For 5e to be a significant success it needs to recapture the players it has lost to Pathfinder. (I grimace when I say this as I am a huge supporter of Pathfinder). 5e will likely be a success regardless of what direction they choose, but in order to build longetivity into the new system, it really needs to be a "significant success". In order to be a significant success, they need to address some key fundamental rules changes.
There were a few fundamental changes that Pathfinder made to the d20 ruleset which were greatly needed.
One of these fundamental changes was the change of the Hit Dice used for classes. (i.e. d4 HD's were scrapped, and increased to d6, such as the Wizard). Classes that had a martial component but were not "front-line" fighting characters had their HD increased to d8, such as rogues and monks.
This was a needed change! This was a fundamental change!
If the 5e designers are unable to identify and address fundamental changes (or unwilling), such as the HD increases for certain classes, then I have ZERO faith that 5e will ever become a "significant success". We as the players should not even have to point out the need to address and change fundamental aspects -- the designers should be able to use their knowledge and experience to identify these fundamental aspects and implement the change.
The 5e designers have made some great progress and I already believe the product will have a better run than 4e (however most of us knew that after seeing the 4e ruleset that it did not have a long life in it). I want 5e to have a long and prosperous run, so I greatly encourage the designers to pay more attention to the comments in this forum and address all areas which players identify as fundamental changes needed, such as class HD. Quite frankly, if fundamental changes such as class HD are not addressed in the final product, I will not be supporting the product.
For 5e to be a significant success it needs to recapture the players it has lost to Pathfinder....
I disagree with your initial premise.
At this point, the world being what it is, and gaming in any form gaining wider and wider acceptance, the initial potential market for DDN is, effectively, the entire population. Of that, the few who currently play *any* edition of D&D, Pathfinder, or other RPGs is a nearly insignificant fragment compared to the potential of pulling in new players who have not previously played. What's more, of those who already play 4e, Pathfinder, ODD, or what have you, only some percentage (half? Fewer?) will switch to DDN, no matter what DDN does.
Therefore the design and marketing emphasis must be on these new potential players, not the older orders. I think WotC has already grasped that truism in what we've seen of their marketing of DDN (reaching out to non-gamer publications like Time, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal, for example). If I were chief of marketing at WotC, my aim would not to be to get back the players who jumped ship. My goal would be to get listed in the Christmas 2013 edition of the Dr. Toy Best Toys of the Year list, and the buying guide for Parents magazine. I wouldn't be worrying about advertising aimed at Paizo patrons. I'd be flooding the airwaves of Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel.
Given this, my sole question when I look at any proposed mechanic is: will it potentially pull in, or alienate, a random twelve-year-old consumer who has never played a TT RPG before? That's the only concern which matters.
I think this was mentioned in a previous article mr Mearls wrote as well, so such a change is very likely to happen.
Please do keep in mind whatever our differences, whatever our preferances we are reading and posting here for one simple reason. We want this edition to be a success. Thats why we are trying so hard however awkward that may seem.
I strongly believe that if someone came here and somehow knew that if we make these changes next will be a great success, I have no doubt in my mind 90% of all posters here would wave their arguments away and be up for it (10% would be happy with just one inclusive module).
Something to keep in mind thats all. Keep it up and share your experiences with us.
First of all, I'm sure there will be a module for modifying HD to suit playstyles of the group, second of all, I really think your overstating the importance of that one issue.
I think professordaddy has the right idea, if you want somebody to play your TTRPG, why not get people who have never tried it or arent settled with a choice rather than a demographic who are for the most part happy with what they have. And imho that is the smartest option because if 5e is the success im praying for, it will be easier to get groups together and THAT will be a huge pull for players from other games as gathering a group can be one of the most problematic areas.
For 5e to be a significant success it needs to recapture the players it has lost to Pathfinder....
I disagree with your initial premise.
At this point, the world being what it is, and gaming in any form gaining wider and wider acceptance, the initial potential market for DDN is, effectively, the entire population. Of that, the few who currently play *any* edition of D&D, Pathfinder, or other RPGs is a nearly insignificant fragment compared to the potential of pulling in new players who have not previously played. What's more, of those who already play 4e, Pathfinder, ODD, or what have you, only some percentage (half? Fewer?) will switch to DDN, no matter what DDN does.
Therefore the design and marketing emphasis must be on these new potential players, not the older orders. I think WotC has already grasped that truism in what we've seen of their marketing of DDN (reaching out to non-gamer publications like Time, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal, for example). If I were chief of marketing at WotC, my aim would not to be to get back the players who jumped ship. My goal would be to get listed in the Christmas 2013 edition of the Dr. Toy Best Toys of the Year list, and the buying guide for Parents magazine. I wouldn't be worrying about advertising aimed at Paizo patrons. I'd be flooding the airwaves of Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel.
Given this, my sole question when I look at any proposed mechanic is: will it potentially pull in, or alienate, a random twelve-year-old consumer who has never played a TT RPG before? That's the only concern which matters.
I mostly agree with your point here. Without trying to expand the community, any future editions, no matter how brilliant they are, will eventually fall. WotC needs to not only support new players and current ones, but try to rope in lapsed players as well. If Hasbro really wants this to succeed, WotC needs to be given sufficient capital in order to run an effective marketing strategy. I haven't personally seen a D&D commercial on television since the early 1980s, and have never seen D&D print advertising that wasn't in a gaming/video gaming magazine. It's simple, if the public doesn't know your product exists, it eventually won't.
I prefer 2nd Edition AD&D. But I have played basic, 1E, 2E, 3.5, & 4E, and found all to be fun.
While I agree they need to reclaim some of those people, I absolutely disagree with your proposed changes. In fact, those are the kinds of things that kept us from playing Pathfinder. We require LOWER power, not higher. In other words, for every person that comes to 5th because of a core change, they will likely lose an equal number of people.
The ONLY way they can get back people from column A AND people from column B is if the core is stripped to the absolute bone, and varying playstyles are allowed to customize the game entirely to fit their preferences. Of course, in doing that you risk alienating even more people who demand an integrated experience rather than a patchwork one.
In the end, this is why the edition will fail utterly, and why they should have produced a pre-3rd, 3rd, and 4th line of games instead.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
First of all, I'm sure there will be a module for modifying HD to suit playstyles of the group, second of all, I really think your overstating the importance of that one issue.
Nod. Pathfinder changed all classes to have either d6, d8 or d10 hd? An average of 3.5, 4.5, of 5.5 hit points per level. And that's a revolutionary, fundamental, necessary change that Pathfinder made?
Of course, 4e had already changed classes to all get 4, 5 or 6 hps per level.
That 0.5 hp/level difference sums up the vast gulf between 3.5/Pathfinder and 4e, that made the one a wonderous success and holy grail of RPGs and the other a dismal failure?
Wow.
I think professordaddy has the right idea, if you want somebody to play your TTRPG, why not get people who have never tried it or arent settled with a choice rather than a demographic who are for the most part happy with what they have. And imho that is the smartest option because if 5e is the success im praying for, it will be easier to get groups together and THAT will be a huge pull for players from other games as gathering a group can be one of the most problematic areas.
5e, though, is shaping up to be singularly un-suited to the new gamer. It's trying very hard to appeal to, or at least placate, some 5 or more factions of a fractious player base that's mostly over-40. Some of us may tell ourselves that replicating the exact same experience that got us hooked on D&D in the 70s or 80s - when TV was 3 network affiliates & a local UHF station or two that you tuned in with an antenna, video games were Pong and Asteroids, Ray Harryhausen and Star Wars represented the height of special effects and the internet was for military use - is going to hook kids who watch Avatar on demand and play MMOs. But it's just not a realistic expectation, and it's not what 5e is going for. 5e is going to replicate that experience that got you hooked the first time to get you to buy one more set of books, and if they have their druthers, put Paizo back in their (2nd) place.
OrcLord's right about that. 5e is a reaction to the success of Pathfinder, and it's goal is to re-capture 3.5 fans and thus kill Pathfinder. Kill it with kindness, but still kill it, take its revenue, and ask how many exp it was worth.
I can't say I've ever met anyone who left 3E to go play Pathfinder over a small increase in hit dice. That's the sort of thing that most DM's who are bothered by it would implement on their own, without having to shell out yet more money just to see it in print. Most of the people I know who play Pathfinder right now played 3E for years, did not want to play 4th for various reasons, but enjoyed the thought of playing 3E with a few tweaks to give them the illusion of playing a new editon of D&D.
I give the 5E team huge props for trying to come up with a game that tries to appeal to everyone, and still maintain that old style D&D style that I grew up with. The beauty of the modular approach is that it recognizes the truth; there is no such thing as "standard" D&D. Virtually every group I've sat in on has done something differently, changed some rules, or in some cases thrown out entire sections of rules and created their own. I expect that there will be some things in the final draft that I won't like. There are things in the packet right now I'm not a fan of. For the most part, among my players I've heard nothing but praise for 5E. I really do think it's going to succeed in bridging alot of player gaps, and bringing in both old and new players to the game.
Alright, lets go back in time for a moment. The launch of 4th edition. This was a big day for the folks at wotc and paizo. What essentially happened was for numerous reasons a large portion of the fan base did not like 4th edition. These reasons are varied and likely complex, and the reasons themselves unimportant for the discussion at hand. Fact is they didn't like it. You can also debate on what would have happened if paizo didn't start pathfinder. I think these people would have still not have adopted 4th edition, but that doesn't really matter either.
Now 4th edition comes out and it appeals to new players. In fact it seems to me that most people who have never played D&D before liked 4th edition, and I think it got a lot of people into d&d that hadn't played before. Probelm? Huge problem actually. Those previous players of D&D didn't like 4th edition. They didn't like 4th edition so much that a second tier (possibly lower) game company actually produced a "reprint" of the wotc 3.5 rulebook with changes and outsold the shiny new offical product.
They outsold 4th edition so much that Paizo became the number one roleplaying game company based on sales of roleplaying products. And 4th edition has ended up as a footnote in history. So bad was this descrepency that wotc made a huge announcement two years in advance. WotC would produce a 5th edition of D&D.
Now, you don't have to be a marketing manager to know how horrible it is to announce two years in advance that you are going to make a new product that replaces your old product is. This is even worse for roleplaying games since the products are assumed to have such long lifespans, and the creation of a new product replaces all the money you spent on your old product. The announcement by WotC essentially says that for the next two years we are not going to make any new D&D Books. Yes, they have a couple of setting books coming out. But the full on production of books has pretty much been put on hold for the next two years. Any smaller company than WotC would go out of business during that time. The loss of money is going to be huge. This is a big deal for any company. This is why such changes to a game system are kept secret until they are nearly completed. Even if you were going to do a playtest, ideally you would stil want as small as a gap as possible between the announcement and release.
My point in bring all this up is that appealing to new palyers over existing players was a huge failure for WotC. Had WotC produced Pathfinder instead of 4th edition, WotC would be doing awesome right now, and there would be no need for a 5th edition. WotC has to make a 5th edition of the game to save their jobs. You can bet Hasbro was not happy when Paizo became number 1...with WotC's old edtion.
While it is a good idea to attempt to appeal to people who aren't using your product already, it is a horrible idea to attempt to appeal to them and toss your current customers off the train. Lots of companies make this mistake, and then they end up going out of business. It is very unlikely that four people are going to get together and decide to try out this new D&D game one of them just heard about. What is likely to happen is that their friend who already plays D&D goes "Hey wanna come learn how to play D&D?" If that friend had instead already been playing Pathfinder or Shadowrun, or Vampire, well he would have gone "Hey wanna come play x other game?"
Whatever current roleplayers are playing is what stores are going to promote and have in stock. This is important, because the games kept on the shelf of your local store are the ones that people are going to end up picking up and trying out. Wizards tried to get new palyers on board with 4th edition and it failed horribly. They ticked off the old players, and it didn't work out. You have to get current players on board, you absolutely have to get Pathfinder players on board, but you don't have to get Joe who has never played an rpg on board. Trying to make a game that Joe might like to play doesn't mean Joe will every play D&D. He might like it, but if you tick off his four friends who use to play D&D, well odds are that even though Joe likes the new D&D game he will go with his four friends and play Vampire instead.
Now with most game companies it might not be essential to reclaim the Pathfinder players, but since WotC is under Habsro, it is going to be essential to get Pathfinder players on board. Without Pathfinder players you are not going to end up with a significant increase over current 4th eiditon players, and given the current situation, current 4th edition players simply aren't going to cut it. If they were, then WotC would not have announced 5th edition so early (and probably wouldn't even had a playtest -- the playtest itself is a sure sign of how epically 4th edition failed) and 5th edition would be a good long ways down the road.
What is truely sad is that WotC could skip playtesting, forget about 5th edition and reprint the 3.5 rulebooks and make more money then 4th edition would make. Getting the 3.5 and 4th edition players on board is the key to 5th edition's success. Honestly, if you still play 1st edition or 2nd edition exclusively, then I really don't see you coming to 5th. So the key is 3.5 and 4th edition players. People who don't currenlty play D&D may never play D&D and trying to make a game someone will like but never play is a bad idea if you have to alienate the people who already play D&D.
If you alienate the people who currenlty paly D&D WotC may not make the sells to allow Joe to discover D&D and decide he wants to play it. No one might be there to encourage Joe to check out D&D or to show him how to play. Those same people may end up being why Joe never plays D&D. In a lot of ways this happened with 4th edition. The guys who hated 4th encouraged people to play Pathfinder. In fact while I liked 4th edition, the fact that my friends hated 4th resulted in WotC not making a dime from me (besides the corerulebooks). Had they got my friends on board, they would have certainly got more money from them, but also from me. Just because I liked 4th didn't result in any increased revenue for Wizards. Same deal with the guy who has never played an RPG before.
