|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 10:12AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
|
I'll go with Mearls when he said it started in late 2010. geek-news.mtv.com/2012/01/20/lead-develo...
Fair enough. Mearls said late 2010, and I guessed early 2011. I guess I was off by a few months.
Remember that iCv2 showed that D&D and Pathfinder tied in sells that years (well in one quarter). WotC must have had better numbers on there sell and new things weren't that good.
Agreed.
Well you're no fun! 
So is DnD Next a natural evolution driven by creativity and the desire to improve the game based on lessons learned from 4e, or is it a forced evolution used simply as a business tactic to regain market share lost to games such as Pathfinder?
Probably a mix of both.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 10:12AM
#12
|
|
|
Do I believe that Pathfinder outselling D&D forced Wizards to create 5E? No.
Do I believe that it forced Wizards to move up their time table? Yes.
I don't believe that 4E sold as well as they wanted it to so they released Essentials. When that did nowhere near what they wanted it to do and Pathfinder started really going gangbusters, they felt compelled to react.
Normally, when a company reacts like this, it tends to lead to poor design and a failed product. However, I believe that enough of the designers have learned from the past to not make the same mistakes. Evidence of this is the constant stream of communication we are seeing, the polls, the open playtest, etc. Will Wizards make all new mistakes this time around? Yes, undoubtedly. Everyone makes mistakes. But I'm confident that those mistakes will not cause the end of the D&D brand as we know it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 10:41AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2008
|
I think Pathfinder's success forced their hand to start working on the next release faster. More importantly though I think they realized that they couldn't make 4th attractive to a larger audience without a big rewrite after failing with essentials.
Pathfinder has a huge advantage in that their players have gotten what they wanted, a better version of 3.5. Their fanbase is not fractured in a war of editions, everyone is there because they like the current version.
WotC have a disadvantage since they need to win back people from Pathfinder while maintaining their current fanbase that is fractured between lots of editions.
I think that WotC only has two real advantages:
* They have the true D&D. I think most people would rather have the real McCoy if both are equally good. I feel like a refugee in Pathfinder world who would rather return home as soon as the place is habitable again.
* They have the campaign settings. Pathfinder's world is a weak copy of earth with a lore, history and deities that makes me yawn.
WotC needs to work these things to their advantage. They need to make it feel like D&D to the Pathfinder players again without disrupting the balance that 4th editioners cling to.
To be quite honest, I think that their middle road will probably fail. The rock they will stumble upon will be "magic", because the rich world of magic is what makes D&D feel like D&D to many players, and you won't find a thread without 4th editioners hammering the concept of rich magic to dust.
Personally I think that their best move would be to sell WotC IP material like Forgotten Realms etc branded with the PF rulesystem, while letting D&D continue to be what it is currently, reduced in popularity but with a steady fan base. I don't think that D&D will ever be the one to rule them all ever again.
Of course I would like to be wrong though.
The Character Initiative
Show
Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations.
Every time the system is limited we lose options.
Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game.
As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table.
Dare to say no to abusers.
Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 11:15AM
#14
|
|
|
I have a makeshift timeline of D&D Next development over at RPGGeek. Most of it is just speculative, linking to various events that may have been involved (for example, Monte Cook visiting Seattle in late 2010). rpggeek.com/thread/758914/dd-next-develo...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 11:40AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
First edition, 1978, was not "replaced" until Second Edition, in 1987. Nine years.
Second edition, 1987, was not "replaced" until Third Edition, in 2000. Thirteen years.
AD&D 2e wasn't released until spring/summer of 1989.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 12:18PM
#16
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
And 1e was technically released in late 1977. That's what happens when you post from memory... and you're old. 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 1:36PM
#17
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure what Butcha means by "rich" magic. I think there is room in 5e for a wide variety of spells. The designers just need to think very carefully about how powerful the spells will be, which spells will scale with level, and what the level requirements for a particular spell will be. That will solve the problem of "overpowered spellcasters", while maintaining a wide range of spells.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 2:13PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I think for my personal happiness level they are bound to improve. They've made the exact mistakes that bug me the most in 4e so I can't imagine 5e pinching me as hard in all the wrong places. Still that doesn't mean it will be perfect.
Also I don't play Pathfinder at all though I do own the core book. I did quit buying WOTC stuff and end my DDi subscription around PHB2 of 4e. So there are people out here looking that voted against 4e that didn't vote for Pathfinder.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 2:19PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I'm not quite sure what Butcha means by "rich" magic. I think there is room in 5e for a wide variety of spells. The designers just need to think very carefully about how powerful the spells will be, which spells will scale with level, and what the level requirements for a particular spell will be. That will solve the problem of "overpowered spellcasters", while maintaining a wide range of spells.
your response is far more reasonable than most responses to the idea of a rich magic system. Most people are about the idea, "Magic can't do that because it will overshadow someone else". Even presented with suggestions of how to prevent that they will stick to their magic can't do that guns. Even when presented with a wizard/spell design that is essentially useless they say it is no matter what the best option because it can at some point be used to open a lock, and that is the rogues job. Some have an almost unnatural hatred of the idea of magic being able to do more than a set list of things.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 2:48PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
The thing that angers me set magic being able to do everything and martial being entirely reality bound. I am totally kewl with wizards doing awesome stuff like wish as long as fighters are truely gods among men that can split mountains With their eyelids.
In other news, wish and PW: kill will be added to core 4e later this month.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ … s_Handbook An attempt at CharOp To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
Show
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales." "see sig" redirects here
Show
Oblivious troll is Oblivious PbP supporter! General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Show
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important.
There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level.
Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition. You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
|
|
|
