What does Next bring to the table for 4e players?

Admittedly, I'm only occasionally looking at next. But I am curious: what is it bringing to the table that would make a reasonably happy 4e player want to play it?

FWIW, the only major issue I have with 4e is that the fights take a little too long.
Well, fights are certainly shorter, that's for sure. If anything PC damage is currently too high, ending most fights extremely quickly, but that's a known issue and something that they're addressing. 4e fight length is certainly something that's on the radar as an issue, so it's something that'll hopefully be better in Next regardless.

Next and 4e are both D&D, so the feel is reasonably close. Next's still in its playtest phase, so there's far less total material, of course, but the basics are basically D&D. Next's core does differ from 4e in some ways. It has the defender roll for the attack when the attack is magical, for example, but the math works out basically the same.

As someone who likes 4e myself, for me the most exciting thing is the fighter's maneuver system. The fighter gets a pool of dice that he or she can add to the damage dealt by their weapon attacks each turn, but they can also be spent to do different tricks instead. There's currently a few kinks in the system, but I feel it's promising.

I also like the the deity you choose to worship has a greater mechanical effect than it did in 4e. I did not like that deity barely mattered at all in 4e, and it really matters quite a bit in Next.

Compared to 4e, there's more divergence in terms of resource management systems used by the classes in Next. The wizard and the cleric currently work something like hybrids between the 3.5 Wizard, the 3.5 Sorcerer, and a 4e spellcaster. They prepare spells in the morning, but can then cast them in any combination they like, but they also have low-damage cantrip spells to fall back on. Spellcasting and how it will work with different classes is something that's undergone a lot of flux.

Without knowing exactly what parts of 4e are most important to you, it's hard to say what else in the packet might be interesting to you. At least among 4e players I know, there's a variety of opinion regarding which parts of the packet are most intruiguing. For me, it's aspects of how clerics work and the maneuver system, but other people might like something else.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I actually take exception to the 'fights are certainly shorter'. My experience has been that when the fight is actually meaningful (read, built to the expectations given in the DM packet) they have not been significantly shorter. The reason people see them as shorter because many of the given modules have encounters that are meaningless (and quick).
Part of the issue with "fights taking too long" is directly proportional to the average hit rate of the party. The hit rate in Next is a bit better overall than 4e, and nothing makes a fight stretch on forever is constantly missing

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
The issue with Fighter Maneuvers is that it's an "Either-Or" deal - Either you can spend MDD on damage, Or you can use MDD to do less damage and perform a Maneuver.  And odds are, most people will eventually ignore the maneuvers and just do extra damage.  The best effect you can deliver on an enemy is DEAD, and I see the majority of maneuvers fall by the wayside.

I'd prefer the maneuvers be "Either-And", which is "Do an attack like usual, AND spend MDD to get a bonus effect."
I still enjoy 4E a lot, but what appeals to me about Next is the same thing that brought me to 3rd edition from 2nd, and to 4th edition from 3rd: a fresh approach to D&D.

So far, I like what I see, and I will certainly give the game a try.  If my friends and I end up preferring 4E we simply continue to play it.  Honestly, there is enough 4E material to keep us happy for years and years.  But if we like Next better we will switch our campaigns over to it.  So really it is a win-win for us.

That is how I view each new edition.  Not as a bad thing, or a loss, but as a great gain.  Each new edition gives us another version of D&D to play, each one bringing something slightly (or drastically) different to the table.  What's not to like?
personaly i see Next design move closer to Essentials as it moves on.
 
I was in the same boat, I enjoyed 4e but I found the combat a bit lengthy. What I enjoy as a DM about Next is I don't have to make every fight a life or death situation. I can have a number of small encounters like a few goblins here or there. The party is most likely going to steamroll them but there is a chance the goblins will get in a hit or two. Later in that same day those missing hitpoints that seemed meaningless at the time may end up making a difference later. Planning 4e encounters got boring to me because if I wasn't maxing out the xp budget the combat just felt worthless given the nature of healing surges and encounter powers.
What does Next bring to the table for 4e players?

Scorn?  An extra large helping of crow with a side of humble pie? 


seriously, though...
Admittedly, I'm only occasionally looking at next. But I am curious: what is it bringing to the table that would make a reasonably happy 4e player want to play it?

Like 4e addressed the loudest and most persistent complaints about 3.5, 5e seems to be addressing the loudest and most persistent complaints about 4e.  If you didn't have a problem with 3.5, you didn't see the point of 4e and Paizo sold you Pathfinder.  There's not going to be an option like that for 4e fans who don't see the point of 5e, so you're likely going to make the switch, eventually, if only for lack of new material to keep your games fresh.  That what it will have to offer you:  new material.  

FWIW, the only major issue I have with 4e is that the fights take a little too long.

Well, 4e assumes fights, even 'standard' or 'speed bump' fights are supposed to be significant.  Quickie fights can be done simply by under-leveling them.  If the PCs outnumber a few standard monsters or just have to mow down two minions each, a fight will be fast.  

5e is quicker in that sense, the bar for encounter challenge has just been lowered.  At the low levels I've playtested so far, many 5e monsters are de-facto minions (anyone can kill them with one hit), with the added disadvantage that they can die to half damage.  In the conversion notes for the current D&D Encounters season, the 5e versions of the combats involve fewer monsters or monsters with fewer hps and startlingly low ACs.  Hit rates are around 75%, and hits generally kill.  At first level, it was just swingy - monsters would drop the PCs, too - at 2nd, the PCs are prettymuch cakewalking and the fights go very quickly. 







 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Main reason why I was turn away from 4e. lenghty combat. 

There some elements of 4e in Next and the combat is faster so there something for
4e players.

Hopefully there are classes in Next that are built in 4e style. I was thinking like Warlock for
example.  
What does Next bring to the table for 4e players?

Scorn?  An extra large helping of crow with a side of humble pie? 


seriously, though...
Admittedly, I'm only occasionally looking at next. But I am curious: what is it bringing to the table that would make a reasonably happy 4e player want to play it?

Like 4e addressed the loudest and most persistent complaints about 3.5, 5e seems to be addressing the loudest and most persistent complaints about 4e.  If you didn't have a problem with 3.5, you didn't see the point of 4e and Paizo sold you Pathfinder.  There's not going to be an option like that for 4e fans who don't see the point of 5e, so you're likely going to make the switch, eventually, if only for lack of new material to keep your games fresh.  That what it will have to offer you:  new material.  

FWIW, the only major issue I have with 4e is that the fights take a little too long.

Well, 4e assumes fights, even 'standard' or 'speed bump' fights are supposed to be significant.  Quickie fights can be done simply by under-leveling them.  If the PCs outnumber a few standard monsters or just have to mow down two minions each, a fight will be fast.  

5e is quicker in that sense, the bar for encounter challenge has just been lowered.  At the low levels I've playtested so far, many 5e monsters are de-facto minions (anyone can kill them with one hit), with the added disadvantage that they can die to half damage.  In the conversion notes for the current D&D Encounters season, the 5e versions of the combats involve fewer monsters or monsters with fewer hps and startlingly low ACs.  Hit rates are around 75%, and hits generally kill.  At first level, it was just swingy - monsters would drop the PCs, too - at 2nd, the PCs are prettymuch cakewalking and the fights go very quickly. 










Sure there is an option.  Go look at 13th Age.  There is your 4e Pathfinder.

Sure there is an option.  Go look at 13th Age.  There is your 4e Pathfinder.

I wish there was a forum feature that detected posts with the words "13th Age", "4e" and "Pathfinder" in them and automatically posted a response indicating how completely off-base that comparison is. Pathfinder is a direct revision of 3.5, fully compatible with it and deviating only very slightly. 13th Age is a completely new system that incorporates design elements from 4e, various Pre-4e editions, and the world of Indie games in approximately equal measure. It's not at all obvious to me where the notion of 13th-Age-as-4e-Pathfinder comes from, because somebody would have to be completely and utterly unfamiliar with either 4e, Pathfinder, 3.5, 13th Age or Analogies in order to advance the notion.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Sure there is an option.  Go look at 13th Age.  There is your 4e Pathfinder.

I wish there was a forum feature that detected posts with the words "13th Age", "4e" and "Pathfinder" in them and automatically posted a response indicating how completely off-base that comparison is. Pathfinder is a direct revision of 3.5, fully compatible with it and deviating only very slightly. 13th Age is a completely new system that incorporates design elements from 4e, various Pre-4e editions, and the world of Indie games in approximately equal measure. It's not at all obvious to me where the notion of 13th-Age-as-4e-Pathfinder comes from, because somebody would have to be completely and utterly unfamiliar with either 4e, Pathfinder, 3.5, 13th Age or Analogies in order to advance the notion.




The same place 4e=WoW started.  Complete and total ignorance.
Sure there is an option.  Go look at 13th Age.  There is your 4e Pathfinder.

I played 13th Age at Dundracon in February.  Good game?  Sure, with a good GM.  Better than most versions of D&D?  Sure, that's not a high bar.   Anywhere near as close to 4e as Pathfinder is to 3.5?  Sadly, no.  

13A is closer to 5e than to 4e - backgrounds determining skill, rolling dice for recoveries, classes differentiated with novel sub-systems and mechanics, dailes balanced against at-will with assumed day length, TotM assumed, etc...





 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Sell 4e players on 5e?

We got Reactions.
We got faster combat.
We got ability contest rolls.
We got Backgrounds.

We might have class based damage.

We are starting to have a unique and shortened spell list.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

right now all you have is faster combats, so fast they have  hard time feeling relivent "that guy that took one hit to kill was the arch-lich of the demon valley? meh he went like every other creater we have ever fought.

Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
If you didn't have a problem with 3.5, you didn't see the point of 4e and Paizo sold you Pathfinder.  There's not going to be an option like that for 4e fans who don't see the point of 5e, so you're likely going to make the switch, eventually, if only for lack of new material to keep your games fresh.  That what it will have to offer you:  new material.


I think there's enough material out already to completely skip the likely lifetime of next (based on prior edition lifetimes). A bigger concern would be the loss of Adventure Tools and the Character Builder, but even then, what's to say next would be the choice rather than (say) 13th Age or some other game?

Then again, maybe it will be fabulous. I'm asking because a lot of the discussions I see seem aimed at Pathfinder/3.5 players, rather than 4e players. Given that I like having at will/encounter/daily powers, that I like the class balance in 4e (again, mostly), a lot of the new mechanics don't necessarily seem like wins to me. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I'd like some data.

Thanks for answering.

Admittedly, I'm only occasionally looking at next. But I am curious: what is it bringing to the table that would make a reasonably happy 4e player want to play it?

FWIW, the only major issue I have with 4e is that the fights take a little too long.



From my perspective nothing whatsoever.

If you are happy with 4e but would like to try something that is somewhat similar I'd give 13th age a look


I wish there was a forum feature that detected posts with the words "13th Age", "4e" and "Pathfinder" in them and automatically posted a response indicating how completely off-base that comparison is. Pathfinder is a direct revision of 3.5, fully compatible with it and deviating only very slightly. 13th Age is a completely new system that incorporates design elements from 4e, various Pre-4e editions, and the world of Indie games in approximately equal measure. It's not at all obvious to me where the notion of 13th-Age-as-4e-Pathfinder comes from, because somebody would have to be completely and utterly unfamiliar with either 4e, Pathfinder, 3.5, 13th Age or Analogies in order to advance the notion.



The point is simple: when you force folks to "move on", it is hard to be sure they will move in your preferred direction. I pre-ordered 13th age out of curiousity, but there is a lot in the preview PDF that appeals to me as a 4e DM... and that's just a random example; lots of other games exist. That's not to say that Next wouldn't get considered, but the view that we'd have no options just isn't correct.

I took a look at Pathfinder -- nothing against it, but I don't have the investment in that rules system that would make it a natural choice for me. It is well supported, as I expect next will be -- but honestly, I'm not sure how critical that is to the experience of playing the game. I own a bunch of 4e books we seldom if ever use...

Don't get me wrong, I really like 13th Age - I also pre-ordered it, and have been enjoying it - but I'm constantly surprised to see it referred to as a 4e Pathfinder.

I wouldn't want somebody to overlook 13th Age because they don't like 4e. While 13A certainly does have a lot of 4e influence - if somebody hates literally every design decision made in 4e, they are likely to have some problems with 13A as well - it also sidesteps a great number of the common complaints about 4e. Classes have different structures, it's not only less wedded to the grid than 4e but less than any edition of D&D period, combat is somewhat faster, and so on. Additionally, it has lots of totally new ideas, many of which I'm a big fan of.

Similarly, I wouldn't want someone to snap grab 13th Age just because they like 4e thinking it's just a minor revision of the system when it's a completely different system that simply includes some 4e-ish ideas. Combat is significantly less tactical, some classes have relatively few options, and the game is shot through with indie-game sentiments that may not be everybody's cup of tea. Additionally, there's no particular sense in which 4e material is compatible with 13th Age, like 3.5 material is compatible-ish with Pathfinder, so it's not extending the lifespan of the stuff you already own, unless you're into heavy conversions.

I would encourage almost everybody to take a look at 13th Age, but it's a mistake to think of it as 4e's Pathfinder.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Admittedly, I'm only occasionally looking at next. But I am curious: what is it bringing to the table that would make a reasonably happy 4e player want to play it?



As of right now, not a whole lot outside of Faster combat. And I can get that by tweaking monster HP on the fly or having them surrender half-way though the combat. Maybe the Fighter because he has a cool gimmick (that was then distributed to everyone) and can do 4E-style exploits. The fact that it refreshed every turn is a nice thing though. 

I think there's enough material out already to completely skip the likely lifetime of next (based on prior edition lifetimes).

Drawing a trend line, from the two eds of AD&D both going over a decade, to 3e's 8 years, to 4e's 4 years, it doesn't look good.... ;)  

Not how it works, of course.

A bigger concern would be the loss of Adventure Tools and the Character Builder,

So far they've intimated that CB will stay at least a year once 5e is out.  

but even then, what's to say next would be the choice rather than (say) 13th Age or some other game?

Only because it's D&D and that means something to many D&D fans.

If all you wanted was a better game than D&D, you haven't had to settle for D&D in a very long time...

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I hope they have a 5e character builder, although I REALLY want an offline version. I'll probably have to wait for an excel version to appear on sourceforge at some point, because I couldn't stand the online-only CB

IMO, much of the issue with 4e and combat length could be summed up in two core issues: too many immediate/minor action options, and too low of a hit rate non-optimized characters. The former had much more impact on length than the latter, but both together makes for a dragged out combat. I built a ranger/cleric hybrid character that had 3 immediate actions, and could of had more but I rarely used those as it was. Decision paralysis is real, and I hope WotC is accounting for it when they build the game mechanics.

The latest packet looks very promising.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
This is one thing mearls should be hitting on in his articles. His design goals are good (some are great, some are fine), but he needs to leverage them to sell the edition to fans of previous editions in their language. Talk with 4e players about aster combat with rich tactical decisions for every class. Use the fighter, as a teachable example.

Because, right now, I'm not feeling courted. If I have to switch RPGs, I might go to d&d. But I might go to other games, and they need to sell me on why I should choose their game.
(Obviously, talk to _all_ editions in their language. Talk to ad&d about easy flow rules without tables. Or whatever would appeal. )

I think there's enough material out already to completely skip the likely lifetime of next (based on prior edition lifetimes).

Drawing a trend line, from the two eds of AD&D both going over a decade, to 3e's 8 years, to 4e's 4 years, it doesn't look good.... ;)

Just a quick aside on how poorly people measure things:

If you're going to measure 3rd Ed's lifetime at eight years (beginning at 2000 and ending at the 2008 release of 4th Ed), then why are you so stuck at keeping 4th Ed perpetually four years old?  It's 2013 now and I'm still getting 4th Ed material fed to me by WotC, making 4th Ed five years old.  Assuming that DDN even makes its hoped for release date sometime in the nebulous year of 2014, that will mean 4th made it to six years.  I realize that, yes, this would mean that 4th Ed still lasted two years less than 3rd, and that supporters of the previous edition could still claim some sort of bragging rights I guess that would fall apart on closer inspection of what helped 3rd Ed chug along (namely, revitalized cash flow from asking all the 3rd Ed players to re-buy the core books at 3.5; a request not asked of 4th Ed players when the Essentials line came out). 

But yeah, if you're going to passively disparage, at least have the common courtesy to do it fairly.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

4th ed went out of print in 4 years and yes technically D&DN is still going but that means no new books on the shelves of gamestores which by default gives PF free reign in stores ofr 2 years. Most ediitons were in print up to around 6 months before the edition switch, 1st ed remained in print for the 1st year of so of 2nd ed. 

 Also 4th also had its book produciton cut in half end of 2010 early 2011? Overall it is not a good look for 4th ed. Not only did PF outsell 4th ed they have 2 years to consolidate that hold with million dollar kickstarters and things like that. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I started playing in a 4e campaign over the past 3 weeks and I see a number of aspects from 4e seeping into D&DNext (at least in part).

I wrote about it just recently in my blog.  Check it out if you like.

community.wizards.com/rhenny/blog/?pref_...
  

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

What does Next bring to the table for 4e players?

Scorn?  An extra large helping of crow with a side of humble pie? 


seriously, though...
Admittedly, I'm only occasionally looking at next. But I am curious: what is it bringing to the table that would make a reasonably happy 4e player want to play it?

Like 4e addressed the loudest and most persistent complaints about 3.5, 5e seems to be addressing the loudest and most persistent complaints about 4e.  If you didn't have a problem with 3.5, you didn't see the point of 4e and Paizo sold you Pathfinder.  There's not going to be an option like that for 4e fans who don't see the point of 5e, so you're likely going to make the switch, eventually, if only for lack of new material to keep your games fresh.  That what it will have to offer you:  new material.  

FWIW, the only major issue I have with 4e is that the fights take a little too long.

Well, 4e assumes fights, even 'standard' or 'speed bump' fights are supposed to be significant.  Quickie fights can be done simply by under-leveling them.  If the PCs outnumber a few standard monsters or just have to mow down two minions each, a fight will be fast.  

5e is quicker in that sense, the bar for encounter challenge has just been lowered.  At the low levels I've playtested so far, many 5e monsters are de-facto minions (anyone can kill them with one hit), with the added disadvantage that they can die to half damage.  In the conversion notes for the current D&D Encounters season, the 5e versions of the combats involve fewer monsters or monsters with fewer hps and startlingly low ACs.  Hit rates are around 75%, and hits generally kill.  At first level, it was just swingy - monsters would drop the PCs, too - at 2nd, the PCs are prettymuch cakewalking and the fights go very quickly. 










Sure there is an option.  Go look at 13th Age.  There is your 4e Pathfinder.




It isn't a 4e Pathfinder at all. It has a few recognizable elements, but it plays much more like an indy game, or FATE. 

This is one thing mearls should be hitting on in his articles.  His design goals are good (some are great, some are fine), but he needs to leverage them to sell the edition to fans of previous editions in their language.   Talk with 4e players about aster combat with rich tactical decisions for every class.  Use the fighter, as a teachable example. 

Because, right now, I'm not feeling courted.  If I have to switch RPGs, I might go to d&d.   But I might go to other games, and they need to sell me on why I should choose their game.
(Obviously, talk to _all_ editions in their language.  Talk to ad&d about easy flow rules without tables.  Or whatever would appeal.  )

Many people talk about how to win back pre-4th Edition fans, but right now they need to win back 4th Editions fans too.

I think there's enough material out already to completely skip the likely lifetime of next (based on prior edition lifetimes).

Drawing a trend line, from the two eds of AD&D both going over a decade, to 3e's 8 years, to 4e's 4 years, it doesn't look good.... ;)

If you're going to measure 3rd Ed's lifetime at eight years (beginning at 2000 and ending at the 2008 release of 4th Ed), then why are you so stuck at keeping 4th Ed perpetually four years old?

I was rounding up to 4 years: the first 4e product was published June 2008, the last was May 2012.  To be fair, the last 3.5 product was December 2007, and the first was Aug 2000 (I honestly thought it was 1999, so my mistake), so it'd round down to 7 years.

Actually, that makes a nice trend line:

1e 13 years, 2e 10, 3e 7, 4e 4... 5e?  1 year. 

Though, again, trend-lines are hokum. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

You might be right though tony. A D&D designed to appeal to everyone may not hit enough targets to appeal to the big 3 groups (legacy/modern/tactics).

 See how it plays out I suppsoe. D&DN will either be a big hit or tank. I'm not really expecting it to last more than 5 years regardless of how good or bad it actually is. I would not expect a AD&D 3rd ed, 3.75 or 4.5 to last any longer either. WoTC seem to like their burn em and churn em business model to much.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

You might be right though tony. A D&D designed to appeal to everyone may not hit enough targets to appeal to the big 3 groups (legacy/modern/tactics).

 See how it plays out I suppsoe. D&DN will either be a big hit or tank. I'm not really expecting it to last more than 5 years regardless of how good or bad it actually is. I would not expect a AD&D 3rd ed, 3.75 or 4.5 to last any longer either. WoTC seem to like their burn em and churn em business model to much.



It's good for business if revision cycles are short.  I'm not totally convinced that the discontination of 4E is because it is unpopular.   If 4E is popular, Wotc may decide to revise D&D anyway because they can sell more books with a new revision.   
You might be right though tony. A D&D designed to appeal to everyone may not hit enough targets to appeal to the big 3 groups (legacy/modern/tactics).

 See how it plays out I suppsoe. D&DN will either be a big hit or tank. I'm not really expecting it to last more than 5 years regardless of how good or bad it actually is. I would not expect a AD&D 3rd ed, 3.75 or 4.5 to last any longer either. WoTC seem to like their burn em and churn em business model to much.



It's good for business if revision cycles are short.  I'm not totally convinced that the discontination of 4E is because it is unpopular.   If 4E is popular, Wotc may decide to revise D&D anyway because they can sell more books with a new revision.   



it may also be because of how much they burned bridges with essentials, they stoped making books that had a wide useablity, and good overall quality
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
You might be right though tony. A D&D designed to appeal to everyone may not hit enough targets to appeal to the big 3 groups (legacy/modern/tactics).

 See how it plays out I suppsoe. D&DN will either be a big hit or tank. I'm not really expecting it to last more than 5 years regardless of how good or bad it actually is. I would not expect a AD&D 3rd ed, 3.75 or 4.5 to last any longer either. WoTC seem to like their burn em and churn em business model to much.



It's good for business if revision cycles are short.  I'm not totally convinced that the discontination of 4E is because it is unpopular.   If 4E is popular, Wotc may decide to revise D&D anyway because they can sell more books with a new revision.   



 Problem with that theory is they would continue to print right up to 6 months before D&DN launches. Some material making money is beter than 0 material not making money and conceding a 2 year gap to Paizo to fill.

 D&D doesn't have someone like Mark Rosewater who had a 7 year plan for Magic the Gatheirng and he has more or less been in charge of magic for  a decade+ IIRC.  Monte Cook was gone by the time 3.5 came along, the 4th ed design staff most of them were pruned. Mearls went from new recruit to project manager in around 5 years. 

 Recruiting Monte probably indicated some sort of fixed 3.5 goal but I suspect he left to get a bigger paycheck as opposed to any problems with WoTC or Mearls. Other designers they could use are now working for Paizo or othe rcompanies. Even Ed Greenwood has been doing Paizo work along with Frank Mentzer. Heinsoo and Tweet probably took the rap for 4th ed. Most of the good 3rd and 4th ed designers are gone or doing their own thing.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 



Problem with that theory is they would continue to print right up to 6 months before D&DN launches.



Continueing to print books after announcing revison of D&D may result in a net loss.  Who's crazy enough to buy 4E knowing that a new edition is just around the corner.  The only way Wotc can sell 4E now is with deep discounts.  

I'm beginning to think that the decision to abandon OGL was because it made revision cycle too long.  There were too many interests resisting change.  



They printed 2nd ed and 3rd ed up to a few months before the next edition and 1st ed was printed for a year or so while 2nd ed was in print. You get called an edition warrior but I think 4th ed was a disaster in terms of sales. That does not mean I think WoTC shold reprint 3rd ed either as being blunt I think Paizo has that market cornered. 

 If 4th ed was that appealing to the masses they would be making 4.5 but they seem to be going backwards towards a pre 4th ed feel with bits of 4th ed in the game. A greater focus on balance for example over 3rd ed. D&DN is also nice to DM which I think seveal posters have missed the point on as they are focusing on player entightlement stuff. 4th ed was nicer to DM that 3.5 for example for me but I still did not like enough of it to salvage 4th ed overall. I have been paying AD&D again lately and that is very easy to DM so 4th ed doesn't even have a monopoly on that.

 I want something that is quick and easy to DM,  abvoids chapter 4 of the 4th ed PHB like the plague and avoids CoDzilla like the plague and the sytem mastery required of 3rd ed which I think is a great system if you have the time to put into it. I would pay for a 3rd and 4th ed hybrid or a AD&D and d20 hybrid and IMHO they probably should have done one of those 2 options and plugged in stuff from the other edition that was missing. I might buy somehitng new if it fun, beter balanced than 3rd ed and simple to run like AD&D/4th and more importantly it has to feel like D&D.

 If it fails at that oh well I have AD&D, SWSE, retroclones and pathfinder to switch between as the mood takes me and my players like all of them.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

They printed 2nd ed and 3rd ed up to a few months before the next edition and 1st ed was printed for a year or so while 2nd ed was in print. 



Wotc may have learned their lesson from doing so and vowed not to repeat that with the launch of 4E.  

I agree with you that 4E is unpopular, but making a game too popular is also bad for business.  The reason there were protests when 3.5 was announced is because 3.0 was popular.  The reason there were protests when 3.0 was announced is because AD&D was popular.  New revisions are welcomed if fans are happy to let go of the old editions.    

The objective for Hasbro may not be to sell as much books as possible per edition, but to have as many editions as possible to sell the most book.  This may eventually kill D&D, but it may have been intended that Wotc was a short term acquisition.     





So now we're edition warring again. Great. The topic wasn't important or anything.

I think bounded accuracy prevents the kind of game I looked for in 4e. Their implementation of it leaves things far too mundane and dull to get the highly cinematic aspect 4e offers me. It's like being stuck in heroic tier, only with no sense of progression. 

In other words, their implementation of BA has locked us into one playstyle already.

 
So now we're edition warring again. Great. The topic wasn't important or anything.

I think bounded accuracy prevents the kind of game I looked for in 4e. Their implementation of it leaves things far too mundane and dull to get the highly cinematic aspect 4e offers me. It's like being stuck in heroic tier, only with no sense of progression. 

In other words, their implementation of BA has locked us into one playstyle already.

 



What if I tell you that there is an alternative implementation of Bounded Accuracy that wouldn't change the design of 4E one bit except for one thing that you probably wouldn't miss, would you be interested?  You can get all the benefits of BA without losing the game design or playstyle that you love.  I'll tell you that there exists such an implementation, and all you have to do is use a larger die than a d20 to make roll checks, like d100 or 2d20.   That's it.  Simple isn't it?  



Problem with that theory is they would continue to print right up to 6 months before D&DN launches.



Continueing to print books after announcing revison of D&D may result in a net loss.  Who's crazy enough to buy 4E knowing that a new edition is just around the corner.  The only way Wotc can sell 4E now is with deep discounts.  

I'm beginning to think that the decision to abandon OGL was because it made revision cycle too long.  There were too many interests resisting change.  






oddly enough the worse the new edition looks the better sales of the old would be, if 5e looked amazing and inovated and cool I would not buy any new 4e stuff. as it is I would have eargly bought arcane power 2
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )

oddly enough the worse the new edition looks the better sales of the old would be, if 5e looked amazing and inovated and cool I would not buy any new 4e stuff. as it is I would have eargly bought arcane power 2

I could seriously go for a DMG3.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Sign In to post comments