People still play AD&D, People still play 3e(PF), People still hate on 4e, so who needs a new E?

There's already multiple, fully fleshed out D&D editions out there. There has always been edition war with new editions. 
We now have three+ diverse, distinct brands of the D&D experience out there. Groups exist for all 3, web communities exist for all 3. There's plenty of books out for all three.

Why do we need 'unification?' we've already got a diverse array of well supported D&D in all kinds of flavors.
WHO needs that new edition?  (Well, other than Monte Cook to stay employed heh)

If a meteor were to hit the WotC office today, it would not stop me from attending my weekly gaming session with friends, or going online to chat with the worldwide D&D fanbase. 

So... why exactly do we need a new edition? What's wrong with playing the D&D you already play?

Because people still complain about the current published version of 4e. I don't think its doing as well as liked, and 3.5 is still running strong. 3.5 is out of print and that money goes to PF or Ebay. WoTC wants that money. 


Or do you mean, why do players want a new edition? Because we want an edition that we enjoy getting new stuff published. Alternativley, we want our edition that is being published improved upon, and if a new edition is whats needed so be it. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

The game is for profit. 

The publisher is not getting rich from old editions of the game. Their newest is a dog that only a few fanatics are clinging to. I certainly ain't wasting the little money I have on any of their products. I wasted enough on 3e. 

They need a way to increase revenues and they are doing what they always do when sales are flat, they redesign the wheel.

Perhaps they should send manuscripts to the printers and start selling older versions, start supporting them with new products, and focus on bringing the community together.

To be hones, although I am filled with curiosity about the new design, I am not very optomistic that it is going to be any better than the last mess they foisted on us. We shall see.


If they really listen to the customer and create a 5th based on what we really want, I'll spend my money on this edition...

4th brought us some amazing things but I felt it like they were trying to grab new players...Maybe these players never came in the number they were hoping. Maybe they didn't listen to us enough...

3rd brought nice changes too but I sold my books, they had not enough interesting things outside rules... ( 4th is even worse for this... )

2nd was the first I played, it has a sentimental value, I still have and keep my 2nd edition books...So much Lore!!! ( And Arts of half-naked women! hehe )

So I feel that the gap from 2nd must be filled at some point! I'd give a chance to 5th Edition!

If 5th Edition Fails....I will start my own game!

I'm playing: Abin Gadon, Halfling Bard Winston "Slurphnose", Gnome Sorcerer Pasiphaé, Minotaur Shaman Eglerion, Elf Ellyrian Reaver (Ranger) DMing: Le Trésor du Fluide (Treasure from the Fluid) Un Royaume d'une Grande Valeur (A Kingdom of Great Value) La Légende de Persitaa (Persitaa's Legend) Une Série de Petites Quêtes... (A serie of short quests) Playtesting: Caves of Chaos We're building the greatest adventure ever known to DnD players! Also playing Legend of the Five Rings and Warhammer Fantasy. Sébastien, Beloeil, Qc. I am Neutral Good and 32 years old.
Like previous posters said, we don't need it; WotC needs it.

However, if they do create One Edition To Rule Them All, how is that going to help them in the long run?

Let's assume absolute best case.  EVERYONE loves 5E, and EVERYONE runs out and buys every product they make for it.  Eventually, they will have run through the entire progression (again) -- all the classes, all the races, all the options we've seen before.

So they will either get to the point where they've run out of new rules to write (again), or they'll start doing crazy stuff like writing books about races of crystal people saving the universe from Cthulhu.  Erm,  wait a second ...

Anyway, you get my point.  No matter what happens, this is only a stay of execution.  Even if the grand scheme works out, it only means their reason for making the next "D&D Next" (D&D Extra-Next?) will make even less sense.

On the other hand, if they do something sensible like stop writing rules and instead focus on accessories and adventures, maybe the madness can actually end.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
WotC needs it. Uniting the editions is the only chance they have of getting the revenue they need to appease their Hasbro overlords because catering to the fanbase of any single edition just won't be enough. And then Habsro will shelve the brand for the next 10 years.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
WotC of course wants to raise profits, so that's one of the two groups involved.

The other group being the players, supported content is supported, there is excitement for new. I like new. 

Or do you mean, why do players want a new edition? Because we want an edition that we enjoy getting new stuff published. Alternativley, we want our edition that is being published improved upon, and if a new edition is whats needed so be it. 




There's new stuff being published for all previous editions, already. Not so much for 2e, but they can easily use the pre 2e material.


I am an optimist. I think we could make a system that is even better than the games that are out there now. If WotC fails to do so, I lose nothing.

There's new stuff being published for all previous editions, already. Not so much for 2e, but they can easily use the pre 2e material.


By WoTC, that I will find in a barnes and noble?


PF is its own game, and even if it werent, its not published by WoTC and rarely found in B&N.

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

Here is a thought for WotC...
1. Create a 5E if that what you want..a system to interchange between all the conditions would be nice.
2. Support the editons you have..create new adventures for 1E for those who want it..
3. Fix 2E stuff..and then release more stuff..
4. Make more stuff for 4E...

Ash 
The idea behind a new edition is to make a game that is better than every previous edition.


I'm in favor of that.  It's arguable whether or not they have suceeded in the past (some would say yes and some would say not, that fact is irrelevant), their goal with every edition has been to improve the game.  And that will continue to be the goal until 99th Edition.


But all other things being equal, I would prefer having a better game to play.  Who wouldn't?
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Monte Cook said you can see in 5E different characters with different options playing in the same game: and that's a plus.

In addition, there's always the pursuit of flawlessness (because NO edition of D&D is flawless) or at least rules' coherence.
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Kingdom of Blackmoor against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me Odir.

So... why exactly do we need a new edition? What's wrong with playing the D&D you already play?

Because Core Rules are the strongest sellers and WotC is nearing the point where all they have left to publish are low selling books about fringe topics.

WotC doesn't think the customers are going to swallow annother "totally not 4.5e D&D Crucials or D&D Necessities"


Ergo we need a new edition.

Monte Cook said you can see in 5E different characters with different options playing in the same game: and that's a plus.




That's not a plus.  Saying such a thing at this early stage is (pardon my French) asanine.  Either you are going to bitterly dissapoint someone when the actual mechanics come out (at which case you've now just "lied" to all your customers), or the game is going to be such a complete disaster (either too mushy with no choice or a complicated unplayable mess or all the above) that no one will want to touch it.

I don't have to see the system to know that what Monte just said simply can not be done.  The systems he are talking about are fundamentally incompatible.  The fact they were both once called DnD is the only thing they have in common (oh and every once in a while you roll a d20 but even that is done differently).


-Polaris     

There's new stuff being published for all previous editions, already. Not so much for 2e, but they can easily use the pre 2e material.


By WoTC, that I will find in a barnes and noble?


PF is its own game, and even if it werent, its not published by WoTC and rarely found in B&N.




No one playing earlier editions cares whether or not WotC is doing the publishing. Or, if their stuff is sold by B&N. 
There's already multiple, fully fleshed out D&D editions out there. There has always been edition war with new editions. 
We now have three+ diverse, distinct brands of the D&D experience out there. Groups exist for all 3, web communities exist for all 3. There's plenty of books out for all three.

Why do we need 'unification?' we've already got a diverse array of well supported D&D in all kinds of flavors.
WHO needs that new edition?  (Well, other than Monte Cook to stay employed heh)

If a meteor were to hit the WotC office today, it would not stop me from attending my weekly gaming session with friends, or going online to chat with the worldwide D&D fanbase. 

So... why exactly do we need a new edition? What's wrong with playing the D&D you already play?

D&D has always been a victim of its own success as demonstrated by 2E, once the PHB was bought, at least one DMG for the group and the Monstrous Manuals then there was limited reason to buy anything else.
The Forgotten Realms did the best for TSR but ultimately TSR didn't keep the profits rolling and the company died on it's knees.

Among my fellow gamers I think I was the main purchaser of 2nd Ed Material (planescape, FR, Spelljammer, Ravenloft) and I think that was a common problem.

Another well known game realised this and turn out a new rule set, force book and even a whole new set of figures (the game has space marines in case you didn't guess) on an almost yearly basis.

However Wotc want to push things forward and why not, if I like the new game then I'll buy it, if not then I won't and I'll keep with 4E and be happy. I'll encourage them and help with the creation in whatever contribution that I can.

That's not a plus.  Saying such a thing at this early stage is (pardon my French) asanine.  Either you are going to bitterly dissapoint someone when the actual mechanics come out (at which case you've now just "lied" to all your customers), or the game is going to be such a complete disaster (either too mushy with no choice or a complicated unplayable mess or all the above) that no one will want to touch it.

I don't have to see the system to know that what Monte just said simply can not be done.  The systems he are talking about are fundamentally incompatible.  The fact they were both once called DnD is the only thing they have in common (oh and every once in a while you roll a d20 but even that is done differently).


-Polaris     



What he said and what you think he said are not the same.

What he said:  Different characters with different options and levels of complexity can be played in the same game.  This is already true in 4E (Weaponsmaster vs Knight).

What you think he said:  You can take your old 1E/2E/3E character sheets and play them all in a game together.  This is fundamentally impossible.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Monte Cook said you can see in 5E different characters with different options playing in the same game: and that's a plus.




That's not a plus.  Saying such a thing at this early stage is (pardon my French) asanine.  Either you are going to bitterly dissapoint someone when the actual mechanics come out (at which case you've now just "lied" to all your customers), or the game is going to be such a complete disaster (either too mushy with no choice or a complicated unplayable mess or all the above) that no one will want to touch it.

I don't have to see the system to know that what Monte just said simply can not be done.  The systems he are talking about are fundamentally incompatible.  The fact they were both once called DnD is the only thing they have in common (oh and every once in a while you roll a d20 but even that is done differently).


-Polaris     



Yeah, I have to say I am a bit skeptical that particular goal can be carried out well.  If their plan was to create a modular set of rules that, (depending what options you took) could reasonably emulate any existing edition, I could see that.  Saying that I can play them all at once and have something resembling a coherent game...That sets of my baloney detector.  Too many basic concepts change from system to system.  A first level 1e fighter, for instance, won't have anywhere near the hit points of even a 4e wizard who, for some crazy reason, has dumped CON. Maybe its a failure of imagination on my part, but I just can't imagine how such a system could work. A 1e bard and even a 2e bard are barely even the same thing, much less a 4e bard.  If I give a paladin in my group a Holy Avenger, which version is he going to get?  Are the monsters in my game going to have 1e hit points or 4e?  Is the 1e fighter going to have a problem doing 1e amounts of damage to a 4e dragon with 4e HP?  So many things I see as problems.

I'll definitely give it a look, a good skeptic has to be willing to examine the evidence after all, but I just can't see it working.

No one playing earlier editions cares whether or not WotC is doing the publishing. Or, if their stuff is sold by B&N.


I and most people I know play earlier editions. We would all like new books published for a game we play. We all would like the industry leader to publish rules for a game we enjoy. We would love to see them at B&N as often as we do 4e stuff. 


Getting it in B&N. This is where new players come from. Someone in middle/high asked a grandma/mom for DND books. Grandma goes in bookstore and buys what is on shelf. Kid has books, so kid plays that system. System becomes more popular. New players are important to grow the hobby. 


Alternativley - For ages, the only gamestore near me was run by a [dirty word]. Many people did not go there. We lived in a small town. Now we live in a different small town, and a 45 min drive gets us to a nice gameshop. We go when we can, but when B&N is 5 min away and I am there regularly anyway, I am buying stuff there. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"


That's not a plus.  Saying such a thing at this early stage is (pardon my French) asanine.  Either you are going to bitterly dissapoint someone when the actual mechanics come out (at which case you've now just "lied" to all your customers), or the game is going to be such a complete disaster (either too mushy with no choice or a complicated unplayable mess or all the above) that no one will want to touch it.

I don't have to see the system to know that what Monte just said simply can not be done.  The systems he are talking about are fundamentally incompatible.  The fact they were both once called DnD is the only thing they have in common (oh and every once in a while you roll a d20 but even that is done differently).


-Polaris     



What he said and what you think he said are not the same.

What he said:  Different characters with different options and levels of complexity can be played in the same game.  This is already true in 4E (Weaponsmaster vs Knight).

What you think he said:  You can take your old 1E/2E/3E character sheets and play them all in a game together.  This is fundamentally impossible.



But he also said that you 'already play' the new game, no matter which edition you play.  Which implies that you SHOULD be able to bring your 1e/2e/3e character sheet to a game played together with 4e.

I dunno, I guess we'll ahve to see


There's new stuff being published for all previous editions, already. Not so much for 2e, but they can easily use the pre 2e material.


By WoTC, that I will find in a barnes and noble?


PF is its own game, and even if it werent, its not published by WoTC and rarely found in B&N.




The way things are going, I forsee a day in the not too distant future that you're not going to find a Barnes and Noble at all.

Brick and Mortar booksellers are dying.

What you think he said:  You can take your old 1E/2E/3E character sheets and play them all in a game together.  This is fundamentally impossible.



Actually that is almost exactly what he said which is why I'm calling it asinine.  He said that you should be able in 5E to take a BECMI style character that takes five minutes to make and a 3E style character that takes course and play them side by side with little problem.

I smell something from a backed up septic tank on that one....

-Polaris     

Brick and Mortar booksellers are dying.



Yeah, of course they are. Just like how video killed the radio star.


In other news, I got three new books for Christmas, which I'm working through, and I'm on the last one now, then I'm off to buy some more. 

What you think he said:  You can take your old 1E/2E/3E character sheets and play them all in a game together.  This is fundamentally impossible.



Actually that is almost exactly what he said which is why I'm calling it asinine.  He said that you should be able in 5E to take a BECMI style character that takes five minutes to make and a 3E style character that takes course and play them side by side with little problem.

I smell something from a backed up septic tank on that one....

-Polaris     



The key here is that Cook said "and keep the game relatively balanced".

So that means... nothing. Because balance is already a misty concept in the gamer's mind, add to that 'relatively' and you have covered your corners for complains.

He never said it would be balanced, he said it was workable. But we already know that, every system is workable, we have fun in spite of flaws. For me the 'relatively balanced' idea is bunch of hocum. It comes of as a way to justify giving evocative ideas but with framework that doesn't deliver on the promises, and expecting the Players to compensate by adding their own necesary padding.

So count me in the skeptical wagon. But I will give the system a fair shake, I am hoping to be surprised at how wrong my preconceptions were.

Brick and Mortar booksellers are dying.



Yeah, of course they are. Just like how video killed the radio star.


In other news, I got three new books for Christmas, which I'm working through, and I'm on the last one now, then I'm off to buy some more. 




Actually they are.  Almost all of the big bookstore chains are gone now and the one that is left is not healthy to put it mildly.  The FLGS' are not healthy either, and the one that I know of that is (Dragon's Lair in Texas...Austin/San Antone) is moderately healthy because they emphasize board games and comics over RPGs (although the owner is a big RPer himself who understands business...a real jewel).


-Polaris  
If you want the D&D brand to continue and to do so while also producing new content, you need a new edition.  If WotC doesn't make money with D&D, D&D will die.  It's unlikely Hasbro would sell the IP to anyone so it would be shelved. 

I need a new edition because 4e doesn't do it for my group anymore and I'd like to see if this new edition can satisfy us.  It would be nice to play D&D again without needing to go back in time, so to speak. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

What you think he said:  You can take your old 1E/2E/3E character sheets and play them all in a game together.  This is fundamentally impossible.



Actually that is almost exactly what he said which is why I'm calling it asinine.  He said that you should be able in 5E to take a BECMI style character that takes five minutes to make and a 3E style character that takes course and play them side by side with little problem.

I smell something from a backed up septic tank on that one....

-Polaris     



The word you're ignoring here is "style".

I never played BECMI, but I'm assuming a fighter from it would basically look like: Speed, attack bonus, damage, AC.  That's not that far from a slayer who had power strike averaged into his MBA.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
There is a universe of difference even in style between a 4E "Slayer" and a BECMI fighter.  The "slayer" is actually closer to the 3.X Fighter in style than anything in BECMI.  The fact the Slayer has "skills" is your first hint of this.

-Polaris 
There is a universe of difference even in style between a 4E "Slayer" and a BECMI fighter.  The "slayer" is actually closer to the 3.X Fighter in style than anything in BECMI.  The fact the Slayer has "skills" is your first hint of this.

-Polaris 


BECMI had non-weapon proficiencies, which is just an old-school way of saying "skills," so the two are closer than you are admiting.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

There is a universe of difference even in style between a 4E "Slayer" and a BECMI fighter.  The "slayer" is actually closer to the 3.X Fighter in style than anything in BECMI.  The fact the Slayer has "skills" is your first hint of this.

-Polaris 


BECMI had non-weapon proficiencies, which is just an old-school way of saying "skills," so the two are closer than you are admiting.



No it didn't (at not intially).  Those weren't baked into ADnD until 1982-3 with the Wilderness Survival Guide.  Classic ODnD and BECMI does not have skills of any sort.


-Polaris

There's new stuff being published for all previous editions, already. Not so much for 2e, but they can easily use the pre 2e material.


By WoTC, that I will find in a barnes and noble?


PF is its own game, and even if it werent, its not published by WoTC and rarely found in B&N.




The internet is your friend. There are stores like Amazon, but much more importantly, all roleplaying games 
have stuff being published in pdfs either by the publishers or third parties. Even 4th edition has the Dungeons and Dragons Insider.

For example, you can buy retroclones of Old D&D from 1974 and plenty of new adventures for it too.

 
Member of Grognards for 4th Edition
There is a universe of difference even in style between a 4E "Slayer" and a BECMI fighter.  The "slayer" is actually closer to the 3.X Fighter in style than anything in BECMI.  The fact the Slayer has "skills" is your first hint of this.

-Polaris 


BECMI had non-weapon proficiencies, which is just an old-school way of saying "skills," so the two are closer than you are admiting.



No it didn't (at not intially).  Those weren't baked into ADnD until 1982-3 with the Wilderness Survival Guide.  Classic ODnD and BECMI does not have skills of any sort.


-Polaris


Alright, so then we'll go ahead and split hairs: BECMI implies that you are regarding the whole of the sets, used together, from Basic on up to Immortal.

You seem to have meant to drop a few letters off that and then, accurately, make your claim.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.


There's new stuff being published for all previous editions, already. Not so much for 2e, but they can easily use the pre 2e material.


By WoTC, that I will find in a barnes and noble?


PF is its own game, and even if it werent, its not published by WoTC and rarely found in B&N.


Actually I do see Pathfinder pretty much every time I go to a bookstore nowadays. Not in the same volume as 4e books, but it's there. Also, I guess I may be a minority here, but I don't actually give a crap who's logo is on the book, I judge it based off the material, and some of my favorite stuff for both 3e and 4e has been from 3rd party publishers.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Even when NWPs were introduced in BECMI (long after the initial publication btw), they were always optional.  Classic (RAW) BECMI has no skills.  The NWP was a purely optional tack-on (because ADnD also had it as a glaring tack on) and not part of the main rule set.

-Polaris
What you think he said:  You can take your old 1E/2E/3E character sheets and play them all in a game together.  This is fundamentally impossible.



Actually that is almost exactly what he said which is why I'm calling it asinine.  He said that you should be able in 5E to take a BECMI style character that takes five minutes to make and a 3E style character that takes course and play them side by side with little problem.

I smell something from a backed up septic tank on that one....

-Polaris     



The way it seemed to me is that the DM (or the group as a whole) determines the rule set, such as whether they're going to be using a skill system, miniature rules (which implies minis won't be core! Yay!), or advanced combat options, etc. Those are the rules the group plays with.  Obvious you're not going to have one character using minis and the others without.

What the players each get to design on their own, as written in the Lore articles, is the complexity of the choices they're going to make. Even those who pick the simplest characters will be relatively balanced, it's just the choices that some people enjoy are already made for the simplest characters. Want a Wizard but don't want to read twenty pages of spells? The simplest option in core gives you your spells. Wan't it tailor made? Spend tweny minutes and build your own spellbook. Same thing with fighter—take the core fighter with power attack or whatever, or you can build a fighter that is proicient in an exotic weapon and likes to trip people.

I think it can work very well. 
The way it seemed to me is that the DM (or the group as a whole) determines the rule set, such as whether they're going to be using a skill system, miniature rules (which implies minis won't be core! Yay!), or advanced combat options, etc. Those are the rules the group plays with.  Obvious you're not going to have one character using minis and the others without.
 




Not the way I read it.  The way I read it was that each player could choose whatever 'edition simulation' they wanted and it would all magically work side by side at the same table.


I'll stick to making perpetual motion machines.  That's easier.


-Polaris    

Not the way I read it.  The way I read it was that each player could choose whatever 'edition simulation' they wanted and it would all magically work side by side at the same table.


I'll stick to making perpetual motion machines.  That's easier.


-Polaris    



Well, I suppose we'll find out soon.

There's new stuff being published for all previous editions, already. Not so much for 2e, but they can easily use the pre 2e material.


By WoTC, that I will find in a barnes and noble?


PF is its own game, and even if it werent, its not published by WoTC and rarely found in B&N.




You know you can have your B&N order you any PF stuff you want.  A quick search of thier site turned up 30+ pages of it....

I can think of a couple ways to use a player who describes what he can do with a skill list, and a player who describes what his character can do with ability checks, and a player who describes what his character can do just by giving a vague background - all in the same game.

And I'm not even a game designer.  
I can think of a couple ways to use a player who describes what he can do with a skill list, and a player who describes what his character can do with ability checks, and a player who describes what his character can do just by giving a vague background - all in the same game.

And I'm not even a game designer.  


Exactly. It's not magic. All it means is that all characters will use the same math, but some will have more options or customization than others. 4e Fighter gets cool stances and exploits that let him do some extra damage or he can choose one that cleaves into another enemy or he can choose one that pushes his enemies back with furious blows. 2e Fighter just does extra damage. He doesn't have those other options, but in combat he'll still be able to face the same level enemies. The 4e rogue makes a skill check to decipher arcane runes on an ancient scroll. The 1e wizard does the same thing, but lacking skills he makes an INT check with a bonus due to his class.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.