|
Post by whutaguy on Jan 11, 2012 19:17:51 GMT -8
OK, Im starting this to express what I think WotC will try to do, what I want them to do, what I want them to not do.
Firstly, I am under the assumption that this is purely a cash grab. A new edition ought to occur when the current material has so many errors and contradictions that it is becoming unplayable. A revision should occur when the problems are becoming evident and can be resolved without a "new edition", such as 3.5 was a revision of 3.0.
One of my fears is that WotC is going to try to recover the fans they lost to Pathfinder. While I think it's great that they still care about those fans (and their money), they are going to alienate the 4e fans and not recover the Pathfinders if they try to re-invent 3.0/d20OGL. Because 3.x was little more than a revision of 2e, which was mostly a revision of AD&D, the edition wars were really nothing more than a skirmish. 4e was a huge change from all previous editions.
The 3.x fans have been lost. If WotC accepts this and moves on with a revision of 4, I think they can keep their 4e fan base largely intact. But because the PF/3.x/OSR crowd is larger, I expect 5e to swing back in that direction. Additionally, to encourage the 4e players to switch to 5e, support of the 4e character generator will stop, on or about the release date for 5e. This will alienate the 4e fans. The 3.x fans will not return because Paizo has treated them like valued customers through back-compatible revision, continued new material support, and community support.
WotC will try to make a game which caters to both groups and like most tools that claim to do multiple functions, neither will be great.
<start tangent> GURPS, Savage Worlds, Hero, etc. do not try to work 2 distinct rule systems, rather they work 1 set of rules to various applications. 3.x and 4e are seperate rule systems sharing a name. </end tangent>
I would like to see: A system that is fully compatible with 4e. Not necessarily a revision, but possibly more modular. Maybe one where at a given level you can choose any power with your character's keywords. Cheaper, smaller supplements that are more specific to a class, race, power source, etc., comprehensive volumes of rituals, items, feats, etc. Third party friendlier support. I'm not saying OGL level here, but more of the "powered by Gurps" model. Licensing fee. Cradle to grave support of accessories. Keep the same line of miniatures, tiles, cards and what-not from the release of the game until the release of 6e in 2015. A faster, offline, character generator with optional setting like ritual descriptions, and bullet pointed racial and class info.
What I don't want to see: A silverlight character generator. a 3.x revision. Those guys are gone. Gurps with HP/AC. (I love Gurps, but WotC won't do it right) $50 every month to keep up on books featuring power creep.
It seemed like I had a lot more to say when I started. Maybe I'll add more tomorrow.
What do you all want, expect, fear?
|
|
|
Post by uselesstriviaman on Jan 11, 2012 19:56:08 GMT -8
I agree, and fully expect that all 4th Ed support will vanish like a fart in the wind within a coupla months after they release 5e.
I kind of expect they'll try again with 5.0 DDI; they may add a few bells and whistles to make it more appealing and give it that New Subscription smell, but I really don't want to shell out monthly money for updates to my game of choice. I have major issues with the DDI style of releasing new material, but that's neither here nor there.
No thoughts whatsoever on what I'd like to see; I'm one of the many 3e players who have gone down the Pathfinder highway. It's very scenic, and the folks there sure are nice.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jan 11, 2012 20:19:14 GMT -8
If you think about this from the fact that WotC is owned by a publicly traded company with shareholders to appease, I don't think they CAN publish a DnD5e without making some attempt to bring back the market share that went to Paizo.
The combination of the OGL and a decidedly different edition in 4e created an environment where the 800 lb gorilla of the industry lost a lot of weight and created another 400 lb gorilla. Hasbro's big shareholders have to be at the very least irritated by that.
I would like to see WotC learn some lessons from their own mistakes and the good things both they and other game designers have come up with over the last 40 years.
I LOVE the fluff books WotC came up with for 4e. That stuff is top notch, and I'd like to see that stuff continue with the new edition.
I do like the idea that stuff from 4e can be used w/ 5e, but I don't think they'll do that. One of the reasons they're publishing a new edition is money, as you've said, and I think it stands to reason they'll want you to buy new fluff and splat books to go with the shiny new 5e core books.
What I'd like to see included in the core rules.
- Some sort of roleplaying reward system that's built into the game mechanics, a la SW Bennies, Fate Aspects/Compels, etc. Hell, make 'em collectible trading cards -- but make them rewards for playing your character.
- A simple body of basic rules, and advanced/optional rules to adapt the system to be more simulationist, heroic, story based, etc.
- Less emphasis on party balance and roles and more freedom for non-combat classes to be useful in combat -- rather than just having a similar DPS with a different trapping.
I'd also like to see a new setting. Like I said, I LOVE WotC's fluff books. I'd like them start anew from the ground up with a fresh setting. There are a lot of talented people there -- set them loose on a new setting.
|
|
clanhanna
Journeyman Douchebag
The Muffin
Posts: 221
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller, O.R.E, Mongoose Traveller
Currently Playing: Vampire: The Masquerade, Vampire: The Dark Ages, D&D 5e
Currently Running: Vampire: The Dark Ages
Favorite Species of Monkey: Peanut-buttery Rhesus
|
Post by clanhanna on Jan 12, 2012 0:10:19 GMT -8
The only real thing I want to see in 5e is better ranged weapon classes. Even the Rangers who max out their abilities with regard to the "battlefield archer" build can't do shit. It is similar to the problem with Beastmaster Rangers, but all the ranged damage comes from spellcasters, rather than a guy with a bow or crossbow. No matter what Encounter or Daily powers an archer ranger picks, even through 21st level, nothing is significantly better than just firing Twin Shot (At-Will level 1) all day long.
|
|
|
Post by muntjack on Jan 12, 2012 14:26:01 GMT -8
I would like to see them not jump the gun on a new edition yet again. I was a huge 3.0 player, and when I found out that they wanted me all of a sudden to guy new books for something they called 3.5, I was outright angry. I refused to buy the books, and I continued to run 3.0. Why? Because the game wasn't that bad, and we were having a lot of fun.
When they switched to 4.0, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Our group tried it briefly, and I'm kind of glad in a way that we didn't get into it. That way we haven't had to get swept into all of the crap that has come with the game ever since (DDI, having to switch to a NEW edition AGAIN, etc).
I'll continue to be happy with Pathfinder. I'll be paying attention to what WotC does, but I don't think I'll play it, even if they try and bring it back to the 3.0 days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 16:59:55 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure the main reason 5.0 is already in development and 4e is on the way out has less to do with WOTC then it does Hasbro. D&D is not turning the kind of profits Hasbro demands from its products. They are quick to cancel any line that isn't turning a big profit. They don't do niche, and I have no doubt they would happily can D&D and jsut let Magic continue being a profit engine without a second thought.
I have enjoyed 4e, its what got me back into RP after a long absence. But at the same time I haven't bought a new D&D product since Dark Sun because nothing has come out that I thought was worth the money. In fact no one in my gaming group has picked up any new D&D stuff in that time for the same reason. Also as much as I love it I think they shot themselves in the foot a bit with DDI. The subscription service might guarantee a certain amount of income, but usually only a single person in a group is going to get an account, my group being an example of that.
Also the compendium and the character and monster builders has made it so I have no reason to pick up half the books since the items, creatures, feats, etc included in the books are their online for me any time I need them. Even if I did want the books I'd be the only one buying them so again of the seven people in the group only one person would be giving any income to WOTC.
Regardless of the changes they make I don't think 5e will last any longer then 4e has. Unless it turns the big profits Hasbro wants they'll can it quick. Honestly I've pretty much moved onto other more universal systems myself at this point so likely won't be putting much income into 5e anyways.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Jan 13, 2012 7:58:29 GMT -8
I basically stopped playing DnD when 4E hit the shelves. I played one game of 4E, didn't like it, and decided to stick with 3.5, then quickly moved on to the Pathfinder beta. I agree that I don't want another 3.5 clone, because I already have a 3.5 clone that I very much enjoy. Just like how 4E was a completely new game, I honestly would prefer to see something totally new.
WotC's biggest challenge will be to convince players to dump 4E in favor of 5E. That didn't go so well when they introduced 4E, since they lost a lot of players to Pathfinder. I know that all of the current 4E players will be pissed at having to buy new books (again,) but in order to make the brand profitable, WotC needs to come up with something new and fresh.
|
|
clanhanna
Journeyman Douchebag
The Muffin
Posts: 221
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller, O.R.E, Mongoose Traveller
Currently Playing: Vampire: The Masquerade, Vampire: The Dark Ages, D&D 5e
Currently Running: Vampire: The Dark Ages
Favorite Species of Monkey: Peanut-buttery Rhesus
|
Post by clanhanna on Jan 15, 2012 9:59:56 GMT -8
My one, true hope is that D&D doesn't get shelved entirely. WotC got pretty seriously hosed on this one, as it was completely not within their power to do anything about this.
Hasbro bought WotC in a hostile takeover. Wizards' consent didn't factor into whether they were bought out.
WotC tried to convince Hasbro to allow WotC as a whole to be considered one product line, so as to meet Hasbro's strict "$50 million per annum or you're out" policy. Hasbro said no. Individual product lines.
WotC is the house that Magic built, and Magic: the Gathering does meet Hasbro's profit requirement. D&D does not, at least not yet. For WotC, it's the age-old issue of "publish or perish."
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jan 15, 2012 17:06:19 GMT -8
I am going to totally echo what JiB said at the beginning of Season 7 Episode 01. My hope for D&D 5e is simply for it to do well. For better or worse, D&D is the brand that is best known to those outside the RPG hobby. Other people have already said it before me I'm sure, but when you try to explain a role-playing game to a non-gamer, nearly all of the time they'll respond with "Oh, so it's like D&D?" There's a reason for that.
For those of us who are already gamers, there are many systems out there that do far more interesting things with the rules than D&D. There are far more interesting settings than D&D out there as well (I argue that vanilla D&D essentially has no setting, but that's a tangent). WotC is making sure that D&D is accessible to new players, and I don't think any other company is doing that to the extent that WotC is. For our great hobby to survive, we have to start bringing in new players.
In one of the articles I read, someone in the industry (I forget who exactly) likened pen & paper RPGs to the model train hobby. I'm going to paraphrase here. What happened with model trains is that they lost popularity among the general public, and so to keep up, retailers and manufacturers raised their prices and started catering to a niche market (old retired dudes). This older customer base could pay the high prices, but younger people didn't have the disposable income to do so, and so the hobby shrunk. As model railroad enthusiasts die, no one is replacing them, and so the hobby is slowly disappearing.
I really don't want that to happen to pen & paper RPGs. Pathfinder looks like a great system, but no one who is just starting RPGs is going to pick up that 500+ page monster. Even I balked when I saw it, and I'm a crunch-monkey who loves 3.5. So, setting aside all the things I personally want to see in the new edition (skill points for one), I simply want D&D 5e to succeed and help grow the hobby. I'll get off my soapbox now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 19:24:04 GMT -8
The most exciting thing about 4E's announcement, for me, was all the digital support. The virtual tabletop, the character builder, pdfs and compendium, etc. None of that came out as well as we hoped. Did the virtual tabletop ever happen? They had a real chance to exploit the digital market for 4E and because of corporate pressure or just reaching way outside their competencies, they failed to make their digital presence worthwhile. I doubt they'll do it any better in 5E, but I have to hope it gets better. As a Peace Corps Volunteer in a remote town all my D&D time is in Maptool; my group still uses the ancient, buggy offline Character Builder and Adventure Tools; my most recent PDFs are the ones they released officially before they decided to abandon that market to pirates. I need WOTC to support my play style with Fifth Edition or I can't make the transition to something new.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jan 17, 2012 20:03:07 GMT -8
The 4e on-line map was in beta last I heard.
I received an email from the company involved with it (not WotC) for a demo, but didn't take them up on it.
|
|
otherdoc
Supporter
Jim - Yes, THAT Jim
Posts: 84
Preferred Game Systems: AMBER Diceless, Savage Worlds, D&D/Pathfinder, Fiasco, Apocalypse Engine
Currently Playing: N/A (on a hopefully temporary hiatus as a player)
Currently Running: N/A (only con games, at the moment)
Favorite Species of Monkey: Squirrel Monkey (Peru, Ucayali Region)
|
Post by otherdoc on Jan 22, 2012 16:34:54 GMT -8
I believe the model train comparison came from Ryan Dancey, the guy who brokered the deal for WotC to buy TSR and engineered the OGL. He also seems to be a big fan of the concept of inevitability and has a bit of a tendency to be a doomsayer, so I take the predictions he makes with a grain of salt. However, the man IS well-informed. If you're interested, here's a link to a post he made in a thread on EN World about the state of D&D (as a companion to a series of articles they recently did on The Escapist): www.enworld.org/forum/5765766-post205.htmlIt gives some insight into the WotC/Hasbro relationship (clanhanna hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the $50-per-annum core brand requirement). If you feel like looking it over, the full thread is at: www.enworld.org/forum/news/315800-4-hours-w-rsd-escapist-bonus-column.htmlOne interesting thing there is that Dancey refers to Pathfinder as a lifeboat people will use to keep tabletop RPGs going. That aside, my hope as someone who plays both Pathfinder and 4E is that they come up with a system that is as flexible as they're wanting it to be. I heard a rumor somewhere - I think it might have been on the Tome Show - that one of the people in the "Friends and Family" playtest said that at present the system plays just as well without miniatures as it does with them. If that's true, I'm hoping that means they found a way to speed combat up a bit (instead of just making it fast at low levels and crawl like molasses at high levels) and that there will be ways for you to swing on chandeliers and slide down bannisters in ways that are just as cool and effective as predetermined "powers" without the DM having to fudge anything. I'd also love to see more about all that stuff that's supposed to be happening OUTSIDE of combat. I like the idea of having a simple core rules set with a number of rules options to get into more complex systems, but only if desired. Rules for followers and strongholds would be nice, for example, but it need not be ridiculously extensive. I'm also a fan of having multiple worlds to play with, so support for several different settings would be cool, though not in such a way as they hamstring themselves like TSR did during 2nd Edition. I'm sure they're going to try to please as many people as they can with the new system and hopefully they'll keep to their word about being glad to let people play whichever edition they like. Maybe they'll take that idea to heart and even support older editions and make older stuff available in (gasp) PDF. Hey, it's a different team in charge now. Stranger things have happened. I just hope they don't try too hard to please EVERYONE. Because if that happens, as I recently saw someone point out, you can easily get this happening: xkcd.com/927/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 6:20:37 GMT -8
I'd also love to see more about all that stuff that's supposed to be happening OUTSIDE of combat. I like the idea of having a simple core rules set with a number of rules options to get into more complex systems, but only if desired. Rules for followers and strongholds would be nice, for example, but it need not be ridiculously extensive. I go back and forth on that issue. On the one hand it seems to be something the audience wants. People want those details and mechanics in the rules and few boxes on their character sheet. On the other hand as a 4E GM I've learned to live without that stuff, and it's taken my group in a really good direction for us. We don't use the rules for anything BUT combat. We have a knowledge check once in a while to fill in backstory (and with a bard I tend to pass notes or use mythology the player already knows), an Athletics check every few levels, and that's about it. D&D campaigns have become two separate things for us: One is the group storytelling that doesn't involve mechanics, resolving influence and power and other potentially rules-heavy issues with a democratic agreement on what's dramatically appropriate. The second thing happens when bad guys are around and we play a tactical board game that we all think is pretty fun and engaging. And hell, when I read some of those games that have mechanics for non-combat things, especially the ones that elaborate a player's role in the society or government, I'm intrigued. I find those ideas fascinating. But those serve best as inspiration. Instead of getting a stronghold at level 10, I'd like 5th Edition to have a chapter on inspiring the player to interact with the world in deeper ways. Start building relationships with NPCs at level 5 that can pay off when you want to buy a domain at paragon tier. Immersion doesn't have to a mechanical thing, it should start with the game laying out a clear idea that the character isn't just a tall mordenkrad who walks into goblins over and over, but is instead a person who should seek to influence a world. I never felt like 4E did that.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 9, 2012 13:46:31 GMT -8
Aside from my (very heartfelt) assertion that I hope the game does well because more people gaming is good for the hobby entire and I like to see games succeed it is unlikely that I will invest in D&D 5e because to be perfectly honest I already have games that do those things in several different flavors. Assuming that we are talking exclusively about a fantasy game I can Run it in Pathfinder if I want a d20 feel and the way the mechanics play out ... or ... Run it in Savage Worlds if I want a really open cinematic feel and a lot of energy ... or ... Run it in Hero if I want something balanced and I want character sheets to terrify my players ... or ... Run it in GURPS if I want it to be truly deadly. That said, there are things that might influence me to buy it. 1. If the people that I game with express that they want to play it we might do that. 2. If there is something truly compelling and novel about the game system. By this I mean they have to have really spun up something special. Don't know what that might be. 3. If they spin up a playable system at a reasonable price and provide fluff that I really want to play with. I would like to see alternative rules for AC and HP. I would like to see weapons be as valuable as magic at higher levels ... (Pathfinder fails here imo too.) I would like to see a combat system where an individual combatant's action takes less than 1 minute to resolve regardless of level. I would like to see a reward system for good role play (Bennies or similar) I would like to see a reasonable character builder that doesn't require an online subscription. That's my wish list for 5e if anybody cares to read ... Cheers, JiB
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Feb 9, 2012 14:10:30 GMT -8
JiB, I also hope that 5th Ed does well. I think that it brings people into the hobby. I will buy some of their fluff and hopefully that helps their bottom line. The system will not be one that I buy, but will gladly play when a GM offers.
|
|