was a goodly bit of arguing over 3e at the time, but there was not what we think of today as a solidly established online community of players highly invested in 2e.  The lines of communication that enable such displays just didn't exist in 2000.  They did exist in 2008 - so 4e was more prone to it because of the internet environment and social habits to support the conflict existed.



I don't think this is an accurate summation.

There was a ton of arguing as 3E rolled out.  I doubt anyone would dispute that.

But the ENWorld forum (once it came into existence) was a forum.  And a lot of evolution is structure aside, it is a lot the same.  And it had a very very healthy population from early on.
The debates and ability and tendency to argue were no different.

But (A) the population of ENWorld was overwhelmingly pre-3E and (B) the nature of 2E was so chaotic that it seemed like no two people had the same history with it.  
So there were vast debates about implementation and interpretation (and whether a fireball pea could go through an arrow slit).  But it was a free for all with a largely common goal.

The 3E to 4E "wars" had two sides.

(Yes, there were people who hated 3E, but they were either no present on ENWorld or very lighthearted (and welcome) exceptions.)


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Interesting logic. So, if someone said that they were indifferently refusing to buy 4e books, it can't mean anything other than that person discriminates against 4e books?



Maybe - I'm not sure how you're using the word "discriminate".

I'll try and give another illustration.

I saw the first two Hobbit films at the cinema, but not the third. Why not? Well, I have two young kids, so going to the pictures requires a bit of pre-planning and organisation. I had a one-week window where they were away with grandparents, but during that time my partner and I went to see a different, and I would say better, film ("Winter Sleep").

Does it make sense to say that I was "intransigent" in not buying a ticket to the Hobbit. Or that I was "discriminating" against it? Or that I was "indifferent" to it? (I assume you are not using "indifferent" in the technical economist's sense.)

Personally, I don't think it does. It's a luxury purchase, and for a confluence of reasons I chose not to make it.

RPG books are in the same category. Some people buy some of them, some people buy none of them, no one buys all of them. For a variety of personal motivations, not enough people were buying 4e books from around 2011/12 on to make it worth WotC's while to write and print them. Hence - being a relatively sharp commercial operation, as far as I can tell - they did something else.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Just a point about "irrational hatred of 4e"
> 
> The truly ironic thing is, so much of 4e appears in 5e without the slightest quibble, despite causing huge outcry in 4e.
> 
> ...




Wait a second, there is no way that 5es Bounded Accuracy comes from 4e.

I could understand the argument that it comes as a result of the lash back against the outrageously large accumulating numbers from 3e and 4e though.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Wait a second, there is no way that 5es Bounded Accuracy comes from 4e.



 It's essentially the 4e 'treadmill' effect with smaller numbers.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> He said that people who were unhappy with 4E should also be unhappy with 5E.
> If this is true, then people who are happy with 4E should be every bit as happy with 5E.
> 
> <snip>
> ...



You second sentence is a non-sequitur.

Suppose it's true that A and B have X in common. Suppose also that some people have cited X as a reason for dislike of A. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is asserting that those people also have a reason to dislike B.

It doesn't follow that those who like A should like B. Perhaps, for them, X is a necessary but not sufficient condition of liking something.

Now when you take the situation out of my simplistic example and into the real world, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s claim has to be more nuanced. For instance, it is open to someone who disliked A because of X to explain that the X-iness of B doesn't make them dislike B because B has some other feature that negates or transforms or obscures its X-iness. I'd be very interested, personally, to hear posts along these lines (probably not in this thread) from players who disliked 4e martial encounter powers but like the 5e superiority dice - I can conjecture what some of the differences might be, and would expect to see some of those conjectures confirmed, but it would be interesting to hear about it from those actually having the experience.

But the possibility of nuance doesn't change the fact that your claim is a non-sequitur. From the fact that 5e contains many mechanical features very similar to those that were widely complained of in 4e, it doesn't follow that any given 4e fan should like 5e. It might have other stuff that 4e dropped (eg "real world" spell durations that can tend to encourage illusionistic GMing) or not have stuff that 4e included (eg "subjective" DCs).

I mean, 3E also has a lot of stuff in common with 4e: a somewhat comparable action economy, d20 rolls to hit, combat victory by hit point ablation (at least at low-ish levels), same stat system, comparable default magic item load-out, etc. So if someone didn't like these features of 3E (eg they were a die-hard Runequest player) you might expect them not to like 4e either. It wouldn't follow that 3E fans would like 4e, nor vice versa.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2015)

Sorry but a capped +6 proficiency does not compare to a +15 from 4e or a +20 from 3e.

In fact Bounded Accuracy is actually getting off the treadmill.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Wait a second, there is no way that 5es Bounded Accuracy comes from 4e.
> 
> I could understand the argument that it comes as a result of the lash back against the outrageously large accumulating numbers from 3e and 4e though.




You are correct.  The implementation is wildly different.

I was in debates (including people in this thread) in which a key point of contention was the idea of characters not being good at things.  
A simple example was that a rogue might be much better at climbing a wall, but everyone should have a decent chance to climb the wall.
Thus everyone gained }+1/2 level to everything.

In 5E, you can be a 20th level character and still have a +0 in a variety of skills (and even saves)

The implementation and feel is entirely different.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> You second sentence is a non-sequitur.




EXACTLY!!!!!!

The problem is So is the FIRST one.



> Suppose it's true that A and B have X in common. Suppose also that some people have cited X as a reason for dislike of A. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is asserting that those people also have a reason to dislike B.
> 
> It doesn't follow that those who like A should like B. Perhaps, for them, X is a necessary but not sufficient condition of liking something.



and.......

the presence of that thing may not be a sufficient condition of NOT liking something.

Why do people who like 4E get to take these things in context, but people who don't like it must accept them as stand alone ideas?
It is a double standard.

ZERO of those thing play out within 5E the way they play out in 4E.

It may be true that you can draw a connection.
But the reason for being annoyed by them is either gone or implicitly detachable.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Sorry but a capped +6 proficiency does not compare to a +15 from 4e or a +20 from 3e.
> 
> In fact Bounded Accuracy is actually getting off the treadmill.



4e was designed to set default success chances to around 55%-65% _provided that_ a GM followed its encounter-building advice (ie use the DC-by-level chart, used monsters and NPCs statted within -2 to +4 or so levels, and avoided higher-level soldiers).

5e's bounded accuracy is much the same thing, but with the level-relativity stripped out. My maths suggests that the success rate in 5e is slightly broader than 4e - a band of around 40% to 80%, depending on build and level.

I don't know the 3E maths well enough to comment, but this is very different from AD&D, where at 1st level success rates in combat are typically below 50% (eg 1st level fighter vs AC 7 needs a 13 to hit before mods, which are harder to get in AD&D than in 4e or 5e).


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> 4e was designed to set default success chances to around 55%-65% _provided that_ a GM followed its encounter-building advice (ie use the DC-by-level chart, used monsters and NPCs statted within -2 to +4 or so levels, and avoided higher-level soldiers).




Yes, this is the 4e treadmill.  You always have the same 55 to 65% chance as long as you boost all the right abilities and constantly upgrade your items etc.

You do not have that in 5e.

I do not even know how someone can look at Bounded Accuracy and even claim it comes from 4e.  It is,  as they say, a Non sequitur.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> 4e was designed to set default success chances to around 55%-65% _provided that_ a GM followed its encounter-building advice (ie use the DC-by-level chart, used monsters and NPCs statted within -2 to +4 or so levels, and avoided higher-level soldiers).
> 
> 5e's bounded accuracy is much the same thing, but with the level-relativity stripped out. My maths suggests that the success rate in 5e is slightly broader than 4e - a band of around 40% to 80%, depending on build and level.
> 
> I don't know the 3E maths well enough to comment, but this is very different from AD&D, where at 1st level success rates in combat are typically below 50% (eg 1st level fighter vs AC 7 needs a 13 to hit before mods, which are harder to get in AD&D than in 4e or 5e).



Again, you are taking things out of context.  
If 5E a character can EASILY be way outside of the target range and the game is built to create these situations.  
4E was praised for avoiding them.

It is night and day.


Again, doesn't this prove the point?   We have 4E fans presuming that everyone else plays the game though the exact same filter as they do.  So the aspect of a rule that they see as primary MUST BE the thing that everyone else sees.  You presumption completely fails to speak to my game.  And your conclusion follows.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I was in debates (including people in this thread) in which a key point of contention was the idea of characters not being good at things.
> A simple example was that a rogue might be much better at climbing a wall, but everyone should have a decent chance to climb the wall.
> Thus everyone gained }+1/2 level to everything.
> 
> In 5E, you can be a 20th level character and still have a +0 in a variety of skills (and even saves)



But still have a decent chance of success (eg 30% against DC 15, which seems to be the median DC for the system).

The real difference, as I see it, is not the mathematics of bounded accuracy.

The difference is the implications for genre and story of the way it is implemented. 4e is designed tightly around the "tier" structure: combat abilities, paragon path and epic destiny descriptions, the Monster Manuals, the example traps all work to reinforce this. The result of all this is that - if you play to these defaults - the PCs _will_ progress through the "world of D&D", from villages threatened by kobolds to combatting demon lords on the Abyss.

The fact that, when you look at the 4e mechanics, an epic wizard can also trivially scale a kobold barricade, or trivially intimidate a Greyhawk street thug into handing over his loots, is (within the scope of this design) a relativey minor side-effect. To the extent that it comes up in play, it is minor flavour. To the extent that you want to make this sort of thing a major focus, it would be the epic wizard wiping out a kobold stronghold single-handedly, or taking control of the Greyhawk thieve's guild, and it would be resolved as a skill challenge with level-appropriate DCs (and so the question of how easily that wizard can scale a single barricade or intimidate a single thug would not arise as part of the resolution).

5e does not have the same default story structure. There is a deliberate intention that the mechanical equivalent of 4e's pargon heroes might have to engage single differentiated kobold barricades, or single differentiated street thugs,  in the course of meaningful action resolution. That's not a mechanical change - 4e also has single differentiated barricades and single differentiated thugs that are relevant to high level PCs (eg the barricades that Dispater erects to trap his foes, or the thugs that Orcus sends out to kill intruders in Thanatos). It's a story change - a change in the character of the fiction, and the way it is meant to be handled, and to change or not change, over the course of the game.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Do you mean "Why did some people not buy 4e products despite having a history of buying WotC/D&D-branded RPG books?" If that is the question, then I've already answered it - because they didn't care to do so.
> 
> Do you mean "Why did some people make lots of internet posts setting out reasons for not liking 4e, or criticising WotC for publishing 4e?" then I'd rather leave that alone. I don't think it's a profitable topic of conversation, and it's not one that I've pursued in this thread.




I meant the latter, so I guess we'll leave it at that. But why would you think I meant the former? 



pemerton said:


> This may be so. There are any number of other RPGs, too, which generate response (1) and/or (2) in prospective players. That's why people don't buy them.
> 
> Of course, some other people may buy them. From the fact that some people have response (1) and/or (2) we can't tell whether or not a game made profits for its publisher.




??? Again, I think you are defining a very narrow parameter for conversation - continually coming back to sales and profits. I mean, clearly the _financial_ reason behind 5E was because 4E was no longer as profitable as WotC/Hasbro wanted it to be and they wanted the cash-cow that a new edition cycle brings. But this doesn't touch upon the "human" elements - psychological, creative, community, etc. Obviously that stuff is harder to define, but it is what pushes the more definable stuff like sales.



Umbran said:


> I can handle this one.  4e was prone to edition warring, but *NOT* because of anything related to the game's design.
> 
> Remember that the communities required to support the edition warring we saw didn't exist at the time 3e rolled out.  There was a goodly bit of arguing over 3e at the time, but there was not what we think of today as a solidly established online community of players highly invested in 2e.  The lines of communication that enable such displays just didn't exist in 2000.  They did exist in 2008 - so 4e was more prone to it because of the internet environment and social habits to support the conflict existed.




I hear and somewhat agree with you here, Umbran, but this only works with regards to "edition warring" as an internet phenomena and to what degree it brings awareness to disgruntlement. Clearly edition warring was more prevalent with 4E simply because the internet was more established in 2008 than in 2000, or at least social media platforms like EN World, etc. But if we extend "edition warring" to the underlying causative factors, and the degree to which the D&D community embraces a new edition, then I don't think the internet is a sufficient explanation - it only tells us that the "battle field" was there, but it doesn't tell us if the underlying "hostilities" were more or less than in previous edition cycles.

I personally think that the D&D community embraced 3E far more fully than it did 4E, and all signs _so far_ seem to point to a fuller embrace of 5E. Now _why_ that was the case (assuming it was the case) is a matter of debate and, at the least, a very complex issue. I certainly think the online social media environment had a large role to play, if only for providing the "breeding grounds" for hostility, but I do think there are other factors - some of which have to do with the game itself and how it differed from previous editions. I'm not making a judgement call here or saying anything pejorative about 4E, mind you.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> But still have a decent chance of success (eg 30% against DC 15, which seems to be the median DC for the system).
> 
> The real difference, as I see it, is not the mathematics of bounded accuracy.



The two systems may have the same standard / typical target percentage.  But the bell curve of expected variations around that are critically different.



> 5e does not have the same default story structure.



And mechanically it is very inclined to work differently as a result.  
I tend to suspect you COULD CHOOSE to make it follow the 4E bell curve.  But that ewould be something the players are adding to the system, not something the system is bringing to the game.
This is a critical difference.

Healing is different because I can, and in fact have, house rule to a completely 3E style.  The "math works"  does not conflict with this.

Barbarians and damage is nothing new.  I have LONG debated (with you and others) that I demand a mix of real and abstract damage without a fixed narrative description.  The barbarian damage simply modifies where on the scale I will be, but I'm still using shades of grey and never black or white.  Again, in a FULLY abstract system it still works, yes.  But it is critically different that in 5E I can do this with a blend, fully abstract is 100% removable.

The PHB (and even moreso the DMG) make it clear that anyone can try all kinds of things with ability checks.    The battlemaster's ability to use superiority dice to do things BETTER does not mean that others cannot try, nor does it mean that a fighter out of dice cannot try without the extra bonus.

None of it stands up to inspection.

4E fans seems fixated on the fact that these things CAN work they way they do in 4E and seem completely incapable of seeing that they can also work (very well) in ways that 4E does not promote.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Sorry but a capped +6 proficiency does not compare to a +15 from 4e or a +20 from 3e.
> 
> In fact Bounded Accuracy is actually getting off the treadmill.



Say you're a top-level 5e character.  You have a +6 proficiency bonus and an 20 stat, your buddy has a +6 proficiency and a 12 stat - you're +4 better than him.  At lower level, when your proficiencies were both +3 and your stats 18 and 10, respectively, you were already 4 better than him.  The kinds of DCs you're going to face go up.  Your proficient saves get better, but so do save DCs.  Similarly, in 4e, if you're both trained, the difference in stat is going to be the main difference.  

You can also think of it as being similar to 3.5 with smaller numbers.  Instead of +23 for fully investing in a skill, you only get +6.  The difference is that, in 5e, as in 4e, untrained characters can still make a check with some small hope of success.  In 4e it's because of the treadmill, in 5e, it's called bounded accuracy.  Both solve the 3.5 problem.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Say you're a top-level 5e character.  You have a +6 proficiency bonus and an 20 stat, your buddy has a +6 proficiency and a 12 stat - you're +4 better than him.  At lower level, when your proficiencies were both +3 and your stats 18 and 10, respectively, you were already 4 better than him.  The kinds of DCs you're going to face go up.  Your proficient saves get better, but so do save DCs.  Similarly, in 4e, if you're both trained, the difference in stat is going to be the main difference.
> 
> You can also think of it as being similar to 3.5 with smaller numbers.  Instead of +23 for fully investing in a skill, you only get +6.  The difference is that, in 5e, as in 4e, untrained characters can still make a check with some small hope of success.  In 4e it's because of the treadmill, in 5e, it's called bounded accuracy.  Both solve the 3.5 problem.




What about the Level 20 rogue with 20 dex and +6  (+11) and the Level 20 fighter with 10 Dex and no prof bonus to the skill save in question (+0)?

5E takes the solution to the 3.5 problem and then solves the 4E problem.  
Excellent.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Wait a second, there is no way that 5es Bounded Accuracy comes from 4e.
> 
> I could understand the argument that it comes as a result of the lash back against the outrageously large accumulating numbers from 3e and 4e though.




It's pretty much the same as 4e, simply with the level increases stripped out.

A 1st level 4e character generally has about a 60% chance of success for most typical actions.  Yup, there's exceptions, but, by and large, it's around 60%.  At 20th level, doing typical things for a 20th level character - facing CR 20 monsters (or thereabouts), CR 20 challenges, etc - the character will have about a 60% chance of success, again, there is variation here.

A 1st level 5e character, doing typical 1st level things will generally have a 60% chance of success.  The 20th level character, again, doing typical 20th level stuff, will still have around a 60% chance of success, and virtually never a 0% chance of success (only hit on a 20 or save on a 20, things like that).  

This is very, very different from 3e, where due to scaling, many checks hit that 0% success rate very quickly and because of how the classes worked, by about 10th level, you pretty much auto succeeded skill checks, or auto-failed.  Even attacks suffered from this.  Sure, you first attack might hit, but, iterative attacks, without major enhancements, were subsequently very unlikely to succeed.  With 3 attacks, if your first attack was at anything less than 90%, your third attack was an auto fail.  In order to actually be effective, your first attack pretty much had to auto succeed (yes, yes, fail on a one, I KNOW) as did the second attack.  Which mean massive numbers of modifiers to attacks.  Thus the Excel Spreadsheet caculations for high level PC's.

The brilliance of 5e though, and I stand in awe of this, is just how much they've brought into 5e, but because of the way they've handled the fandom this time, they've managed to convince people that it's completely divorced from all things 4e.  It really is absolutely brilliant.  There's a bright direct line from 4e mechanics to 5e mechanics.  Sure, there are differences.  Of course there are.  But, the baseline concepts for much of the mechanical framework for 5e is pure 4e.  4e is where they perfected the math of D&D.  The problem with 4e wasn't in the mechanics, it was in the presentation.


----------



## Rygar (Mar 23, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I can handle this one.  4e was prone to edition warring, but *NOT* because of anything related to the game's design.
> 
> Remember that the communities required to support the edition warring we saw didn't exist at the time 3e rolled out.  There was a goodly bit of arguing over 3e at the time, but there was not what we think of today as a solidly established online community of players highly invested in 2e.  The lines of communication that enable such displays just didn't exist in 2000.  They did exist in 2008 - so 4e was more prone to it because of the internet environment and social habits to support the conflict existed.




4th edition's edition warring was the direct result of horrifically bad decisions on WOTC's part.  When complaints about 4th edition arose a wise company would've issued a "We're listening!" statement,  kept a tight lid on their forums by banning radicals on all sides,  and would've adjusted course as sales numbers and feedback poured in.

Instead WOTC permitted a vigilante force to organize on their message boards and supported it with extremely biased moderation,  presumably expecting that they could just silence the unhappy and everything would be ok.  The result of this was that they created a highly insular echo chamber with 0 tolerance of criticism and fanned fan frustration/anger by permitting certain groups to be attacked without consequence while denying those groups any chance to respond.

This then causes an association between the product and the treatment the person received by it's fans.  Having people gloat that the product you enjoyed for decades is now gone,  insult you endlessly,  and the mods ban you the moment you respond causes a person to associate 4th edition with people who demonstrate negative behavior.  Exacerbated by the fact that most of the people being maltreated had been faithful customers for decades. It didn't help that WOTC was hellbent on shooting themselves in every foot they could find,  they didn't earn themselves any brownie points by killing the Dragonlance novels for example,  and it was widely known that 4th edition was the reason Dragonlance was cut.

WOTC should've handled their community instead of empowering a vigilante group to do it for them and they shouldn't have waged a war against their decades old customers both actively and passively.  As I think Goldomark said previously,  WOTC acted arrogantly and their community management demonstrated that.  There wouldn't have been an edition war if WOTC had managed their community appropriately.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> A 1st level 5e character, doing typical 1st level things will generally have a 60% chance of success.  The 20th level character, again, doing typical 20th level stuff, will still have around a 60% chance of success, and virtually never a 0% chance of success (only hit on a 20 or save on a 20, things like that).



This statement is not remotely accurate.

A 20th level character can easily have +0 or low single digits bonus to many things, and 20th level DC can be well over 20.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2015)

Y'know, I gotta go with Rygar to some degree on this.  WOTC's problems with 4e were, in large part, WOTC's own damn fault.  It was just so frustrating to see them self implode like that.  It just never ended.  Started with the massive reaction to the ending of the print Dungeon and Dragon and just rolled down hill from there.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, the baseline concepts for much of the mechanical framework for 5e is pure 4e.  4e is where they perfected the math of D&D.  The problem with 4e wasn't in the mechanics, it was in the presentation.



I guess we should not hold our breath for you to go back and address the range of rebuttals.

Because your statement is flat out wishful thinking.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Yes, this is the 4e treadmill.  You always have the same 55 to 65% chance as long as you boost all the right abilities and constantly upgrade your items etc.
> 
> You do not have that in 5e.



No. Instead there are very few bonuses available (stats capped at 20, proficiency bonus grows from +2 to +6 over the course of 19 levels gained, magic items are optional).

A fairly steady range of success rates based on growing numbers, and a fairly steady range of success rates based on no growth in numbers, are functionally the same thing.



BryonD said:


> If 5E a character can EASILY be way outside of the target range and the game is built to create these situations.



I don't think a character in 5e can EASILY be way outside the target range at all. What sorts of examples do you have in mind?

At higher levels the gaps will grow, but this is equally true in 4e.

In 4e, the difference between trained and untrained is +5 for skills, +2 for non-AC defences (before feats), plus stat spread which can be beween -1 and +6 or 7 up to 20th level, and +0 and +9 or 10 at epic. Glomming all those together gives typical spreads in the neighbourhood of 10 before feats and items (the latter typically are more relevant to skills than to NADs).

For my 28th level party, the biggest spread in NADs is 10, for Fort (invoker/wizard 32, sorcerer and paladin 41) and Reflex (paladin 35, ranger/cleric 44) - for Will the spread is 9 (fighter/cleric 39, sorcerer 47). For skills, the biggest spread is in Arcana and History (invoker wizard +42 to both,  next highest being the sorcerer at +20 Arcana and +15 History), then Endurance (fighter/cleric +34, next highest +18 range/cleric). The only skills in which the spread between best and worst is not at least 10 are Heal (+23 vs +16) and Streetwise (+23 vs +15).

In 5e, the difference between trained and untrained (ignoring the expertise class feature) is +2 to +6 for skills and saves, plus the result of stat spread which can be between -1 and +5. At 20th level we can expect plenty of wizards with -1 to climb walls, and fighters with +11. That's a spread of 13. 

DCs in 5e range from Very Easy (5) to Nearly Impossible (30). Easy is set at 10. The spread between Easy and Hard in 4e is 8 vs 19 at 1st level (comparable to 5e's Easy vs Hard) and is 24 vs 42 at 30th level (a comparable spread to 5e's Easy vs Nearly Impossible).

The level, in 4e, at which the gap between Easy and Hard roughly corresponds to 5e's Easy vs Very Hard is around the beginning of paragon tier: at 11th, Easy vs Hard in 4e is 13 vs 27.

So 5e played in such a fashion as low level characters encounter few or no DCs above Hard, middish-to-low-upper PCs encounter few or no DCs above Very Hard, and Nearly Impossible tasks are confined to upper level PCs, will have DC spreads pretty comparable to 4e.

The fiction might be different, but the mechanics won't be.

Also, any comments on the spread of DCs in the published adventures would be welcome!


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I feel you have missed my point. When it comes to the purchase of luxury consumer goods, the concept of _intransigence_ has no work to do.
> 
> Describing someone as "intransigently" refusing to buy 4e books _can't_ mean anything other than that a person chose not to buy those books.




Coming from someone who is usually so precise in his terms, I find this statement mind-boggling. I don't see how you can miss the pejorative connotation to saying someone intransigently refused to buy 4e books.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> What about the Level 20 rogue with 20 dex and +6  (+11) and the Level 20 fighter with 10 Dex and no prof bonus to the skill save in question (+0)?



 What about them?  In 4e, the high-DEX rogue who is trained has a stat bonus (probably +6 or even 8 depending on race & Epic Destiny) and training bonus (+5) over the same-level character who is untrained and has a low/no stat bonus (probably +1 due to paragon & epic stat bumps).  That's +11-13 vs +0-1.  There's a little variability because there's no hard stat cap.  



> 5E takes the solution to the 3.5 problem and then solves the 4E problem.



 The 3.5 problem was a practical one:  a character who isn't trained can't do /anything/ at high level when a skill check comes up.  4e solves that with a +5 training bonus and +1/2 level bonus (the treadmill).  5e solves it by reducing the trained bonus from +4-23 over 20 level to +2-6.  The net effects are very similar.  The 5e 'problem' is that a character who doesn't receive training /never/ gets any better.  No matter how much your wizard may run around in the course of his adventuring career, he never gets any more athletic, no matter how many enchanted beats your fighter vanquishes, he never picks up on the similarities among then.  The 4e problem is that your rogue whose spent his long adventuring career in a city is actually pretty good at surviving in the wilderness once he's become a superhuman demigod.

Maybe it'd've been nice if 5e let you 'pick up' some secondary stuff at something less than +2-6, or if 4e let you designate abject incompetence at something.  :shrug:


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> The fiction might be different, but the mechanics won't be.



By you own examples "nearly impossible" is 30 and a character can have  -1.
That leaves a lot of range for common examples where the roll requires a 15+ or even better than 20.

In my game at 7th level there are often DCs of 16 or 17 and there are characters with +0 finding themselves throwing the die.
Obviously part of the game is that the party would greatly prefer the rogue be making the DEX save than the Fighter.  But sometimes it doesn't work out that way.

And, I'm playing the game.  
It is working the way I want to and the homogenity of 4E is not present.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Coming from someone who is usually so precise in his terms, I find this statement mind-boggling. I don't see how you can miss the pejorative connotation to saying someone intransigently refused to buy 4e books.



That's my whole point! The pejorative connotation has nothing to work on. The whole normative overlay misfires.

It equally misfires when people say that WotC "turned its back on its fans" or treated its fans "arrogantly".

These are consumer transactions within a commercial market. I'm not saying that there is no scope for moral commentary on such transactions (though none on ENworld, because of board rules). But the moral overlay that has been used in this thread misfires.

That's why I said of myself, upthread, that I am "intransigently" refusing to buy PF or Savage Worlds books. All that _can_ mean is that I've chosen to spend my money elsewhere, for whatever personal reasons have motivated me.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 23, 2015)

Okay I just have to ask...

How is the below


pemerton said:


> 4e was designed to set default success chances to around 55%-65% _provided that_ a GM followed its encounter-building advice (ie use the DC-by-level chart, used monsters and NPCs statted within -2 to +4 or so levels, and avoided higher-level soldiers)



... a 55-65% chance the same as...

This...


pemerton said:


> 5e's bounded accuracy is much the same thing, but with the level-relativity stripped out. My maths suggests that the success rate in 5e is slightly broader than 4e - a band of around 40% to 80%, depending on build and level.




plus this...


pemerton said:


> But still have a decent chance of success (eg 30% against DC 15, which seems to be the median DC for the system).




... a 30-80% chance...

Is the argument that each game has a range of success so they are the same (which if true is the silliest argument I've ever seen, any game based on math is going to have a range for success)... because a 30%-80% chance isn't the same as 55-65%


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> What about them?



They are wildly different than the misleading example you provided.



> The 3.5 problem was a practical one:  a character who isn't trained can't do /anything/ at high level when a skill check comes up.  4e solves that with a +5 training bonus and +1/2 level bonus (the treadmill).  5e solves it by reducing the trained bonus from +4-23 over 20 level to +2-6.  The net effects are very similar.  The 5e 'problem' is that a character who doesn't receive training /never/ gets any better.  No matter how much your wizard may run around in the course of his adventuring career, he never gets any more athletic, no matter how many enchanted beats your fighter vanquishes, he never picks up on the similarities among then.  The 4e problem is that your rogue whose spent his long adventuring career in a city is actually pretty good at surviving in the wilderness once he's become a superhuman demigod.



Once again we have a 4E fan reaching a conclusion for someone else by demonstrating a complete inability to conceive of a difference in taste.

The idea that a person not good at something is not good at that thing is not a problem at all to me.  It is a feature.
I get that it bugs you.  
I'm not going around presuming that nobody liked the 4E alternative.  

I don't like it that the rogue gets good at surviving in the wilderness "just because".  I have no qualms that you do.  

But this is a difference of taste and by pointing out that they DO work different here you are disproving Hussar's claim and making it purely a matter of taste.  You are just failing to recognize the potential for an actual difference in taste.



> Maybe it'd've been nice if 5e let you 'pick up' some secondary stuff at something less than +2-6, or if 4e let you designate abject incompetence at something.  :shrug:



For some it would have been a small grain of rice off the negative scale.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> They are wildly different than the misleading example you provided.



 a +11 difference is wildly different from a +11-13 difference?  Really?  Both were trained/proficient vs untrained/non-proficient, both were heavily invested in a stat vs no investment in the stat.  Both were high level.  Nothing in the least misleading about the example.  



> Once again we have a 4E fan reaching a conclusion for someone else by demonstrating a complete inability to conceive of a difference in taste.



 There's a clear difference among 3.5, 4e, and 5e in how they model lack of interest in a skill at high level.  In 3.x, if you never invest in a skill, you are as bad at 20th as you were at 1st, and compared to someone who invested heavily in that skill, that's incredibly, something that completely eclipses the d20 roll.  We're talking +30 or more vs as little as -1.  In 4e, if you never invested in a skill in the slightest, and 30th level, you'd still be +15 (that's assuming an 8 stat at 1st level) better than you were at 1st level, while the heavily invested guy (with race & epic destiny both piling onto the skills stat) would be +28 -  a difference not  entirely eclipse by the roll of a d20.  In 5e, you're talking -1 for 8 stat and no proficiency, vs 11 for max stat and proficiency, still, unlike 3.5, and like 4e, something where a d20 roll can sometimes make up the difference.

You characterized the 4e solution as a 'problem,' and, rather than claim it wasn't a problem, I pointed out that the 5e solution had a contrary 'problem.'  

It's a matter of how you want to model the high end of the spectrum.

That's hardly me being unable to see another point of view.




> The idea that a person not good at something is not good at that thing is not a problem at all to me.  It is a feature.
> I get that it bugs you.
> I'm not going around presuming that nobody liked the 4E alternative.



 By claiming that 5e 'solved the 4e problem,' that is exactly what you presumed.  



> I don't like it that the rogue gets good at surviving in the wilderness "just because".  I have no qualms that you do.



 Clearly you do or you wouldn't be screaming at me for accepting that both can be characterized as problems.



> But this is a difference of taste and by pointing out that they DO work different here you are disproving Hussar's claim and making it purely a matter of taste.



 They have different side effects, but they do accomplish the same primary thing:  minimizing the difference between the specialist and the non-specialist skill checks at very high level, which was an issue in 3.x (albeit, perhaps an issue that some folks loved, because they wanted that kind of profound spread in competence to make most skill checks one-man-shows). 

And, 5e characters are still on this same-proficiency-bonus-for-everyone progression, just as 4e characters were on the same level bonus for everyone progression.  It's just not applied as evenly.   

But, yes, I am arguing against aspects of Hussar's theory that 4e and 5e are 'the same' ....



Hussar said:


> The brilliance of 5e though, and I stand in awe of this, is just how much they've brought into 5e, but because of the way they've handled the fandom this time, they've managed to convince people that it's completely divorced from all things 4e.  It really is absolutely brilliant.



 Heh.  I think you're overstating it.  Yes, details like bounded accuracy, HD, overnight healing, at-will & encounter powers for casters, a few specific spells, battlemaster maneuvers, Adv/Dis and whatnot may have been lifted from 4e in one sense or another.  But they're not in the same form as in 4e, nor are they put to the same use.  Bounded accuracy is like the treadmill, but unevenly applied.  HD are like surges, but are so few and independent of other types of healing, that spells are once again the prime sources of healing.  The benefits of AEDU are there, in a sense, for an individual character if he's the right caster class, but the broader benefits of class balance have been thoroughly purged.  

The whole beast may be made up of distorted fragments of 3.x, 4e, and d20 in general - but it is still very much in the shape of 2e.  Like a dinosaur re-engineered from bird DNA.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I don't think this is an accurate summation.
> 
> There was a ton of arguing as 3E rolled out.  I doubt anyone would dispute that.




I state so myself - yes, there was arguing.  But arguing and edition warring are not the same thing.  



> And a lot of evolution is structure aside, it is a lot the same.




It is a lot the same, but it is a lot different as well, especially in terms of social structure, and the attitudes of the participants.  1999 was not the same as 2008 on the internet.



> But (A) the population of ENWorld was overwhelmingly pre-3E and (B) the nature of 2E was so chaotic that it seemed like no two people had the same history with it.




Thus, as I said, there was no solid, emotionally invested 2e community present.  You are rather demonstrating my point - the community was different.

As 3e ran, folks on the forums still had different experiences, but they also had unifying communications from places like this, WotC's site, and others - which were largely missing in the 2e era.  So, there wasn't a solid block of users to break apart - and thus no war.  In addition, much of our communication style about RPGs had changed significantly - The Forge, for our purposes, didn't really get rolling until 2001, after the 3e rollout, and like it or not, that work significantly impact how we approach discussing games.

In addition, 1999 was back before either Facebook or Twitter, both of which have impacted communications styles, and are still doing so today.  We *couldn't* have argued over whether it is okay to tweet product status information when 3e rolled out!

So, I think I can reiterate - the social and communication structures that were required for the Edition Wars to happen didn't exist in 1999.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 23, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The 5e 'problem' is that a character who doesn't receive training /never/ gets any better.  No matter how much your wizard may run around in the course of his adventuring career, he never gets any more athletic, no matter how many enchanted beats your fighter vanquishes, he never picks up on the similarities among then.  The 4e problem is that your rogue whose spent his long adventuring career in a city is actually pretty good at surviving in the wilderness once he's become a superhuman demigod.



This is what I'm getting at when I say the two systems produce different fictions, with different story structures. The "tiers" - from Heroic to Epic - are central to 4e, whereas 5e has no comparable default story structure, and tends to actively push against it.

But as you say, these different approaches to story are built on very comparable mechanical frameworks.



BryonD said:


> By you own examples "nearly impossible" is 30 and a character can have  -1.
> That leaves a lot of range for common examples where the roll requires a 15+ or even better than 20.



Yes. In my 4e game there is a lot of scope for DCs of 40 (Hard) with characters having bonuses of +14 to +16. Those PCs can't succeed without some sort of boost.

At 11th level, there was scope for DCs of 27 (Hard) with character having bonuses of +4 to +6. Those PCs coudn't succeed without some sort of boost.

In 5e there is an interesting tendency to have made ACs a bit lower relative to 4e, and to have made skill DCs overall a bit higher.

The AC thing I understand - it is part of speeding up combat. The skill thing is a little opaque to me, but perhaps it is to compensate for the increased likelihood of advantage on skill checks.

But the overall spreads are not radically different.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> That's my whole point! The pejorative connotation has nothing to work on. The whole normative overlay misfires.
> 
> It equally misfires when people say that WotC "turned its back on its fans" or treated its fans "arrogantly".
> 
> ...



How does the dragon crap cartoon fit into this analysis?
I can take a joke, and I'm not hurt over it.

But how does that fit your scenario?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2015)

Umbran said:


> So, I think I can reiterate - the social and communication structures that were required for the Edition Wars to happen didn't exist in 1999.



OK, I thought you were saying that the edition wars didn't exist because of differences in how forums have advanced communication.
It appears I simply misunderstood your point.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Imaro said:


> a 30%-80% chance isn't the same as 55-65%



And 4e produces bigger spreads than 55-65. The invoker/wizard in my game has a +23 to hit with OAs using his Rod of 6 (of the 7) Parts. The default AC for a 28th level opponent is 42. Hence he needs to roll a 19 to hit. Of course, it doesn't come up all that often.

But I think 4e aimed at keeping the typical spread, in play, a little tighter than 5e does, particularly at the lowest levels.

My point is that they both cluster around bettter-than-50% chances of success. This is very different from AD&D.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> But the overall spreads are not radically different.



This is not my experience and not what I have encountered over and over from 4e defenders.

See Tony's comments above for the slightest taste (which isn't to say that begins to capture the many pages long debates form back when it mattered).

Again, it feels vastly different to me.  

The routine expectation of chances well outside the norm is commonplace, even at lower levels.  
Frankly, it is better than 3E in this regard and much better than 4E.
I have long held the idea that wizards should get NO BAB advancement but instead get a bonus when it applies to spells.  5E has backed into this.
If the wizard happens to be proficient with a sword, the advancement is there.  But for non-proficient weapons, no progress is made.
I like it.

Can you say that in 4E you L10 wizard in no better than your level 1 wizard when attacking with a sword?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

BryonD said:


> How does the dragon crap cartoon fit into this analysis?



It's a piece of marketing material - in the same class as an advertisement.

I'm not saying that companies don't try to manipulate the emotions of potential customers - of course they do! That's a major technique for selling luxury goods (and not just those).

My view is people who internalise marketing material are setting themselves up for disappointment, however - they are mistaking commercial practices for sincere human communication.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> a +11 difference is wildly different from a +11-13 difference?  Really?  Both were trained/proficient vs untrained/non-proficient, both were heavily invested in a stat vs no investment in the stat.  Both were high level.  Nothing in the least misleading about the example.



I don't think you are even paying attention to what has actually been said.




> There's a clear difference among 3.5, 4e, and 5e in how they model lack of interest in a skill at high level.



I'll take that.




> By claiming that 5e 'solved the 4e problem,' that is exactly what you presumed.



Except it was obviously tongue in cheek.  In the very same sentence I agreed with you about "solving 3E's problem", which I clearly don't agree exists.

Again you have agreed they are different

That works for me.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> It's a piece of marketing material - in the same class as an advertisement.
> 
> I'm not saying that companies don't try to manipulate the emotions of potential customers - of course they do! That's a major technique for selling luxury goods (and not just those).
> 
> My view is people who internalise marketing material are setting themselves up for disappointment, however - they are mistaking commercial practices for sincere human communication.



But you have not answered the question.
You said that WotC didn't treat its fans arrogantly.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

BryonD said:


> This is not my experience and not what I have encountered over and over from 4e defenders.
> 
> See Tony's comments above for the slightest taste (which isn't to say that begins to capture the many pages long debates form back when it mattered).
> 
> ...



This is all about the fiction. It is consistent with what I have said upthread about different story structures.

In 4e a L10 wizard is mechanically not better than a level 1 wizard when attacking a level-typical enemy with a sword. If anything, s/he is probably worse (see my example not far upthread of the invoker/wizard with his Rod, in which he is proficient!) because of the level-driven spread arising from stat, feat and item bonuses.

But you are not asking (I don't think) about the mathematical/mechanical play of the game. You are asking about the _fiction_ of the game.

And yes, the fiction is different. In 5e a 20th level wizard who stat-dumps CHA cannot easily intimidate a Greyhawk street thug - although s/he can auto-kill him or her with a fireball! In 4e a 20th level wizard who stat-dumps CHA can relatively easily intimidate a Greyhawk street thug, but cannot auto-kill him or her with a fireball (because a minion never takes damage on a miss).

These are differences of story, not of basic mechanical structure. Some prefer one version, some the other.

When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] talks about "bounded accuracy" having its origins in 4e, they are pointing to the basic mechanical structure, not the fictional overlay.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> This is all about the fiction. It is consistent with what I have said upthread about different story structures.
> 
> In 4e a L10 wizard is mechanically not better than a level 1 wizard when attacking a level-typical enemy with a sword. If anything, s/he is probably worse (see my example not far upthread of the invoker/wizard with his Rod, in which he is proficient!) because of the level-driven spread arising from stat, feat and item bonuses.
> 
> But you are not asking (I don't think) about the mathematical/mechanical play of the game. You are asking about the _fiction_ of the game.




Who said that?  I never said that.

But either way, I disagree with you.

If both the L1 and the L10 wizard attack the same target, then the L10 wizard has a better chance to hit. 



> When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] talks about "bounded accuracy" having its origins in 4e, they are pointing to the basic mechanical structure, not the fictional overlay.



I don't care.  They are different.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2015)

So, if the internet is responsable for the edition war that came with 4e, why are there no edition war with 5e? 

The internet is now much better than it was in 2008. We now have phones, tablets and phablets to practice combat. There should be like at least 100% more war. Maybe it could reach the level of edition jihad.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2015)

BryonD said:


> In the very same sentence I agreed with you about "solving 3E's problem", which I clearly don't agree exists.



 Ah.  So 5e 'solving' that problem is of no value to you, because you want everyone to be able to participate when a difficult skill use is called for at low level, but only specialists to do so at high level.  Therefore the secondary effects of how they addressed the problem looks like the only relevant point.

Bounded accuracy is pretty much a big 0 for you then, since all it does is sorta-level a playing field you'd rather see very steeply tilted?  Fair enough.



BryonD said:


> I have long held the idea that wizards should get NO BAB advancement but instead get a bonus when it applies to spells.



 That's consistent with the above.



> 5E has backed into this.



 How so? The wizard is proficient in some weapons and gets his proficiency bonus with those weapons - the same bonus as the fighter.  That's more like full BAB than no BAB.  And, more like the 4e treadmill than 3.5 varied BAB or AD&D attack matrixes.



pemerton said:


> And yes, the fiction is different. In 5e a 20th level wizard who stat-dumps CHA cannot easily intimidate a Greyhawk street thug - although s/he can auto-kill him or her with a fireball! In 4e a 20th level wizard who stat-dumps CHA can relatively easily intimidate a Greyhawk street thug, but cannot auto-kill him or her with a fireball (because a minion never takes damage on a miss).
> 
> These are differences of story, not of basic mechanical structure.



 Seem like mechanical differences to me.  But, yes, I can see the 'story' difference, too.  




> When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] talks about "bounded accuracy" having its origins in 4e, they are pointing to the basic mechanical structure, not the fictional overlay.



 The similarity is when comparing same-level characters & challenges.  That there are also differences (when comparing very different level characters, or the same character at low vs high level), does not negate that similarity.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I must confess, I am a My Little Ponist.
> 
> I'm sorry.




Wanna try Fursona? http://paizo.com/products/btpy8j2r?...-Guide-to-Creating-Anthropomorphic-Characters 

*wink wink*


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

BryonD said:


> But you have not answered the question.
> You said that WotC didn't treat its fans arrogantly.



In my view the question contains a category error. WotC doesn't have fans. It has customers.

D&D has fans. Part of the marketing trick a company like WotC has to pull off is to persuade those fans that their fandom shoud express itself by purchasing things from WotC. (A bit like sports teams persuade fans to buy merchandising.)

Did WotC fail in its attempt to turn some fans into customers? Maybe, although that cartoon may have been intended to turn some _other_ fans into customers, and in that respect it may have worked.

Does the concept of "arrogance" have work to do here? Not really, in my view. Companies trying to sell goods aren't "arrogant" or "humble". They can be clever or make mistakes, they can succeed or fail. But to frame them as arrogant is to buy into a mindset - of the emotionally manipulated customer - which is an obstacle to clear analysis.

For clarification: it might make sense to think that a company that markets a poison as a food, believing that it can bribe or intimidate the regulator, has acted arrogantly, because it has a duty to do otherwise. But when it comes to the writing, printing and selling of D&D, no comparable duties are in play.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Maybe - I'm not sure how you're using the word "discriminate".



I was joking. Using the word intransigence makes very little sense in the current context.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> In my view the question contains a category error. WotC doesn't have fans. It has customers.
> 
> D&D has fans.



 And, I suppose Paizo /does/ have fans?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I meant the latter, so I guess we'll leave it at that. But why would you think I meant the former?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think you are defining a very narrow parameter for conversation - continually coming back to sales and profits. I mean, clearly the _financial_ reason behind 5E was because 4E was no longer as profitable as WotC/Hasbro wanted it to be and they wanted the cash-cow that a new edition cycle brings. But this doesn't touch upon the "human" elements - psychological, creative, community, etc. Obviously that stuff is harder to define, but it is what pushes the more definable stuff like sales.



I'm focusing on sales and profits because that was what the posts I initially replied to were talking about, and that was what I wanted to talk about.

I have opinions on why many people who have, in the past, bought D&D books from WotC did not buy 4e ones; and why people whom WotC might have reasonably expected to have an interest in playing 4e turned out not to care for it.  And I've expressed those views on multiple occasions in the past, including in threads that you have started or posted in.

Given [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s caution upthread, I'm hesitant to go too far down this path, but I can give some simple examples:

* 4e does not emphasise world exploration in the way that classic D&D, and much of 2nd ed AD&D, does;

* 4e relies fairly heavily on metagame mechanics, which make the relationship between mechanics and fiction looser than is the case in 3E, and generalises the Gygaxian looseness around hp and saving throw (which many players of AD&D seem to have ignored) across more parts of the game - you can see this issue coming up in the discussion about bounded accuracy upthread, because while 4e's _maths_ is pretty similar to 5e's, it's different relationship to the fiction produces very strongly worded assertions that the two are very different;

* 4e's default orientation is towards a certain type of player-driven gaming and against "illusionist" GMing - but it's player-driven default is quite different from the player-driven default of Gygaxian D&D, so it doesn't necessarily resonate with players of either Gygaxian D&D or later, 90s-style AD&D;

* 4e drops or downplays certain mechanical tropes traditional to D&D (eg spell slots for most casters) and even where it retains elements of them does not emphasise them (eg 4e wizards still memorise many spells, but this is subordinated rather than emphasised in presentation);

* I could go on but I think you get the general gist.​
These mechanical features of 4e tell us little to nothing about edition wars, however. After all, there are any number of other games which have mechanical features that can be usefully compared and contrasted to those of classic D&D, 2nd ed AD&D and/or 3E (including those systems in relation to one another!) And some of those systems were published by companies who might reasonably have hoped for more uptake from people seemingly interested in buying D&D products than they actually got. (Eg my sense is that this might have been true of Trailblazer during the "edition-war period", and in the 90s might have been true of Rolemaster.) But those other systems aren't associated with edition warring.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> And, I suppose Paizo /does/ have fans?



Like the Coca-Cola company (and presumably like WotC) it has customers who see themselves as fans. It's a good trick if you can pull it off!

Maybe the relevant category should be "admirer", in the sense of people who admire the deftness displayed by a firm. In that sense, I admire Paizo - they have done a very good job at holding and extending a customer base for a product that it's inventor - WotC - apparently saw no future for.

But in that sense I also admire WotC - the production, marketing and roll-out of 5e seems to be a triumph!

But in expressing this admiration I'm not saying anything about whether or not I purchase their products. Identifying a commercial product with the commercial entity that produces it is something that marketers want us to do, but as I said upthread I think internalising the marketing is an obstacle to analysis.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 24, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So, if the internet is responsable for the edition war that came with 4e, why are there no edition war with 5e?
> 
> The internet is now much better than it was in 2008. We now have phones, tablets and phablets to practice combat. There should be like at least 100% more war. Maybe it could reach the level of edition jihad.




Because WOTC this time around has spent a HUGE effort getting everyone on board with 5e before doing anything.  Two year playtest, constant feedback loops with questionnaires and the like, and MUCH MUCH better writing in the PHB and introducing mechanics.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The similarity is when comparing same-level characters & challenges.



Yes. But [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] is trying to draw the contrast by comparing different-level characters to the same challenge.



Tony Vargas said:


> Seem like mechanical differences to me.  But, yes, I can see the 'story' difference, too.



The ability to auto-kill an enemy is a mechanical difference, but a fairly minor one. (Eg the house rule to permit auto-killing of minions in 4e - either across the board, or if they're at least a tier below the attacker - is pretty easy.)



BryonD said:


> Who said that?  I never said that.
> 
> But either way, I disagree with you.
> 
> If both the L1 and the L10 wizard attack the same target, then the L10 wizard has a better chance to hit.



"Same target" is a story notion, not a mechanical/mathematical one. I've quoted [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] saying that "the similarity is when comparing same-level characters and challenges".

In 4e, if the L10 wizard re-encounters the "same target" as s/he met when L1, then the target will have been-restatted. If the re-statting is from standard to minion, then the chance to hit with a sword won't have increased - it will have decreased because of stat, feat and item gaps - it will have dropped from around 30% to around 15%.

The chance to kill will nevertheless have increased because a minion has 1 hp - so instead of an expected combat length of around 20 rounds (in which the wizard would almost certainly be killed) it will be an expected combat length of around 6 or so rounds (in which the wizard the wizard might be bloodied but would be unlikely to be killed).

That change in story outcome doesn't depend upon bounded accuracy, though - it depends upon the way hit points are assigned to monsters. The "minion" category is deliberately and overtly adopted to support a certain sort of story outcome.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Like the Coca-Cola company (and presumably like WotC) it has customers who see themselves as fans. It's a good trick if you can pull it off!




What is the difference between a fan and a customer who sees himself as a fan? Why would you presume to gainsay their own self-identification?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Because WOTC this time around has spent a HUGE effort getting everyone on board with 5e before doing anything.  Two year playtest, constant feedback loops with questionnaires and the like, and MUCH MUCH better writing in the PHB and introducing mechanics.




Don't worry - they're doing fine. It worked.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 24, 2015)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], nice post - I like the way you framed those points. Well done.

As for your last paragraph, I don't see how other games are relevant as they aren't claiming to be part of the "D&D tradition." There's no reason for people to be upset with Dragon Age or Savage Worlds for not being "real D&D" because they aren't claiming to be. D&D before 4E had a long, 34-year tradition, which many viewed it as breaking from. This is why I wonder "what could have been" if WotC had taken the approach that Paizo seems to be taking with _Pathfinder Unchained._ Imagine if, instead of dropping 3.5 for 4E in 2008, they had instead come out with a separate line called _D&D Empowered_, or something like that, which was basically 4E. Then they gradually taper 3.5 off for another couple years until them come out with the new edition, which resembles something akin to what 5E is, in 2011 or 2012. I'm not saying this is what I think they should have done, nor what I wish they would have done, just that it is an interesting thought experiment.

As an aside, anyone know why, whenever I post, it includes everything I've multi-quoted in the entire thread?! It is quite irritating.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Yes. But [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] is trying to draw the contrast by comparing different-level characters to the same challenge.



 Which I acknowledged. 

He just seemed convinced that any difference means that there are no similarities, while Hussar seems to feel that any similarity means there are no differences.

:sigh:



> The ability to auto-kill an enemy is a mechanical difference, but a fairly minor one.



 I'm sure it doesn't feel that way if you're the enemy. ;P



> "Same target" is a story notion, not a mechanical/mathematical one. I've quoted [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] saying that "the similarity is when comparing same-level characters and challenges".
> 
> In 4e, if the L10 wizard re-encounters the "same target" as s/he met when L1, then the target will have been-restatted. If the re-statting is from standard to minion, then the chance to hit with a sword won't have increased - it will have decreased because of stat, feat and item gaps - it will have dropped from around 30% to around 15%.



 Now you're just trying to make his head explode.  

While it would make sense to re-state a low-level standard vs a high level PC, it could also just be hand-waved, or tediously played through.  

Maybe a skill check would be a better example?   You encounter a DC 21 'hard' lock at low level, at higher level, DC 21 is 'easy' - same lock, same DC, different difficulty.  The higher-level character, with a lot of experience, even if no training or manual dexterity to speak of just might get a bit lucky and open the 'easy' lock, but it's the same lock that he couldn't possibly open way back when.  3.5 you still can't open the lock.  5e, the low-level DC was lower than 21 and you could have opened it then, and have about the same chance now. 

Just to illustrate the 'everything's/nothing's a problem' meme that shaping up around this topic, let's look at how 3.5 did this 'right' but 4e and 5e have a problem.  Why not?  So, if you're a 10 DEX non-lock-picking kinda guy, and you've been hanging out in a party with a rogue for a long time, gaining a lot of levels, you may or may not have picked up a few ideas of how to pick locks.  If you're a 4e character, you have.  You don't have a choice - you could become trained, but you can't just remain willfully ignorant.  If you're a 5e character, you haven't.  You can become an expert, or remain a rube, not just pick up a little.  But, if you're a 3.5 character you can sink a few cross-class ranks into lock picking and become just a little better - and just /as much/ better as you like, based on that little bit of exposure over the levels.  You just have to give up being quite as good at something your class is supposed to be good at...


----------



## Hussar (Mar 24, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Don't worry - they're doing fine. It worked.




Oh, I totally agree.  I honestly stand in awe of the turnaround here.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> /snip
> He just seemed convinced that any difference means that there are no similarities, while Hussar seems to feel that any similarity means there are no differences.
> 
> :sigh:
> /snip




Oh, hey, I acknowledge there are obvious differences.  Of course.  But, I think you agree, there is a pretty direct line of development from 4e to 5e.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 24, 2015)

Of course there is a direct line from 4e to developing 5e. You have the same developers for a start and of course looking at what worked previously like Bab and taking off what did not work like requiring magic items.

Hit Dice is a great example of fixing Healing Surges.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 24, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Of course there is a direct line from 4e to developing 5e. You have the same developers for a start and of course looking at what worked previously like Bab and taking off what did not work like requiring magic items.
> 
> Hit Dice is a great example of fixing Healing Surges.




Fixing how?

The primary complaint about Healing Surges was that it made HP unbelievable.  Characters could go through a fight, get wounded, and then six seconds later be entirely healed.  It made HP unbelievable.

So, what is the difference here?  You go through your fight, get wounded, spend Hit Dice (which require absolutely no in-game explanation) and you are back to full HP.

Other than you have lower numbers to play with, there's essentially no difference here.

Or, to put it another way, what is happening, in game, when someone spends Hit Dice and how is that different than spending Healing Surges?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Because WOTC this time around has spent a HUGE effort getting everyone on board with 5e before doing anything.  Two year playtest, constant feedback loops with questionnaires and the like, and MUCH MUCH better writing in the PHB and introducing mechanics.




Exactly. The edition war didn't exist because of the internet existed, but because of faux pas from WotC.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Fixing how?
> 
> The primary complaint about Healing Surges was that it made HP unbelievable.  Characters could go through a fight, get wounded, and then six seconds later be entirely healed.  It made HP unbelievable.
> 
> ...




When taking a short rest (which is an hour long in 5e) it says in the book you are assumed to be resting and tending to your wounds... how well do you rest and tend to those wounds?  You won't know until you roll your hit dice... though I will say that I can't remember many, if any, times I saw anyone fully heal up this way in 5 levels of play... since it seems the amount of hit points and available hit points through hit dice seems scaled back in 5e vs. 4e and more importantly the amount is generated randomly as opposed to a set number of hit points each and every time.  Personally I like this because it still allows for a sense of attrition and of lingering wounds after a battle... as opposed to 4e where in 5 mins you could reliably go from whatever you were at to full as long as you have X or more number of healing surges...


----------



## Hussar (Mar 24, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Exactly. The edition war didn't exist because of the internet existed, but because of faux pas from WotC.




Oh, no disagreement from me.  WOTC's handling of 4e, from front to back, was a bloody embarrassment.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Because WOTC this time around has spent a HUGE effort getting everyone on board with 5e before doing anything.  Two year playtest, constant feedback loops with questionnaires and the like, and MUCH MUCH better writing in the PHB and introducing mechanics.



Heck, beyond that, there _has_ been edition warring.  Both EN World and RPG.net have left a trail of banned posters through the playtest who couldn't discuss things civilly and politely.  You can go to other forums, which I shall forbear naming, where any 5e thread is filled with invective.  A lot of other forums, such as this one here, went through a baptism of fire when 4e came out, and they have been very proactive about nipping that stuff in the bud.

Personally, I do think 5e owes a lot to 4e.  They're both exception-based d20 systems with a strong math underlay.  The difference is that 5e is presented much differently than 4e.  4e was finely tuned for a particular kind of play, and it was presented to encourage people to play that style.  5e, OTOH, loosens the tuning a bit, and encourages people to play whatever kind of style they want.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 24, 2015)

Iosue - I'd agree 100% with all of that.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Fixing how?
> 
> The primary complaint about Healing Surges was that it made HP unbelievable.  Characters could go through a fight, get wounded, and then six seconds later be entirely healed.  It made HP unbelievable.
> 
> ...




I never really heard that complaint about Healing Surges.

The biggest problem I found was the percentage healing closely followed by limiting healing by the number of Healing Surges both of which are nicely solved by Hit Dice.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Now you're just trying to make his head explode.



if that's what I did, it wasn't on purpose - I'm just trying to compare the play of the two systems!



Tony Vargas said:


> While it would make sense to re-state a low-level standard vs a high level PC, it could also just be hand-waved, or tediously played through.



That's true, but I don't think that's what 4e defaults to (certainly not the tediously playing through - maybe the handwaving is truer to its spirit).



Tony Vargas said:


> Maybe a skill check would be a better example?



Your example works for me, but I still want to say it tells us more about story than mechanics.

Because the default approach in 4e is that, when you've gained those 20 levels that turn a DC 21 lock from Hard to Easy, you won't be confronting the same lock anymore, at least not in the context of resolving any sort of meaningful challenge or crisis. Because you'll have progressed from the Heroic to the Epic tier, the things you confront are expected to be different. Even if you find yourself back in the same geographic location, the expectation is that something about that location will have changed to make it pose Epic rather than merely Heroic challenges.

Whereas I don't see the same expectation in 5e. It seems to me that in 5e _characters_ grow in capability very dramatically, but the default assumption is that _the world_ with which they engage doesn't change very much at all. Hence characters of double-digit levels still trouble themselves with orcs counted out on an individual basis (as opposed to as part of a horde or swarm, 4e-style).

It seems to me that when people say that bounded accuracy is different from 4e, it is this story feature that they are pointing to.

Now 4e could do that too, if you reskinned all the monsters as orcs and kobolds. Then the treadmill really would be a treadmill, and the level-based DCs would just look silly.

I also know that some people stripped the +0.5 per level off everything in 4e and ran it that way. I imagine that that provided an experience not too dissimilar to 5e (with stats and items picking up the slack of 5e's proficiency bonuses).

But stripping +0.5/level from everything isn't a mechanical change of any depth - the relevant maths (eg % chances of success) all remains the same. What it changes is the story, because now some of the things that are challenging you in combat are kobolds rather than (say) trolls and giants.

Am I making any sense?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 24, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I never really heard that complaint about Healing Surges.
> 
> The biggest problem I found was the percentage healing closely followed by limiting healing by the number of Healing Surges both of which are nicely solved by Hit Dice.




Healing surges replace about 25% of your HP/surge, meaning you could replace your HP about 2-3 times/day, if you spent all your surges.

In 5e, you gain 1 HD/level.  When you spend your HD, you gain that die plus con per die spent.  IOW, on average, you can heal yourself 1/day, fully, by spending Hit Dice.

What problems are being solved here?  Other than you got more healing in 4e than 5e, but then again, in 5e, you have a LOT more healing in the party - several classes can cast multiple healing spells per day.  At the end of the day, it's pretty much a wash.  Again, 5-8 expected encounters per adventuring day.  Double the number that was expected in 3e.  The pacing expectations are largely the same between 4e and 5e.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I do think 5e owes a lot to 4e.  They're both exception-based d20 systems with a strong math underlay.  The difference is that 5e is presented much differently than 4e.  4e was finely tuned for a particular kind of play, and it was presented to encourage people to play that style.  5e, OTOH, loosens the tuning a bit, and encourages people to play whatever kind of style they want.



I agree that 5e is presented quite differently from 4e.

Turning to "encourage" - that is a word that can have multiple meanings. It can refer to a speech act - ie uttering (or, in this context, writing) words of encouragement.

And it can refer to a facilitative act - ie providing someone with the means to do something.

Obviously the twos sorts of acts can coincide, but also one can occur without the other.

My sense is that the jury is still out on the sort of play that 5e facilitates. For instance, I don't think the implications of the Inspiration mechanic have been fully explored at all (at least in public) - it's a huge new thing for D&D (it certainly wasn't part of 4e!, though perhaps it should have been) and I've seen hardly any discussion of it, to date, in terms of its contribution to the 5e play experience.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Healing surges replace about 25% of your HP/surge, meaning you could replace your HP about 2-3 times/day, if you spent all your surges.
> 
> In 5e, you gain 1 HD/level.  When you spend your HD, you gain that die plus con per die spent.  IOW, on average, you can heal yourself 1/day, fully, by spending Hit Dice.
> 
> What problems are being solved here?  Other than you got more healing in 4e than 5e, but then again, in 5e, you have a LOT more healing in the party - several classes can cast multiple healing spells per day.  At the end of the day, it's pretty much a wash.  Again, 5-8 expected encounters per adventuring day.  Double the number that was expected in 3e.  The pacing expectations are largely the same between 4e and 5e.




The main problem with Healing Surges is that they heal a fixed percentage of your Hp (plus whatever bonus your Healer gives you of course) where as the random nature of Hit Dice gives you more of a feeling of being able to walk off some of the damage without totally negating the damage you have received.

And by taking healing off the arbitrary fixed daily cap you no longer have to worry about your healing potion not working after a couple of hard fights.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 24, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> And by taking healing off the arbitrary fixed daily cap you no longer have to worry about your healing potion not working after a couple of hard fights.




That is one of my most welcome changes as far as PC-healing resources go. Running healing potions off a PC's own surges was one of the things that irritated me in 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I don't see how other games are relevant as they aren't claiming to be part of the "D&D tradition."



Some are. For instance, 3E claims to be part of the D&D tradition, though over time, as I learn more about and think more about in comparison to 1st ed AD&D and other classic versions of D&D, I find it to be a greater and greater departure from the core of those games.

I didn't mention OSR games, but obviously they claim to be part of the "D&D tradition".

And then there are OGL/SRD games, of which I mentioned one - Trailblazer - which obviously claims to be part of the D&D tradition, in much the same way as PF does.

A game like Rolemaster is also within the D&D tradition, thought it's a different (and perhaps now largely extinct) branch of the tradition - it has classes (like D&D) and a spell system based heavily on the D&D one, and is intended to appeal mostly to people who enjoy the basic fantasy tropes and outlook of D&D but want something different from (taking the RM perspective, the phrase would be "sophisticated than") D&D's mechanics (eg robust skill system, less strict class definitions, more nuanced and gritty combat - ie much of the stuff that Monte Cook brought to 3E).

In light of 3E it's easy to look back at a percentile system like RM and see it as obviously not D&D, but when RM was written (early 80s) D&D wasn't a d20 system. Thief skills used percentages, clerical turning used a d20 in AD&D but 2d6 in B/X, and Moldvay's examples of improvisation involved assigning percentage chances - [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] will be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea of a stat test rolled on a d20 was introduced in the Expert rules rather than Basic.

And in view of ICE's TSR-style demise in the late 90s, and its current existence which is really at best a lingering on, it's easy to dismiss RM altogether - but in the late 80s ICE was the a big RPG company (on the back of its Middle Earth licence), with full-page ads on the cover or splash page of nearly every Dragon magazine (more info here).

Then there are systems which mechanically depart from D&D but set out to capture (and perhaps improve on) what was, for the designer, a key part of the D&D experience. Burning Wheel, for instance, references AD&D 2nd ed in its designer influences, and also references 4e in a more recent volume. And the designer (Luke Crane) is quite overt in explaining what features of D&D his sorcery system and Faith system are intended to emulate.

TL;DR - there are lots of games that have, in the present or the past, presented themselves as "alternative visions" of D&D. They haven't all created edition wars of the sort you're talking about, though.



Mercurius said:


> D&D before 4E had a long, 34-year tradition, which many viewed it as breaking from.



I don't find the language of "breaking from tradition" very helpful, though. It is very normative, but on no very clear foundation.

For instance, 3E changed the rule that hit dice and CON bonus stopped at name level. It changed the rule that a wizard can't use a sword (s/he can, just with a -4 (?) to hit). Conversely, 4e harks back to Gygax's essays on the metaphysics and game-mechanics of hit points and saving throws.

All revisions to D&D involve _changes_. But classifying them into ones that _break with tradition_ and ones that don't is fraught. Frankly, it strikes me as ex post projection onto the past.



Mercurius said:


> Imagine if, instead of dropping 3.5 for 4E in 2008, they had instead come out with a separate line called _D&D Empowered_, or something like that, which was basically 4E.



It probably would have fizzled - at least, that's my guess. 4e was promoted as a core system, with all the market support that brings with it (organised play, DDI, etc).



Mercurius said:


> Then they gradually taper 3.5 off for another couple years until them come out with the new edition, which resembles something akin to what 5E is, in 2011 or 2012. I'm not saying this is what I think they should have done, nor what I wish they would have done, just that it is an interesting thought experiment.



I can only assume that tapering 3.5 off was not feasible for them, because if it was they would have done it. It's not as if they weren't configured to produce 3.5 material!

And we did get something akin to 5e in 2011, namely, Essentials! The degree of kinship is of course a matter of contention - Essentials as a design somewhat falls between two stools, and it suffers further from non-design issues to do with how the content was put together and marketed. (About 3 books worth spread over 5 volumes.)

Everything about 5e's design suggests to me that WotC took seriously what it learned from its market reserach. And I agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] that they used the playtest very effectively to shape and manage, as well as respond to, consumer demands.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I agree that 5e is presented quite differently from 4e.
> 
> Turning to "encourage" - that is a word that can have multiple meanings. It can refer to a speech act - ie uttering (or, in this context, writing) words of encouragement.
> 
> ...



To clarify, then, I'm referring to both.  The game facilitates a certain style of play, and the advice in the DMG, justifiably, encourages the game to be run that way -- the infamous "Get to the fun!" for example.

I think there's a lot of hidden "modularity" in 4e.  Different ways to handle DC scaling, for example, and how that might affect the fiction.  HP/HS modification to facilitate certain styles.  Heck, short rest duration.  I'm sure you can think of a number of more.  But that wasn't really called out -- at least in the Core 3.  Inherent bonuses, for example, should have been in DMG1, IMO.



> My sense is that the jury is still out on the sort of play that 5e facilitates.



You crackin' wise, pemerton? 



> For instance, I don't think the implications of the Inspiration mechanic have been fully explored at all (at least in public) - it's a huge new thing for D&D (it certainly wasn't part of 4e!, though perhaps it should have been) and I've seen hardly any discussion of it, to date, in terms of its contribution to the 5e play experience.



Frankly, my impression is that default 5e essentially facilitates much the same kind of play that 4e facilitates: generally cinematic playstyle, going from encounter scene to encounter scene, facing level-appropriate encounters of varying difficulty, but even with difficult encounters it's easy to go down, but difficult to actually die, creating climatic fights that are suspenseful and interesting, but weighted just enough that the heroes triumph.  Combat is much swingier at low levels, and 1st level characters in particular are somewhat fragile, compared to 4e, but on the whole much of the game plays like the above.  If you're new to D&D, and don't really know what you want from the game, that's generally the kind of game you'll get.

But that's _default_.  One can largely abandon or stretch the idea of level appropriate encounters and increase the lethality accordingly.  Or even maintain using those encounter guidelines but reducing the available healing using variant rules to create a grittier game, if not quite a more lethal game.  5e makes an attempt to facilitate many kinds of play, at least to some degree.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 24, 2015)

The most obvious claim to the DnD tradition is how easily you can convert your character from one edition to the next.

Obviously the jury is still out about how closely 5e follows in that tradition.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> In light of 3E it's easy to look back at a percentile system like RM and see it as obviously not D&D, but when RM was written (early 80s) D&D wasn't a d20 system. Thief skills used percentages, clerical turning used a d20 in AD&D but 2d6 in B/X, and Moldvay's examples of improvisation involved assigning percentage chances - @_*Iosue*_ will be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea of a stat test rolled on a d20 was introduced in the Expert rules rather than Basic.




I'm at work, so no books, but I almost 100% positive that this was actually Moldvay Basic, in the first paragraph of "Dungeon Mastering As A Fine Art."  Percentage chances were suggested for improvising, well, just the chances of something; like surviving a jump into a chasm.  For more character-centered chances, d20-roll-under-ability-score was the suggestion.




> I don't find the language of "breaking from tradition" very helpful, though. It is very normative, but on no very clear foundation.
> 
> For instance, 3E changed the rule that hit dice and CON bonus stopped at name level. It changed the rule that a wizard can't use a sword (s/he can, just with a -4 (?) to hit).



Again, at work, no books, but I'm almost 100% certain that wizards using swords with a -4 non-proficient penalty was in 1e.  The list of approved weapons by class was not a hard and fast rule about what a character could use in play, but a list of weapons that characters could choose from to spend their WPs on.



> All revisions to D&D involve _changes_. But classifying them into ones that _break with tradition_ and ones that don't is fraught. Frankly, it strikes me as ex post projection onto the past.




Perhaps the better term, the one used by the 4e designers, is "pushing the envelope."


----------



## billd91 (Mar 24, 2015)

Iosue said:


> Again, at work, no books, but I'm almost 100% certain that wizards using swords with a -4 non-proficient penalty was in 1e.  The list of approved weapons by class was not a hard and fast rule about what a character could use in play, but a list of weapons that characters could choose from to spend their WPs on.




Close. The penalty in 1e was actually -5 for magic users using weapons with which they weren't proficient.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Iosue said:


> You crackin' wise, pemerton?



I wasn't meaning to! I think it's still pretty early in 5e's run. The implications of 3E for play took a while to emerge, and I think that will be the same for 5e, won't it?

I'll go back to the example of Inspiration. I think it's the most interesting new action resolution mechanic in 5e, and is tightly coupled with the PC build mechanics (ie background) in a way that is innovative for D&D. But I'm not kidding when I say I've seen almost no discussion of it.



Iosue said:


> my impression is that default 5e essentially facilitates much the same kind of play that 4e facilitates: generally cinematic playstyle, going from encounter scene to encounter scene, facing level-appropriate encounters of varying difficulty, but even with difficult encounters it's easy to go down, but difficult to actually die, creating climatic fights that are suspenseful and interesting, but weighted just enough that the heroes triumph.  Combat is much swingier at low levels, and 1st level characters in particular are somewhat fragile, compared to 4e, but on the whole much of the game plays like the above.  If you're new to D&D, and don't really know what you want from the game, that's generally the kind of game you'll get.



Thanks, that's clearly stated and makes sense!

What's your view of the default "story progression" (if any?). And also of the way non-combat works (given the absence of a formal skill challenge mechanic)?



Iosue said:


> One can largely abandon or stretch the idea of level appropriate encounters and increase the lethality accordingly.  Or even maintain using those encounter guidelines but reducing the available healing using variant rules to create a grittier game, if not quite a more lethal game.  5e makes an attempt to facilitate many kinds of play, at least to some degree.



What's your view of the mathematical balance?

To theoretical observation it looks fairly tightly honed (and the spell damage expressions, just to pick on one example, look sufficiently non-aesthetically motivated that the motivation has to be something else, which would be maths). But what about nova-ing (in a context of asymmetric resource suites)? Are there systemic tools to handle this, or does it rely on GM control over pacing?

Final question about maths - how have you found the high-level saves issue? I was one of those whose heart sank a little when the fighter's indomitable went from "always on" to rationed. Legitimate concern or needless worry?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I'm at work, so no books, but I almost 100% positive that this was actually Moldvay Basic, in the first paragraph of "Dungeon Mastering As A Fine Art."  Percentage chances were suggested for improvising, well, just the chances of something; like surviving a jump into a chasm.  For more character-centered chances, d20-roll-under-ability-score was the suggestion.



I'm now back with my books, and so can confirm that you're part right - you're correct that it's Moldvay Basic (call-out to  [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] - I was wrong in my attribution upthread of this mechanic to Expert). But you got the wrong paragraph: it's on page B60, under the heading you mention, but under a different heading for the percentage-chance example (the percentage-chance chasm is under "That's not in the rules!", whereas a d20 stat check isunder "There's always a chance.")



Iosue said:


> I'm almost 100% certain that wizards using swords with a -4 non-proficient penalty was in 1e.  The list of approved weapons by class was not a hard and fast rule about what a character could use in play, but a list of weapons that characters could choose from to spend their WPs on.



I've never heard this interpretation before.

The table on PHB p 19 is headed "Armour and Weapons Permitted", and p 25 says "Magic-users . . . can wear no armour and have few weapons they can use'.

Page 36, under headings "Weapons" and "Weapon Proficiency", says "The choice of weapons used by your character might be circumscribed by the class of your character . . .  At the start, you character will be able to employ but a limited number of weapons. . . . If proficiency with any given weapon is not held by the character, it is used at a penalty as shown on the table which follows." (For minutiae completists, the wizard non-proficiency penalty is -5.)

There is a degree of confusion (or at least uncertainty) on p 36, because "employ" (which is a synonym of "use") is used to mean "use with proficiency", whereas six lines later there is reference to "using at a penalty for non-proficiency". I see how that first occurence could be read back into the table heading on p 19 (ie "permitted" meaning "permitted for proficiency" rather than "permitted to use at all"). I think it would be more of a stretch to read it into p 25 - the non-use of weapons is in the same breath as the non-wearing of armour, which suggests to me that it can't be done, not just that it can be done but with a penalty.

The 2nd ed AD&D PHB (p 30) says that "wizards are severely restricted in the weapons they can use." Given that weapon proficiencies are optional in this edition, I don't think that the restriction on wizard weapon use is most naturally read as an aspect of the proficiency rules, although that would be a reasonable way to develop the system.

Was this ever settled one way or the other back in the day, or was it just a matter of table variations?


----------



## Iosue (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I wasn't meaning too! I think it's still pretty early in 5e's run. The implications of 3E for play took a while to emerge, and I think that will be the same for 5e, won't it?



To be honest...I don't know.  On one hand, it seems almost a fait accompli that there will be emergent design drift, like in every other edition.  On the other hand, since the redesign of 2e into 3e, the game has seen 5 revisions (3.5, 4e, PF, 4eE, 5e).  3e was very much a reaction to 2e.  Likewise 4e was a reaction to 3e.  5e...is a reaction to 4e, but looked much further back than other editions, I think.  3e and 4e were all about taking the game where it hadn't been before.  5e is, for both good and ill, about boldly going where D&D has gone before.  Also, 3e was very focused on being a rules-as-physics simulator.  4e was very focused being a tightly balanced, encounter based game.  5e offers both in somewhat diluted forms, but isn't about being either of those.  5e is very much a throwback, because it's not really designed to be _about_ anything, except what the group wants to put into it.  It's like, there undoubtedly broken combinations to be found via combining multiclassing and feats.  But, both are completely optional, and explicitly called out as so, so it's very much caveat emptor.



> I'll go back to the example of Inspiration. I think it's the most interesting new action resolution mechanic in 5e, and is tightly coupled with the PC build mechanics (ie background) in a way that is innovative for D&D. But I'm not kidding when I say I've seen almost no discussion of it.



Inspiration is one of those ideally placed mechanics.  There are undoubtedly groups that say, "Inspiration? Forget that!", and they can do that because while it has a mechanical expression, it is not mechanically necessary.  Other groups just use it as a benny, a use that as old as the RPG hills -- e.g., "That was hilarious!  Here, have some free advantage to distribute as you like!"  I think the vast majority of people are using it like this, which is why you aren't hearing much discussion.  Finally there's the opposite side of the spectrum from the first group: these are the folks that take those Bonds, Flaws, and Traits seriously!  The DMs in these groups are very careful to distribute Inspiration when dramatically, thematically, and characteristically appropriate.  The players, I imagine, are diligent in describing the effect of the inspiration in the game fiction.  But I think this is a very small subset of the D&D population.

If there's one thing that I find especially distinctive about 5e, it's this.  So much of the game just _feels_ like, "Push this throttle as far as you are comfortable, and then leave it there."



> What's your view of the default "story progression" (if any?). And also of the way non-combat works (given the absence of a formal skill challenge mechanic)?



I'm not quite sure what you mean by story progression.  As far as non-combat, again this is something you can throttle up or down.  My group likes to wing it, with me using a lot of random rolls, because we're used to B/X, so we don't really use the social interaction rules in the DMG.  But if someone really likes having mechanics for that, they are there.  There are the downtime rules that give PCs things to do between adventures.  And of course as you know the Bonds, Traits, Flaws, create character hooks that encourage players to be proactive in the world, rather than reactive to whatever the DM is running that day.



> What's your view of the mathematical balance?
> 
> To theoretical observation it looks fairly tightly honed (and the spell damage expressions, just to pick on one example, look sufficiently non-aesthetically motivated that the motivation has to be something else, which would be maths). But what about nova-ing (in a context of asymmetric resource suites)? Are there systemic tools to handle this, or does it rely on GM control over pacing?



I may not be the best person to ask, since I roll my monsters' damage, rather than using the average.  As someone who likes fast combat, the math feels good to me (I don't have quite the time or inclination to do a more thorough, objective analysis).  More than a few times, on first glance, I would think that a monster had a few too many hit points, but ultimately once battle was joined I found that the players hit often enough and did enough damage that it didn't get too grindy.  Actually, running Lost Mines of Phandelver, I had an interesting experience-

[sblock=Spoilers]In the first part of the adventure, the characters, at 1st level fight a bugbear and its pet wolf.  Bugbears have 27 hp, compared to goblins' 7 hp and wolves' 11 hp.  The first time the characters fought the bugbear and wolf, man I was worried they wouldn't be able to pull it out.  But they just barely did.  After leveling up, they spend part 2 in the Redbrand Hideout, which has a room with *three* bugbears.  Remembering the earlier fight, I thought this was going to be too much for the characters.  To my surprise, the three bugbears were pretty quickly and pretty easily dealt with.[/sblock]

I think people might get an impression after playing a session or 2 at 1st or 2nd level that the game is very lethal.  But as a matter of fact, the curve from 1st to 3rd level is really steep, and PCs become able to shake off the vagaries of chance.  A fighter, for example, has 32 hp at level 3, even with no Con bonus.  Most monsters of equivalent CR or lower can't drop him with one hit, even on a crit, let alone kill him outright.

I can't speak very well to nova-ing.  It's never really been in my group's repertoire.  It seems like the viability of cantrips actually takes some of the edge off; the casters in my group tend to use their cantrips as probing jabs.  If they can take out the foe that way, fine, if not, then they comeback with a big spell knock-out punch.  Every class seems to have some resource they can replenish with a short rest, so that takes some pressure off, too.  But I can't speak for groups for which nova'ing and 15-minute work days was a real problem.  It _is_ balanced for the adventuring day, though.  So if a DM only does 1 encounter an adventuring day, there's no incentive for casters not to nova beyond anything that fighters and thieves can do.  But IMXP, it's jab, jab, BAM!



> Final question about maths - how have you found the high-level saves issue? I was one of those whose heart sank a little when the fighter's indomitable went from "always on" to rationed. Legitimate concern or needless worry?



Haven't played any high-level yet.  FWIW, I had the same reaction to the change in Indomitable.  That said...you may be aware that 5e has a somewhat unusual CR spread.  There are a _lot_ of monsters in the low end, and very few on the high end.  And the reason is, due to bounded accuracy, the lower level monsters have more viability.  But what this also means is that really, most monsters that require saves require something in the DC 11-13 range -- they're just as effected by Bounded Accuracy as the characters.  Heck, the infamous Ghouls' paralysis is a DC 10 Saving Throw.  Throw in such effects as Bless or Bardic Inspiration, and PCs seem to make a lot of Saves.  True, the Adult Red Dragon requires some scary saves.  But at that point, between Ability Score Improvements, Feats, buff spells, magic items, and various class features, I don't think it's going to be especially a big problem.  And if it is, it's extremely easy to adjust.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Iosue, that's a really great post. Thank you very much!



Iosue said:


> Inspiration is one of those ideally placed mechanics.  There are undoubtedly groups that say, "Inspiration? Forget that!", and they can do that because while it has a mechanical expression, it is not mechanically necessary.  Other groups just use it as a benny, a use that as old as the RPG hills -- e.g., "That was hilarious!  Here, have some free advantage to distribute as you like!"  I think the vast majority of people are using it like this, which is why you aren't hearing much discussion.  Finally there's the opposite side of the spectrum from the first group: these are the folks that take those Bonds, Flaws, and Traits seriously!  The DMs in these groups are very careful to distribute Inspiration when dramatically, thematically, and characteristically appropriate.  The players, I imagine, are diligent in describing the effect of the inspiration in the game fiction.  But I think this is a very small subset of the D&D population.



I'm mostly curious about the fourth option that you didn't quite describe there - the spending of the inspiration is pure metagame (so no diligence in describing it in the game fiction), but the earning is handled in the sort of way you see in a game like Burning Wheel or Fate - earn Inspiration for playing your personality traits in a way that drives the game forward, generates complications, etc.



Iosue said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by story progression.



For me, this is one of the strongest parts of 4e (which I called out on the current "best thing from 4e" thread"): the combination of PC build mechanics, plus the default setting from the Monster Manuals, means that play travels along a very recognisably D&D trajectory - start in a village or small town dealing with kobolds or goblins (or swarms of rats), then as you gain levels start to deal with heavier hitters like gnolls and ogres and eventually trolls, then as you enter paragon tier leave most of those behind (except as minions) and encounter drow, mindflayers, giants etc (which can also mean travelling to the Underdark, or to the Elemental Chaos), then at epic things transition again, as the most powerful demons and devils and their overlords come onto the radar as the appropriate antagonists - and epic destinies link their antagonism to the personal trajectories of the PCs ("Now that I'm a demigod, of course Orcus is sending his most powerful demons to hunt me down!").

Of course this trend can be bucked in various ways if a GM does a lot of re-skinning or levelling up or down (in my own case, I levelled up Frost Giants to make them an epic threat, though I did also have some backstory to explain why the giants were powering up).

And part of the premise of the Neverwinter Campaign Setting is to compress a whole Heroic through Paragon story arc into the mechanical space of Heroic tier (so you get re-statted mindflayers, aboleths etc as Heroic-tier opponents).

And then Dark Sun is its whole own thing, which I don't fully understand (but which has Sorcerer Kings as it top-tier opponents) but - if I were to run it - I think would run using 2 or 3-level steps (as I don't think it has the fictional or mechanical meat to flesh out a full 30 levels worth of adventuring).

Despite these various exceptions, I find that default trajectory - the fiction of the tiers reinforced by the way monsters, treasures, traps etc are written up in the various source books - is a huge strength of 4e. For me, it's really been the payoff, in play, of what Worlds & Monsters promised.

I was wondering if 5e has any sort of comparable take on "the story of D&D". I'm pretty sure it will be different, because of bounded accuracy in combination with the monster-spread-by-CR that you described.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Some are. For instance, 3E claims to be part of the D&D tradition, though over time, as I learn more about and think more about in comparison to 1st ed AD&D and other classic versions of D&D, I find it to be a greater and greater departure from the core of those games.
> 
> I didn't mention OSR games, but obviously they claim to be part of the "D&D tradition".
> 
> And then there are OGL/SRD games, of which I mentioned one - Trailblazer - which obviously claims to be part of the D&D tradition, in much the same way as PF does.




Certainly all of these are within the broader D&D umbrella, family, tradition, or genus - however you want to put it. But none are "the" official D&D game, but variants on it.



pemerton said:


> A game like Rolemaster is also within the D&D tradition, thought it's a different (and perhaps now largely extinct) branch of the tradition - it has classes (like D&D) and a spell system based heavily on the D&D one, and is intended to appeal mostly to people who enjoy the basic fantasy tropes and outlook of D&D but want something different from (taking the RM perspective, the phrase would be "sophisticated than") D&D's mechanics (eg robust skill system, less strict class definitions, more nuanced and gritty combat - ie much of the stuff that Monte Cook brought to 3E).
> 
> In light of 3E it's easy to look back at a percentile system like RM and see it as obviously not D&D, but when RM was written (early 80s) D&D wasn't a d20 system. Thief skills used percentages, clerical turning used a d20 in AD&D but 2d6 in B/X, and Moldvay's examples of improvisation involved assigning percentage chances - [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] will be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea of a stat test rolled on a d20 was introduced in the Expert rules rather than Basic.
> 
> And in view of ICE's TSR-style demise in the late 90s, and its current existence which is really at best a lingering on, it's easy to dismiss RM altogether - but in the late 80s ICE was the a big RPG company (on the back of its Middle Earth licence), with full-page ads on the cover or splash page of nearly every Dragon magazine (more info here).




I remember those ads...those were the days. I remember scrambling through boxes a different game stores, looking for rare issues of _Dragon._ Now you can get anything you want on Ebay, but for some reason the loss of the hunt makes it less desirable...but that's another matter altogether.

Anyhow, interest stuff on Rolemaster. I am familiar with it, of course, but have never played and growing up in the 80s always viewed it as the "more complex fantasy game." But again, Rolemaster isn't claiming to be D&D, isn't even part of the genus - but more a related line. An offshoot, certainly, but if we're looking at it as an evolutionary tree, it broke away early on and differentiated itself substantially. Like bears and wolves, not like wolves and coyotes or foxes (the various D&D retro-clones and d20 games).



pemerton said:


> TL;DR - there are lots of games that have, in the present or the past, presented themselves as "alternative visions" of D&D. They haven't all created edition wars of the sort you're talking about, though.




But again, I don't see the relevance. Or rather, the edition wars are not relevant to other RPGs and even "alternative versions" of D&D. This narrows down what people have gotten upset about - the core game itself, the flagship, what is considered "official D&D." People become attached to what they identify with the core brand.

This isn't only true for RPGs. I'm rather ambivalent about the band U2, but I remember when they came out with _Achtung Baby_ many people were upset because it was so different from "true U2" - that is, the U2 they had identified with. This is the case with authors, with fashion brands, even with personal relationships ("why are you acting this way? It isn't _you_").



pemerton said:


> I don't find the language of "breaking from tradition" very helpful, though. It is very normative, but on no very clear foundation.




Pemerton, for better or worse you require very clear, sharp parameters - far more clear and sharp than I do. So we're going to always have these areas of impasse with our conversations. In a way its like you're realist photographer and I'm an impressionist painter - we approach "art" in a very different way, with different needs and goals. So I think as long as we realize that, and as long as we don't try to make the other play by our rules, then I think there's some room for fruitful dialogue.

"Breaking from tradition" isn't a particularly exotic or difficult concept. Traditions exist in all fields and domains and invariably some new idea or take comes forward that "breaks" from it, which of course rarely is so dramatic and is usually more a matter of divergence. 

Let me put it this way. Let's say we start with OD&D as "0". Holmes was just a half-step away, a refinement - so "0.5." Moldvay was another half-step, so "1," with BECMI being another full step, or "2." AD&D, on the other hand, was a larger divergence, say three steps away from OD&D - so "3." 2E was another full step away from 1E, so "4." 3E came in and was another solid divergence, say two more steps away, so "6." And then we come to 4E, which was probably at least (or only, depending up on how you look at it), a full three steps away from 3E, so "9." People became upset, not only because it was three steps away from 3E, but also because it had diverged so far from early versions of D&D. 5E came in and dialed it back a bit, even to something less divergent from 3E, so maybe a "5."

Don't take the numbers too literally - I'm just trying to illustrate the point. The above works for both long-timers who established a baseline identification in the 70s and 80s, but also the wave that came in with 3E. For the latter, while they didn't have the identification with early D&D, 3E was a "0" so 4E jumping three steps was huge.



pemerton said:


> All revisions to D&D involve _changes_. But classifying them into ones that _break with tradition_ and ones that don't is fraught. Frankly, it strikes me as ex post projection onto the past.




That's how history is written, pemerton.  But seemingly you don't remember when 4E came out, and many had a huge issue with how different 4E was from 3E. I remember this clearly because it took awhile for me to see it. I remember thinking, "what do you mean? It is still d20, still the same basic game - now we've just got powers and such." The more I got to know the rules, the more I saw how sharply it diverged from "traditional D&D." 

But I think the mistake you make here, if I may, is by focusing on specific rules. Sure, they matter, but it is more the sum total, even the "space in-between" the rules - the vibe and feeling - that makes 4E different. This is why I think the issues many had with 4E were more emotional than intellectual (or rather, it was a combination of both - but I'm highlighting the emotional part because it gets brushed aside a bit, imo). Sure, many didn't like powers or healing surge, and so forth, but there were just as many complaints about the art, or the feeling of the game, or how it facilitated imaginative experience - stuff that can't easily be quantified with specific rules.



pemerton said:


> It probably would have fizzled - at least, that's my guess. 4e was promoted as a core system, with all the market support that brings with it (organised play, DDI, etc).
> 
> I can only assume that tapering 3.5 off was not feasible for them, because if it was they would have done it. It's not as if they weren't configured to produce 3.5 material!
> 
> ...




The question I have is whither the 4E diehards? When 4E came out, over the next year or two we saw three distinct communities emerge: the d20/Pathfinder/3.5 hold-outs, the retro-clones, and the 4E players. Now we can't know this for sure, but presumably some of each group have "returned to the fold" - but the first two groups still seem in place, still vibrant. But what about the 4E community? Is it surviving, will it survive, without official support? Is there a faithful core following that could form the nucleus of either a strong cult following of the edition, or even something akin to a 4E-version of Pathfinder (not that WotC would allow that)? I'm honestly curious.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 24, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> The question I have is whither the 4E diehards? When 4E came out, over the next year or two we saw three distinct communities emerge: the d20/Pathfinder/3.5 hold-outs, the retro-clones, and the 4E players. Now we can't know this for sure, but presumably some of each group have "returned to the fold" - but the first two groups still seem in place, still vibrant. But what about the 4E community? Is it surviving, will it survive, without official support? Is there a faithful core following that could form the nucleus of either a strong cult following of the edition, or even something akin to a 4E-version of Pathfinder (not that WotC would allow that)? I'm honestly curious.




We're still running 4E, that's for sure. Don't need more material, really, given how much there is, just as long as the tools keep working. There's no point 4E PF-alike yet.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Because the default approach in 4e is that, when you've gained those 20 levels that turn a DC 21 lock from Hard to Easy, you won't be confronting the same lock anymore, at least not in the context of resolving any sort of meaningful challenge or crisis. Because you'll have progressed from the Heroic to the Epic tier, the things you confront are expected to be different.



 Nod, but that doesn't mean those things don't exist, just that they might not matter.  Easy checks do happen in the context of level-appropriate challenges. 



> Even if you find yourself back in the same geographic location, the expectation is that something about that location will have changed to make it pose Epic rather than merely Heroic challenges.



 I think that's very much up to the DM.  You can run status quo in 4e, you might stat the exact same monsters as heroic Solos or Epic minions depending on the party, as you mentioned, above, but skills are less confusing.  A 21 DC lock is 21 DC, the level of the party just determines whether that's a hard, moderate or easy DC.  



> Whereas I don't see the same expectation in 5e. It seems to me that in 5e _characters_ grow in capability very dramatically, but the default assumption is that _the world_ with which they engage doesn't change very much at all.



 Well, they grow in hp and damage potential.  A 21 DC lock that you couldn't pick at 1st because you're not into locks is still unpickable at 20th unless you've become proficient with theives tools in the meantime.



> It seems to me that when people say that bounded accuracy is different from 4e, it is this story feature that they are pointing to.






> I also know that some people stripped the +0.5 per level off everything in 4e and ran it that way. I imagine that that provided an experience not too dissimilar to 5e (with stats and items picking up the slack of 5e's proficiency bonuses).



 It'd be pretty similar.  



> But stripping +0.5/level from everything isn't a mechanical change of any depth - the relevant maths (eg % chances of success) all remains the same. What it changes is the story, because now some of the things that are challenging you in combat are kobolds rather than (say) trolls and giants.
> 
> Am I making any sense?



 Sure.  Maybe I'm just not seeing the significance of the distinction.



Hussar said:


> What problems are being solved here?  Other than you got more healing in 4e than 5e, but then again, in 5e, you have a LOT more healing in the party - several classes can cast multiple healing spells per day.  At the end of the day, it's pretty much a wash.



 You could have a party with no healers, thus only HD and overnight healing (and 'common' healing potions that they find/buy) to see them through.  Or you could have a party where everyone has cure..wound prepared every day, and some of them know how to /make/ healing potions, as well.  

So you have a similar mechanic (surges ~ HD), but a very dissimilar result (total out-of-combat healing resources being somewhat consistent regardless of party composition, or varying wildly with party composition).



> Again, 5-8 expected encounters per adventuring day.  Double the number that was expected in 3e.  The pacing expectations are largely the same between 4e and 5e.



 One thing I've noticed, this is just IMX, though I think the numbers bear it out, is that 1st level 5e characters cannot handle the 'standard' 6-8 moderate-hard encounter day.  So, I'd expect most groups to 'learn' to rest more frequently at low level, and maybe un-learn that necessity later (or not, depending, in part on party composition, and how any players with healing-capable PC chose to use their spell resources).



Hussar said:


> Oh, hey, I acknowledge there are obvious differences.  Of course.  But, I think you agree, there is a pretty direct line of development from 4e to 5e.



 There's a clear line from 3e to 4e to 5e, when it comes to basic mechanics, sure.  5e hasn't gone back to THAC0 or anything like that, it's still very much a d20 game - heck 3pps have already started producing for it using the d20 OGL.  Similarly, monster stat blocks, while formatted to look a bit more like the classic game, also show a clear debt to 3e/Pathfinder and 4e.

Class design, OTOH, seems to go from 1e to 2e to 5e, with similarities to 3e being, not coincidental, per se, but not a matter of improving on 3e so much as improving on 2e in a way similar to what 3e did.  If that subtle distinction makes any sense.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 24, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Maybe I'm just not seeing the significance of the distinction.



It may be a distinction that isn't very significant to anyone but me!

I think the distinction helps explain why some posters can see bounded accuracy as a direct descendant from 4e, and others see it as a radical departure.

When you look at the mechanics - typical odds of success for typical range of challenges - the maths is very similar in both systems. But when you overlay the story/flavour, you see quite different outcomes (because in default 4e high level PCs probably won't be dealing with kobolds, whereas in default 5e this is meant to be feasible).


----------



## MerricB (Mar 24, 2015)

The thing about bounded accuracy... is that it's where D&D started, just because the game didn't progress to really high levels. Every monster in the original game had an AC between 2 and 9. The game lost this as expansions came along, with the demons and devils of _Eldritch Wizardry_ really beginning the process of breaking of what was a relatively bounded system.

As 2E attempted to make high-level play more accessible (see the rise in demi-human level limits), the disparity between low and high level play became more pronounced. 

3E then tossed out all thoughts of bounded accuracy (not that there were that many thoughts of such by this point) by having hyper-bonus inflation. No edition of the game had as much of a difference between a 1st level character and a 20th level character when it came to bonuses. It also had little concept of the relation between attack and defense - it was very easy to have attacks that auto-hit, or auto-missed (save criticals) with the same applying to saving throws.

4E, as part of its reaction to 3E, tried to put in bounds for characters and challenges of the same level; that you could predict, far better than 3E, where bonuses should be. However, it maintains a huge disparity between what a 1st level character and a 20th level character; their bonuses are significantly different.

5E hearkens back to the early days of oD&D, with lessons learnt from every edition since then.

That's my view of the issue, at least.

Cheers!


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Pemerton, for better or worse you require very clear, sharp parameters - far more clear and sharp than I do.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> "Breaking from tradition" isn't a particularly exotic or difficult concept.



It's not. But what counts as an instance of breaking from tradition is hotly contested.

In their time the impressionists were hugely controversial. Now they're the stuff of chocolate boxes and wall calendars. Perceptions of their relationship to the tradition of European visual arts obviously have changed.

One complicating factor - not the only one - is that those who participate in a tradition are not always best-placed to see what is essential to it, and what counts as holding to it or breaking with it. For instance, Edmund Burke thought that popular representative democracy would be a break from the traditions of English parliamentary government; most people now would think that it is in fact a part of that tradition, and forget how relatively late in British history were the Reform Acts, the "people's budget" of 1911, the enfranchisement of women.

Marx said that, just as if you want to know what a person is really like, it's no good just to ask that person for his/her opinion of him-/herself, likewise for a historical period: you can't learn what a society is like just by reading its own self-descriptions. The same might be said for traditions.



Mercurius said:


> That's how history is written



Only bad history, or apology masquerading as history. Naturally any historian is circumscribed by limitations - of location (in time and place), of translation (depending on the place and period being studied), or failures of anthropological imagination. But good history tries its best to recognise and correct for such limitations, and to come to the past on its own terms.

Part of that involves understanding practices and beliefs for what they actually were, rather than projecting onto them a teleology that makes things as they turned out to be the true (if concealed) driver of all those earlier choices and decisions.



Mercurius said:


> Let me put it this way. Let's say we start with OD&D as "0". Holmes was just a half-step away, a refinement - so "0.5." Moldvay was another half-step, so "1," with BECMI being another full step, or "2." AD&D, on the other hand, was a larger divergence, say three steps away from OD&D - so "3." 2E was another full step away from 1E, so "4." 3E came in and was another solid divergence, say two more steps away, so "6." And then we come to 4E, which was probably at least (or only, depending up on how you look at it), a full three steps away from 3E, so "9." People became upset, not only because it was three steps away from 3E, but also because it had diverged so far from early versions of D&D.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The more I got to know the rules, the more I saw how sharply it diverged from "traditional D&D."





Mercurius said:


> Don't take the numbers too literally - I'm just trying to illustrate the point.



Without the numbers there is no point.

For instance, how far is Gygax's AD&D from OD&D? If by OD&D you mean "OD&D with all the supplements" then the answer is - not very far at all.

How far is 2nd ed AD&D from Gygax's AD&D? If you look at the PC build mechanics and the basic action resolution mechanics, they're pretty close. If you look at the instructional text, the XP system  and the GM-side mechanics, they're light-years apart. Read (or re-read) Gygax's instructions, in the closing pages of his PHB prior to the Appendices, on how players should prepare for a session. And then read the corresponding text in his DMG about how a GM should be attempting to cultivate and reward "skilled play". Those ideas and that advice appear nowhere in the 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks, and anyone who started playing from those books would receive not a hint that this is the sort of game that those mechanics were invented to play.

Here is just the simplest of examples to make the point: Gygax's AD&D takes it for granted that players will want high ability scores for their PCs, and will use Wishes to obtain them, and explains how to handle this; whereas the 2nd ed PHB, on p 18, tells prospective players that "if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time." You could hardly find an expression of the ideals of roleplaying further from that which infuses Gygax's rulebooks.

What is going on with the OSR? A fairly wide range of things, is my sense of it. But one of those things is people forming the view that AD&D 2nd ed is a break with tradition. A rejection of the sort of play that it promoted (which did not come from nowhere - it was emerging at least by the early-to-mid-80s in published modules and the pages of Dragon Magazine, and as a non-official playstyle may have gone back to before games like RQ and Traveller, which can be seen as potentially promoting it in their own way). A return to Gygaxian, "skilled", play, based especially around dungeoneering.

Whose numbers are right? Yours, which puts Gygax's AD&D at 3 and 2nd ed at 4? Or these OSR-ers, which puts the gap between those systems at some arbitrarily large multiple of the gap between Gygax's AD&D and OD&D?

These are competing views of the tradition.

You are, in effect, asking me whether I - as a fan of 4e - agree that 4e breaks with the tradition of D&D to an unprecedented extent relative to earlier variants of the game. As I have said in other threads, I don't agree with that. I think it does some things that are new for D&D, and I mentioned some of them upthread: the downplaying of exploration of a GM's pre-built world, and the corresponding emphasis on a particular style of player-driven play (the "indie-fication" of D&D) are the most obvious ones.

But there are many features of 4e that I believe draw upon and reinforce elements of the D&D tradition:

* To start with a small point, 4e's use of "squares" harks back to, and serves the same function as, "inches" in Gygax's AD&D, namely, expressing tactical distances in scale terms for resolution purposes (but with an acknowledgement that most contemporary players will be using grids rather than sand tables and tape measures), with a simple translation to "real" distances provided;

* More substantively, the healing system, including the presence of inspirational healing, draws upon and reinforces Gygax's conception of hit points and saving throws, as stated in his AD&D rulebooks;

* 4e's generalisation of "looseness of fit" between mechanics and fiction also draws upon this traditional conception of hit points and saving throws, as well as the narrative fluidity that Gygax explains in his essay (in his DMG) on the 1 minute combat round;

* Building on the above point, 4e integrates the "granularity of focus" that was novel to 3E (6 second combat rounds, precise positioning in melee, manoeuvres, sophisticated action economy, etc) with the fictional "looseness" of Gygaxian melee, thereby reconciling two superficially conflicting strands in the D&D tradition;

* 4e performs another act of integration also: in AD&D melee is "sticky" by default, and wizards who get sucked into that vortex will probably die while fighters rule the roost; in 3E melee is non-sticky by default (due to the movement component of the action economy in combination with very generous 5' step rules); 4e builds on the basic mechanical framework of 3E, but by changing the 5' step rules plus giving fighters a whole lot of abilities to make them sticky (powerful OAs, marking and mark punishment, forced movement of enemies, slowing and immobilising enemies, etc) it re-establishes a dynamic for melee in which fighters are at the centre of a vortex that they control, and that can suck others in but from which those others can't escape - hence melee in 4e is, in its overall story tone and tropes, much closer to my memory of the classic D&D tradition than is 3E;

* As I've explained upthread in my last post to [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION], I think that 4e does an incredible job of making the traditional D&D story structure (start with kobolds, finish with Orcus) a part of the game, with the PCs integrated into that story both mechanically and fictionally at every stage;

* And I could give other examples, too, of where I think 4e preserves or reinforces D&D tradition, but I think you get the gist.​
There are things, in my view, that 4e does not do particularly well. I don't think it is an especially good system, for instance, for engaging with the inner lives of the PCs. It is about drama expressed and encountered outwardly (in the fantasy world) rather than inwardly. But this is another respect in which 4e cleaves to the D&D tradition rather than departs from it. (5e's Inspiration rules may be the biggest departure from this tradition that we've yet seen.)



Mercurius said:


> seemingly you don't remember when 4E came out, and many had a huge issue with how different 4E was from 3E.



Of course I remember this. Not being an expert on 3E, I tend to leave such discussions to others. I do note that these issues of difference are (not surprisingly) contested. I also note that 3E is not the be-all and end-all of the D&D tradition.



Mercurius said:


> I think the mistake you make here, if I may, is by focusing on specific rules. Sure, they matter, but it is more the sum total, even the "space in-between" the rules - the vibe and feeling - that makes 4E different.



Who are you speaking for, here? I mean, besides yourself and your own experiences?

I can tell you, that the feeling I get when I play 4e is like the feeling I used to get GMing Oriental Adventures back in the mid-to-late-80s, only the rules are better suited for what I'm trying to do - partially on their own terms, and partially because of the connections they establish between PCs and the shared fiction.

I can tell you that, when I read Worlds & Monsters, my feeling was that these designers had finally identified the heart of D&D, and were describing a world set-up and story structure ("points of light" against a mythic backdrop) that would make it work.

You are inviting me to substitute your experiences and conception of the tradition for my own. With respect, I decline.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2015)

MerricB said:


> 4E, as part of its reaction to 3E, tried to put in bounds for characters and challenges of the same level; that you could predict, far better than 3E, where bonuses should be. However, it maintains a huge disparity between what a 1st level character and a 20th level character; their bonuses are significantly different.



MerricB, I've got no disagreement with your analysis.

What I wanted to say was that the "huge disparity" between a 1st level and a 20th level character is what I am calling a story rather than a deep mechanical issue. Because despite the higher bonus of the 20th level character, the default scaling of the mechanical elements with which they are expected to engage in the play of the game means that the underlying maths remains (subject to design errors and approximations) the same.

It's just that the overlaying fiction is of (say) an archmage blowing up a golem rather than an apprentice magic missiling a kobold.

Because of the way that 5e changes the relationship between maths and story (using 4e language, I would say that it has stripped out the 0.5/level from everything) I think that it's version of bounded accuracy will produce quite different story outcomes and story structures from default 4e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 25, 2015)

MerricB said:


> The thing about bounded accuracy... is that it's where D&D started, just because the game didn't progress to really high levels. Every monster in the original game had an AC between 2 and 9. The game lost this as expansions came along, with the demons and devils of _Eldritch Wizardry_ really beginning the process of breaking of what was a relatively bounded system.



 You're talking about the first year or so of the game's history, there, I think.    That's very old-school, indeed.  I'm also not at all sure that restricted level ranges equate to bounded accuracy as 5e finally settled on it. They do equate to, well, restricted levels, like the long-known 'sweet spot' and like 3.x run 'E6.'  IIRC, Mearls and his current crop of designers didn't start with 0D&D, in any case, so wouldn't have had your experience of it, first hand (though they said the researched the older eds extensively).  



> 3E then tossed out all thoughts of bounded accuracy (not that there were that many thoughts of such by this point) by having hyper-bonus inflation. No edition of the game had as much of a difference between a 1st level character and a 20th level character when it came to bonuses.



 Hmm... in AD&D (1e - it's the ed I memorized when I was a kid, so I'm going with it)  a first level fighter would save vs spells on a 17, at 20th (16th even), with a few items, he'd fail only on a 1.  He might go from no bonus to hit (16 STR), to wielding a hammer of thunderbolts with Gauntlets of Ogre Power and a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength (+15 to hit) - but, the fighter's attack matrix also improved the whole time, giving him the equivalent of a +2 to hit every-other level (thus 1:1 THACO in 2e, and full BAB in 3e), so that's like a +35 to hit.   The 3e fighter's BAB matched that matrix-based advancement, and his STR probably went from 16 or 18, with a feat (+4 or 5 to hit) well into the 20s and a +5 weapon +30 or more to hit.  Pretty comparable, really.   His saves, OTOH, were abysmal at high level.




> It also had little concept of the relation between attack and defense - it was very easy to have attacks that auto-hit, or auto-missed (save criticals) with the same applying to saving throws.



 Not that hard in AD&D, either.  



> 4E, as part of its reaction to 3E, tried to put in bounds for characters and challenges of the same level; that you could predict, far better than 3E, where bonuses should be. However, it maintains a huge disparity between what a 1st level character and a 20th level character; their bonuses are significantly different.



 Yep, about 20 different, including expected magic and stat bumps and feat-taxes.  Compared to 30 or 35 better in 3e or AD&D.  Not that meaningful a difference, IMHO.  Of course, the AD&D numbers could be substantially different if the fighter just had a stingier DM, he could be right down to just his improvement on the attackmatrix - approximating a +20 over 20 levels (or maybe it was +16 over 16 levels, and 2e took it up to 1:1 THAC0).



> 5E hearkens back to the early days of oD&D, with lessons learnt from every edition since then.
> 
> That's my view of the issue, at least.



 It's an interesting one.  I tend to see 5e as fitting neatly between 2e and 3e in the ascent of D&D.  A tad anachronistic, really, as befits an edition developed at the height of the OSR phenom, I suppose - though not so atavistic as to clearly appeal to that faction.

There are a /lot/ of lapsed AD&D fans out there though, who might like it if they tried it....


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> The most obvious claim to the DnD tradition is how easily you can convert your character from one edition to the next.
> 
> Obviously the jury is still out about how closely 5e follows in that tradition.




The problem is, other than 1e to 2e, it's virtually impossible to convert from 2e to 3e (the conversion documents pegged an 18 percentile strength in the early 20's for example) and 3e to 4e is obviously problematic as well.  Compare a 1e character sheet to a 5e character sheet and they are quite obviously from different games.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2015)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't find the language of "breaking from tradition" very helpful, though. It is very normative, but on no very clear foundation.
> 
> For instance, 3E changed the rule that hit dice and CON bonus stopped at name level. It changed the rule that a wizard can't use a sword (s/he can, just with a -4 (?) to hit). Conversely, 4e harks back to Gygax's essays on the metaphysics and game-mechanics of hit points and saving throws.
> 
> ...




Mercurious does have a point though.  4e did break away from the lore traditions of earlier 3e.  They sacrificed a barn full of sacred beef to recreate a whole new set of lore that really did break strongly away from earlier D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2015)

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - I think that the bit you missed from [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION]'s analysis is the reliance on lower level play in AD&D.  AD&D in the double digit levels was very, very broken, as you pointed out.  Even without going to the extremes you are talking about, it was still ridiculously overpowered.  But, in "sweet spot" play, from 1st to name level, things were very much bounded.  Even things like Dragons and whatnot didn't really break the bounds.  IIRC, red dragons topped out at what, a -2 AC?  And that was about as good as it got unless you started looking at unique monsters.

5e has simply (or rather, not so simply, I imagine there was a crapton of work to do this) spread that range over twenty levels.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 25, 2015)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - I think that the bit you missed from [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION]'s analysis is the reliance on lower level play in AD&D.



 Nope, I don't think I missed that - rather, I don't see where he said it.  He talked about 0D&D being lower-level play, at first, with later supplements changing that, and then straight into 2e pushing for higher level play.   



> But, in "sweet spot" play, from 1st to name level, things were very much bounded.  Even things like Dragons and whatnot didn't really break the bounds.  IIRC, red dragons topped out at what, a -2 AC?  And that was about as good as it got unless you started looking at unique monsters.



 Will-o-wisps had a -8, FWIW.  And I'd quibble with the 1e sweet spot getting as low as 1st.  

But, I don't think restricted levels to stay in a sweet spot had a lot to do with bounded accuracy.  Bounded accuracy was just about smaller numbers - filing the mph readout off the 4e treadmill and acknowledging you weren't going anywhere, as it were.





> 5e has simply (or rather, not so simply, I imagine there was a crapton of work to do this) spread that range over twenty levels.



 There was a lot more to the 'sweet spot' experienced in 3.x and earlier than just bonuses, or even relative bonuses.  Class balance (the ill-advised attempt to balance classes over many levels, in classic D&D, particularly) had a lot to do with it, too.  

5e still seems to have a sweetspot - like AD&D, 1st level is definitely not part of it, where the upper limit is, I don't know yet - bounded accuracy notwithstanding.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2015)

Hussar said:


> 4e did break away from the lore traditions of earlier 3e.  They sacrificed a barn full of sacred beef to recreate a whole new set of lore that really did break strongly away from earlier D&D.



Was it a year or so ago we (and plenty of others) were in a big thread on this?

I think 4e breaks away from certain aspects of Planescape lore, and maybe some other world lore that became default in 2nd ed AD&D and 3E.

But I think it does an excellent job of making the classic D&D monster manual coherent, and giving all the humanoids (goblins, kobolds, orcs, gnolls etc) a coherent place in the overall fiction. I've read (and re-read) a lot of D&D monster entries and lore books, and 4e struck me (and continues to strike me) as a part of that tradition, not a break from it.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Bounded accuracy was just about smaller numbers - filing the mph readout off the 4e treadmill and acknowledging you weren't going anywhere, as it were.



I think that's a perfect metaphor!


----------



## Iosue (Mar 25, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I've never heard this interpretation before.
> 
> The table on PHB p 19 is headed "Armour and Weapons Permitted", and p 25 says "Magic-users . . . can wear no armour and have few weapons they can use'.
> 
> ...




The Sage may have commented on it in some issue of Dragon waaay back when, but I'm not sure of any official ruling.  I think, however, what we have here is an artifact of entry via Basic.  OD&D treats PCs as barely a step up from a wargame piece.  It's not interested in modeling a world through game mechanics.  Particularly in the sense of combat, this is simply _resolved_, using either Chainmail or the alternate system.  All attacks do the same damage: 1d6, so it doesn't really matter whether your magic-user has a dagger or a sword.  His (melee) effectiveness is dependent on his Level and to-hit roll matrix, not what weapon he's using.  Of course, over time the rules start to get more and more detailed.  Once you introduce weapon distinctiveness with variant damage and speed factors, you have to start looking at what kind of penalties you impose for someone using weapons outside those allowed for their class.  One of Gygax's tablemates has phrased the attitude of the time as, "Whatever isn't explicitly forbidden is permitted."  It's explicitly forbidden for magic-users to become proficient with a sword.  However, a magic-user picking up a dropped sword and swinging it at encroaching enemies is something that might be considered a not-uncommon outcome in the course of the game.  What happens when a PC does that?  In AD&D's case, I believe the -5 penalty was made available.  AD&D was about a mechanical system for every eventuality.

But D&D (as oppposed to AD&D) didn't go that route.  For one thing, it retained the universal d6 damage.  It had variant damage as an optional rule (that I think 99% of tables opted into), but it simply remained silent on the subject of non-class weapons.  And I think most people simply went along with it.  And if a magic-user PC happened to pick up a dropped sword and swing it at encroaching enemies, the DM was expected to just make a ruling about how that worked.  But those who came into AD&D through D&D, primed with the idea that "magic-users simply can't use swords", interpreted the AD&D rules that same way.



pemerton said:


> I'm mostly curious about the fourth option that you didn't quite describe there - the spending of the inspiration is pure metagame (so no diligence in describing it in the game fiction), but the earning is handled in the sort of way you see in a game like Burning Wheel or Fate - earn Inspiration for playing your personality traits in a way that drives the game forward, generates complications, etc.




But that's really part of the large second group, isn't it?  The conventions might be subtly different -- generating complications vs. making the DM's Mountain Dew come out of his nose, but ultimately it's the DM deciding to put the benny into play, with player free to redistribute it as they see fit.



> Despite these various exceptions, I find that default trajectory - the fiction of the tiers reinforced by the way monsters, treasures, traps etc are written up in the various source books - is a huge strength of 4e. For me, it's really been the payoff, in play, of what Worlds & Monsters promised.
> 
> I was wondering if 5e has any sort of comparable take on "the story of D&D". I'm pretty sure it will be different, because of bounded accuracy in combination with the monster-spread-by-CR that you described.




Ah, I see what you mean.  On the whole, I would say in terms of "story progression", 5e is to 4e as AD&D is to BECMI.  It's there, if you're familiar with the latter you can play it up in the former, but it's definitely not as foregrounded.  And my sense with the Monsters, is that instead of a progression of different kinds of monsters (kobolds to orcs to giants to demons, for example), you progress through different kinds of captains.  The lower level monsters are viable for longer, so you start seeing more of them, led by more powerful bosses.



pemerton said:


> These are competing views of the tradition.
> 
> You are, in effect, asking me whether I - as a fan of 4e - agree that 4e breaks with the tradition of D&D to an unprecedented extent relative to earlier variants of the game. As I have said in other threads, I don't agree with that. I think it does some things that are new for D&D, and I mentioned some of them upthread: the downplaying of exploration of a GM's pre-built world, and the corresponding emphasis on a particular style of player-driven play (the "indie-fication" of D&D) are the most obvious ones.




My question here would be -- were those changes (downplaying of exploration of DM's pre-built world and corresponding emphasis on player-driven play) driven by the market, or were they the result of WotC forecasting?  I think the move from OD&D being a highly open, freeform game to AD&D being "mechanical systems for everything!" was a result of demand from players (customers).  I think the move from 1e's highly game-oriented play to 2e's highly story-oriented play was likewise driven by the market at the time.  The reformat of 2e's diverse, abstract system into 3e's d20 system, greater character customization, and rules interlinked as a gameworld simulator reflected demands in the market.  5e's move to a simpler, faster game, but with optional complexity is certainly reflective of demands in the market.

With 4e, I think better balance, and more things for martials to do were definitely demanded by the market.  But my sense -- which may indeed be wrong -- is that much of 4e comes from the designers pushing the envelope, looking around at indie games, Euro boardgames, CCGs and MMORPGs to place 4e on the vanguard of what was to come.  So, those things you mentioned, plus a greater emphasis on tactical combat as an element of play (of course already present in the game, but taken to a whole new level of integration in the game) create a fundamentally different experience than someone might be expecting from D&D --and most importantly, no matter how much _other_ parts of the game might hearken back to and reinforce traditional elements of the game, it's the changes that are the most salient.

For me and many others, those changes were actually along the lines of how we were already playing D&D, be that with more player-driven development, or a stronger combat focus, so naturally we didn't have a strong averse reaction.

I think Mercurius's point (though he can correct me if I'm wrong), is not that we must substitute others experiences and conceptions for our own, but that in the course of reviewing the series of events covering 2007-2014, it behooves us to be _aware_ of others' experiences and conceptions.  I see nothing lost from being empathetic.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 25, 2015)

Iosue said:


> With 4e, I think better balance, and more things for martials to do were definitely demanded by the market.




Do you think that was actually the case?

I am sure there is a part of the market that demanded martials have powers but everything from Essentials on indicates that it must have been a small part of the market.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 25, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Do you think that was actually the case?
> 
> I am sure there is a part of the market that demanded martials have powers but everything from Essentials on indicates that it must have been a small part of the market.



I absolutely think that was the case.  The degree to which it mattered varied from table to table, but LFQW was a thing.  E6 came out in 2007 before 4e.  The Book of Nine Swords was an early draft version of 4e that they abandoned and reworked for 3e.  The demand was there.  However, the key is, "demand for more balance and more things for martials" doesn't equal "demand for powers".  4e powers were WotC's _implementation_ of a response.  One that obviously not everyone embraced.

Incidentally, I don't know if you followed the 5e playtest.  The wizard and the "neo-vancian" spellcasting system was established very early on, and accepted from early on.  It didn't really change that much after the first few playtest package.  But Fighters and Rogues...they had to be torn down and rebuilt several times.  The first versions of the classes were very simple, very much like their 2e and 3e versions: good attack-roll progression, mostly distinguished by their access to feats/themes.  But almost immediately demand for more interesting fighters and thieves emerged, and a good deal of the playtest revolved around getting those accepted by a significant majority of the audience.  To the point that some things that were meant to be in the playtest where taken out because they had to redo the fighter and rogue so many times.  I think that demand was there in the mid-2000s.  I think 4e's implementation pleased some of the demand, and failed to please the rest.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I think, however, what we have here is an artifact of entry via Basic.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> those who came into AD&D through D&D, primed with the idea that "magic-users simply can't use swords", interpreted the AD&D rules that same way.



Maybe. It's certainly true that I entered AD&D via Basic.

I can still honestly report that I've never encountered this interpretation before! I don't know if I like it or not.



Iosue said:


> But that's really part of the large second group, isn't it?



Again, maybe. I see a big difference between 2nd-ed style "be rewarded for playing in character" and "indie"-style "be rewarded for playing to or against character so as to generate drama/complications", but others might not.



Iosue said:


> I see what you mean.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> my sense with the Monsters, is that instead of a progression of different kinds of monsters (kobolds to orcs to giants to demons, for example), you progress through different kinds of captains.



Thanks, interesting. That seems a little bit LotR-ish. 



Iosue said:


> My question here would be -- were those changes (downplaying of exploration of DM's pre-built world and corresponding emphasis on player-driven play) driven by the market, or were they the result of WotC forecasting?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I think I still stand by my comment of four years ago, that I reposted upthread:



pemerton said:


> When 4e game out, I posted on these forums that WotC apparently agreed with Ron Edwards that a narrativist-oriented RPG focusing on situation and character-driven play would be more popular than a simulationist RPG focused on the players exploring the world and/or stories that the GM creates for them. Such a belief seems the only way to explain the presence, in 4e, of all the features I've mentioned above.
> 
> At the time I tended to assume that WotC weren't just speculating but actually _knew_- unlike Ron Edwards, for example, they have marketers and market researchers on their payroll. But it seems they may have got it wrong.
> 
> For someone like me, who wanted a game like the one they produced, it's turned out to be a lucky error. The tone of Essentials, though, plus the release of Nentir Vale, suggests that WotC might be pulling back, and trying to turn 4e into a more traditional RPG.



But the question of whether or not there is market demand isn't a normative question. It's not about (for instance) "being true to" or "turning one's back on" the tradition of D&D. It seems pretty clear to me that there are OSR players and authors who believe that what they're doing is truer to the tradition of D&D than what WotC is doing. They're not obliged to change that view just because WotC's market is 100 or 1000 times bigger than the market for their games.

Anticipating and supplying markets for these sorts of luxury leisure goods requires commercial cleverness. The goal of that commercial cleverness is profit (and at a reasonable rate of return relative to other opportunities that were available - given that RPG design is not all that capital intensive, I would think that most of the relevant investment is going to be in salaries). If someone wants to argue that WotC would have been financially better off not going down the 4e path then I'm very interested to hear the argument - personally I'm a little doubtful, but I'm not sure that anyone posting here has got sufficient data (including reliable projections for what money WotC might have made or lost had it stuck to 3E, how much money the 4e-inspired boardgames have made, what the profit was on DDI and what alternative income stream would take its place under the 3E scenario,etc).

My feeling is that if 4e really was a net financial disaster for the group, they wouldn't have been given two years to develop 5e. But that's just untutored intuition.



Iosue said:


> I think Mercurius's point (though he can correct me if I'm wrong), is not that we must substitute others experiences and conceptions for our own, but that in the course of reviewing the series of events covering 2007-2014, it behooves us to be _aware_ of others' experiences and conceptions.  I see nothing lost from being empathetic.



I'm aware of (some) others' experiences and conceptions. In some cases, more so than I would care to be if I ruled the world!

In some cases, I think the presentation of those experiences and conceptions suffered from confusing (i) the failure of a commercial producer of goods, from whom was accustomed to buying goods, to continue to supply goods that one wanted to purchase, with (ii) betrayal of some important value by someone who owed a duty to uphold it.

When TSR published 1st ed AD&D I was a customer - I own all the hardbacks up to Greyhawk Adventures, and used to buy Dragon magazines from time-to-time, plus a few modules. When TSR published 2nd ed AD&D, my consumption reduced (the only thing I can think of that I didn't buy 2nd hand is the City of Greyhawk boxed set and, in the late 90s, the Slavers and Scarlet Brotherhood supplements). When WotC published 3E I bought a reasonable amount (core books, plus probably 5 or 6 supplements) because I had robust cash flow at the time and some of it seemed interesting. When WotC published 4e I bought 40-odd products, so somewhere between $1200 and $1500 worth, between 2008 and 2012. It seems unlikely that I'll be purchasing any D&D products from WotC in the immediate future, as I'm not likely to use them and not as cashed up as I was in the 3E era.

These are my personal consumption decisions. I can explain them in more detail if anyone's interested (though I don't really see why they would be). They're not a normative judgment on TSR/WotC, nor on anyone else whose consumption preferences are different from mine!


----------



## Imaro (Mar 25, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I think that demand was there in the mid-2000s.  I think 4e's implementation pleased some of the demand, and failed to please the rest.




This... I think what often gets overlooked in the rush to blame presentation for some/many people's dislike of 4e is that the implementation is often overlooked as a contributing factor.  I know for me, it wasn't that I didn't want fighters to have cool maneuvers or pre-fab abilities... what rubbed me the wrong way was the limiting of certain abiltites at the meta-game level... in other words the structure of AEDU in conjunction with martial "powers".  I find the Battlemaster much more palpable because a specific maneuver is not limited to an exact usage of once per encounter or per day  but instead he has a well of stamina which he draws from and can perform any maneuver he knows as long as that well hasn't been drained.

EDIT: In other words I think martial powers in 4e would have been better received by some/many if they had instead said you get X uses of an encounter power per encounter... and it could be any encounter power you knew... ditto for daily powers.  That's not presentation, that's implementation.


----------



## Halivar (Mar 25, 2015)

Imaro said:


> This... I think what often gets overlooked in the rush to blame presentation for some/many people's dislike of 4e is that the implementation is often overlooked as a contributing factor.  I know for me, it wasn't that I didn't want fighters to have cool maneuvers or pre-fabbed abilities... what rubbed me the wrong way was the limiting of certain abiltites at the meta-game level... in other words the structure of AEDU in conjunction with martial "powers".  I find the Battlemaster much more palpable because a specific maneuver is not limited to an exact usage of one per encounter or per day  but instead he has a well of stamina which he draws from and can perform any maneuver he knows as long as that well hasn't been drained.



What's most unfortunate is that there is no reason the 4E structure could not have been couched in those terms; it just wasn't. By using the dry language of a M:tG rules booklet, they left the construction of a mental mapping of AEDU to coherent game physics to (often over-zealous) forum fans, and that was a huge mistake. I look at the 5E battlemaster and see the 4E fighter I really enjoyed, but with vastly different presentation.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 25, 2015)

Halivar said:


> What's most unfortunate is that there is no reason the 4E structure could not have been couched in those terms; it just wasn't. By using the dry language of a M:tG rules booklet, they left the construction of a mental mapping of AEDU to coherent game physics to (often over-zealous) forum fans, and that was a huge mistake. I look at the 5E battlemaster and see the 4E fighter I really enjoyed, but with vastly different presentation.




Lol... the funny thing was that as I finished typing that I was wondering if there actually would be any balance problems or ill-effects to the ghame if I houseruled it to work like that... of course then I aske myself if not, why did they choose such a limiting way to implement them...

EDIT: Also as I read your last sentence I wonder if that's part of the problem... you see that as presentation where as for me it's an implementation and mechanics difference.  Sure I can houserule it but the game is implemented around that AEDU structure and nothing about it is presented as optional in 4e (speaking to core of course)


----------



## pemerton (Mar 25, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I was wondering if there actually would be any balance problems or ill-effects to the ghame if I houseruled it to work like that... of course then I aske myself if not, why did they choose such a limiting way to implement them



Yes, there is a balance issue. It may not be fatal; it may not even be very serious (at your table, or at many tables). But it is an issue.

In the 4e structure as published, it is enough to roughly balance all the encounter powers for a given class. Even if one is clearly stronger than many others (eg Come and Get It, Compel Action) there is not a balance issue, as it will only be used once per encounter.

If you allow X encounter powers per short rest from a list known, you get the issue of spamming the best ones. This was a fairly standard objection to 4e psionics, which works in just this way.

In Essentials, for many classes they solved the issue in the opposite way, by granting just one encounter power (eg Power Strike) but allowing X per short rest uses.

The 5e Battlemaster's abilities are noticeably less dramatic than many of the 4e ones (especially the strong AoEs like CaGI), so the issue probably doesn't arise so strongly in relation to them. But it would be interesting to know if anyone has seen spamming issues with Battlemasters.



Imaro said:


> I find the Battlemaster much more palpable because a specific maneuver is not limited to an exact usage of once per encounter or per day  but instead he has a well of stamina which he draws from and can perform any maneuver he knows as long as that well hasn't been drained.



This seems to be one of those "matter of degree" things. Because this well of stamina is not connected to any other aspects of the game that seem to model stamina (eg hp, fatigue rules, STR checks, Athletics skill, etc), it seems to me pretty obviously metagame. At which point the choice between a pool of uses, and a pool of one-use-each abilities, looks like a gameplay issue rather than a verisimilitude issue.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 25, 2015)

pemerton said:


> This seems to be one of those "matter of degree" things. Because this well of stamina is not connected to any other aspects of the game that seem to model stamina (eg hp, fatigue rules, STR checks, Athletics skill, etc), it seems to me pretty obviously metagame. At which point the choice between a pool of uses, and a pool of one-use-each abilities, looks like a gameplay issue rather than a verisimilitude issue.




Well yes I guess all of that could be true if you ignore the fact that you only regain superiority dice back through *resting* for an hour or more(which in and of itself is enough to connect the maneuvers to some type of stamina expenditure)... You may not like that it's not connected directly to the traits you list, but it is a reserve created by the Battlemaster's specific training that is above and beyond mundane stamina/hp's/etc. but which must still be replenished through rest at a certain point.  So I disagree that it is purely meta-game or that it is a "purely" gameplay issue as opposed to a verisimilitude one...


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 25, 2015)

Any "Reveal" in any of these pages of debate?


----------



## Rejuvenator (Mar 25, 2015)

pemerton said:


> This seems to be one of those "matter of degree" things. Because this well of stamina is not connected to any other aspects of the game that seem to model stamina (eg hp, fatigue rules, STR checks, Athletics skill, etc), it seems to me pretty obviously metagame. At which point the choice between a pool of uses, and a pool of one-use-each abilities, looks like a gameplay issue rather than a verisimilitude issue.



Not just a matter of degree, but also a degree of concurrence. A lot of mechanics are pretty obviously metagame, and yet simultaneously induce verisimilitude (for many, this occurs upon reading of the rule, or at the very least during gameplay). The choice of a pool of uses vs a pool of one-use-each abilties may reflect the designer's intent to account for both goals for the mindset of the target consumer.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 25, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I absolutely think that was the case.  The degree to which it mattered varied from table to table, but LFQW was a thing.  E6 came out in 2007 before 4e.  The Book of Nine Swords was an early draft version of 4e that they abandoned and reworked for 3e.  The demand was there.



 It is, but there is a countervailing demand for imbalance, caster dominance, and martial archetypes being modeled exclusively with low-player-agency mechanics.  The market is divided.

The thing is, WotC, in conceiving and playtesting Next/5e (and watching the devastation of the edition war) figured out that though the market was divided and the two things it wanted incompatible, one side of the divide was long accustomed to having to cope with a D&D that didn't deliver what they wanted, while the other was willing to watch the whole franchise burn rather than give up what they'd had for so long.

Regardless of relative size, the expedient thing to do was to cater to that side.  Witness the fact that 5e did exactly that.



> However, the key is, "demand for more balance and more things for martials" doesn't equal "demand for powers".  4e powers were WotC's _implementation_



 They were a surprisingly good one, too, in a technical sense.  But, no, I don't think the implementation was the key issue.  Any implementation that delivered balance between martial and caster archetypes would have received as virulent a reaction from the same crowd, for the same reasons - just with different buzzwords and talking points.

Could you imagine, for instance, if D&D were to do away with the concept of daily caster resources, entirely?


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The thing is, WotC,... figured out that though the market was divided... one side of the divide was long accustomed to having to cope with a D&D that didn't deliver what they wanted,




What noble, selfless martyrs! 



> ...while the other was willing to watch the whole franchise burn rather than give up what they'd had for so long.




What a collection of selfish, validation-seeking savages!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 25, 2015)

There's nothing selfless about fixing up or working around shortcomings in a game.

'Selfish' doesn't exactly fully capture the waging of the edition war, either, for that matter.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 25, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It is, but there is a countervailing demand for imbalance, caster dominance, and martial archetypes being modeled exclusively with low-player-agency mechanics.  The market is divided.



I demand imbalance, martial dominance, and low player agency mechanics for magical characters.  I'm calling it "Warblades & Warlocks".


----------



## Wicht (Mar 25, 2015)

Because, nothing quite beats out a "caster dominance" debate for making a thread really hum...


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 25, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Because, nothing quite beats out a "caster dominance" debate for making a thread really hum...



I know, it took 700 posts for this thread to really get started!


----------



## Rejuvenator (Mar 25, 2015)

Wicht said:


> What a collection of selfish, validation-seeking savages!



It's also the savages' fault that they didn't know how to correctly express their enjoyment of _asymmetry_. One biased reporter even went so far as to stage a fake protest scene and had the savages hold up signs and chant "We demand imbalance, we demand imbalance!" It was a complete fiasco for the savages' cause.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 25, 2015)

pemerton said:


> It's not. But what counts as an instance of breaking from tradition is hotly contested.




Of course. And when I wrote "breaking" I don't mean "severing" as in a compound bone fracture. I mean more diverging or veering from the main direction of. _Achtung Baby _was still U2, but it "broke from the tradition" that they had established in the 80s - at least for many fans. In this context, it seems that a large number of people felt that 4E diverged from the core D&D tradition enough to feel like it did not adequately carry the flag of "true" D&D. 

Again, I'm not saying that this is true, just that it is how a large number of people felt and a major factor in why 4E wasn't fully embraced by the community. 



pemerton said:


> Only bad history, or apology h as history. Naturally any historian is circumscribed by limitations - of location (in time and place), of translation (depending on the place and period being studied), or failures of anthropological imagination. But good history tries its best to recognise and correct for such limitations, and to come to the past on its own terms.
> 
> Part of that involves understanding practices and beliefs for what they actually were, rather than projecting onto them a teleology that makes things as they turned out to be the true (if concealed) driver of all those earlier choices and decisions.




We always revise history, whether individually (autobiography) or collectively. No one called the Renaissance by that name in 1500, but we can see now that it was a period of immense cultural growth and transformation that pivoted Europe and much of the world from the Middle Ages into the Modern Age. I wouldn't call that "bad history." I think the mistake people make is in thinking that history is somehow a factual record of events and miss that there is a mythic, human element - how we remember things. In other words, history is story. If various technological and societal innovations hadn't occurred after 1500 and the world had stepped back into a second Medieval period, then what we now call the "Renaissance" might have been called something like the "Interregnum" or the "False Revival." The word Renaissance only makes sense in light of what happened after.

So in terms of teleology, I would say that the telos of history is _now. _So it is totally appropriate to consider how past events have led up to and formed this moment. This isn't as much projecting teleology onto past events, practices and beliefs, but looking back at them in light of how things are, seeing how things led up to this moment.  



pemerton said:


> Without the numbers there is no point.
> 
> For instance, how far is Gygax's AD&D from OD&D? If by OD&D you mean "OD&D with all the supplements" then the answer is - not very far at all.
> 
> ...




Right. We can pick out any number of things or combination of things to find similarities and differences in the various editions. ByronD would call confirmation bias. But this is a good example of what I was saying about the difference in the way that you and I think and communicate; as I see it, you focus on and seemingly require far more specificity about things, while I tend to look for the overall feeling or vibe. Another way to put it is that you seem to emphasize parts while I emphasize wholes. Maybe that is too broad of a generalization, but that's part of my point!

But back to the numbers, they were being used to emphasize a point - that 4E felt like a larger jump (or divergence) from 3E, and from earlier editions, than many were comfortable with. The exact numbers don't matter because they aren't factual or even real - and they depend upon the individual.



pemerton said:


> What is going on with the OSR? A fairly wide range of things, is my sense of it. But one of those things is people forming the view that AD&D 2nd ed is a break with tradition. A rejection of the sort of play that it promoted (which did not come from nowhere - it was emerging at least by the early-to-mid-80s in published modules and the pages of Dragon Magazine, and as a non-official playstyle may have gone back to before games like RQ and Traveller, which can be seen as potentially promoting it in their own way). A return to Gygaxian, "skilled", play, based especially around dungeoneering.
> 
> Whose numbers are right? Yours, which puts Gygax's AD&D at 3 and 2nd ed at 4? Or these OSR-ers, which puts the gap between those systems at some arbitrarily large multiple of the gap between Gygax's AD&D and OD&D?
> 
> These are competing views of the tradition.




Yes, I fully agree. As I said, the numbers depend upon the individual, so you could say all are right (or wrong, depending on how you want to look at it). But it does seem that there are groups of people that gravitate around certain broad "views of tradition," such as the OSR folks, the d20/3E/Pathfinder folks, and the 4E folks. 

I personally see "D&D" as a kind of Platonic Idea of which there are infinite possible versions, iterations, and manifestations. All are "true," all are valid, but some are more resonant with different individualities, generational zeitgeists, and cultural mentalities.



pemerton said:


> You are, in effect, asking me whether I - as a fan of 4e - agree that 4e breaks with the tradition of D&D to an unprecedented extent relative to earlier variants of the game. As I have said in other threads, I don't agree with that. I think it does some things that are new for D&D, and I mentioned some of them upthread: the downplaying of exploration of a GM's pre-built world, and the corresponding emphasis on a particular style of player-driven play (the "indie-fication" of D&D) are the most obvious ones.




No, I am more asking if you can see how for a large number of folks--those that rejected 4E, to whatever degree--it (4e) broke with the tradition of D&D enough that they wanted something more "personally resonant" with the Platonic Idea of D&D.



pemerton said:


> But there are many features of 4e that I believe draw upon and reinforce elements of the D&D tradition:




All interesting, valid points. But for whatever reason, a lot of folks didn't have the same experience as you. For a lot of folks there were aspects of 4E that obfuscated what you are talking about, making it feel too "video gamey," Warcraftian, etc etc. 

Again, I'm not talking about what is true in a factual, measurable sense, but more in the Jungian sense of being "psychic realities." Carl Jung diverged from other early psychologists in that he didn't try to determine whether what someone was saying was true or not, but why it was meaningful for the individual. So when people accuse 4E of being too much like a MMORG, one approach is to provide lists of why that isn't true, but it negates their actual internal, psychic experience. They _feel _that it is too much like an MMORG; that is a valid, psychic reality to them. Rather, we can--in a Jungian sense--try to understand why they feel that way, and see how it might be valid - if only for them.

Just as I can read your list and understand how 4E worked for you as a worthy carrier of the "D&D essence."



pemerton said:


> Who are you speaking for, here? I mean, besides yourself and your own experiences?
> 
> I can tell you, that the feeling I get when I play 4e is like the feeling I used to get GMing Oriental Adventures back in the mid-to-late-80s, only the rules are better suited for what I'm trying to do - partially on their own terms, and partially because of the connections they establish between PCs and the shared fiction.
> 
> ...




No I am not, and I'm sorry if you think that is my intention - I can assure you that it is not. By talking about the "space-between" or the "vibe and feeling," I am merely saying that the experience of a game or edition isn't only about specific rules or combination of rules, it is also about other less tangible elements - anything from art and presentation to the fluff text, the basic assumptions of the game, etc.

Maybe for you all of that is wrapped up in specific rules, but time and time again I have seen people emphasize the art or the flavor text or the vibe of the game and how that influences their affinity (or lack thereof) for it. For some people the art doesn't matter, while for others (that are, perhaps, more visually oriented) it is huge.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 25, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Any "Reveal" in any of these pages of debate?




Not that i noticed, having finsihed skimming. I predict a TV deal for Dragonlance. BTW who owns the TV rights anyway.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 25, 2015)

Actually now that I think about it, it is a 7 season deal and CP just finished the plot arc outline.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2015)

pemerton said:


> "Same target" is a story notion, not a mechanical/mathematical one. I've quoted [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] saying that "the similarity is when comparing same-level characters and challenges".



How does this have any relevance to the point that they feel different at the table, thus disliking things within the context of 4E and liking different but "derived" things in the highly different context of 5E is completely reasonable?

That is the root point that seems needs obfuscating.

To me it is absolutely a mechanical issue.  But I truly don't care if you see it differently or not.  At the table all of the notions are present together and they are either the same or they are different.
Despite Hussar's claim, they are universally different.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Ah.  So 5e 'solving' that problem is of no value to you, because you want everyone to be able to participate when a difficult skill use is called for at low level, but only specialists to do so at high level.  Therefore the secondary effects of how they addressed the problem looks like the only relevant point.
> 
> Bounded accuracy is pretty much a big 0 for you then, since all it does is sorta-level a playing field you'd rather see very steeply tilted?  Fair enough.




No.  You have completely failed to understand.

This is ok.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 25, 2015)

BryonD said:


> How does this have any relevance to the point that they feel different at the table, thus disliking things within the context of 4E and liking different but "derived" things in the highly different context of 5E is completely reasonable?



 'Feel' is very subjective, so when explaining 'why' one mechanic is greeted with horror in one ed, but a similar one is embraced in another isn't really answered by invoking feel - it's just begging the question.

The context does make a big difference.  The 4e treadmill, in the context of AEDU class structure, class roles, monsters roles, encounter design guidelines, and so forth was an element that helped maintain the balance of the game.  5e bounded accuracy, while mechanically similar to a treadmill stripped of 'numbers porn,' is in a different context, entirely, and doesn't inflict any particular balance, either on classes or encounters - indeed, it helps keep encounter guidelines fuzzy and their results less than consistent.  

So, yes, context does make a big difference. 

By the same token, that's why things like HD or the Battlemaster fail to elicit praise and enthusiasm from fans of surges or warlords.  Not just subjective feel or mechanical differences weighted against mechanical similiarities, but the context of what they mean and how they're used in the game as a whole.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> 'Feel' is very subjective, so when explaining 'why' one mechanic is greeted with horror in one ed, but a similar one is embraced in another isn't really answered by invoking feel - it's just begging the question.



OK, there is a very easy answer to the question and it has been provided.
It may be that on very casual inspection they seem related, but the devil in the details is everything here.

Night and day



> The context does make a big difference.  The 4e treadmill, in the context of AEDU class structure, class roles, monsters roles, encounter design guidelines, and so forth was an element that helped maintain the balance of the game.  5e bounded accuracy, while mechanically similar to a treadmill stripped of 'numbers porn,' is in a different context, entirely, and doesn't inflict any particular balance, either on classes or encounters - indeed, it helps keep encounter guidelines fuzzy and their results less than consistent.
> 
> So, yes, context does make a big difference.
> 
> By the same token, that's why things like HD or the Battlemaster fail to elicit praise and enthusiasm from fans of surges or warlords.  Not just subjective feel or mechanical differences weighted against mechanical similiarities, but the context of what they mean and how they're used in the game as a whole.



OK, it seems we agree that Hussar is wrong.

I respect your preference.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 26, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I absolutely think that was the case.  The degree to which it mattered varied from table to table, but LFQW was a thing.  E6 came out in 2007 before 4e.  The Book of Nine Swords was an early draft version of 4e that they abandoned and reworked for 3e.  The demand was there.  However, the key is, "demand for more balance and more things for martials" doesn't equal "demand for powers".  4e powers were WotC's _implementation_ of a response.  One that obviously not everyone embraced.
> 
> Incidentally, I don't know if you followed the 5e playtest.  The wizard and the "neo-vancian" spellcasting system was established very early on, and accepted from early on.  It didn't really change that much after the first few playtest package.  But Fighters and Rogues...they had to be torn down and rebuilt several times.  The first versions of the classes were very simple, very much like their 2e and 3e versions: good attack-roll progression, mostly distinguished by their access to feats/themes.  But almost immediately demand for more interesting fighters and thieves emerged, and a good deal of the playtest revolved around getting those accepted by a significant majority of the audience.  To the point that some things that were meant to be in the playtest where taken out because they had to redo the fighter and rogue so many times.  I think that demand was there in the mid-2000s.  I think 4e's implementation pleased some of the demand, and failed to please the rest.




I think the key difference between the Book of Nine Swords and the 4e Fighter is that one was an option that you could opt in and the other was the default.

Obviously with feedback to the 5e playtest we ended up with the ability to run a non-feat ability boosting only Fighter at the same table with a Battle Master using all the options.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

BryonD said:


> OK, it seems we agree that Hussar is wrong.



 I've been arguing against both of you the whole time.  I'm glad you've come around. ;P 

Seriously, though, he's not wrong in pointing out the inconsistency in claiming to dislike one system solely for some intolerable mechanical detail, even though a similar detail present in another system that you do like, where it's a non-issue.  
It's not the detail that's disliked, but the broader context, or what the detail accomplishes in that context that's the issue.    Inconsistency explained.  Not gone, not never real, just explained.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Well yes I guess all of that could be true if you ignore the fact that you only regain superiority dice back through *resting* for an hour or more(which in and of itself is enough to connect the maneuvers to some type of stamina expenditure)



I don't see how this changes the fact that whether or not this increases verisimilitude, or goes beyond mere metagame/gameplay considerations.

Encounter powers in 4e are regained only through *resting* for five minutes or more. So they can also be rendered in the fiction as related to stamina and the like, by those who want to. (And the 4e PHB says stuff along these lines.)

Some people, though - as expressed in various posts over the years - think it is weird that my stamina to do Sweeping Blows is all used up, but my stamina to do (say) Passing Attacks is still all there. Hence they find the stamina idea, as an in-fiction explanation, implausible.

My point was that the same sort of concern applies to superiority dice. I can have all my superiority dice used up - so my stamina for combat manoeuvres is gone - but still have an action surge left, be at full hit points, be suffering no exhaustion effects, etc. Just like 4e, someone might see it as very "silo-ed" stamina, perhaps implausibly so.

This is why, in both systems, I'm inclined to see the mechanics as gameplay devices, and to not put very much weight on the stamina idea.



Rejuvenator said:


> A lot of mechanics are pretty obviously metagame, and yet simultaneously induce verisimilitude (for many, this occurs upon reading of the rule, or at the very least during gameplay). The choice of a pool of uses vs a pool of one-use-each abilties may reflect the designer's intent to account for both goals for the mindset of the target consumer.



Sure. Presumably there are some people who find a pool of superiority stamina that is silo-ed off from the pool of hit point stamina, the pool of action surge stamina, the pool of exhaustion stamina, etc, more verisimilitudinous than silo-ing a pool of Disarm stamina from a pool of Feint stamina from a pool of Trip stamina.

Personally I'm not such a person, but that's why I said it's a matter of degree. Different people draw the line in different places.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I've been arguing against both of you the whole time.  I'm glad you've come around. ;P
> 
> Seriously, though, he's not wrong in pointing out the inconsistency in claiming to dislike one system solely for some intolerable mechanical detail, even though a similar detail present in another system that you do like, where it's a non-issue.
> It's not the detail that's disliked, but the broader context, or what the detail accomplishes in that context that's the issue.    Inconsistency explained.  Not gone, not never real, just explained.




Sooo... it's the implementation of the detail...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I think the key difference between the Book of Nine Swords and the 4e Fighter is that one was an option that you could opt in and the other was the default.



 And Essentials neatly reversed that, making the Slayer and Knight - very similar to the Champion and Battlemaster - the default and relegating the six existing fighter builds to optional status.  
Not that it was enough to get even an edition war cease fire going.



> Obviously with feedback to the 5e playtest we ended up with the ability to run a non-feat ability boosting only Fighter at the same table with a Battle Master using all the options.



 True.  But if you think the Battlemaster compares to the 4e fighter at all favorably, you're sadly mistaken.  The Battlemaster is a multi-attacking 'striker' with with a dozen or so minor tricks - 'maneuvers' - to choose from, the 4e Fighter was a 'defender' with hundreds of maneuvers - 'exploits' - to choose from.

And, as ByronD and I were just discussing, context is an issue.  The 4e fighter was only one of four martial classes representing 8 of the 18 builds in the PH1, and covering 3 of the 4 roles (while the arcane and divine classes in the PH1, at 2 each, represented 10 builds and each covered 2 roles - all 4 between the two of them).  All those classes were reasonably balanced with eachother.  The Battlemaster, OTOH, is one of 5 archetypes out of 38 that are arguably martial - and no class is entirely martial, all have at least one magic-using archetype or build - all 5 of those arguably-martial archetypes are essentially strikers, and it's up to the DM to find some sort pacing & challenge mix that might precariously balance them with the other 33.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Sooo... it's the implementation of the detail...



 Implementation is a detail.  

It's more how the detail comes together with other details.

Take HD vs Surges.  Both are daily resources that provide non-magical healing.  They're similar.   But, how they fit into the system and what including them accomplishes are very different.  HD are silo'd away from other forms of healing.  Surges were the primary 'fuel' for most forms of healing.  HD represent enough healing to heal up from 0 once a day, if you have an hour.  Surges let you do so three or four times a day, in 5 minutes.  Spells, depending on your party's mix of classes, can represent a great deal more healing than HD do, or none at all.  Surges represented most of the party's healing resources, regardless of party composition, though leaders enhanced surge healing and bring some non-surge healing.  Surges were useable 1/encounter, in combat.  HD are not.  Surges allowed parties to operate successfully without a traditional healer or even without a nominal leader-role class.  A party depending on HD would be at a profound disadvantage compared to one with more casters able to heal.

Similar mechanics, accomplishing very different things in the broader context of the game.  It's not the nature of the mechanic, but what they accomplish (or don't accomplish) that's at the root of preferring one over the other.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Seriously, though, he's not wrong in pointing out the inconsistency in claiming to dislike one system solely for some intolerable mechanical detail,



Yes he is.

I have a friend in Boston.  I have another friend in San Fransisco.  Last week they both reported seeing the sun directly over the horizon on the water.  

It would be wrong to point out inconsistency in one facing east and the other facing west.

This is no more accurate.



> even though a similar detail present in another system that you do like, where it's a non-issue.
> It's not the detail that's disliked, but the broader context, or what the detail accomplishes in that context that's the issue.    Inconsistency explained.  Not gone, not never real, just explained.




Shrug.  Again, for MOST of his points, even exactly as described, the difference is fundamental and they do not hold water.  period.
RAW healing in 5E sucks, IMO.  The fine details may vary, but if you want to discuss RAW 5E healing, you will get a pretty consistent position from me for why I don't like it.
I have house ruled it.  I have house-ruled it HEAVILY.
I doubt you will find anyone who was outraged by healing in 4E and plays healing RAW 5E healing.
You may find that there are people who were completely unhappy with 4E, but the healing part was minor or nothing whatsoever to them, so they choose to tolerate it in 5E, or never minded at all in the first place.
But none of these people fit Hussar's fiction of people hating on a mechanic in 4E and patting it on the back in 5E.

The inconsistency does not exist.

I'll add that Hussar has challenged me on why I didn't just house-rule 4E.  The elements of 4E that were unsatisfactory were numerous and in many cases fundamental to the system.  As we agreed in the other thread, 5E is highly open to house rules.  Compared to other available games the effort of houseruling 4E and the appeal of end product, would still fail to live up.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Yes he is.
> 
> I have a friend in Boston.  I have another friend in San Fransisco.  Last week they both reported seeing the sun directly over the horizon on the water.
> 
> ...



 Wow.  That is one of the worst analogies I have ever seen.  

Seriously, you're trying for an analogy about one person, having different reactions to two things that are on some level similar.  You come up with two different people, having the same reaction.

Let's work on it:

Someone is living on the east coast, he calls you up, and says "I love sunrises!"  (He's just that kinda guy, for sake of the analogy).

Later he comes and visits you, and in the morning, he looks out blearily at the sun rising and says "I hate sunrises!"

That's inconsistent.  

Maybe he likes the sun rising over water but not over hills?  
Or maybe he's just jet-lagged and in a bad mood.

Either way, explaining the inconsistency doesn't mean it didn't happen.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> We can pick out any number of things or combination of things to find similarities and differences in the various editions. ByronD would call confirmation bias. But this is a good example of what I was saying about the difference in the way that you and I think and communicate; as I see it, you focus on and seemingly require far more specificity about things, while I tend to look for the overall feeling or vibe. Another way to put it is that you seem to emphasize parts while I emphasize wholes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here.

You are telling me about how important feel is - but then, when I give rather detailed explanations of why, to me, 4e felt like a realisation of the best essence of D&D, you respond by saying that unlike you (and othesr? I'm still not sure who you are intending to speak for) I don't focus on "feel" and "vibe" but on minutiae of rules and parts rather than wholes. You accept that the numbers that rank degrees of difference are relative to the individual, but you then you seem to imply that my rankings are less valid because the differences I care about are not the same as the differences you care about. (Art, for instance, while something I enjoy in RPG books, has almost no influence on how I approach the game, except that it might suggest a certain element of encounter or scenario design - the three instances of that I can recall off the top of my head are a huge cavern with a statue of a god and multiple entrances at varying heights above the floor, inspired by a picture in an old White Dwarf; a stairway going down the side of a huge underdark cavern, inspired by a picture in the 4e book Into the Unknown; and an attack by beholders in an underground cavern with a chasm in the middle of it, inspired by a 3E picture that might have been the cover for Dungeonscape.)

My view of D&D is ultimately fiction-first. D&D is a type of story, structure+content. At it's heart is party play - a group of adventurers who, while perhaps having different ultimate goals or desires, are somehow bound together by some trajectory of fate. Those adventurers live in a world that throws challenges at them, and those challenges aren't merely petty or human challenges (of the sort that some Runequest or Traveller play involves, for instance) - they are world-historical or cosmological challenges, or at least proxies for them (that's why we have alignments, outer planes, books about gods, etc, or for less cosmological settings like Greyhawk we have epic histories that determine the current shape of the world).

As the adventurers take on these challenges, and (typically, or at least from time-to-time) best them, they grow. They grow in capability - the fighters become more puissant, the wizards more eldritch. They grow, simultaneously, in social, historical and/or cosmological stature - they become lords, archmages, high priests. They commune directly with higher powers, doing their bidding or opposing them directly. In a cosmological game, they become agents or enemies of the gods. In a world-historical game, they transform the world, bringing history to a new end or perhaps to its ultimate crisis point.

These adventures are ultimately about externalised expressions of personality. The adventurers may have inner lives, and these may come out in play from time-to-time, but D&D (at least before the Inspriation mechanic) does not emphasise this.

I wouldn't expect everyone, perhaps anyone else, to see D&D this way. For me, it is what D&D derives from Tolkien and REH, which - as I play the game - are the two biggest influences on my approach that also appear in Appendix N. (The other influences are the X-Men and martial arts cinema - these also emphasis world-historical or cosmological conflict, with externalised rather than internalised moments of confrontation.) It is also what Moldvay Basic promised me in its Foreword, in which the hero slays the dragon tyrant and frees the land, using a sword bestowed upon him by a mysterious cleric.

Consistent with this view, I have always used D&D as a source of story material more than mechanical material: in  my past 25 years of GMing I have run mostly two systems (Rolemaster and 3E) but have used D&D material ranging from 1st and 2nd ed AD&D Greyhawk books, to Oriental Adventures material that straddles both editions, to 3E and d20 modules, some B/X stuff, and a handful of 4e modules. The mechanics in which a module presents itself is secondary to me: I am pretty good at systems and can handle whatever conversion needs to be done without much trouble. When I say that I am "using a module" or "using a setting book" I am talking about story elements: maps, histories, characters, cosmologies, conflicts etc.

In 4e, it happened that the company that publishes all this story material also happened to publish a rules system that was not only suitable for using that story material in an effective way, but was perhaps better suited than nearly any other system out there, given what I was wanting to do with it. It realised what, for me, had in the past been an unfulfilled promise. And it showed me, at least, how this could be done not by scrapping D&D's mechanics and starting over, but by distilling out the essence of what had always been there, plus some stuff that had been added over the years, and then generalising it and making it into a well-tuned, reliable system. Hence I bought what they were selling.

It's obvious that not everyone experienced 4e the same way that I did. I was posting on these boards in the months before 4e came out. It was obvious at that point - just to give one example - that 4e was going to realise and extend the potential inherent in Gygax's metagame systems (hit points, saving throws), and that some existing 3E players weren't going to like those sorts of systems. Hence, they didn't buy what WotC was, for a relatively brief period, selling.

When you ask "if I can see" that some people felt that 4e broke with the D&D tradition, what are you asking? I assume you don't think that I'm ignorant of their existence, given that some of them are posting in this very thread and I've had exchanges with several of them. And given that I've already reposted twice in this thread a post of mine from 4 years ago, from a thread that you started, stating that 4e seems to have turned out to be less popular than WotC had (presumably) hoped.

So I can only assume that you are asking whether or not I can see that they are (from their point of view) right?

As I said upthread, particularly following the moderator caution, that's not a path I'm very keen to go down. I've spent the past 6 years being repeatedly annoyed by people telling me that I hate D&D, that I don't know what a roleplaying game is, that my games must, a priori, be shallow skirmish games because they're being run in 4e, etc. A sensitive critic can do a brilliant job of interpreting a person's experience back to him or her, even if that interpretation ends up revealing something less than flattering about what the person was doing or feeling. But most of the people who have told me those things have not been sensitive critics, and the job they've done has mostly been less than brilliant.

On this sort of forum, I think it's up to those with different views of the tradition to articulate those views and their experiences, and how they fit into a bigger picture of what D&D is about. They don't need me to do it for them.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I doubt you will find anyone who was outraged by healing in 4E and plays healing RAW 5E healing.



 I have enough trouble finding anyone who was outraged by healing in 4e, off-line.  I won't go looking.



> But none of these people fit Hussar's fiction of people hating on a mechanic in 4E and patting it on the back in 5E.



 "Fighters cast spells."  A favorite edition-war-era h4ter lie, much repeated as a reason to hate 4e.  5e comes along, and fighters - specifically with the Eldritch Knight archetype - /actually/ cast spells.  Nobody cares.  

Because it's not the detail, it's the context and what's accomplished.  Fighters using exploits and wizards using spells in 4e, all under the common AEDU framework, allowed the classes to be better-balanced than ever before (and, obviously, better balanced than they appear to be in 5e).  The power-block format also made how each exploit, prayer, & spell worked mechanically, much clearer, reducing the need for ad-hoc rulings to keep the game flowing.

In stark contrast, the EK actually casting spells has none of those effects.  Spells have one sort of write-up, totems another, manuevers and ki powers yet others, and so forth.  There's not even an appearance of balance among the classes.  

In spite of the similarity (fighter casting spells), the differences are clear, and preferences can be formed accordingly.





> I'll add that Hussar has challenged me on why I didn't just house-rule 4E.  The elements of 4E that were unsatisfactory were numerous and in many cases fundamental to the system.



 Does that really matter, though?  It's not the many details, but the overall effect that matters.  It's easy to break a balanced game.  



> As we agreed in the other thread, 5E is highly open to house rules.



 It is very vocally so, yes, one of the things that mitigates it's mechanical failings.  Of course, nothing stops a DM from house-ruling any system, even a more robust one like 4e.  Well, nothing except a Cult of RAW like the one that grew up around 3.x, in spite of its explicit 'Rule 0' language, that is.  Players are not so entirely powerless as all that.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't see how this changes the fact that whether or not this increases verisimilitude, or goes beyond mere metagame/gameplay considerations.
> 
> Encounter powers in 4e are regained only through *resting* for five minutes or more. So they can also be rendered in the fiction as related to stamina and the like, by those who want to. (And the 4e PHB says stuff along these lines.)
> 
> ...





Ok, let's step back and actually look at what I was addressing...



pemerton said:


> This seems to be one of those "matter of degree" things. Because this well of stamina is not connected to any other aspects of the game that seem to model stamina (eg hp, fatigue rules, STR checks, Athletics skill, etc), it seems to me pretty obviously metagame.




Here you state that the superitority dice are "pretty obviously metagame"  because they are not connected to any other aspect of the game that model stamina... I was showing you that your assertion (and stated reason for them being pretty obviously metagame) were flat out wrong... it connects to rests an aspect of the game used to model stamina.




pemerton said:


> ... At which point the choice between a pool of uses, and a pool of one-use-each abilities, looks like a gameplay issue rather than a verisimilitude issue.




And here plain as day is the biggest difference between the two implementations of maneuvers in the systems... one is a set of one-use *abilities* while the other is a pool of "uses" to fuel maneuvers... One lines up pretty seamlessly with the fiction of drawing on a trained reserve to accomplish special fighting moves... while the other one seems to imply the same fiction but the modelling seems off.  You want to call it a game issue fine, whatever but it certainly caused a certain level of dissonance in verisimilitude for my group when we tried to give 4e a chance.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Implementation is a detail.
> 
> It's more how the detail comes together with other details.
> 
> ...




All you're doing is showing me how similar mechanics are implemented differently in different games... thus again it's the implementation... as well as the fact that the mechanics (regardless of how slight) are actually different.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Here you state that the superitority dice are "pretty obviously metagame"  because they are not connected to any other aspect of the game that model stamina... I was showing you that your assertion (and stated reason for them being pretty obviously metagame) were flat out wrong... it connects to rests an aspect of the game used to model stamina.



 The short rest is an aspect of the game that models stamina, yes.  And, battlemaster dice are recharged by it.  By the same token, of course, encounter and daily exploits also connected back to rests.  So, here we have another one of those little inconsistencies that Hussar observed.  However, the explanation is not hard to find.  Rather than dig deeper into the details and tallying similarities and differences (CS dice are layered on top of normal melee attacks, encounter powers are each unique, there are 18 of maneuvers vs 100s of powers, only being able to use the same trick once in an encounter is DS, etc, etc, etc), look at the bigger picture: 

AEDU put all classes on one time-table, with comparable mixes of resources, which helped balance them against eachother, even when pacing was varied, and helped balance party vs encounters, for a given pacing.  

CS dice put the Battlemaster on his own, unique, resource-recovery timetable, with it's own, unique, resource mix.  That makes each class distinct on both a mechanical level, and in how they play when the pacing of the campaign is varied.  Doing that must have some benefit - beyond wrecking class and encounter balance, even if you do find that a benefit, as well, that is - at minimum, it can be seen as giving class differentiation some 'teeth.'  And, it does change the 'big picture' of the game's mechanics, making it less orderly, less prone to analysis - and such obfuscation could be said to check the impulse to optimize or metagame, or even to enhance 'immersion' ( tangled mass of strings is less obviously pulling everything than a neat, orderly system of strings).


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The short rest is an aspect of the game that models stamina, yes.  And, battlemaster dice are recharged by it.  By the same token, of course, encounter and daily exploits also connected back to rests.  So, here we have another one of those little inconsistencies that Hussar observed.  However, the explanation is not hard to find.  Rather than dig deeper into the details and tallying similarities and differences (CS dice are layered on top of normal melee attacks, encounter powers are each unique, there are 18 of maneuvers vs 100s of powers, only being able to use the same trick once in an encounter is DS, etc, etc, etc), look at the bigger picture:




They are different mechanics for modelling the special maneuvers of a martial character... there is no inconsistency in liking the Battlemaster mechanics but not liking the 4e fighter powers... or vice versa in your own case.



Tony Vargas said:


> AEDU put all classes on one time-table, with comparable mixes of resources, which helped balance them against eachother, even when pacing was varied, and helped balance party vs encounters, for a given pacing.
> 
> CS dice put the Battlemaster on his own, unique, resource-recovery timetable, with it's own, unique, resource mix.  That makes each class distinct on both a mechanical level, and in how they play when the pacing of the campaign is varied.  Doing that must have some benefit - beyond wrecking class and encounter balance, even if you do find that a benefit, as well, that is - at minimum, it can be seen as giving class differentiation some 'teeth.'  And, it does change the 'big picture' of the game's mechanics, making it less orderly, less prone to analysis - and such obfuscation could be said to check the impulse to optimize or metagame, or even to enhance 'immersion' ( tangled mass of strings is less obviously pulling everything than a neat, orderly system of strings).




What are you talking about here... seriously, I have no clue what the purpose or point of this part of your post is or why you quoted me to post it...


----------



## Werebat (Mar 26, 2015)

Can we please just all agree that there's one thing we all love -- xxxploiting the system!  And no matter what WotC does, there will ALWAYS be XXXploitZ!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> And here plain as day is the biggest difference between the two implementations of maneuvers in the systems... one is a set of one-use *abilities* while the other is a pool of "uses" to fuel maneuvers... One lines up pretty seamlessly with the fiction of drawing on a trained reserve to accomplish special fighting moves... while the other one seems to imply the same fiction but the modelling seems off.  You want to call it a game issue fine, whatever but it certainly caused a certain level of dissonance in verisimilitude for my group when we tried to give 4e a chance.



 So, the fact that a 4e fighter can't trade in his higher-level encounter encounter - or more 'exhausting' daily - for an extra use of his lower-level encounter, even though all are tied to stamina-related recovery, is 'dissonant' enough to wreck the game for you?  But, the fact that the battlemaster can't trade in his Combat Surge or Second Wind for more CS dice,  even though all three have stamina-related explanations and relate back to stamina-related recovery, is in no way troubling?  No 'dissonance' there?

Now, I'm not asserting that I know your motivations better than you do, nor will I ascribe a specific, more plausible, motivation to you personally.   But you have, in trying to refute the idea, yet again, illustrated the kind of inconsistency Hussar claims to have observed.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 26, 2015)

I'm not quite keeping up with the thread velocity, but wanted to respond to this.


pemerton said:


> Maybe. It's certainly true that I entered AD&D via Basic.
> 
> I can still honestly report that I've never encountered this interpretation before! I don't know if I like it or not.




I like it, personally.  While structured slightly different (class based vs weapon based or universal standard) it is essentially the same as in 4e and 5e respectively.



> Again, maybe. I see a big difference between 2nd-ed style "be rewarded for playing in character" and "indie"-style "be rewarded for playing to or against character so as to generate drama/complications", but others might not.




It's a "devil's in the details" kinda thing, IMO.  I think that on the ground, there's a HUGE difference.  If I'm coming from my friends game where I get Inspiration for giving him the giggles and I play in your game where Inspiration is based on creating complications, that's a huge adjustment to make.  But in the aggregate, the style of play is roughly the same: Inspiration distributed as a metagame resource based on a standard decided by the DM/Group.  It would, after all, be a similar big adjustment were I to go to a game where the DM gives Inspiration for giving good role-play "in character".



> Thanks, interesting. That seems a little bit LotR-ish.



If we're talking LotR movies, I agree.  Party vs. Goblins and Cave Troll.  Party vs. Uruks and Lurtz.  Party vs Many, Many Uruks and Many Lurtz-level captains.  Party vs. Orcs and Witch-King.  Party vs. Orcs, Trolls, and Sauron.

For me this is one of those through-lines from 4e.  4e introduced the concept of Solo monster, often accompanied by lieutenants and minions.  5e foregrounds that approach with the Legendary distinction and Lair actions.



> I think I still stand by my comment of four years ago, that I reposted upthread:



I apologize for missing that when you first post it, as it answers my question very well!  And I think I would have 100% agreed with you.  In fact, I think it is indeed likely that they had some research that suggested that.  But then, I'm of the opinion that even when I can't bring myself to personally like some of WotC's past decisions, I find it hard to fault them for making those decisions.  There is a part of me, in my heart of hearts (perhaps not entirely rational!), that looks at 3e as a complete and utter betrayal.  And to be honest, even if it had been 5e that came out at that time, would have felt the same.  (One might say there's a part of me that's VERY attached to descending AC and AD&D's classic Saving Throws.)  But I try to look at it from their point of view, their decisions make sense.  Even when I don't personally like it, even when those decisions look, in hindsight, to be wrong, I can see how why WotC might go the way they did.



> But the question of whether or not there is market demand isn't a normative question. It's not about (for instance) "being true to" or "turning one's back on" the tradition of D&D. It seems pretty clear to me that there are OSR players and authors who believe that what they're doing is truer to the tradition of D&D than what WotC is doing. They're not obliged to change that view just because WotC's market is 100 or 1000 times bigger than the market for their games.




I too, find some of the rhetoric as taking things too personally -- "turn their backs on", or "fired the fanbase", or even as I wrote above, "complete and utter betrayal."  Those might be perfectly understandable personal reactions, but not indicative of sober assessment.

OTOH, I don't find "breaking with tradition" necessarily in the same vein.  "Turn their back on tradition", yes, definitely.  But breaking with tradition is something every edition does to some extent -- and that extent is the question.  IMO (but perhaps not yours, and I respect that), it is no more normative to say 4e broke with tradition -- possibly too far for at least a significant minority -- than it would be to say that 4e pushed the envelope too far, with pushing the envelope being just the phrase the 4e designers used for their process.  I don't think it can be denied that 4e tried to innovate.  Innovation is a double-edged sword -- sometimes it works, sometimes it comes back to bite you.  Where I agree with Mercurius is 4e's innovation was not palatable for some people in a non-specific, additive, emotional way.  While technically the blame for that falls on the innovator (WotC), I do not view that as doing wrong, anymore than Gary Gygax did wrong by not presenting D&D in a way that appealed to Ken St. Andre.



> Anticipating and supplying markets for these sorts of luxury leisure goods requires commercial cleverness. The goal of that commercial cleverness is profit (and at a reasonable rate of return relative to other opportunities that were available - given that RPG design is not all that capital intensive, I would think that most of the relevant investment is going to be in salaries). If someone wants to argue that WotC would have been financially better off not going down the 4e path then I'm very interested to hear the argument - personally I'm a little doubtful, but I'm not sure that anyone posting here has got sufficient data (including reliable projections for what money WotC might have made or lost had it stuck to 3E, how much money the 4e-inspired boardgames have made, what the profit was on DDI and what alternative income stream would take its place under the 3E scenario,etc).




Agreed.



> My feeling is that if 4e really was a net financial disaster for the group, they wouldn't have been given two years to develop 5e. But that's just untutored intuition.




Also agreed.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, the fact that a 4e fighter can't trade in his higher-level encounter encounter - or more 'exhausting' daily - for an extra use of his lower-level encounter, even though all are tied to stamina-related recovery, is 'dissonant' enough to wreck the game for you?  But, the fact that the battlemaster can't trade in his Combat Surge or Second Wind for more CS dice,  even though all three have stamina-related explanations and relate back to stamina-related recovery, is in no way troubling?  No 'dissonance' there?




First, it was one of many things that turned me and my group away from 4e... I never said it was the only thing or that it "wrecked the game for me"... just want to keep things in perspective here... I reiterate there were numerous things and their implementation in 4e that ultimately caused me to become dissatisfied with the game.

To answer your question... I honestly don't follow your logic... Why would one be able to trade in Combat Surge (I'm going to assume you mean Action Surge here???)  or Second Wind (which states specifically that this is a limited well of stamina that does one specific thing) for more combat superiority dice... they are different abilities which I assume require not just stamina but also different training... this is further backed up by the fact that anyone can learn maneuvers and gain superiority dice through a feat... but one cannot learn action surge or second wind in the same way...  

As an example to further clarify the point I am making here... cycling increases your overall stamina but you can't decide to trade in your cycling stamina and expect to run a marathon without ever having jogged.  You need further training and building up your stamina within the realm of running to specifically do that... while they both require stamina they are two different things.    

On the other hand 4e tells me that two abilities that are supposed to be the same type somehow have specific, finite, individual reserves of stamina (unless I am a Slayer then for some reason I can actually do the same maneuver more than once... go figure) that only allow each of them to ever be performed once until I rest for 5 mins or more... regardless of how many of these other maneuvers I can still perform...  

Yeah sorry mechanics, implementation and how they correlate with the fiction are different.



Tony Vargas said:


> Now, I'm not asserting that I know your motivations better than you do, nor will I ascribe a specific, more plausible, motivation to you personally, but, you have, again, illustrated the kind of inconsistency Hussar claims to have observed.  Maybe that observation will be helpful to someone who wasn't accustomed to seeing that sort of thing every day, during the edition war.




And again... they are different mechanical models, there is no inconsistency in liking how maneuvers were modeled in one but not the other... no matter how hard you stretch to try and create one.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> First, it was one of many things that turned me and my group away from 4e... I never said it was the only thing or that it "wrecked the game for me"... just want to keep things in perspective here... I reiterate there were numerous things and their implementation in 4e that ultimately caused me to become dissatisfied with the game.



 Are you sure it's not so much a collection of nominally unrelated things, as what all those things did, as a whole?  

Like I said, I think it would be a lot more illuminating to step back and look at the bigger picture of what exploits meant as part of the game as a whole, as contrasted to what maneuvers mean to 5e.

But, if you want to keep digging for rationales....


> Why would one be able to trade in Action Surge  or Second Wind (which states specifically that this is a limited well of stamina that does one specific thing) for more combat superiority dice... they are different abilities which I assume require not just stamina but also different training...



 Each 4e exploit presumably would have required different training, too.  Likewise, battlemaster maneuvers would also presumably each require different training.  If you object to the 4e fighter not having his encounter-recharge powers 'pooled,' why is it OK for the 5e fighters' stamina-and-training-based features to be silo'd?  

Obviously, that's inconsistent.  So, it's not dissonance or whether a power is single-use or in a pool that's the root of the problem.  I don't see how diving deeper and deeper into smaller and more insignificant differences will shore up the rationalization.   ByronD suggested it could be the different 'context' each of the similar mechanics is in that's the culprit.  

Martial exploits available to all fighters in the context of a game where spells are gained in similar quantity and merely of greater variety, might be offensive.  While, conversely, maneuvers available only to one archetype, that are, in context, fewer and lower impact as well as less varied than spells, might be acceptable.  Maybe we could examine those differences?



> this is further backed up by the fact that anyone can learn maneuvers and gain superiority dice through a feat... but one cannot learn action surge or second wind in the same way...



 They'd have to MC to get those abilities.  Again, not terribly different in the fiction.  But that just points to them being more remarkable reserves of stamina - the kind you might trade for multiple CS dice, if this were about verisimilitude.



> As an example to further clarify the point I am making here... cycling increases your overall stamina but you can't decide to trade in your cycling stamina and expect to run a marathon without ever having jogged.  You need further training and building up your stamina within the realm of running to specifically do that... while they both require stamina they are two different things.



 I'm fine with that. It's the kind of things 4vengers said when confronted with being too 'tired' to do one exploit, but still able to do another.   You're the one who was insisting that sort of thing was dissonant:







Imaro said:


> And here plain as day is the biggest difference between the two implementations of maneuvers in the systems... one is a set of one-use *abilities* while the other is a pool of "uses" to fuel maneuvers... One lines up pretty seamlessly with the fiction of drawing on a trained reserve to accomplish special fighting moves... while the other one seems to imply the same fiction but the modelling seems off.  You want to call it a game issue fine, whatever but it certainly caused a certain level of dissonance in verisimilitude...



'Inconsistency' is putting it mildly.




> On the other hand 4e tells me that two abilities that are supposed to be the same type somehow have specific, finite, individual reserves of stamina



They have the same recharge mechanism.  That's the only verisimilitude or in-fiction sense in which they're the same 'type.'  Action Surge, CS Dice, and Second Wind are all short-or-long-rest recharge.  You claimed you were OK with Second Wind, which healed you, having a separate reserve.  Fighters had encounter powers that restored hps for them, too - that'd be pretty different from, say, Come & Get It.  So they don't draw on the same reserve or same training.  Just like Action Surge and Second Wind don't in 5e.  




> (unless I am a Slayer then for some reason I can actually do the same maneuver more than once... go figure)



 That 'reason' was that you only had the one, Power Attack.  Fairly straightforward, really.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> So, the fact that a 4e fighter can't trade in his higher-level encounter encounter - or more 'exhausting' daily - for an extra use of his lower-level encounter, even though all are tied to stamina-related recovery, is 'dissonant' enough to wreck the game for you?  But, the fact that the battlemaster can't trade in his Combat Surge or Second Wind for more CS dice,  even though all three have stamina-related explanations and relate back to stamina-related recovery, is in no way troubling?  No 'dissonance' there?




Maybe a Psionic type power pool would be less dissonant and more accurately model a "Stamina" type mechanic?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Maybe a Psionic type power pool would be less dissonant and more accurately model a "Stamina" type mechanic?



 I guess that would depend on which edition it appeared in.  

'Pool' mechanics, be they psionics, mana, stamina, or whatever, have their positives and negatives, of course.  They can be hard to balance, since they lend themselves to spamming low-cost disicplines/spells/whatever, or going nova with high-level ones, and the like.  The 'silo'd 1/recharge approach does reduce the impact of any single over-powered option slipping through, since it's only useable once, instead of being spammed until out of slots/mana/points/etc.  FWIW.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

[MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION], thanks for the thoughtful reply!


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Here you state that the superitority dice are "pretty obviously metagame"  because they are not connected to any other aspect of the game that model stamina... I was showing you that your assertion (and stated reason for them being pretty obviously metagame) were flat out wrong... it connects to rests an aspect of the game used to model stamina.



Pointing to the fact that they are recovered by a rest doesn't point to anything different from 4e, where encounter powers are also recovered by a rest.

So I assumed that you were pointing to the fact that they are "pooled" rather than "siloed". And with that in mind, I said they seem pretty metagame to me, because they do not connect to other aspect of the game that model stamina depletion (such as action surges, second wind, hit point loss, exhaustion rules, etc).

That doesn't mean they have to seem metagame to you. You may have some understanding of human exertion which means that tripping people wears you out in a different way from action surging. Or there may be some broader contextual feature, perhaps along the lines that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] has been pointing to, that makes a difference.



Imaro said:


> Why would one be able to trade in Combat Surge (I'm going to assume you mean Action Surge here???)  or Second Wind (which states specifically that this is a limited well of stamina that does one specific thing) for more combat superiority dice... they are different abilities which I assume require not just stamina but also different training



But why does the fighter forget the training after 2 or 6 or however many goes, until s/he rests for an hour?

Or if the fighter remembers the training, why can't s/he repurpose the Wheeties she ate for breakfast intending to power up her action surges to power up some superiority dice instead?



Imaro said:


> One lines up pretty seamlessly with the fiction of drawing on a trained reserve to accomplish special fighting moves... while the other one seems to imply the same fiction but the modelling seems off.



See, I just don't feel the force of either of these sentences. In respect of the first, I don't really get the notion of a "trained reserve" - I don't know what it is meant to be, in the fiction. In real life I don't have one set of "jogging reserves" and another set of "cycling reserves" and another set of "skipping reserves" - if doing one of those things wears me out and leaves me wanting to rest, then I am tired per se.

It's true that if I have tired arms from (say) carrying a heavy load, then I may still be able to run - because the muscles in my arms are worn out but the muscles in my legs are not. But I don't really see how this works when I compare superiority dice to action surge - my arms are too tired to try and disarm my enemy, but not too tired to attack twice as hard as I normally do?

These are the reasons why, for me, I see all these rationing mechanics as metagame devices.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Maybe a Psionic type power pool would be less dissonant and more accurately model a "Stamina" type mechanic?



There are RPG systems in which spells come directly of stamina (so CON is literally a spell-point stat). Tunnels & Trolls is an early example. Burning Wheel is a more recent example. There are probably others, too, that I don't know about.

The problem with applying this to disarming or tripping is that disarming or tripping someone is, for practical purposes in the context of D&D (which has a very non-granular model of combat exertion), no more tiring than stabbing them. They're all much the same sort of weapon play. If trying to disarm someone with a sword costs you a stamina point, then so should trying to kill them!

The design reason for rationing these abilities via superiority dice is not because there is some actual, real world, endurance phenomenon the game is trying to model. It is to allow the benefits to be mechanically substantial while avoiding overpowered spamming.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> "Fighters cast spells."  A favorite edition-war-era h4ter lie, much repeated as a reason to hate 4e.  5e comes along, and fighters - specifically with the Eldritch Knight archetype - /actually/ cast spells.  Nobody cares.
> 
> Because it's not the detail, it's the context and what's accomplished.  Fighters using exploits and wizards using spells in 4e, all under the common AEDU framework, allowed the classes to be better-balanced than ever before (and, obviously, better balanced than they appear to be in 5e).  The power-block format also made how each exploit, prayer, & spell worked mechanically, much clearer, reducing the need for ad-hoc rulings to keep the game flowing.
> 
> ...




Wow. I've seen some rhetorical fallacies being tossed around, but this one wins the thread. 

First off, the EK is not the default mode the fighter runs in. Of the three fighter archetypes, it's the most radical departure from the stock model. If I want my fighter to cast spells, I have to opt in to it. In 4e, before 2010, I was forced to use the same mechanical system as the wizard's spells (adeu) even if I didn't want "spells".

The power system gave the aesthetic of every class looking the same. Each class was given page after page of dry, technical blocks with maybe one page of italics text to explain what you are supposed to be doing in game. On paper, each class was a barren landscape of jargon, prefaced with about half a page of fluff. I'll take evocative chaos over bland balance. 

To be honest, they should have released Essentials first. The knight and thief out the gate would have appeased many, as would the domain and school systems of warpriest and mage. The flavor hewed closer to classic D&D lore as well. But instead, we got Andy Collins Presents Dungeons & Dragons, and lots of people were turned off by it. Then again, the fact essentials bombed probably says by the time they realized one size doesn't fit all, all that were playing were the diehards who liked adeu.

So maybe presentation does matter. But your example is poor at best. There is a word for classes that are perfectly balanced because the all use one chassis to build them: samey. I'm glad even as far back as 2010, WotC started to see that.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Are you sure it's not so much a collection of nominally unrelated things, as what all those things did, as a whole?
> 
> Like I said, I think it would be a lot more illuminating to step back and look at the bigger picture of what exploits meant as part of the game as a whole, as contrasted to what maneuvers mean to 5e.




I don't think it really matters either way since my point was that you stating martial powers ruined the game for me was false...



Tony Vargas said:


> But, if you want to keep digging for rationales....
> Each 4e exploit presumably would have required different training, too.  Likewise, battlemaster maneuvers would also presumably each require different training.  If you object to the 4e fighter not having his encounter-recharge powers 'pooled,' why is it OK for the 5e fighters' stamina-and-training-based features to be silo'd?




*Sigh* are you really interested in knowing why or are we just going to keep going until the point where the abstraction doesn't line up and you can say gotcha!!  If so let me know now and we can end this conversation...

I don't disagree that in 4e every maneuver would need different (in a specific sense) training just like maneuvers in 5e... but it's like learning a martial art or fencing... the maneuvers you learn are part of a larger umbrella. There are 2 parts we are discussing here that you seem to be confusing... the training to perform the maneuver and the conditioning (stamina) to perform the maneuver.  While both are necessary to pull off the maneuvers/powers... 4e then silos off the stamina to perform each specific maneuvers into a discrete piece that can only be used every 5 mins or 8 hours after resting...but just that particular piece. Yes this causes dissonance for me because your conditioning from the art you practice should be applicable to all of those maneuvers, in the same way that if a runner can run 10 miles total, straight in a day... he doesn't run 2 miles then get tired and have to rest 5 mins before running 2 miles again... but can still run 10 miles straight without resting... just not 2 miles before a 5 min rest... 


The 4e martial powers and the hoops necessary to justify how they are designed and function in the game... everything from stamina to genre enforcement which I'm sure you as a 4e fan are familiar with are IMO a bunch of excuses to justify a mechanic that causes dissonance for many (never said all or @_*pemerton*_ specifically) people... and most are unsatisfactory because they either force a playstyle or don't adequately explain all the powers present in the game... 



Tony Vargas said:


> Obviously, that's inconsistent.  So, it's not dissonance or whether a power is single-use or in a pool that's the root of the problem.  I don't see how diving deeper and deeper into smaller and more insignificant differences will shore up the rationalization.   ByronD suggested it could be the different 'context' each of the similar mechanics is in that's the culprit.




Please stop doing that if we are discussing... don't ask me a question and then tell me what the "obvious" answer is... I didn't get deeper into details above but I have clarified the same difference I stated earlier.  If anything it seems like you are diving deeper and deeper into the mechanics to try and rationalize some way in which they are the same mechanically or in the realm of verisimilitude when... at least for me... they are not.  I have explained why twice now and yet I'm sure you will now focus on some other minor detail to explain why it's inconsistent for me to like one and not the other...and I'll explain my reasoning again... and so on.  



Tony Vargas said:


> Martial exploits available to all fighters in the context of a game where spells are gained in similar quantity and merely of greater variety, might be offensive.  While, conversely, maneuvers available only to one archetype, that are, in context, fewer and lower impact as well as less varied than spells, might be acceptable.  Maybe we could examine those differences?




Perhaps for you but I gave my reason above... try reading it again and accepting it as opposed to answering the question you posed to me...



Tony Vargas said:


> They'd have to MC to get those abilities.  Again, not terribly different in the fiction.  But that just points to them being more remarkable reserves of stamina - the kind you might trade for multiple CS dice, if this were about verisimilitude.




Right... but it shows that they are separate training/disciplines/whatever... since learning one does not bestow the ability or stamina necessary for the other one... do you believe that the training and stamina to be a boxer gives you the same training or stamina necessary to be a long distance runner?  If not why would training your body to endure a hit better, also allow you to parry more times??  That's what you're claiming should enhance verisimilitude with 5e... not seeing it. 




Tony Vargas said:


> They have the same recharge mechanism.  That's the only verisimilitude or in-fiction sense in which they're the same 'type.'  Action Surge, CS Dice, and Second Wind are all short-or-long-rest recharge.  You claimed you were OK with Second Wind, which healed you, having a separate reserve.  Fighters had encounter powers that restored hps for them, too - that'd be pretty different from, say, Come & Get It.  So they don't draw on the same reserve or same training.  Just like Action Surge and Second Wind don't in 5e.




I never said 4e martial powers and 5e maneuvers were the same... I was commenting on the fact that @_*pemerton*_ claimed they were both tied to stamina since they used the same recharge mechanism... nice try though. 

 In fact my whole point has been that they are different and that is why it is not inconsistent to like one but not the other... I mean which one is it, if they are different then there is no inconsistency... 

As to your statements about 4e martial powers... and martial characters also had powers that were just same + more damage which would use the same training and reserves of stamina...the fact that these exist makes your point about the healing power irrelevant. 



Tony Vargas said:


> That 'reason' was that you only had the one, Power Attack.  Fairly straightforward, really.




Yeah but no one else can use the same encounter power more than once... remember were talking verisimilitude here, right?  You're giving me a game reason above... give me an in-fiction reason why one class can allow the use of the same encounter power more than once but another class cannot?


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> The power system gave the aesthetic of every class looking the same. Each class was given page after page of dry, technical blocks with maybe one page of italics text to explain what you are supposed to be doing in game.



I think this is another of those things that is reader/player-dependent.

When I first read the PHB for 4e, I didn't get an aesthetic of every class looking the same. I could see the fighter's STR-based melee AoEs and spike damage powers, the warlord's inspirational buffs, the CHA-paladin's projection of divine grace, etc.

I've read a lot of 4e power blocks, but have probably read less than half of that italic flavour-text. In most cases I don't need that to tell me what is happening in the game when the ability is used: I can tell from the ability name and its mechanical details.

For me, it harks back to the tradition of B/X and OD&D spells: names that are descriptive ("fireball"), evocative ("contact other plane") or both ("bless"), clearly-presented mechanics ("creatures in the area take Xd6 damage" - 4e adds the keyword "fire"), and imagination informed by an understanding of what that stuff means in mechanical terms doing the rest.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> it's like learning a martial art or fencing... the maneuvers you learn are part of a larger umbrella. There are 2 parts we are discussing here that you seem to be confusing... the training to perform the maneuver and the conditioning (stamina) to perform the maneuver.  While both are necessary to pull off the maneuvers/powers... 4e then silos off the stamina to perform each specific maneuvers into a discrete piece that can only be used every 5 mins or 8 hours after resting...but just that particular piece. Yes this causes dissonance for me because your conditioning from the art you practice should be applicable to all of those maneuvers



I am very interested to learn more about this conditioning, which means you can only try and disarm a person twice without a rest, but can keep trying to stab him or her all day long.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Pointing to the fact that they are recovered by a rest doesn't point to anything different from 4e, where encounter powers are also recovered by a rest.
> 
> So I assumed that you were pointing to the fact that they are "pooled" rather than "siloed". And with that in mind, I said they seem pretty metagame to me, because they do not connect to other aspect of the game that model stamina depletion (such as action surges, second wind, hit point loss, exhaustion rules, etc).
> 
> That doesn't mean they have to seem metagame to you. You may have some understanding of human exertion which means that tripping people wears you out in a different way from action surging. Or there may be some broader contextual feature, perhaps along the lines that  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] has been pointing to, that makes a difference.




I think there's some wires getting crossed here... I haven't commented on what you should like or believe at all when it comes to 5e maneuvers... I have been soleley speaking for myself... now [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] seem to be trying to make a case that because I found 4e martial powers to cause dissonance for me and my group it is inconsistent that 5e maneuvers do not... 



pemerton said:


> But why does the fighter forget the training after 2 or 6 or however many goes, until s/he rests for an hour?




He doesn't "forget the training"...



pemerton said:


> Or if the fighter remembers the training, why can't s/he repurpose the Wheeties she ate for breakfast intending to power up her action surges to power up some superiority dice instead?




I've explained this before, all stamina is not necessarily the same... the endurance to be hit and shrug it off is not the same as the endurance to keep pushing your muscles to do more and so on.  I'm sorry but this seems self evident to me... just because you can run for miles doesn't in turn mean you can choose to instead wrestle for hours....



pemerton said:


> See, I just don't feel the force of either of these sentences. In respect of the first, I don't really get the notion of a "trained reserve" - I don't know what it is meant to be, in the fiction. In real life I don't have one set of "jogging reserves" and another set of "cycling reserves" and another set of "skipping reserves" - if doing one of those things wears me out and leaves me wanting to rest, then I am tired per se.




I am going to disagree here... I can be drained from sparring but still be capable of jogging at a steady pace.  In fact I've done it before.



pemerton said:


> It's true that if I have tired arms from (say) carrying a heavy load, then I may still be able to run - because the muscles in my arms are worn out but the muscles in my legs are not. But I don't really see how this works when I compare superiority dice to action surge - my arms are too tired to try and disarm my enemy, but not too tired to attack twice as hard as I normally do?
> 
> These are the reasons why, for me, I see all these rationing mechanics as metagame devices.




Okay action surge doesn't allow you to attack twice as hard as you normally do...it allows you to make another attack... a hail mary of sorts if you will... that is a sudden burst of energy. 

Trying to disarm someone requires much more complicated and precise movements which are harder to do when tired.  If you don't see a difference cool but I definitely do.  I've been tired and still been able to take a wild swing or rush someone... but trying to perform precise movements like a disarm when tired would be much harder...


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I am very interested to learn more about this conditioning, which means you can only try and disarm a person twice without a rest, but can keep trying to stab him or her all day long.




One is a precise and more difficult movement that is much harder to do when tired... one is not... it's pretty simple.

EDIT: On another note... I would like to hear about the conditioning/training that allows me to be fresh in combat but as soon as I use a specific move I cannot use said specific move again (but can use more strenuous moves) for the entire fight until I rest for 5 or 8 hours...


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> On another note... I would like to hear about the conditioning/training that allows me to be fresh in combat but as soon as I use a specific move I cannot use said specific move again (but can use more strenuous moves) for the entire fight until I rest for 5 or 8 hours...



There is no such training. That's why I've said, in my first post on this issue, and have repeated in at least one post since, that I see all these rationing mechanics as metagame devices. Their function is to stop spamming.

What events happen in the fiction to make the spamming non-feasible is up to the game participants' narration and imaginations. A bit like the AD&D 1 minute round - we use our imaginations, supplemented by narration from the player or GM, to fill in the details.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

pemerton said:


> There is no such training. That's why I've said, in my first post on this issue, and have repeated in at least one post since, that I see all these rationing mechanics as metagame devices. Their function is to stop spamming.
> 
> What events happen in the fiction to make the spamming non-feasible is up to the game participants' narration and imaginations. A bit like the AD&D 1 minute round - we use our imaginations, supplemented by narration from the player or GM, to fill in the details.




Okay maybe I got confused because you brought up the rest/stamina connection for 4e earlier in the discussion... which I am now unsure as to why exactly that particular point was brought up... But 5e doesn't have a mechanism to stop spamming so another way in which the mechanics are different... so again I'm at a loss as to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s assertion that liking one is inconsistent with disliking the other...implementation is key. 


For me this is also another difference in the verisimilitude area since I think being able to do the same moves more than once in a fight is plausible and realistic... and because I do not ascribe to a playstyle where I am trying to create a specific story...or replicate any one genre such as one where cool maneuvers only get used once per fight...


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 26, 2015)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], great post - I really enjoyed reading about your feel for the game, which I really respect and find a lot of resonance with. I think you are being perhaps a bit overly defensive and assuming that I'm doing something that I'm not intending to do. Please take this on good faith - I'm not trying to sway your view, not trying to change how you feel for the game, what your preferences are, or tell you how you should think. I can understand how you'd feel this way, especially with your remarks about your experience over the last 6 years. Maybe you're assuming I'm just more of the same old cavalry in different form, I don't know. But again, that isn't my intention.

Actually, this is an element of this whole discussion that I find problematic - when people insist that you're either on one side or the other of the 3E-4E edition war (I'm not saying that you're doing this, just speaking in general). I've found that problematic because I've never felt strongly in one camp or the other. But I am interested in the "meta-conversation," on the history of the game, on the differences between the editions--both in terms of rules and feel--and on how different people resonate with different editions. This sometimes veers dangerously close to "edition warry" territory, but I am very careful to skirt the edge and it is never my intention to troll or attack or incite skirmishes. But I _do _think that these sorts of conversations can and should be had without going into outright combat, so I appreciate this back-and-forth with you.

Anyhow, not really sure what more to say at this point except to reiterate what I said in the first paragraph of this post. I maintain the view that I stated previously, that I see D&D as akin to a Platonic archetype, and different people--depending upon their individual mentality and taste, as well as the generational zeitgeist--resonate with different versions (or editions) of the game to varying degrees. It would be foolish to say that one edition captures the archetype more fully in an objective sense; I think the most we can say is to what degree different editions of the game capture that essence for as many people as possible - which is not a qualitative judgement. I mean, clearly popularity and quality--while not being mutually exclusive--aren't necessarily intrinsically connected.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 26, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I think this is another of those things that is reader/player-dependent.
> 
> When I first read the PHB for 4e, I didn't get an aesthetic of every class looking the same. I could see the fighter's STR-based melee AoEs and spike damage powers, the warlord's inspirational buffs, the CHA-paladin's projection of divine grace, etc.
> 
> I've read a lot of 4e power blocks, but have probably read less than half of that italic flavour-text. In most cases I don't need that to tell me what is happening in the game when the ability is used: I can tell from the ability name and its mechanical details.




I didn't. I saw columns of powers that read like math problems: "Ability A vs Defense B, Hit: do XdY + A damage and add condition Z" I saw fancy names, but I had no idea what a "steel serpent strike" was (or why I could do it only once in an encounter) nor did I get what exactly was happening when the wizard cast "darkening flame" (save for that strip of italic text). While there were some details you could suss out with practice (like attacks that hit reflex vs AC) unfortunately everything (swinging a sword, casting a spell, or summoning angels) all fell into that same format, which made them all look like similar actions. 

Come essentials, they put a little blurb above most powers that "described" the power in action (better than the often concise italics did). That was better, but it was a return to whole language (with a power-block summary below). 

4e's greatest failing, imho, isn't powers or such, but the fact that they allowed stat blocks to stand in for description. Be it powers, monsters, or magic items, WotC produced dozens of books that read like catalogs of color-coded jargon that only showed numbers and forced the reader to make them fiction. Rather than balance the two, they let one stand in for the other, and it created an illusion that the numbers were the only important thing about them.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> First off, the EK is not the default mode the fighter runs in. Of the three fighter archetypes, it's the most radical departure from the stock model. If I want my fighter to cast spells, I have to opt in to it. In 4e, before 2010, I was forced to use the same mechanical system as the wizard's spells (adeu) even if I didn't want "spells".



 Of course, you put "spells" in quotes, because you know they weren't spells.  'Casting spells' isn't the issue.  As you go on to spell out:



> The power system gave the aesthetic of every class looking the same. Each class was given page after page of dry, technical blocks with maybe one page of italics text to explain what you are supposed to be doing in game. On paper, each class was a barren landscape of jargon, prefaced with about half a page of fluff.



 Almost as if I had asked for another example of this same sort of inconsistency, you provide one.  The claim is that using a similar mechanical format for different things makes them aesthetically 'the same.'  

Now, we can find multiple examples of that happening in each modern edition.  Skills, for instance, all use the same format and the same resolution, yet they're not objected to as 'samey.'  The wizard, cleric, and druid use the same format, same casting system, and even actually share some of the same spells amongst themselves, but no objection.  

Clearly the objection is not to mechanics using a consistent format, but to what they mean in the broader context of the whole game:



> I'll take evocative chaos over bland balance.
> ...
> So maybe presentation does matter. There is a word for classes that are perfectly balanced because the all use one chassis to build them: samey.



So, the objection, is, at bottom, to balance, itself.  Once viewed in that light, the inconsistency is resolved.



Imaro said:


> I don't think it really matters either way since my point was that you stating martial powers ruined the game for me was false...



 You reject limited-use mechanics in one system, but not in another.  That's the inconsistency, you also said their 'dissonance' contributed to your rejection of 4e, which is tangental, yes, and not that interesting.  You go on to provide more and more detail to explain how one instance is different, yet each new objection you uncover in one turns out to be present in the other, as well.  The inconsistency remains.  

It could be resolved, but, not, I suspect, without looking at the bigger picture rather than deeper detail.





> *Sigh* are you really interested in knowing why or are we just going to keep going until the point where the abstraction doesn't line up and you can say gotcha!!



 If so let me know now and we can end this conversation...

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the not-lining-up 'gotchya' - AFAICT, that's where we started - but the rest of your response seems to wander from the topic at hand, and you do keep presenting two different rationales for things that are essentially the same, with the only difference being the context in which they occur.

While it would be nice to take a step back and see if we could find out what about that context is problematic in one case, and excuses any issues in the other, your unwillingness to do so merely leaves an example of the kind of inconsistencies we were talking about, sadly unresolved.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> You reject limited-use mechanics in one system, but not in another.  That's the inconsistency, you also said their 'dissonance' contributed to your rejection of 4e, which is tangental, yes, and not that interesting.  You go on to provide more and more detail to explain how one instance is different, yet each new objection you uncover in one turns out to be present in the other, as well.  The inconsistency remains.




So now we're using the broad category of limited use mechanics... LOL,  it's like claiming it's inconsistent to dislike oranges but not apples because they're all fruit.  Again there is no inconsistency in my like or dislike.  In fact the only inconsistency that remains is your ever changing criteria for "similarity"... what's next, let me guess... it's also inconsistent to dislike 4e and like 5e because they both use d20...The hoops being jumped through and stretching of the meaning of same in your comparisons is approaching a ridiculous level. 



Tony Vargas said:


> It could be resolved, but, not, I suspect, without looking at the bigger picture rather than deeper detail.




It's not being resolved because instead of addressing the differences in the mechanics... you dismiss them and create your own motives, thoughts, etc. for other posters... it's like you're having a conversation with yourself.  How about actually addressing any of the actual differences in the mechanics?  Even if it's one of the one's [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] even admits exist? I guess that would be too much to ask... because then instead of just pronouncing answers and ascribing thoughts to people you'd have to actually engage in a discussion at some point.  



Tony Vargas said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at with the not-lining-up 'gotchya' - AFAICT, that's where we started - but the rest of your response seems to wander from the topic at hand, and you do keep presenting two different rationales for things that are essentially the same, with the only difference being the context in which they occur.




Wrong you've gone to such a high level of vagueness (limited use mechanics) to force a "sameness" on different mechanics that the comparison criteria you're using has become absurd.  



Tony Vargas said:


> While it would be nice to take a step back and see if we could find out what about that context is problematic in one case, and excuses any issues in the other, your unwillingness to do so merely leaves an example of the kind of inconsistencies we were talking about, sadly unresolved.




Well when you actually take the time to read and address the actual reasons I've given perhaps then we can get somewhere... but I'm starting to realize you are probably more interested in staying within your own comfort zone about 4e and you're pre-constructed notions of why many people don't like it than trying to learn and understand... if you change you're mind though I'm still here.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Of course, you put "spells" in quotes, because you know they weren't spells.  'Casting spells' isn't the issue.  As you go on to spell out:
> 
> Almost as if I had asked for another example of this same sort of inconsistency, you provide one.  The claim is that using a similar mechanical format for different things makes them aesthetically 'the same.'
> 
> ...




As I just responded to Pemerton above, the devil is in the presentation. 

Lets look at three examples: Channel Divinity (Cleric), Ray of Frost (Wizard Spell) and Maneuvering Attack (Battlemaster Maneuver). 

[sblock=Turn Undead]View attachment 67608[/sblock]
[sblock=Maneuvers]View attachment 67609[/sblock]
[sblock=Ray of Frost]View attachment 67610[/sblock]

Notice: the 4e verison formats them all the same; as powers. They rely on jargon (burst 2, slowed, shift) rather than explaining the effect in natural language (30 ft radius, reduce speed 10 ft, move without provoking an opportunity attack). While the 5e version is a bit vague on description, it clearly spells out the intent (especially true of Turn Undead, which 4e treats like a regular attack power, complete with damage)

By using natural language, I can easily understand the ability without reading the power block and trying to determine its use by deducing that "pushed a number of square" supposed to represent "must spend its turns fleeing". Moreover, it doesn't look like if I blotted out the italic text and changed the class name headers, the 4e versions could be swapped around without anyone being the wiser. 

It might be a preference thing (and I don't expect everyone to agree) but it has everything to do with the fact I can look the 5e versions and tell they are form different classes using different resolution mechanics, whereas the 4e versions are all cut from the same mold and resolve using the same mechanic; the very definition of samey.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

I do find it more than a little ironic that I am being told by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] that the 5e Battlemaster maneuvers and 4e martial powers are the same... but in the same thread at least one of them is arguing that the 4e powers are all somehow totally different from each other...   say what now??


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> what's next, let me guess... it's also inconsistent to dislike 4e and like 5e because they both use d20...



 I haven't heard anyone say they reject a version of D&D for using a d20.  If someone were to, yes, it would be glaringly inconsistent of them.



> It's not being resolved because instead of addressing the differences in the mechanics... you dismiss



 I'm not dismissing anything.  It's just that every 'difference' you've come up with turns out to be present in both cases.  



> How about actually addressing any of the actual differences in the mechanics?



 Have done, every one of them:

[sblock]


			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> Imaro said:
> 
> 
> > And here plain as day is the biggest difference between the two implementations of maneuvers in the systems... one is a set of one-use *abilities* while the other is a pool of "uses" to fuel maneuvers... One lines up pretty seamlessly with the fiction of drawing on a trained reserve to accomplish special fighting moves... while the other one seems to imply the same fiction but the modelling seems off.  You want to call it a game issue fine, whatever but it certainly caused a certain level of dissonance in verisimilitude for my group when we tried to give 4e a chance.
> ...



 Every 'difference' you dream up turns out to be present in both cases in one form or another.
[/sblock]

In contrast, Remathilis resolves one inconsistency, by bringing it into a larger context.



Remathilis said:


> First off, the EK is not the default mode the fighter runs in. Of the three fighter archetypes, it's the most radical departure from the stock model. If I want my fighter to cast spells, I have to opt in to it.




Of course, that's only half the resolution, the other being that fighters don't actually cast spells in both cases, only in the case of the EK.  :shrug:



Imaro said:


> I do find it more than a little ironic that I am being told by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] that the 5e Battlemaster maneuvers and 4e martial powers are the same... but in the same thread at least one of them is arguing that the 4e powers are all somehow totally different from each other...   say what now??



 The aspects of the mechanics in question (limited use representing 'stamina' in the 5e battlemaster and 4e Weaponmaster abilities in question (individual encounter exploits vs maneuvers, actions surge & second wind, yet that stamina being somehow silo'd) are, indeed, very similar, both in general mechanics and how those mechanics relate to the fiction.  As has been demonstrated, above.

While it's an entirely different case (comparing things within an edition, instead of accross eds), 4e powers from different classes are, of course, quite different from eachother.  No class actually shared the same power with another (unlike all other editions, where two or more casters may have some the exact same spells in their lists).  Some have /very/ similar effects to the point that it might have been more efficient to list powers by Source rather than Class, but different sources have /very/ different powers. 

Look at 'fighters cast spells.'  It's factually false, because spells, in 4e, are arcane powers, and fighters get none.  But, what it's /trying/ to say is that presenting completely different abilities in the same format makes them the same.  That's what you just claimed, and it is also factually false.  We'll compare exploits and spells to illustrate that falsehood:

[sblock]Open up your 4e PH1, and look through the at-will, encounter, and daily attack powers of all 4 martial classes:

You will find that:

None of those powers use implements, virtually all use weapons.
None of them are Area attacks, most are melee or ranged.
None of them do typed damage.
Those that are close attacks target 'enemies you can see.'
All use either STR or DEX.
Some dailies are 'reliable.'
No exploit creates a zone.

Now, repeat the process with actual spells from the two Arcane classes presented:

You will find that:

Virtually all use implements
Very few are Melee range, none Melee Weapon*, and many are Area attacks
Many do typed damage
Close attacks target 'all creatures' or 'enemies' in the area, rather than only enemies 'you can see.'
All use either INT, CHA, or CON.
Some create zones.
None are 'reliable.'

Even were you to strip the powers of their names, class, level, fluff text and source keywords, it would be readily apparent which are spells and which are exploits.

*[sblock]If you look at Paragon Path powers, as well, you /will/ find a power or two that uses the weapon keyword, in the Wizard of the Spiral Tower, a paragon fighter/magic-user stand in that uses weapons.  Of course, they're also not class attack powers.[/sblock]

[/sblock]


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> As I just responded to Pemerton above, the devil is in the presentation.



 There's no question that 4e choose clarity and consistency in it's presentation, over natural language ambiguity.  It did make large sections of 4e read more like a rulebook or technical manual than like exposition in a novel.  A little dry if you try to plow through it in an evening, but nice when you're determining what something does.

But, trying to suggest that the same presentation makes two things the same, and that's a problem in 4e, but in no other edition brings up yet another one of these inconsistencies.  Spells in each edition, are presented in the same format.  And, that presentation crosses both class and 'source' lines, with clerics, druids, wizards &c all using 'spells' rather than having any distinction between magic from the gods, magic from nature, or magic from arcane secrets.  Yet there's little complaint voiced that casters are all somehow 'samey.'  Even though they are not only presented in the same format, using the same format, but take it a step further and re-cycle the exact same spell in different class lists.  5e & 3e take that samey-ness another step further, by presenting all spells, for all classes not only in the same format, but all together, in alphabetical order.  Yet 5e and 3e casters classes aren't derided for being 'the same.'

Only when 3.5 took it to the extreme of giving the Sorcerer and Wizard virtually identical spell lists were a few eyebrows raised.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Even were you to strip the powers of their names, class, level, fluff text and source keywords, it would be readily apparent which are spells and which are exploits.




Lets muddy the water some. Once you leave the PH1: 

* Swordmages (FRCS, literally the 9th class printed) have arcane attacks with the Melee Weapon property. Artificer (ECS) and Bard (PH2) also have Arcane Weapon Attacks.
* Swordmages also have Reliable Powers.

Importantly, Primal PCs (which encompass former spellcaster, the druid) and Divine casters (of Cleric fame) freely break both these rules; having weapon and implement powers, typed and untyped damage, reliable, have "you can see" area attacks, and can create zones. But of course, you're playing a semantics game since "Spells" used to encompass divine magic, which 4e named Prayers and Evocations so you can ignore them since they aren't Spells as 4e defines it since 4e all "Spells" are Arcane.

So I'll adjust my statement: Fighter Powers are indistinguishable from Magic because they are written up using the same format as Magic.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Look at 'fighters cast spells.'  It's factually false, because spells, in 4e, are arcane powers, and fighters get none.  But, what it's /trying/ to say is that presenting completely different abilities in the same format makes them the same.  That's what you just claimed, and it is also factually false.  We'll compare exploits and spells to illustrate that falsehood:




You are right, I always did find it odd that Clerics could not cast spells in 4e.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Only when 3.5 took it to the extreme of giving the Sorcerer and Wizard virtually identical spell lists were a few eyebrows raised.




There's no "virtually" to it. The arcane classes in 3e d20 all use the same identical spell list. And it wasn't introduced in 3.5. It was a feature from the very beginning of 3rd edition. And I was never aware that it raised any eyebrows.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I haven't heard anyone say they reject a version of D&D for using a d20.  If someone were to, yes, it would be glaringly inconsistent of them.




And I didn't reject a version of D&D for using the Battlemaster maneuvers... I (partially) rejected one for using the 4e Fighter powers.... yet for some reason you can't seem to differentiate between the two as different mechanically (though 4ed powers aren't "samey" they are totally different) as well as in the level of verisimilitude they provide for people... even after repeated attempts to explain it... 



Tony Vargas said:


> I'm not dismissing anything.  It's just that every 'difference' you've come up with turns out to be present in both cases.




That's all you've done...is dismiss  



Tony Vargas said:


> Have done, every one of them:




No, all you've continuously done is draw incorrect parallels between the two different sets of mechanics... oh and type out inconsistent...every few sentences.




Tony Vargas said:


> Every 'difference' you dream up turns out to be present in both cases in one form or another.




Ah, ok... are you joking... is that really what you believe the incomplete exchange you posted shows?  Again we are entering the realm of the absurd here...




Tony Vargas said:


> The aspects of the mechanics in question (limited use representing 'stamina' in the 5e battlemaster and 4e Weaponmaster abilities in question (individual encounter exploits vs maneuvers, actions surge & second wind, yet that stamina being somehow silo'd) are, indeed, very similar, both in general mechanics and how those mechanics relate to the fiction.  As has been demonstrated, above.




Where was this demonstrated?  Show me a single argument where you laid out why these two mechanics are the same (which was your original argument, not similar)... What we've got is multiple posters outside of you and @_*Hussar*_ saying they are actually different...



Tony Vargas said:


> While it's an entirely different case (comparing things within an edition, instead of accross eds), 4e powers from different classes are, of course, quite different from eachother.  No class actually shared the same power with another (unlike all other editions, where two or more casters may have some the exact same spells in their lists).  Some have /very/ similar effects to the point that it might have been more efficient to list powers by Source rather than Class, but different sources have /very/ different powers.




I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone ...

EDIT: Just to get this straight... Battlemaster maneuvers and martial powers are the same... but martial powers and other powers n 4e are not even similar or "samey"...


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm not dismissing anything.  It's just that every 'difference' you've come up with turns out to be present in both cases.




I like chocolate sauce on my ice cream sundae.

I despise chocolate sauce on my eggplant parmigiana sub.

I am inconsistent!  Oh, no!  What shall we do!

Tony, please top insisting that others must meet your criteria of justification for liking or not liking something.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Lets muddy the water some. Once you leave the PH1



 Let's not.  The accusation was leveled the moment the PH1 was out, and it was refuted, from the PH1.  Case closed.  It was false - most charitably, an example of ill-advised or ignorant hyperbole.

When we go behind the hyperbole and look at the remaining claim, the one you repeated, above, that the /presentation/ made powers merely /seem/ samey, you have a much more subjective, and thus not strictly falsifiable claim. 

But, it's, once again an inconsistent one, because many things in D&D have been presented in the same format, before, without complaint.



> So I'll adjust my statement: Fighter Powers are indistinguishable from Magic because they are written up using the same format as Magic.



 Just for one of many possible refutations:  No fighter power is subject to Dispel Magic.

But, rather than circling the edition war merry-go-round of proving your statement false, and you re-hashing it in a different form in the hopes of finding one power it's true for, let's take a huge leap, and assume, for the sake of the current discussion that you're right.  That Fighters actually do have plenty of implement, area, powers that create zones doing typed damage that can be Dispeled, and that some of them even have the same names and exact same write-ups as some other classes use.

Two classes or more sharing abilities that have the same presentation, same name, and same mechanics, are nothing new to D&D, yet they've never led to calling those classes 'samey' before, or since - with the sole exception of the Sorcerer & Wizard sharing virtually identical spell lists, which caused a pretty minor stir.

And, we are left with another of these preplexing inconsistencies.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> You are right, I always did find it odd that Clerics could not cast spells in 4e.



It is a strange idea, that characters would derive power from the deity they worship through 'prayers,' rather than by memorizing spells, no?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Wicht said:


> There's no "virtually" to it. The arcane classes in 3e d20 all use the same identical spell list.



 There's a few exceptions, like the 'Mnemonic Enhancer.'


----------



## Wicht (Mar 26, 2015)

*Edit: correcting myself...*

... the idea that it was somehow widely controversial. I don't remember that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone ...



 Could be.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> There's a few exceptions, like the 'Mnemonic Enhancer.'




You are right, I stand corrected, though its still in the "Wizard and Sorcerer" Spell list, it is a wizard only spell.

But I still don't remember that much controversy about them sharing the same spell list.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Let's not.  The accusation was leveled the moment the PH1 was out, and it was refuted, from the PH1.  Case closed.  It was false - most charitably, an example of ill-advised or ignorant hyperbole.
> 
> When we go behind the hyperbole and look at the remaining claim, the one you repeated, above, that the /presentation/ made powers merely /seem/ samey, you have a much more subjective, and thus not strictly falsifiable claim.




Dismissal, and wait for it... wait for it... 



Tony Vargas said:


> But, it's, once again an *inconsistent* one, because many things in D&D have been presented in the same format, before, without complaint.




inconsistent... how'd I know that was coming... 



Tony Vargas said:


> Just for one of many possible refutations:  No fighter power is subject to Dispel Magic.




Does dispel magic even exist in 4e?



Tony Vargas said:


> But, rather than circling the edition war merry-go-round of proving your statement false, and you re-hashing it in a different form in the hopes of finding one power it's true for, let's take a huge leap, and assume, for the sake of the current discussion that you're right.  That Fighters actually do have plenty of implement, area, powers that create zones doing typed damage that can be Dispeled, and that some of them even have the same names and exact same write-ups as some other classes use.
> 
> Two classes or more sharing abilities that have the same presentation, same name, and same mechanics, are nothing new to D&D, yet they've never led to calling those classes 'samey' before, or since - with the sole exception of the Sorcerer & Wizard sharing virtually identical spell lists, which caused a pretty minor stir.




I think *every* class sharing the same structure only occurs in 4e... there are levels... just because I like pepper on my food doesn't mean I like a whole can of it straight...  



Tony Vargas said:


> And, we are left with another of these preplexing inconsistencies.




Are we??


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It is a strange idea, that characters would derive power from the deity they worship through 'prayers,' rather than by memorizing spells, no?




No, I always imagined that a "Prayer" based mechanic would be better represented by spontaneously casting up to the maximum of your spell slots...or I guess "Prayer" slots maybe a better term.  

So rather then having to memorise your "Prayers" in the morning (or even worse having a fixed list of prayers that not only you can not change except by going up a level but also did not need to be "Prayed" for) you could tailor your prayers to your situation.  I mean imagine if Moses had not memorised a part water spell on the right day, doh!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Wicht said:


> You are right, I stand corrected, though its still in the "Wizard and Sorcerer" Spell list, it is a wizard only spell.
> 
> But I still don't remember that much controversy about them sharing the same spell list.



 It wasn't a huge controversy, but the Sorcerer had it's detractors who believed that the lack of a 'unique' spell list meant the class was redundant, in spite of its spontaneous casting - they also generally claimed that spontaneous casting was strictly inferior.  And, for purposes of the optimization Tier, for instance, it arguably isn't /as/ good.  

Personally I quite liked the Sorcerer.  The very lack of 'strategic flexibility' that it 'suffered' from made it very good for more unique magic-using concept builds.  Where using a prepped caster as the base of a build left you with this constant temptation to learn or prep a spell that didn't fit the concept out of expediency, with the Sorcerer, you only added/changed spells known at chargen/level-up, so you kept a a more consistent realization of the concept.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Could be.
> 
> It's clear from the way this is circling that we're not making any progress.  Consider it dropped.  You have every right to be inconsistent, or even outright arbitrary, in your 'reasoning' about something as subjective as what game you like.




How big of you... thanks for the permission...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Does dispel magic even exist in 4e?



 Yep.  PH1.  IIRC, a 6th level Wizard Utility.  




> I think *every* class sharing the same structure only occurs in 4e...



 Depends on where you draw the line.  Every class used the same advancement and got the same number of HD in 3e, which was a big departure from prior eds, and on the other extreme, many classes in 4e deviated from the strict AEDU in their class features.  All classes have always shared basically the same presentation format within a given edition, as well.  

But, /yes/, the bigger picture is clearer.  It's not just that fighters had some limited-use resources that some blogger could manufacture a label for, it's not that similar structures or presentations make several distinct game elements the same.  It's the relative universality of AEDU - the details being complained about contributing to a clear, consistent, balanced game as a whole - that is that larger context that potentially resolves the observed inconsistencies.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Let's not.  The accusation was leveled the moment the PH1 was out, and it was refuted, from the PH1.  Case closed.  It was false - most charitably, an example of ill-advised or ignorant hyperbole.




I see no closed case. I see someone who set a very narrow parameter (no arcane spells in the PH1) and then ignores books that came out only a few months later that proved him wrong. 



Tony Vargas said:


> When we go behind the hyperbole and look at the remaining claim, the one you repeated, above, that the /presentation/ made powers merely /seem/ samey, you have a much more subjective, and thus not strictly falsifiable claim.
> 
> But, it's, once again an inconsistent one, because many things in D&D have been presented in the same format, before, without complaint.




Yes, yes I do have for exactly the reasons you /listed/ in slashes. 

A fighter in 4e cannot cast ray of frost with his (nonmagical) longsword. But it doesn't matter; the fact is he is using the exact same mechanical expression. That expression makes it look (at a mechanical level) like the same thing. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Just for one of many possible refutations:  No fighter power is subject to Dispel Magic.




By that logic, neither is a druid's wildshape. Complete natural and mundane ability, right? 



Tony Vargas said:


> But, rather than circling the edition war merry-go-round of proving your statement false, and you re-hashing it in a different form in the hopes of finding one power it's true for, let's take a huge leap, and assume, for the sake of the current discussion that you're right.  That Fighters actually do have plenty of implement, area, powers that create zones doing typed damage that can be Dispeled, and that some of them even have the same names and exact same write-ups as some other classes use.
> 
> Two classes or more sharing abilities that have the same presentation, same name, and same mechanics, are nothing new to D&D, yet they've never led to calling those classes 'samey' before, or since - with the sole exception of the Sorcerer & Wizard sharing virtually identical spell lists, which caused a pretty minor stir.




Again, if you had any more strawmen I'd think you ran a scarecrow business.

In 5e, a battlemaster fighter makes an attack roll (using the regular combat rules, including picking Str or Dex to hit) and then spends a superiority die to create an effect. A wizard uses a spell slot to create a magical effect and forces the foe to make a special ability check (called a saving throw) against the effect. These are two very different styles of mechanical resolution, no?

In 4e, the fighter uses an encounter power (using the power to determine what ability score to hit with) and then does the effect as described. A wizard uses an encounter power to create a magical effect that requires him to roll to hit (using the same power resolution mechanic as the fighter, swapping Int for Str and AC for, say, Ref) and does the effect as described. Very similar, no? 

This similarity of how martial and magical effects resolve create sameness. There is little difference mechanically between spellcasting and non-spellcasting attacks, save a few keywords and limitations. Since all classes shared the same bonus (1/2 level), same ADEU power structure, and same power resolution mechanic, classes felt too similar compared the very different styles a fighter and wizard played as under 1, 2, 3, and 5e.



Tony Vargas said:


> And, we are left with another of these preplexing inconsistencies.




There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Either way, history was on my side. Come 2010, ADEU was being experimented on (see Psionics, Essentials) and the one-size-fits-all system was abandoned come 5e. I'm satisfied.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yep.  PH1.  IIRC, a 6th level Wizard Utility.
> 
> 
> Depends on where you draw the line.  Every class used the same advancement and got the same number of HD in 3e, which was a big departure from prior eds, and on the other extreme, many classes in 4e deviated from the strict AEDU in their class features.  All classes have always shared basically the same presentation format within a given edition, as well.
> ...




Well hopefully this means there's no need for you to continue in the discussion since you have everyone's thoughts, motives and inconsistencies figured out... I feel privileged to have met a true mind reader in my lifetime...


----------



## Wicht (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> And, for purposes of the optimization Tier, for instance, it arguably isn't /as/ good.




What is the optimization Tier?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I see no closed case. I see someone who set a very narrow parameter (no arcane spells in the PH1)



 There were two classes worth of arcane spells in the PH1.   



> A fighter in 4e cannot cast ray of frost with his (nonmagical) longsword. But it doesn't matter; the fact is he is using the exact same mechanical expression.



 The mechanical expression of the Ray of Frost included:  Implement, Range: 10, One target, INT vs AC, 1d6+INTmod cold damage & slowed (end of turn).  

When does the fighter use that exact same expression with his nonmagical longsword?

Never.




> That expression makes it look (at a mechanical level) like the same thing.



 In 1e, a dagger used by a 16 STR character and a 1st level magic missile both did the exact same 2-5 damage (there wasn't even a formal 'force' damage type for the MM).  Did that make them the same thing?  No.   



> By that logic, neither is a druid's wildshape. Complete natural and mundane ability, right?



 The Druid has many powers that are subject to Dispel Magic.  



> In 4e, the fighter uses an encounter power (using the power to determine what ability score to hit with) and then does the effect as described. A wizard uses an encounter power to create a magical effect that requires him to roll to hit (using the same power resolution mechanic as the fighter, swapping Int for Str and AC for, say, Ref) and does the effect as described. Very similar, no?



 Very funny.  The corresponding bird's-eye view in 5e would be:  fighter describes his action, DM describes result, wizard describes his action, DM describes result.  Wow, they're identical - when you strip away all the many differences.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Wicht said:


> What is the optimization Tier?



 A late 3.5 thing.  A ranking of classes, mainly in descending order of versatility, with a few prepped casters on top, an the Sorcerer grouped in the runner-up 'Tier 2,' because of spontaneous casting.


----------



## JRedmond (Mar 26, 2015)

Wow it's amazing how many threads go off topic here.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Well hopefully this means there's no need for you to continue in the discussion ..



 you seriously misconstrue 'clearer picture' and 'potentially resolves' as a conclusion.  I was just pleased to see a teeny bit of progress.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> you seriously misconstrue 'clearer picture' and 'potentially resolves' as a conclusion.  I was just pleased to see a teeny bit of progress.




The problem is that you're not getting a clearer picture, you're sticking to the picture you've already constructed...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> The problem is that you're not getting a clearer picture, you're sticking to the picture you've already constructed...



 OK, grab some straw and mock up that picture...

I mean, you could turn around any of these inconsistencies we're looking at and ask, why /I/ liked the 4E weaponmaster but not the 5e battlemaster.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> A late 3.5 thing.  A ranking of classes, mainly in descending order of versatility, with a few prepped casters on top, an the Sorcerer grouped in the runner-up 'Tier 2,' because of spontaneous casting.




Eh, you mean the old chestnut about the wizards being able to do everything and fighters not being good at anything?  Right, let's not go there.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Eh, you mean the old chestnut about the wizards being able to do everything and fighters not being good at anything?  Right, let's not go there.



 No, much more all-inclusive than that, ranking all the 3.5 classes (not PrCs) as they existed at the close of the game.  Some of the casters were as low-tier (4 or 5, IIRC) as the Fighter, and the fighter wasn't actually relegated to the lowest tier.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> OK, grab some straw and mock up that picture...
> 
> I mean, you could turn around any of these inconsistencies we're looking at and ask, why /I/ liked the 4E weaponmaster but not the 5e battlemaster.




I don't really care why you don't like the Battlemaster or 5e... it honestly doesn't matter to me since I enjoy the game, it's the current version and the community that is on board with it is pretty vibrant right now... I've seen you post in numerous 5e threads about why you don't like 5e... and hey you're entitled to your opinion and expressing it but I truly do not need you to repeat and/or expound on it here for my sake.


----------



## Shasarak (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It wasn't a huge controversy, but the Sorcerer had it's detractors who believed that the lack of a 'unique' spell list meant the class was redundant, in spite of its spontaneous casting - they also generally claimed that spontaneous casting was strictly inferior.  And, for purposes of the optimization Tier, for instance, it arguably isn't /as/ good.
> 
> Personally I quite liked the Sorcerer.  The very lack of 'strategic flexibility' that it 'suffered' from made it very good for more unique magic-using concept builds.  Where using a prepped caster as the base of a build left you with this constant temptation to learn or prep a spell that didn't fit the concept out of expediency, with the Sorcerer, you only added/changed spells known at chargen/level-up, so you kept a a more consistent realization of the concept.




According to Rich Baker in the latest interview from the Tome Show, he designed the Sorcerer in 3e specifically to get more use out of the Wizard spell list.

Also thanks to Rich for Barbarian Rages and Paladins Smite Evil too!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I've seen you post in numerous 5e threads about why you don't like 5e...



 No, you haven't.  I acknowledge 5e shortcomings - mostly mechanical - I'll readily admit other editions are better at certain things - 4e better balanced/clearer/etc, 3.5 having more customizeabilty - but I don't actively dislike 5e the way h4ters did 4e.  I quite enjoy running it, in particular.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> No, you haven't.  I acknowledge 5e shortcomings - mostly mechanical - I'll readily admit other editions are better at certain things - 4e better balanced/clearer/etc, 3.5 having more customizeabilty - but I don't actively dislike 5e the way h4ters did 4e.  I quite enjoy running it, in particular.




Dude whatever... you don't have to explain to me why you post so negatively about 5e...


----------



## Wicht (Mar 26, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> No, much more all-inclusive than that, ranking all the 3.5 classes (not PrCs) as they existed at the close of the game.  Some of the casters were as low-tier (4 or 5, IIRC) as the Fighter, and the fighter wasn't actually relegated to the lowest tier.




Uhuh.  The very concept is anathema to me. Like I said, let's not go there.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I saw columns of powers that read like math problems
> 
> <snp>
> 
> ...



For me none of this is a failing.

When I buy an RPG system, I want the system to generate good play experiences. When I am _reading_ the system, I don't want descriptions of fictional events the designer is imagining - I want clear mechanics which I can see producing the desired fictional events in play.

When I read, for instance, the deathlock wight's Horrific Visage ability, I see a fear  attack vs Will in a blast that inflicts damage and pushes its targets: and I can see that, in play, this will model the wight looking at its enemies (because it is a blast and not a burst, it has facing), which causes them physical shock (untyped damage) and causes them to recoil in horror (push). In play it worked just like this, and one of the PCs even stepped backwards into a pit (but was saved because the PCs had roped together).



Remathilis said:


> As I just responded to Pemerton above, the devil is in the presentation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Notice: the 4e verison formats them all the same; as powers. They rely on jargon (burst 2, slowed, shift) rather than explaining the effect in natural language (30 ft radius, reduce speed 10 ft, move without provoking an opportunity attack).



I'm not seeing the radical difference that you are.

The three 5e abilities all have much the same format: a heading, with a couple of paragraphs beneath them. For reasons that aren't very clear, "channel divinity" precedes "turn undead" whereas "evocation cantrip" is placed underneath "ray of frost", but both seem to be keyword classifications of some sort.

There is also plenty of jargon in the 5e text: "Wisdom saving throw", "ranged spell attack", "reaction", "opportunity attack", possibly even "holy symbol" - I can't tell from the description whether that is mere flavour text, or whether the cleric PC actually has to possess a special piece of equipment; whereas the Implement keyword in the 4e Turn Undead power sends me to a clear bit of rules text that spells this out. 



Remathilis said:


> Fighter Powers are indistinguishable from Magic because they are written up using the same format as Magic.



To me, this is like saying that weapons are indistinguishable from spell scrolls because both are put on equipment lists with gp values next to them; or because both are described using words.

It really does not resonate with me. Looking at pages 25 and 31 of the 5e Basic PDF, the fighting styles are formatted just the same as the wizard abilities like Sculpt Spell and Empowered Evocation. Does this mean that protecting someone with your shield is indistinguishable from casting a strong spell? That would be bizarre to me - in working out what is going on with those abilities, you wouldn't ignore that one is a fighter ability about protecting with a shield, the other a wizard ability about manipulating magic.

So why, in reading a 4e power, would you ignore that one is a melee weapon attack and another a ranged implement attack? That one does cold damage and the other does not? etc.

I mean, both weapons and spells in 5e do hp damage - does that make them indistinguishable? Both spells and bows have their ranges specified in feet - does that make them indistinguishable? I really find this claim very hard to unpack.



Remathilis said:


> A fighter in 4e cannot cast ray of frost with his (nonmagical) longsword. But it doesn't matter; the fact is he is using the exact same mechanical expression.



No. The mechanical expression in 4e for a fighter attacking with a longsword is a STR attack using a weapon vs AC. The mechanical expression in 4e for a wizard attacking with ray of frost is an INT attack vs Fort, perhaps using an implement. And the damage is typed as cold. Those aren't the same mechanical expression.



Remathilis said:


> In 5e, a battlemaster fighter makes an attack roll (using the regular combat rules, including picking Str or Dex to hit) and then spends a superiority die to create an effect. A wizard uses a spell slot to create a magical effect and forces the foe to make a special ability check (called a saving throw) against the effect. These are two very different styles of mechanical resolution, no?



Huh? Ray of frost involves making an attack roll, just like attacking with a sword. It's the same mechanical system, only because it is a "spell attack" it uses the characeter's "spellcasting ability modifier" (another piece of jargon) rather than DEX (which is what a ranged attack - another piece of jargon - would normally use).

Also, none of this is in the descriptions you posted. For instance, Ray of Frost doesn't describe itself as a magical effect (and it is does not involve a spell slot). To know that it is a magical effect, you have to see that it is on a list of spells. That's not very different, to my mind, from reading the description of the wizard class in the 4e PHB and seeing that it is a spell-caster.



Remathilis said:


> In 4e, the fighter uses an encounter power (using the power to determine what ability score to hit with) and then does the effect as described. A wizard uses an encounter power to create a magical effect that requires him to roll to hit (using the same power resolution mechanic as the fighter, swapping Int for Str and AC for, say, Ref) and does the effect as described. Very similar, no?



No more than the similarity of rolling an attack to hit with Ray of Frost or a bow - both attack AC, both use the same system, both use the same rules for rolling and applying damage, the main difference is that they use different stats.

I still don't think Ray of Frost in 5e is very similar to a bow attack, just because they are resolved in much the same way. Presumably I could use the former but not the latter to freeze a puddle, just as I might in 4e.



Remathilis said:


> By using natural language, I can easily understand the ability without reading the power block and trying to determine its use by deducing that "pushed a number of square" supposed to represent "must spend its turns fleeing".



See, when I read an ability called "turn undead" that says that creatures hit by the attack are pushed a certain distance and then immobilised, I can see the fiction quite clearly: the cleric drives back the undead, who cower in awe of the divine grace (this is reinforced by the fact that the cleric's CHA boosts the distance s/he drives the undead back).



Remathilis said:


> Moreover, it doesn't look like if I blotted out the italic text and changed the class name headers, the 4e versions could be swapped around without anyone being the wiser.



Huh? One is a radiant attack that targets undead and drives the back, one a ranged attack that deals cold damage and slows its target, and one is a melee weapon attack that allows an adjacent ally to manoeuvre.

The first is obviously some sort of turn or rebuke undead effect, the second is obviousy some sort of cold or ice bolt, and the third is obviously some sort of melee attack. The turn effect could be given to an invoker as much as a cleric, the cold-bolt to a sorcerer as much as a wizard, the melee attack to a warlord as much as a fighter. But this only tells us that some classes have overlapping schticks. In AD&D paladins as well as fighters can disarm and wear heavy armour; in 5e more than one class can Cure Wounds or Raise the Dead!



Remathilis said:


> I can look the 5e versions and tell they are form different classes using different resolution mechanics



Huh? How can you tell what class has Ray of Frost: it could be a cleric of winter, a sorcerer, a wizard, even perhaps a warlock that blast people with the chill of deep space.

How can you tell the manoeuvre isn't a thief ability? Only because you know, as a piece of technical jargon, that superiority dice are a fighter mechanic.

How can you tell that the turning undead isn't a paladin ability (which it was in AD&D)?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 26, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Uhuh.  The very concept is anathema to me. Like I said, let's not go there.



 I guess I can see how you might've missed the criticisms of the 3e Sorcerer, since they were mostly couched in similar terms.  Probably would have been a better policy for me, too, but I feel strangely compelled to challenge invalid criticisms.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Okay maybe I got confused because you brought up the rest/stamina connection for 4e earlier in the discussion... which I am now unsure as to why exactly that particular point was brought up



Upthread, you seemed to be saying that an important, and distinguishing, feature of Battlemaster manoeuvres is that they are replenished only after resting. I pointed out that this is also true of 4e encounter powers, and so it didn't seem to me to be a distinctive feature of the 5e manoeuvres.

It has since become clear (I think) that you _don't_ regard the recovery conditions for manoeuvres as distinctive, and rather that what is distinctive about them, in comparison to encounter powers, is that they come from a common pool, which you regard as model or proxy for a certain sort of trained reservoir of stamina.

I've explained why, for me, the notion of that sort of stamina reservoir is very implausible (having, in my view, no real-world analogue - your comparisons of jogging and sparring do not work for me, because disarming is just a form of sword-fighting, which the fighter can do all day long), and hence why I regard the rationing ofthe 5e abilities as a metagame device, just as in 4e.


----------



## bogmad (Mar 26, 2015)

I'm confused about how the discussion here relates to the thread topic.
I'm seeing a lot "gotcha!" responses about mechanics,  that actually don't seem to be "getting" anything. Or anywhere.
Just because you think you're being logical and your opinion makes sense to you, doesn't mean it does to me, or that your logic is air-tight.

Have I missed anything in the past 70 pages about a big reveal coming?


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Upthread, you seemed to be saying that an important, and distinguishing, feature of Battlemaster manoeuvres is that they are replenished only after resting. I pointed out that this is also true of 4e encounter powers, and so it didn't seem to me to be a distinctive feature of the 5e manoeuvres.
> 
> It has since become clear (I think) that you _don't_ regard the recovery conditions for manoeuvres as distinctive, and rather that what is distinctive about them, in comparison to encounter powers, is that they come from a common pool, which you regard as model or proxy for a certain sort of trained reservoir of stamina.
> 
> I've explained why, for me, the notion of that sort of stamina reservoir is very implausible (having, in my view, no real-world analogue - your comparisons of jogging and sparring do not work for me, because disarming is just a form of sword-fighting, which the fighter can do all day long), and hence why I regard the rationing ofthe 5e abilities as a metagame device, just as in 4e.




Yeah there was some misunderstandings in that exchange... but I'm also not trying to convince you or anyone else that they are wrong for their own preferences, it honestly isn't worth it to me... this started as me stating my own reasons for my preference of maneuvers over martial powers, nothing more and nothing less.  I will say that at least (I believe) we see eye to eye on the fact that there are mechanical differences between the two...


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

Imaro said:


> we see eye to eye on the fact that there are mechanical differences between the two



There are definitely differences. The main one, in the context of our conversation, seems to be the "pool" vs "silo" for the rationing of manoeuvres.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 26, 2015)

bogmad said:


> I'm confused about how the discussion here relates to the thread topic.



While I see your point (!), it is a nearly 800-post thread that's been running for nearly a fortnight (so over 50 posts per day). A degree of drift is to be expected.

I think the broad trajectory of the thread makes sense: it starts with the news of WotC's activities and plans, which leads into a more general discussion of the WotC publishing model, which leads to a comparison of approaches over time. This then leads to a consideration of successful vs unsuccessful models, which unsurprisingly produces edition-comparisons. Those comparisons then become a topic of conversation in their own right - what is it about different editions that pertains to their market success or failure, how (if at all) is this connected to the "tradition" or "history" of D&D, and how do various design minutiae (mechanical details, formatting etc) relate to bigger issues of "feel" or "play experience"? And how does this, in turn, feed into the market success of published books that use one or another system design?

As far as I know, the big reveal remain unrevealed.


----------



## Eric V (Mar 26, 2015)

pemerton said:


> There is no such training. That's why I've said, in my first post on this issue, and have repeated in at least one post since, that I see all these rationing mechanics as metagame devices. Their function is to stop spamming.
> 
> What events happen in the fiction to make the spamming non-feasible is up to the game participants' narration and imaginations. A bit like the AD&D 1 minute round - we use our imaginations, supplemented by narration from the player or GM, to fill in the details.




Not at all to be insulting, but...hasn't he (Imaro) admitted he doesn't really know 4e?  He didn't know the difference between a short and extended rest in another thread...while you perfectly explain how it's up to the participants to explain the metagame nature of maneuvers, because he hasn't played, it's going to be very difficult to be understood, no?


----------



## Eric V (Mar 26, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I didn't. I saw columns of powers that read like math problems: "Ability A vs Defense B, Hit: do XdY + A damage and add condition Z" I saw fancy names, but I had no idea what a "steel serpent strike" was (or why I could do it only once in an encounter) nor did I get what exactly was happening when the wizard cast "darkening flame" (save for that strip of italic text). While there were some details you could suss out with practice (like attacks that hit reflex vs AC) unfortunately everything (swinging a sword, casting a spell, or summoning angels) all fell into that same format, which made them all look like similar actions.
> 
> Come essentials, they put a little blurb above most powers that "described" the power in action (better than the often concise italics did). That was better, but it was a return to whole language (with a power-block summary below).
> 
> 4e's greatest failing, imho, isn't powers or such, but the fact that they allowed stat blocks to stand in for description. Be it powers, monsters, or magic items, WotC produced dozens of books that read like catalogs of color-coded jargon that only showed numbers and forced the reader to make them fiction. Rather than balance the two, they let one stand in for the other, and it created an illusion that the numbers were the only important thing about them.




I really enjoyed 4e and even I have to say the above is all true (at least for me).  In play, it was great and the narrative was fine, but reading the books full of stat blocks did not really inspire that much, to tell you the truth.  5e MM has lots more lore and is a much more enjoyable read (though the pendulum swung too far and the stat blocks could use some work.)


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 27, 2015)

Eric V said:


> I really enjoyed 4e and even I have to say the above is all true (at least for me).  In play, it was great and the narrative was fine, but reading the books full of stat blocks did not really inspire that much, to tell you the truth.  5e MM has lots more lore and is a much more enjoyable read (though the pendulum swung too far and the stat blocks could use some work.)




Which was ultimately my point. Much of 4e's presentation left me with the ever-pressing need to "fill in the gaps" needed to make these things work. I constantly needed to explain how "1d10 radiant damage and push 2" equated to Turning Undead, or how "all enemies must resist a Will attack or be pulled toward the target" was actually a clever fient and not mind control. Worlds and Monsters was chock full of great fluff that never appeared in the Core Books, leaving me scrambling to figure out how to use a swordwing for example. In short, it didn't inspire me enough to make me WANT to put the effort in to spackle up the cracks. 

I was very happy when flipping through Heroes of the Fallen Lands, I saw actual text explaining powers, races, monsters, magic items, etc. Wow! Real fluff to inspire my use or for me to ignore if something else came up. Too bad it all came so late in 4e's cycle. (Which is why my statement remains: If Essentials-level design was in the PHB, I wager more people would have played it.)


----------



## Imaro (Mar 27, 2015)

Eric V said:


> Not at all to be insulting, but...hasn't he (Imaro) admitted he doesn't really know 4e?  He didn't know the difference between a short and extended rest in another thread...while you perfectly explain how it's up to the participants to explain the metagame nature of maneuvers, because he hasn't played, it's going to be very difficult to be understood, no?




 I actually did play 4e for awhile... one mistake out of how many threads about a game I stopped playing years ago is hardly proof I don't know it... but nice try...

As to your question... I didn't ask [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] about the metagame nature of 4e... I was asking him about an assertion I thought he was making when he referred to the rest recharge factor of 4e powers... but yeah, you keep on assuming...


----------



## Eric V (Mar 27, 2015)

Maybe, yeah.

I did appreciate the common terminology and space-considerations.  I wish it had straddled both worlds, with more normal language in the main section, and then the PHB Power format as a sort of "cheat sheet."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2015)

Eric V said:


> I really enjoyed 4e and even I have to say the above is all true (at least for me).  In play, it was great and the narrative was fine, but reading the books full of stat blocks did not really inspire that much, to tell you the truth.



 No doubt about it, the 4e rule books were much better references than reads.  Storyteller - which I was very into for a while - was the polar opposite, it's books were positively engrossing and very atmospheric, even had an over-arching 'meta-plot,' but trying to find a rule or set of stats you needed was a nightmare, and, even once you found them, they could be pretty worthless.  5e, at least, didn't pendulum-swing /that/ far in pure reaction.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 27, 2015)

bogmad said:


> I'm confused about how the discussion here relates to the thread topic.
> I'm seeing a lot "gotcha!" responses about mechanics,  that actually don't seem to be "getting" anything. Or anywhere.
> Just because you think you're being logical and your opinion makes sense to you, doesn't mean it does to me, or that your logic is air-tight.
> 
> Have I missed anything in the past 70 pages about a big reveal coming?




Nope you have as afar as I can see missed nothing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Which was ultimately my point. Much of 4e's presentation left me with the ever-pressing need to "fill in the gaps" needed to make these things work. I constantly needed to explain how "1d10 radiant damage and push 2" equated to Turning Undead, or how "all enemies must resist a Will attack or be pulled toward the target" was actually a clever fient and not mind control.



 "Make things work" is an odd way to put it.  Clear mechanics (crunch) make it easy to resolve how something works.  If the presented fictional mechanism ('fluff') that explains how it looks or why it works isn't satisfactory, it could be changed or embellished well ahead of time, when the character chooses the power, or the DM chooses the monster.  The section on how to read powers comes right out and says you're free to change those descriptions.  

It isn't a very 'D&D' concept, though.  In past editions, you'd need a feat, like Spell Thematics, or a spell you cast on spells, like Sense Shifting, to change how your magic appeared.  The idea that mechanics could represent only what something accomplished, rather than be different-for-the-sake-of-difference for each possible way it might be accomplished, was revolutionary...  in 1981, when Champoins! used the concept extensively to handle the crazy variety of super-powers and origin stories in the comics it emulated.  Obviously, much later, 3e hinted at the idea by letting players describe their PCs appearance as they liked, even if it meant making their gear deviate from how the rulebook described it:  so if you wanted a single-edged greatsword or composite bow made from the bones of elves (because everyone knows that elves make the best bows), it didn't require completely new stats - the very similar idea of 're-skinning' also cross-pollinated from video games.  Now, re-skinning has become an acceptable way to wedge in a character concept that existing options don't fit well.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 27, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> "Make things work" is an odd way to put it.  Clear mechanics (crunch) make it easy to resolve how something works.  If the presented fictional mechanism ('fluff') that explains how it looks or why it works isn't satisfactory, it could be changed or embellished well ahead of time, when the character chooses the power, or the DM chooses the monster.  The section on how to read powers comes right out and says you're free to change those descriptions.
> 
> It isn't a very 'D&D' concept, though.  In past editions, you'd need a feat, like Spell Thematics, or a spell you cast on spells, like Sense Shifting, to change how your magic appeared.  The idea that mechanics could represent only what something accomplished, rather than be different-for-the-sake-of-difference for each possible way it might be accomplished, was revolutionary...  in 1981, when Champoins! used the concept extensively to handle the crazy variety of super-powers and origin stories in the comics it emulated.  Obviously, much later, 3e hinted at the idea by letting players describe their PCs appearance as they liked, even if it meant making their gear deviate from how the rulebook described it:  so if you wanted a single-edged greatsword or composite bow made from the bones of elves (because everyone knows that elves make the best bows), it didn't require completely new stats - the very similar idea of 're-skinning' also cross-pollinated from video games.  Now, re-skinning has become an acceptable way to wedge in a character concept that existing options don't fit well.




You know what, I don't care. 

I played 4th edition for nearly a year, DMing and playing with some of the best DMs I've known. I played a warlord, a wizard, a rogue, a swordmage, and a cleric (none of which got higher than 5th level, I must admit). *I* found it boring. *I* found it repetitive. *I* was uninspired by bland, boring stat blocks masquerading as fireballs, goblins, and flame tongues. *I* found the combat grindy and tedious. *I* found the fluff was missing, and when it was there it was very different than the assumptions from before (see: angel, eladrin, and archon). And *I* wasn't alone since every single one of my rather large group of players (12 people among three groups) agreed with me. And they were never problems *I* had playing 2e, 3e, or Pathfinder, nor do I expect to have them in 5e from the couple of demo sessions I've played.

You found your muse. Good job. Go play it. But don't you DARE tell me what I saw with my own eyes were somehow invalid or that you know better.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2015)

Eric V said:


> I really enjoyed 4e and even I have to say the above is all true (at least for me).  In play, it was great and the narrative was fine, but reading the books full of stat blocks did not really inspire that much, to tell you the truth.





Tony Vargas said:


> No doubt about it, the 4e rule books were much better references than reads.



My experience was very different. Reading the 4e Monster Manuals and players' manuals (not the general rules, but the power lists) makes me want to see these things in play (and to imagine what might happen in the course of such play).

It's not the same as reading a story, obviously. But I don't really read RPG books for story.



Remathilis said:


> Much of 4e's presentation left me with the ever-pressing need to "fill in the gaps" needed to make these things work. I constantly needed to explain how "1d10 radiant damage and push 2" equated to Turning Undead, or how "all enemies must resist a Will attack or be pulled toward the target" was actually a clever fient and not mind control
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I was very happy when flipping through Heroes of the Fallen Lands, I saw actual text explaining powers, races, monsters, magic items, etc.



I had the exact opposite reaction on both counts.

It seemed to me obvious how "1d10 radiant damage and push 2 + immobilised" equated to Turning Undead: the undead were blasted by holy light, were driven back from the caster, and cowered in despair. In play it works out like this too, but I could see it in the stat block.

The two most complex creature powers I remember GMing are both from MM3: some of the ones on the Pact Hag; and the Chained Cambion. The Pact Hag has a range of dominating and similar control effects, but for some of them their "pactish" nature is really brought out.

On the other hand, the Chained Cambion has one of the best effects I've ever encountered, Mind Shackles. The text of the power is:

Two enemies [of the Chained Cambion] adjacent to each other in a close burst 5 are psychically shackled (save ends; each enemy makes a separate saving throw against this effect). While psychically shackled, an enemy takes 10 psychic damage at the start and the end of its turn if it isn't adjacent to the other creature that was affected by this power.​
When you read this power it may not be immediately obvious what it is getting at. Once you read the Chained Cambion description ("Wrapped in chains and masked with a gruesome iron visage, a chained cambion radiates pain, rage, and frustration") it starts to make more sense - the cambion, being the spiteful type, vents its frustration by making others endure it.

Then when you see it in play, it becomes absolutely awesome - or at least, it did for me. The two affected targets were a melee fighter and an archer - so already they weren't that keen on being shackled together. And then they were standing on the roof of a small shrine, and had to find a way to get down without becoming separated. So the frustration gradually increases. And then, when one of them saves but the other doesn't, the one who has saved has to decide whether to submit to further frustrating chaining so as to protect his ally from the psychic damage, or whether to callously move away and just let the other suffer alone.

I want a system that can give me mechanical elements that will work like this in play.

The Essentials verbiage, on the other hand, I find completely off-putting. Either show me mechanics that will make it true in play (how does the PHB tell me that dwarves are hardy? because they get Second Wind as a minor action!), or say nothing at all. But long descriptions that are divorced from the play experience, and sometimes are misleading as to they way some power or ability will actually play out at the table, are not very interesting to me. When I look through my Essentials books, I skip over all that stuff so I can see what the mechanics are, and hence _really_ see what sort of fiction is going to be created by using this stuff in a game.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Then when you see it in play, it becomes absolutely awesome - or at least, it did for me. The two affected targets were a melee fighter and an archer - so already they weren't that keen on being shackled together. And then they were standing on the roof of a small shrine, and had to find a way to get down without becoming separated. So the frustration gradually increases. And then, when one of them saves but the other doesn't, the one who has saved has to decide whether to submit to further frustrating chaining so as to protect his ally from the psychic damage, or whether to callously move away and just let the other suffer alone.




I find at the table it becomes more of...
Player A (Fighter), who succeeded his save,  says to Player B (Archer), how many hit points do you have, because if I hit the Cambion I can do X damage? Player (B) says 50, I should be able to withstand a little damage, plus I have psychic protection ring. Player C (Warlord) says to Player B I will grant you another saving throw should you fail. DM things 'bleh, mechanics failed again to evoke anything' There is no question of callousness or ally protection - in a game like this it comes down to hit points.

If they know there are 8 goblins archers protecting a mountain path - the PC thinks to himself he can survive 8 attacks plus his armour class is high enough so he will not think twice about running into the line of fire because the mechanics are stuffed. D&D raw is not great in this regard. Bajillion hit point systems have a tendency of dumbing the game down!

As for the Chained Cambion - all you have to do is look at the 3.x Kyton (Chained Devil) who I find richer in every way. I do not find anything complex or unique about that  Chained Cambion power.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2015)

Sadras said:


> I find at the table it becomes more of...
> Player A (Fighter), who succeeded his save,  says to Player B (Archer), how many hit points do you have, because if I hit the Cambion I can do X damage? Player (B) says 50, I should be able to withstand a little damage, plus I have psychic protection ring. Player C (Warlord) says to Player B I will grant you another saving throw should you fail. DM things 'bleh, mechanics failed again to evoke anything' There is no question of callousness or ally protection - in a game like this it comes down to hit points.



Is that actual play experience of this creature?



Sadras said:


> As for the Chained Cambion - all you have to do is look at the 3.x Kyton (Chained Devil) who I find richer in every way.



A 3E chain devil can attack with chains, can animate chains, and can cause a debuff which is described as " A chain devil can make its face resemble one of an opponent’s departed loved ones or bitter enemies" but does not seem to express that description in any very interesting mechanical form.

It doesn't seem that rich to me. In 4e, the MM2 has a gorechain devil which has the only non-magical domination power that I know of in the system: it controls its target with its chains, like a puppet (mechanically, it is domination until the target saves, or starts its turn outside the devil's reach). From memory, I used one of these in my encounter with the chained cambion, but it was not as memorable.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Is that actual play experience of this creature?




No, however my gaming experience with D&D of over 25 years should count for something, especially on how players react. The fear of damage is only relevant if the damage is significant, otherwise there is a lack of choice - that is where the mechanics fail and as a result that power. So it is only interesting in the right circumstances.    

Furthermore, one does not require a Chained Cambion _Mind Shackles_ to bring about the choice of callousness or the protection of an ally. Those PC actions can be evoked with general encounters, which makes the power even less special.  



> A 3E chain devil can attack with chains, can animate chains, and can cause a debuff which is described as " A chain devil can make its face resemble one of an opponent’s departed loved ones or bitter enemies" but does not seem to express that description in any very interesting mechanical form. It doesn't seem that rich to me.




Yes, but be fair, just like you read the description about the chained cambion so to you must read about the Kyton.

The below is just an excerpt.

_ "...seek ecstasy through pain in the form of deliberate and violent self-transformation, adhering to the belief that by altering the physical and spiritual matter that makes up their form, they can reach a state of perfect being. Removing aspects of themselves and replacing them with more desirable or powerful pieces one at a time, kytons believe that experiences of heightened emotion and sensation (typically in the forms of terror and pain) lead to greater states of awareness and existence." 

"By drawing strength from its new grafts, a kyton grows and becomes both stronger and more terrible to behold. Thus, weaker kytons resemble the mortal creatures they once were, whereas older ones are horrifying patchworks of transplanted material that rarely look like their original forms."

"Kytons' need to replace parts of themselves with those of stronger mortals puts them in perpetual danger of attacking creatures that are too powerful for them to kill....(snip) Seeing strength in numbers, kytons often attack or trap a mortal victim as a team, hauling the unfortunate soul to the Plane of Shadow, converting their prey into a new kyton or dividing its body and soul among them for grafting and nourishment." _

I find I can draw a wealth of ideas from the above and bring that through when the group of chain devils attack - you might not be able to identify a specific mechanical ability which tears off pieces of a characters body but you can certainly roleplay that into combat, it is much more evocative - imagine a situation where a character (the victim of their attack) is being grappled/pinned by the interlocking chains of two kytons, while the remaining chains are (through attacks, dancing chains) disarming the character, ripping off armour, shredding through the backpack  and finally tearing through the character's flesh attempting to dismember him.



> In 4e, the MM2 has a gorechain devil which has the only non-magical domination power that I know of in the system: it controls its target with its chains, like a puppet (mechanically, it is domination until the target saves, or starts its turn outside the devil's reach).




I used the gorechain devil. I liked the gorechain devil.



> From memory, I used one of these in my encounter with the chained cambion, but it was not as memorable.




For me, the domination aspect is much more engaging as it doesn't rely on a mechanical system that places so much value on the metagame aspect of hit points whereby potentially interesting powers are diluted.


----------



## Eric V (Mar 27, 2015)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],

Just to be clear, the actual play of things was great (if a bit long and tedious at high paragon) and the clearness of the rules was a plus.  As a reference tool, it's probably the best PHB, IMO.  However, while I don't read RPG rulebooks for story either, do you not get a different "vibe" from reading class descriptions in the 5e PHB vs. the 4e one?  Not that I appreciate the vagueness (I feel referring to things like that as a feature is off), but the descriptions are more evocative, at least to me.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2015)

Eric V said:


> do you not get a different "vibe" from reading class descriptions in the 5e PHB vs. the 4e one?



I do get a different vibe when I read the 5e Basic PDf compared to the 4e PHB, but it is less inspiring. In relation to Essentials I called it _verbiage_, and that is probably too pejorative for 5e (which is not as badly overwritten as Essentials, in my view, was).

But when it comes to RPGing I really am a "show, don't tell" person. It is the mechanics that show me what the fiction "really" is (or will be). For instantce, p 6 refers to building a "courageous fighter", but until you get Indomitable there is no particular element of fighters that makes the courageous (and in fact the lack of WIS save proficiency points the other way). The description of some example fighters in the opening paragraphs of the class description is fine enough, but there is similar descriptive text in the opening paragraphs of the 4e PHB, and I also have a lot of examples of fantasy warriors that I can bring to mind myself.



Sadras said:


> The fear of damage is only relevant if the damage is significant



I don't know what makes you think the damage from the Chained Cambion, either in general or in the encounter in which I used it, was not significant. I can assure you that it absolutely was.



Sadras said:


> one does not require a Chained Cambion _Mind Shackles_ to bring about the choice of callousness or the protection of an ally. Those PC actions can be evoked with general encounters, which makes the power even less special.



By all means post your actual play examples of this!

But I don't see why these instances bear upon my point: which was that there was a power which was somewhat opaque, or at least complex, in its text; but that which, in play, manifested itself clearly and brilliantly.



Sadras said:


> The below is just an excerpt.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I find I can draw a wealth of ideas from the above and bring that through when the group of chain devils attack - you might not be able to identify a specific mechanical ability which tears off pieces of a characters body but you can certainly roleplay that into combat, it is much more evocative - imagine a situation where a character (the victim of their attack) is being grappled/pinned by the interlocking chains of two kytons, while the remaining chains are (through attacks, dancing chains) disarming the character, ripping off armour, shredding through the backpack  and finally tearing through the character's flesh attempting to dismember him.



I can read stories, too, and imagine how they, or variants of them or derived from them, might be realised in the fiction.

But my first thought about your suggested encounter is what mechanics would be used. In particular, how does an assailant (in D&D) rip of armour, tear through an opponent's flesh and then dismember them (without a sword of sharpness or similar ability). It just sounds like hit point damage, which I thought you were deriding.

If the dancing chains actually had a mechanical implementation that supported that idea they would be more interesting to me than they currently are!


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> The Essentials verbiage, on the other hand, I find completely off-putting. Either show me mechanics that will make it true in play (how does the PHB tell me that dwarves are hardy? because they get Second Wind as a minor action!), or say nothing at all. But long descriptions that are divorced from the play experience, and sometimes are misleading as to they way some power or ability will actually play out at the table, are not very interesting to me. When I look through my Essentials books, I skip over all that stuff so I can see what the mechanics are, and hence _really_ see what sort of fiction is going to be created by using this stuff in a game.




I find this a chicken-or-egg dilemma then. 

Is the dwarf hardy because it has second wind, or does it have second wind because its hardy? Which comes first, the mechanics or the fluff? D&D has traditionally written from a place of fluff first, mechanics support it. Your proposing that the mechanics come first, and then you can hang whatever fluff you want on it. That is a very radically different way of doing things. 

Lets try an experiment. I have a monster I designed years ago (2008) for my 4e game. I will post its stat-block and nothing else. Describe to me what that monster is. (Hint: Dahlia is the creature's name, not type)

[sblock]Dahlia 	Level 1 Elite Skirmisher
Tiny fey beast 	XP 200 each
Initiative +6 	Senses Perception +2; low-light vision
HP 40; 	Bloodied 20
AC 20; Fortitude 15, Reflex 22, Will 17
Saving Throws +2
Action Points 1
Speed 6
 Claw (standard; at-will)
+3 vs. AC. 1d4+1
 Eyebite (Standard; recharge 56)  Arcane, Charm, Psychic
Ranged 10; +4 vs. Will. 1d6+3 psychic damage and you are invisible to the target until the start of your next turn.
 Undeniable Beauty (immediate interrupt, when Dahlia is targeted by a melee attack; at will)
+ 3 vs. Will against the attacker; the attacker must target a different creature or end its attack.
Lure of the Wild (standard; recharge )
Ranged 10; + 3 vs. Will. The target is pulled 5 squares and is dazed (save ends).
Step Through the Mists (move; encounter)
Dahlia teleports up to 3 squares.
Alignment Good	Languages Common, Elven
Skills Acrobatics +9, Athletics +5, Stealth +9
Str 6 (–2) 	Dex 18 (+4)	Wis 10 (+0)
Con 12 (+1) 	Int 14 (+2)	Cha 12 (+1)
Equipment +1 amulet [/sblock]

Here is some perfectly good mechanics. Weave me a story.


----------



## Rejuvenator (Mar 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> The Essentials verbiage, on the other hand, I find completely off-putting. Either show me mechanics that will make it true in play (how does the PHB tell me that dwarves are hardy? because they get Second Wind as a minor action!), or say nothing at all. But long descriptions that are divorced from the play experience, and sometimes are misleading as to they way some power or ability will actually play out at the table, are not very interesting to me. When I look through my Essentials books, I skip over all that stuff so I can see what the mechanics are, and hence _really_ see what sort of fiction is going to be created by using this stuff in a game.






pemerton said:


> But when it comes to RPGing I really am a "show, don't tell" person. It is the mechanics that show me what the fiction "really" is (or will be). For instantce, p 6 refers to building a "courageous fighter", but until you get Indomitable there is no particular element of fighters that makes the courageous (and in fact the lack of WIS save proficiency points the other way).



Very enlightening! Thanks for articulating that.

I also sometimes struggle with mechanics that seem ill-fitted or not comprehensive enough to match the fluff.

And if I too could look at the mechanics as an outline framework and see the story blossom within, I would probably enjoy 4E.


Sadras said:


> I find at the table it becomes more of...
> Player A (Fighter), who succeeded his save,  says to Player B (Archer), how many hit points do you have, because if I hit the Cambion I can do X damage? Player (B) says 50, I should be able to withstand a little damage, plus I have psychic protection ring. Player C (Warlord) says to Player B I will grant you another saving throw should you fail.



But if this kind of thing happened at my table, it would tear me out of my immersion completely. I would just see the numbers and tactics, too difficult to see the story.

So 5E, as imperfect as it is for mismatched fluff:mechanics, is my best best. But still, your post was elucidating.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 27, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I find this a chicken-or-egg dilemma then.
> 
> Is the dwarf hardy because it has second wind, or does it have second wind because its hardy? Which comes first, the mechanics or the fluff? D&D has traditionally written from a place of fluff first, mechanics support it. Your proposing that the mechanics come first, and then you can hang whatever fluff you want on it. That is a very radically different way of doing things.
> 
> ...




Dahlia is a flower fairy named for the flowers she most favours and can be found where these flowers go wild in the mountains. Not in the gardens of Man or Elf where they are cultivated.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 27, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> [sblock]Dahlia 	Level 1 Elite Skirmisher
> Tiny fey beast 	XP 200 each
> Initiative +6 	Senses Perception +2; low-light vision
> HP 40; 	Bloodied 20
> ...



I'd probably use that block for some kind of super-_kawaii_ faerie kitty.  Or give it a fly speed and use it for a fairie dragon.  It's a tiny fey beast with a claw attack, so any sort of small predator works, with magical abilities oriented around evasion, primarily, and some minor control.  A familiar for a Sidhe mage would work, too.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 27, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I'd probably use that block for some kind of super-_kawaii_ faerie kitty.  Or give it a fly speed and use it for a fairie dragon.  It's a tiny fey beast with a claw attack, so any sort of small predator works, with magical abilities oriented around evasion, primarily, and some minor control.  A familiar for a Sidhe mage would work, too.




I don't think it's some kind of beast though because of the "Undeniable Beauty" power...

EDIT: D'oh... it says beast in the stat block...lol, ignore the above statement.


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 27, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I find this a chicken-or-egg dilemma then.
> 
> Is the dwarf hardy because it has second wind, or does it have second wind because its hardy? Which comes first, the mechanics or the fluff? D&D has traditionally written from a place of fluff first, mechanics support it. Your proposing that the mechanics come first, and then you can hang whatever fluff you want on it. That is a very radically different way of doing things.




You'll be shocked to hear I agree with  @_*pemerton*_!  Show me.  Don't tell me. Tell me combined with incoherent show me lends itself towards requiring GM force and illusionism to make up for the mechanic's inability to authentically manifest their story, of their own volition and of the volition of the player who is advocating for their PC, when their are brought to bear in GM-framed situations.



Remathilis said:


> Lets try an experiment. I have a monster I designed years ago (2008) for my 4e game. I will post its stat-block and nothing else. Describe to me what that monster is. (Hint: Dahlia is the creature's name, not type)
> 
> [sblock]Dahlia     Level 1 Elite Skirmisher
> Tiny fey beast     XP 200 each
> ...




Oh this is a fun game!  I like this!  I'm going to go with...

A pixie from the Feywild loved picking sunflowers to give to and make happy the children of her pixie village.  Unfortunately, these sunflowers came from a grove that forbade outsiders from spreading its beauty to the world.  The grove's miserly master was a powerful, evil sorcerer.  One fateful day that sorcerer caught the pixie and laid her low....polymorphing her into a little fox...never to fly again.  Sad pixie   ANGRY PIXIE!  The pixie makes a deal with a powerful archfey and gains the beguiling, otherworldly (well I guess not for the Feywild...) power of a warlock.  

Her ongoing mission?  To explore new flora and new sweet-smelling, pretty things.  To seek out miserly, evil sorcerers who horde beautiful flowers and dispatch them.  To boldly go into forbidden groves where no pixie-turned-fox has gone before.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 27, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I don't think it's some kind of beast though because of the "Undeniable Beauty" power...



1)  It says tiny fey beast right in the stat block.  I can only run off the parameters Remathalis gave. 

2) I'm pretty sure an animal, especially a faerie one, can have Undeniable Beauty.  I mean, they didn't name the horse "Black Ugly".


----------



## Imaro (Mar 27, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> 1)  It says tiny fey beast right in the stat block.  I can only run off the parameters Remathalis gave.
> 
> 2) I'm pretty sure an animal, especially a faerie one, can have Undeniable Beauty.  I mean, they didn't name the horse "Black Ugly".




Yeah I just saw number one and revised my post... sorry about that, I totally missed it.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 27, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> Her ongoing mission?  To explore new flora and new sweet-smelling, pretty things.  To seek out miserly, evil sorcerers who horde beautiful flowers and dispatch them.  To boldly go into forbidden groves where no pixie-turned-fox has gone before.



She should be careful....most foxes appear to be red-shirted.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't know what makes you think the damage from the Chained Cambion, either in general or in the encounter in which I used it, was not significant. I can assure you that it absolutely was.




Then I think your DMing skill and fortune paid off in this regard.



> By all means post your actual play examples of this!




Most recently the characters under the effects of a _Water-breathing_ ritual swam in haste towards a portal hidden within cavern-lake. They were spotted by the wraith guardians they were attempting to avoid and they immediately split up. One of the characters (rogue) was targeted and suffered an energy drain from the attack of the wraith. Only 1 of the other 4 characters remained to help, being played by me as the player was absent, while the others opted to pass through the portal. The one who remained to help suffered a critical hit, which means I doubled the damage die (potential energy drain too) of the wraith's attack, essentially I rolled 39 points of damage (8d8+3) and he had to make a constitution check DC14 to ensure the hit points didn't come off his permanent total. I rolled another 20 thankfully and the PCs made their escape through the portal - casting _Dispel Magic_ and _Stoneshape_ on the other side, closing it off. 
The players, deciding to abandon their ally instead of suffering potential energy drained, can be argued that they reflected callousness and fear with their actions.    



> But I don't see why these instances bear upon my point: which was that there was a power which was somewhat opaque, or at least complex, in its text; but that which, in play, manifested itself clearly and brilliantly.




Some 10 sessions back, the party was in combat with an efreeti and its minions and for the most of the combat they didn't even know about the efreeti which was hiding within a burning house hurling flames at them while they engaged its minions on the lawn. When they finally discovered its presence - the warlocks cast _Darkness_ and hid within to save themselves (the darkness not impeding their ability to see, due to an ability they had).
The efreeti unable to determine where they were within the area of the _Darkness_ spell, summoned a _Wall of Flame_ zig-zagging through the darkness to ensure that they were affected by the flames (either being in them or near them - both would inflict damage). This resulted in one of the warlock's dropping from the damage sustained. The remaining warlock had a choice to make, pull his friend from the fire and out of the darkness and risk the wrath of the Efreeti or keep on hiding in the darkness and let the flame consume his ally's body.

How is the Chained Cambion's ability more evocative, more complex or manifested more clearly and brilliantly than the Efreeti's? 



> But my first thought about your suggested encounter is what mechanics would be used. In particular, how does an assailant (in D&D) rip of armour, tear through an opponent's flesh and then dismember them (without a sword of sharpness or similar ability). It just sounds like hit point damage, which I thought you were deriding.




Rip Armour: In 3.x I would look at the hardness of armour, provide a set of armour points and have the chain attacks work against that, describing it as such. 
Tearing Opponents Flesh: If the target was restrained as in my example, I would roll for critical damage. The damage suggested in the stat block is for the chaos and recklessness of combat not helpless victims, IMO. 
Dismembering: Two critical hits would be enough, to satisfy me, that the target had its limb dismembered.

As long as hit points keep being inflated as per the later editions, all abilities are relative depending on the current hit points of the characters. So the decision to leave an ally to the psychic damage of the _Shackled Minds_ is really dependent on the characters' hit points, making that ability as complex or brilliant as any other.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 27, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> Oh this is a fun game!  I like this!  I'm going to go with...
> 
> A pixie from the Feywild loved picking sunflowers to give to and make happy the children of her pixie village.  Unfortunately, these sunflowers came from a grove that forbade outsiders from spreading its beauty to the world.  The grove's miserly master was a powerful, evil sorcerer.  One fateful day that sorcerer caught the pixie and laid her low....polymorphing her into a little fox...never to fly again.  Sad pixie   ANGRY PIXIE!  The pixie makes a deal with a powerful archfey and gains the beguiling, otherworldly (well I guess not for the Feywild...) power of a warlock.
> 
> Her ongoing mission?  To explore new flora and new sweet-smelling, pretty things.  To seek out miserly, evil sorcerers who horde beautiful flowers and dispatch them.  To boldly go into forbidden groves where no pixie-turned-fox has gone before.




I think you probably need a bite attack for this one... do some foxes attack with claws?


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 27, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I think you probably need a bite attack for this one... do some foxes attack with claws?



I'm not sure...but what does the fox say?


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 27, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I think you probably need a bite attack for this one... do some foxes attack with claws?




Not really, no.  They're omnivores and their live prey are exceedingly small (bugs, reptiles, etc).  They typically pounce, hold with their claws and shred with their canines...S.O.P for their family.  

But this fox.  She is a prissy little fairy.  Getting her muzzle drenched in gore is right out.  I think she would go the bat-bat-bat route (like a kitty) with her claws (they do have nasty claws and some are great climbers/diggers) when she can't ensorcel folks.


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 27, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> I'm not sure...but what does the fox say?




LOL.  WHAT?  Oh man, literally gutted.  What the hell is wrong with this stupid (and by stupid I mean awesome of course) world we live in?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 27, 2015)

Well, there were some pretty close guesses...

[sblock=Reveal]Dahlia is an eladrin fey warlock who as cursed into the form of a cat by a spiteful evil fey queen. Her claws are a result of her cat form, eyebite her former warlock power. Lure of the Wild and Undeniable Beauty are abilities that reflect her cute, harmless appearance (augmented by fey glamour). Lastly, Step through the Mists is the remnant of her Eladrin Fey Step ability. [/sblock]

Of course, I had the idea before I designed the stat block so I built it around that notion. You all took her stats and built something else unique with it. Which I guess shows that both methods have validity, and that there should be support for both (5e's MM does that, by giving me several paragraphs of fluff and then a concise stat block that is just the facts m'am.)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> My experience was very different. Reading the 4e Monster Manuals and players' manuals (not the general rules, but the power lists) makes me want to see these things in play (and to imagine what might happen in the course of such play).



 That's not really that different from my experience.  I remember my old group going through the PH1 for the first time, and being excited by what the powers could do - particularly fighter and rogue powers, for obvious reasons.  A bunch of hobbyist can look through even a dry, technical manual and have those kinds of reactions.

And, sure, there was flavor stuff in 4e.  It drops hints about Nerath and Arkhosia and so forth.  It has sidebars about what the power sources represent and stuff like that.  On balance, though, it didn't compromise being a decent reference book to be a better read.



> It's not the same as reading a story, obviously. But I don't really read RPG books for story.



 I appreciated the readability approach in Storyteller, even as I was frustrated by the lack of adequate indexes and crunch.  I liked having good rules I could fairly easily look up in 4e - and the best of the bad lot of Essentials core books was the pure-reference Compendium - but I didn't ever read /everything/ in any of them, because they don't have that readability.   Both styles are perfectly valid and have their good and bad qualities.  



> The Essentials verbiage, on the other hand, I find completely off-putting. Either show me mechanics that will make it true in play (how does the PHB tell me that dwarves are hardy? because they get Second Wind as a minor action!), or say nothing at all. But long descriptions that are divorced from the play experience, and sometimes are misleading as to they way some power or ability will actually play out at the table, are not very interesting to me. When I look through my Essentials books, I skip over all that stuff so I can see what the mechanics are, and hence _really_ see what sort of fiction is going to be created by using this stuff in a game.



 Personally, I found E-fluff mostly just redundant filler, a large-type re-iteration of the italic fluff in each power description.   But, yes one stereotypical failing of RPGs is to give a great fluff-text description of something, or put in a cool illo of the same thing, and then have the mechanics completely fail to live up to it. 

I don't think you can count on getting fluff and crunch into perfect alignment (for one thing, because necessarily natural-language fluff can always be interpreted in a variety of ways), so instead, you can explicitly let one or the other 'win' and put more emphasis on getting that aspect right.  4e put mechanics first in it's design priorities, so it had clear, balanced, playable mechanics that made it plain what each game element accomplished in play.  It left the 'fluff' sketchy, weak, and not always matching up that well, but invited the user to substitute something from his own imagination, instead.  There have been games - Storyteller, again, is an example I'm familiar with - that go ahead and put the fluff first and just broadly paint the mechanics, figuring you'll go with what you want, and the mechanics are just a temporary crutch that should work badly, so you'll have an incentive to learn to do without them ("bad rules make good games").  

5e, since this is a 5e thread, really, does try to take a more middle-of-the-road approach.  The DM is free to change the mechanics as he likes, but they're not officially subordinated to fluff, and re-skinning of fluff, even by players, still seems acceptable - if there's a flavor/mechanic disconnect the DM has the final say in resolving it.  That may not be avoiding the problem entirely, but it at least gives permission for the DM to fix it as he thinks will best suit his group.




Remathilis said:


> I find this a chicken-or-egg dilemma then.
> 
> Is the dwarf hardy because it has second wind, or does it have second wind because its hardy? Which comes first, the mechanics or the fluff?



 In that specific instance, there's no dilemma:  the hardy Dwarf archetype precedes D&D, let alone 4e D&D.  



> D&D has traditionally written from a place of fluff first, mechanics support it. Your proposing that the mechanics come first, and then you can hang whatever fluff you want on it. That is a very radically different way of doing things.



 I think it would be more accurate to say that D&D had traditionally mixed fluff and natural-language rules with mechanical jargon.  A lot of the unfortunate complexity (complication), steep learning curve - and constant 'rules lawyer'ing of the early games came from that tendency.

But, yes separating fluff and mechanics and letting the fluff be modified to suit by the player was a striking innovation, for D&D (it had been done much more extensively in Champions! 27 years earlier, so was hardly new to the broader hobby).  That approach (whatever game is using it) still doesn't necessarily put one 'first' in the character-creation process though.  A player can pick mechanics based on preference or optimization, and then adjust or assign fluff in order to justify the results - or, he could choose the 'fluff' concept he's going for, and make choices that mechanically support the concept, modifying their fluff to match the concept if it doesn't already.  It does put crunch first in resolution, though as always, the GM is inevitably free to rule or over-rule as he likes.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 27, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> LOL.  WHAT?  Oh man, literally gutted.  What the hell is wrong with this stupid (and by stupid I mean awesome of course) world we live in?



All things about our modern world, both profound and terrible, can be summarized by a chimpanzee riding on a segway.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I find this a chicken-or-egg dilemma then.



When I think of chicken-or-egg problems, I tend to think of them as causal puzzles, or (if we stretch the metaphor) as puzzles of logical or conceptual circularity.

But in RPG design there is no puzzle, because the mechanics and the fictional/story element that the mechanics express can emerge simultaneously. For instance, when I read the "dwarf" rules in 4e I'm not a tabula rasa - I've played D&D, I've read LotR, I can see the art on the page. So I know the trope/genre I'm being pointed towards.

I don't know if you saw my example of the Chained Cambion I talked about upthread, but that was a case where even with the flavour text about the Chained Cambion's pain, rage and frustration it wasn't fully clear to me what the power was meant to be until it came out in play - at which point, to me at least, it became beautifully and powerfully clear.



Remathilis said:


> Describe to me what that monster is. (Hint: Dahlia is the creature's name, not type)
> 
> [sblock]Dahlia 	Level 1 Elite Skirmisher
> Tiny fey beast 	XP 200 each
> ...



It is small, weak (but fit for its size - look at its Athletics)  but clever and talks elven. So it's not a (mundane) animal. DEX is its best stat and it has Acrobatics. So it's quick.

It's good, so not a gremlin or quickling, but it is clawed like them.

It has warlocky-abiliites: it can Eyebite, and teleport through the mists; and it is fey, so presumably when it teleports it steps through the mists that are the veil between worlds (mortal world and Feywild).

At this point it could be a type of good but wild fairy, or a fey cat of some kind. But it has lure of the wild - so enemies are entranced by it and drawn to it. (That's not a charm effect, though. Perhaps it should be?) But it also has Undeniable Beauty, which means when its enemies reach it and try to attack it they can't.

That suggests some sort of nymph, rather than a cat. But its type of "beast" suggests a cat, rather than a nymph. It can't fly, so it's not an insect or faerie/pseudo-dragon.

Conclusion: from the stat-block I can't tell definitively what sort of creature it is (eg exactly what it's body type is), but I think it is some sort of wild creature of the feywild, a beautiful cat or something similar. It may have a human face - the fact that it uses Eyebite at least suggests that its eyes are placed on its face as they are for a person (hence why I'm thinking of a cat as another possibility, as well as the claw), and its undeniable beauty would fit with having a human face too.

Whether it is a beatiful wild creature of the feywild, or a human-faced animal, it is clearly enchanted (Eyebite, lure of the wild, misty step) but relatively peaceful (Reflex and Acro, Good alignment, undeniable beauty). In story terms, it might make a good familiar for a good-aligned elven or half-elven Feylock; or it might be a creature that the PCs are trying to find because if they can persuade them to let it have a lock of its golden hair or silver coat (etc), then they can present that to the Fomorian king as a token for safe passage. But that will require the PCs first to successfully approach it, which will be hard because it hides from them (eyebite, misty step) and dazzles those who approach (undeniable beauty, lure of the wild).

That's my take. How'd I do?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> That's my take. How'd I do?




http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...oming/page83&p=6573118&viewfull=1#post6573118

Not too shabby.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 27, 2015)

I  wrote my answer to  [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] before reading on. Now that I have read on, some thoughts.

  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - at first I was thinking something gremlin-like (but good and beautiful rather than evil and ugly) but then noticed that didn't fit with the Beast descriptor!



TwoSix said:


> I'd probably use that block for some kind of super-_kawaii_ faerie kitty.  Or give it a fly speed and use it for a fairie dragon.  It's a tiny fey beast with a claw attack, so any sort of small predator works, with magical abilities oriented around evasion, primarily, and some minor control.  A familiar for a Sidhe mage would work, too.



We are very cose - I'm not sure what "kawaii" is (does that mean my anime-fu is weak?) but I also went with a fairy cat, noted the faerie-dragon issue, and canvassed the possibility of being a familiar!



Manbearcat said:


> A pixie from the Feywild loved picking sunflowers to give to and make happy the children of her pixie village.  Unfortunately, these sunflowers came from a grove that forbade outsiders from spreading its beauty to the world.  The grove's miserly master was a powerful, evil sorcerer.  One fateful day that sorcerer caught the pixie and laid her low....polymorphing her into a little fox...never to fly again.  Sad pixie   ANGRY PIXIE!  The pixie makes a deal with a powerful archfey and gains the beguiling, otherworldly (well I guess not for the Feywild...) power of a warlock.
> 
> Her ongoing mission?  To explore new flora and new sweet-smelling, pretty things.  To seek out miserly, evil sorcerers who horde beautiful flowers and dispatch them.  To boldly go into forbidden groves where no pixie-turned-fox has gone before.





Imaro said:


> I think you probably need a bite attack for this one... do some foxes attack with claws?



Manbearcat, I like your backstory but I think I agree with Imaro about claw vs bite.

But foxes do have the frontward-oriented eyes to support Eyebite.

The reason I didn't go for a shapeshifter-style thing is the lack of a polymorph ability. But your curse backstory covers that nicely.

And now I've just read the reveal.  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] wins on the cursed polymorph backstory.  [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] and I win on the faerie cat!

EDIT: And . . . ., I kept reading:



Remathilis said:


> Not too shabby.



Cool!

Did it work in play like you hoped when you built it? For me, that's the test of a good game - and that means "good game" is player- and table-relative.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 28, 2015)

pemerton said:


> We are very cose - I'm not sure what "kawaii" is (does that mean my anime-fu is weak?)



Somewhat.   "Kawaii" means incredibly cute and adorable.  Ideally, you need to imagine the word being said with last syllable being drawn out for several seconds at a very high pitch, while being said by a sobbing in happiness 10-year old girl.


----------



## tuxgeo (Mar 28, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> < snip >
> Oh this is a fun game!  I like this!  I'm going to go with...
> 
> A pixie from the Feywild loved picking sunflowers to give to and make happy the children of her pixie village.  Unfortunately, these sunflowers came from a grove that forbade outsiders from spreading its beauty to the world.  The grove's miserly master was a powerful, evil sorcerer.  One fateful day that sorcerer caught the pixie and laid her low....polymorphing her into a little fox...never to fly again.  Sad pixie  *ANGRY PIXIE!*  The pixie makes a deal with a powerful archfey and gains the beguiling, otherworldly (well I guess not for the Feywild...) power of a warlock. < snip >




(emphasis added) 
To nobody's surprise, there's a webcomic named something like that: "Angry Faerie." (She can give herself an angrygasm.) 
Webcomic most recently updated last Sunday -- March 22, 2015.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 28, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Did it work in play like you hoped when you built it? For me, that's the test of a good game - and that means "good game" is player- and table-relative.




She ended up being an NPC who was great for giving exposition dumps and info, while being a non-combatant (except for self-defense). I usually gave her stat block out to one of other Players, and she routinely passed herself off as the wizard's familiar. 

She was fun, one of the many good ideas from that game that got drowned out due to system discontent. Might be a good time to bring her back...


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 28, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Manbearcat, I like your backstory but I think I agree with Imaro about claw vs bite.




Yeah...the claw definitely fits the cat over the fox...my mind was just drawn toward the fox for some reason.  Maybe my mind was drifting toward _Lady Into Fox_.  It is more likely due to the fact that I was listening to Sting's _The End of the Game_ earlier.  But now  [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] has forever tainted the image of the noble, little, red quadruped in my mind's eye.  Fare thee well my beloved _Fox and the Hound_ 



tuxgeo said:


> (emphasis added)
> To nobody's surprise, there's a webcomic named something like that: "Angry Faerie." (She can give herself an angrygasm.)
> Webcomic most recently updated last Sunday -- March 22, 2015.




Angragasm eh?  Sounds crazy but my guess is it can't match the raw, unbridled insanity of TwoSix's video.


----------

