|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:00PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
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.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:00PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2011
|
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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:02PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:07PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:07PM
#15
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:20PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:24PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 14, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:28PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:29PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 16, 2012 - 12:37PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
