| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 18:27:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Yea, honestly I don't think that it's really worth the trouble to try to mend bridges. WotC listens to their fan-base plenty via discussions and from what's being said on the forums. As I keep up with the changes and Errata they make, if the public out-cry is decent enougth they'll re-work the product to be more aligned with what the fans want.
I've seen very little evidence of this. I don't want to restart that particular debate, so suffice it to say that there's a large number of fans who feel WotC is not listening to them.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Yeeup, if they're making 5E then it's most likely a brand new version with completly different elements removed from 3E and 4E.
Not necessarily... 3.5 wasn't that huge a departure from 3, and 2 was barely different from 1. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 04 Oct 2011 18:31:53 |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 18:30:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
You're right, I think: there's too much personal investment and ego involved in RPG development to admit mistakes. You can have the best product in the world, the most elegant and refined gaming system, and yet if it doesn't sell very well, it's a mistake.
I'm not sure personal ego and involvement is a factor... Companies, as a whole, do not like admitting mistakes. And they're even less likely to do so when they went to great pains to convince people that the new stuff is orders of magnitude better than the old, and that the old stuff was so horribly broken/convoluted/detailed. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 19:46:25
|
I don't personally see 4E as broken; it hasn't yet been disorganized with too many contradictory rules additions scattered across countless sourcebooks. Previous D&D editions were not just rules revisions (to greater or lesser extent) but also massive cleanup efforts, each attempted to reorganize the material from a growing pile of sources into some usefully convenient fashion. 4E was designed to be a resilient "modular" system which learned from many of the mistakes repeated in previous editions.
In fact, if anything, 4E is comparatively sparse and conservative - it almost seems as if Wizbro is hesitant to release "too much" 4E material with a focus on any singular aspect or setting, like they always leave room for future growth. A large quantity of their lore depth is released through DDI media which can be easily revised or removed as necessary.
So, at this point, it seems to me that - from a product marketing/publishing context - the only drawback to 4E is its bad rep. It doesn't take a lot of googling to find pages of hatred condemning 4E for wrecking and ruining D&D ... I would think that this alone would be fair justification for driving 5E development. Just my opinions. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 20:45:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Yea, honestly I don't think that it's really worth the trouble to try to mend bridges. WotC listens to their fan-base plenty via discussions and from what's being said on the forums. As I keep up with the changes and Errata they make, if the public out-cry is decent enougth they'll re-work the product to be more aligned with what the fans want.
I've seen very little evidence of this. I don't want to restart that particular debate, so suffice it to say that there's a large number of fans who feel WotC is not listening to them.
Fair enough. Though to be honest if you aren't paying much attention to a company I'm not suprised you didn't notice it. For example when they made pretty big changes to the PHB cleric the public outcry was pretty severe that WotC made a pod-cast specifically to address what the fans wanted and why they made changes the way they did. In the end the compromise was pretty balanced. That's just one instance that shows there is some communication between them and us.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Yeeup, if they're making 5E then it's most likely a brand new version with completly different elements removed from 3E and 4E.
Not necessarily... 3.5 wasn't that huge a departure from 3, and 2 was barely different from 1.
I should re-phrase what I meant. Basically 5E should be different than 4E in quite a number of ways. This is all IMO of course but first I think Multiclassing should be more loose as it was in 3E. Not crazy, off the rails as 3E but not super strict as in 4E. This also brings the point of level-by-level progression. In AD&D/2E you picked one class but could dual-classed to gain other features. In 3E you could change your class at every dang level. In 4E, it was a reboot of AD&D/2E where you picked one career class and then could take multiclass feats to "dabble" in something else or Hybrid the two together. Personally I like the "career" option and dabble in other areas instead of hole-hog 5 different classes in the first 5 character levels.
Then the question to answer is to have powers or NOT have powers? I feel that powers can bring a lot of options and can cater to a much bigger and diverse crowd than the multitude of feats available for 3e. Basically it's these things that keep the playing field more balanced than in previous editions. The reason it has to be balanced (espically when talking about 3E) is because the monsters use the same exact rules players do. So when class comparison discussions arise, I think it's important to note that monsters have eveyr bit a right to those nasty-bad spells as players and I've found DM to use those spells in a much more harmful way.
So they can make a new edition without harkening back to previous editions exact mechanics or mentality. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 20:48:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I don't personally see 4E as broken; it hasn't yet been disorganized with too many contradictory rules additions scattered across countless sourcebooks. Previous D&D editions were not just rules revisions (to greater or lesser extent) but also massive cleanup efforts, each attempted to reorganize the material from a growing pile of sources into some usefully convenient fashion. 4E was designed to be a resilient "modular" system which learned from many of the mistakes repeated in previous editions.
In fact, if anything, 4E is comparatively sparse and conservative - it almost seems as if Wizbro is hesitant to release "too much" 4E material with a focus on any singular aspect or setting, like they always leave room for future growth. A large quantity of their lore depth is released through DDI media which can be easily revised or removed as necessary.
So, at this point, it seems to me that - from a product marketing/publishing context - the only drawback to 4E is its bad rep. It doesn't take a lot of googling to find pages of hatred condemning 4E for wrecking and ruining D&D ... I would think that this alone would be fair justification for driving 5E development. Just my opinions.
That's true, 4E isn't broken - it's really nicely balanced, it's fun, and yet it does get a lot of bad rep. But honestly, most of the blame for that bad rep can be shouldered by WotC themselves. Their methods for introducing it, promoting it, and knowingly causing the further split in the D&D community, is all them really.
I've played it, it's a good game. I can honestly say, though, it's not particularly memorable. It's a shame that it isn't selling better, because it did one of the best things ever: slay the sacred cow of Vancian spellcasting. Not completely, though. It still has the memorization issue for what your repertoire will be on any given day. But it's certainly a system that lends itself better to a narrative approach.
One other way to go, allowing for incremental increases in spells with leveling, is to take something like the Rolemaster approach. You learn spell lists, permanently, then the amount of power you put into a given spell depends on how many "power points" you want to put into it. Rather like "mana", I suppose, in something like Warcraft.
Something like that just might be what the next phase of D&D could incorporate.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 04 Oct 2011 20:51:06 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 21:08:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I don't personally see 4E as broken; it hasn't yet been disorganized with too many contradictory rules additions scattered across countless sourcebooks. Previous D&D editions were not just rules revisions (to greater or lesser extent) but also massive cleanup efforts, each attempted to reorganize the material from a growing pile of sources into some usefully convenient fashion. 4E was designed to be a resilient "modular" system which learned from many of the mistakes repeated in previous editions.
In fact, if anything, 4E is comparatively sparse and conservative - it almost seems as if Wizbro is hesitant to release "too much" 4E material with a focus on any singular aspect or setting, like they always leave room for future growth. A large quantity of their lore depth is released through DDI media which can be easily revised or removed as necessary.
So, at this point, it seems to me that - from a product marketing/publishing context - the only drawback to 4E is its bad rep. It doesn't take a lot of googling to find pages of hatred condemning 4E for wrecking and ruining D&D ... I would think that this alone would be fair justification for driving 5E development. Just my opinions.
That's true, 4E isn't broken - it's really nicely balanced, it's fun, and yet it does get a lot of bad rep. But honestly, most of the blame for that bad rep can be shouldered by WotC themselves. Their methods for introducing it, promoting it, and knowingly causing the further split in the D&D community, is all them really.
I've played it, it's a good game. I can honestly say, though, it's not particularly memorable. It's a shame that it isn't selling better, because it did one of the best things ever: slay the sacred cow of Vancian spellcasting. Not completely, though. It still has the memorization issue for what your repertoire will be on any given day. But it's certainly a system that lends itself better to a narrative approach.
One other way to go, allowing for incremental increases in spells with leveling, is to take something like the Rolemaster approach. You learn spell lists, permanently, then the amount of power you put into a given spell depends on how many "power points" you want to put into it. Rather like "mana", I suppose, in something like Warcraft.
Something like that just might be what the next phase of D&D could incorporate.
The Spell Points system presented in Unearthed Arcana (3e) actually works very well with Pathfinder. It also has a variation that allows for fatigue to be caused when you use up a certain percentage of your spell points.
Mod edit: Tweaked the coding to make it work.  |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 04 Oct 2011 21:58:44 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 21:37:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
The [url="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm']Spell Points[/url] system presented in Unearthed Arcana (3e) actually works very well with Pathfinder. It also has a variation that allows for fatigue to be caused when you use up a certain percentage of your spell points.
Under that system, you still have to "prepare" or memorize a set list that you're stuck with until you can rest and re-prepare (quite a bit like 4E's dailies). Still somewhat limiting, in my view, and not very narrative. Ever since I got into Rolemaster, I much prefer the idea of retaining what you've learned, once you've learned it, as well as the ability to channel less power into a given spell. Though I could live without the latter.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 22:19:27
|
There was the rumor going around at GenCon that WotC was going to announce 5E, and then called it off.
People are also pointing out that 2014 is the 40th anniversary of D&D. So it could be called the "Anniversary Edition". Or they could re-released prior Editions to celebrate D&D's 40th birthday. That could mend alot of fences. Time will tell.
For me it's not a matter of IF 5E is coming, it's a matter of WHEN is it coming. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 22:36:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
Or they could re-released prior Editions to celebrate D&D's 40th birthday. That could mend alot of fences. Time will tell.
I'd be really surprised if they did this... Supporting multiple settings was too much for TSR, and WotC has barely been supporting the settings that are "active." Supporting multiple rulesets would take a lot of time and effort, and would seriously dilute the market -- which isn't conducive to staying in business.
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
For me it's not a matter of IF 5E is coming, it's a matter of WHEN is it coming.
That's a given. I'm just wondering what form it will take... Not that I anticipate buying it, though. Paizo is my master now. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 23:13:57
|
| A one time re-issue of the rule sets. Thats the theories at least. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 04 Oct 2011 : 23:26:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
A one time re-issue of the rule sets. Thats the theories at least.
Now that would be cool... I'd love to have reissued core rulebooks for 1E and 2E, assuming they keep the original interior art and covers, and the cartoons that were in the 1E DMG (a +2 backscratcher! ).
I don't see them doing that, though, and I don't see that it would mend fences all that much. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 00:29:59
|
| What is WotC's official position about "5E"? Has anyone thought to ask? |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 05 Oct 2011 00:30:18 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31727 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 01:29:14
|
| Even if Wizards do have an official position already, I don't think they'd be inclined to voice it as just an answer asked of their customer service team or posted on their boards, until some type of general and official announcement about 5e has already been made. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3287 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 02:12:58
|
| Here is the thread on the WotC boards. Post #51 is Trevor Kidd from WotC. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 03:13:09
|
| ... which is just another way of saying that this entire thread (along with those it references) is little more than uninformed speculation and conspiracy theory. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 05 Oct 2011 : 05:02:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
... which is just another way of saying that this entire thread (along with those it references) is little more than uninformed speculation and conspiracy theory.
True... But I'll note it's not a denial, either. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 03:35:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
So you dont trust Paul Kemp? What about Brian R. James or his brother Matt? How about Elaine Cunningham? Or some of the many Scribes in these hallowed halls?
None of those people were the chief architects of the New Realms. The oddities caused in the transition came from even some well known, experienced, and trusted designers. It's more than the designers, it comes down to company directive.
Also, Paul Kemp and Elaine are novelist. They may or may not game on the side, but they are generally not and haven't been involved in the game setting side of things.
Regarding Amazon and the like. My memory is worth less than dirt, but I recall threads on Paizo noting Pathfinder core rules and such ranking over 4E core rules on Amazon. The two traded back and forth for a while. Nothing definitive, but there is some evidence against 4E having a significant advantage in online or non-game store retailers.
Regarding 5e and becoming a WotC customer again. I'll take a look at any shiny new setting they have, but it better be the coolest thing since Planescape for a purchase.
For the rules, either 5e has to be the most amazing version of D&D yet or they reboot to the Old Realms for the new edition rules. I understand rules quickest through a setting context.
I came to look at Pathfinder through Golarion, and now more so with Midgard.
New Realms turned me off 4E so much I never invested in the system. I never came back for the other settings, which I have no problem with. The only 4E book I own is the Eberron campaign guide and only because I got it for free. Some sort of setting launch promotion I never heard about. I got it months after the promotion ended.
I haven't ever cracked it open, if I need something for Eberron, I look in the 3e books. Eberron was a "new" setting. You get a glut of material no matter what. Doesn't stop Paizo from publishing three progressively more extensive versions of their setting (Gazetter, Campaign Setting, and Inner Sea World Guide). |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 06 Oct 2011 04:03:34 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 06 Oct 2011 : 22:22:18
|
Haven't really paid much attention to what Wizards is doing, by doing away with the Realms as I knew and loved, they lost me as a customer, and unless there will be a tremendous backpedaling/reboot to kill the (IMHO) abomination they created, I won't go there again. 5E will come, same as 4E had to come, never played the system, never bought the books, but if Pathfinder (which I beta'd and bought) is selling more (in all honesty, why would Paizo deceive us about the sales?) then somebody at Wizards must have realized the big frack-up they made, and is initializing a fix.
Was 3.5 perfect? No. Is Pathfinder perfect? It's closer, but no, not really. Then again, my tastes gravitate towards a more believable system anyways, what Mongoose did with Conan, while clunky in places, is far more to my liking, armor keeps you from getting hurt, not from being hit. But that, again, is just my opinion, and while I could live with it back in the 2nd edition days (you didn't have ACs of -25 or some such ludicrous stuff there), once I used basically every option my library offers (including Book of Exalted Deeds) to create a monk with an AC 38, I got to realize that the hit and miss way isn't "heroic" at all, because believability goes out the window when the fighter with AC 35 in plate etc gets hit for the same amount of damage. Luckily I didn't have one of my players complain, had they done so, I would have been at a loss... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 07 Oct 2011 : 15:43:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Haven't really paid much attention to what Wizards is doing, by doing away with the Realms as I knew and loved, they lost me as a customer, and unless there will be a tremendous backpedaling/reboot to kill the (IMHO) abomination they created, I won't go there again. 5E will come, same as 4E had to come, never played the system, never bought the books, but if Pathfinder (which I beta'd and bought) is selling more (in all honesty, why would Paizo deceive us about the sales?) then somebody at Wizards must have realized the big frack-up they made, and is initializing a fix.
For the life of me I will never understand this sort of thinking. For starters, WHY would someone want D&D to revert to something like Pathfinder/3E? I understand people's ire for the 1479 DR Realms, that's a given and I guess if they wiped away what they did there are many who'd be very happy. But that's separate from wanting the rule to change or revert to a previous state. I mean, if D&D were to go back to it's 3E roots, you might as well kill the franchise right then and there. Pathfinder will obviously do it better and has the backing of those who switched from WotC to Paizo for the past 6 or so years.
Yet WotC would lose a LOT of crediability with those who've stuck with them through 3E to 4E AND those who've come into 4E brand new. And yes, reverting to an older system is practially like saying "Ooops, we goofed up and it needs fixed." Sorry but there is a huge fan base that things 4E IS a good game and doesn't need fixed. I know fans who've played up to 4E would say "thats what WotC did with us prior to 4E's release" but I've been taught "2 wrongs don't make a right".
So basically if WotC reverts to 3E they have a small margin of regaining some fans from Paizo (though I find this unlikely) AND more assuredly losing fans who've bought into 4E or who have converted from 3E to 4E. That seems like a large loss for a small gain. Instead, they'd be better off doing a brand new system that incorporates a LOT of aspects from D&D history and do something brand new. I don't need 5E to be like 4E (I already have that) and I sure as HECK don't need 5E to be more of 3E (I already have that too and further stuff from Paizo).
No, if they're smart they'll steer clear of making snide remarks about previous editions. They'll make something new that will interest EVERYONE who likes RPGs and D&D. And they won't re-create something that's already been developed. They may or may not put more emphasis on meta-gaming tactics like combat heavy rules, squares for spell descriptions and the like but personally these were never really a big deal to me to begin with. |
Edited by - Diffan on 07 Oct 2011 15:46:42 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2011 : 12:39:58
|
| Diffan, I was talking about the Realms, not D&D, when I spoke of fixing mistakes. Had you read the entire thing you would have understood. Don't see 4e flame when the is none! |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2011 : 13:25:15
|
| And let's not go any further towards another chapter of the edition wars, please. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2011 : 13:53:01
|
I did read the whole thing and I agree with you that if they were to backpedal on the Realms, it would bring a host of people back to the setting and possibly the product of D&D.
It was when you starting mentioning 5E, 4E, and Pathfinder that made me believe that you went from a FR discussion to a D&D/Game discussion. My apologies for jumping to conclusions. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2011 : 15:07:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I did read the whole thing and I agree with you that if they were to backpedal on the Realms, it would bring a host of people back to the setting and possibly the product of D&D.
That would bring me back aboard. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Farrel
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
239 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2011 : 22:34:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I did read the whole thing and I agree with you that if they were to backpedal on the Realms, it would bring a host of people back to the setting and possibly the product of D&D.
That would bring me back aboard.
I'd be there too Wooly, i've nothing against 4E whatsoever, it was the mess they made of the Realms which annoyed the hell out of me. |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 11 Oct 2011 : 23:35:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Farrel
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I did read the whole thing and I agree with you that if they were to backpedal on the Realms, it would bring a host of people back to the setting and possibly the product of D&D.
That would bring me back aboard.
I'd be there too Wooly, i've nothing against 4E whatsoever, it was the mess they made of the Realms which annoyed the hell out of me.
At the very least, for this I would return to them for Realms products (which is what originally lured me to WotC and D&D in the first place). |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 04:19:06
|
Another edition-war?
I wonder how much fallout there will be, and who will rank amongst the 'collateral damage'. I still wake up in the middle of the night with my postraumatic stress disorder (or would that be post-spellplague disorder? Hmmm....)
Anyhow, I've been fence-sitting for a few weeks now over 4e/PF3, and now it seems I have to continue my 'wait'N'see' attitude. Dang... I want to PLAY AGAIN. Why must there always be so much drama... damn reality TV.
Anyhow... Reboot - I would love... don't see it happening though. Ed in-charge of the FR team and hand-picking his lieutenants? This may be a fantasy setting, but we are entering the Realm of pipe-dreams.
As for a 5e - of course there would be one, and Monte is a master system-builder.
Of course, two weeks after they started 5e, a splinter-group began 6e. Then a couple of those guys met privately and began 7e. Later the aliens that were spying on them from space began 8e....
Wishing that companies would stop producing new products for us to buy is like wishing for politicians who are honest... more pipe-dreams. They couldn't stay in-business (and create new FR goodies) if they didn't keep pushing forward (even if we don't always like the 'new shiny'). 
If you can't embrace capitalism move to Korea. At least 5e means they know 4e needs to go away, so why is anyone complaining? They are listening, and they are trying to fix things, and hopefully the next time-out they'll hit one out of the park. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 Nov 2011 04:20:29 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 12:24:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Another edition-war?
I wonder how much fallout there will be, and who will rank amongst the 'collateral damage'. I still wake up in the middle of the night with my postraumatic stress disorder (or would that be post-spellplague disorder? Hmmm....)
Actually I think it's been pretty civil. There is always going to be fallout, collateral damage, angst, and nerd-rage over this sort of thing. It's happened with every edition and I don't forsee a change either.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Anyhow, I've been fence-sitting for a few weeks now over 4e/PF3, and now it seems I have to continue my 'wait'N'see' attitude. Dang... I want to PLAY AGAIN. Why must there always be so much drama... damn reality TV.
Anyhow... Reboot - I would love... don't see it happening though. Ed in-charge of the FR team and hand-picking his lieutenants? This may be a fantasy setting, but we are entering the Realm of pipe-dreams.
Why not play both PF and 4E? Switch it up every so often to get your fix for both styles? It's what my group has been doing, going between 4E and 3E/PF-mix. You've got the SRD of both d20 and PFRPG which is free content. Adventure Paths are relatively cheap compared to setting/rules books. On the 4E side, well they re-did some of the PHB classes which have full write-ups for free plus some free adventures too. Just saying there's a lot of stuff out there which costs little to nothing and is fun to run.
As for Ed running the show for the FR development....i just don't know. I know I'm biased and I'd like to see FR move in the direction it has been the last 3 years. Others don't agree so I'd be perfectly fine with a compromise of supplying information/supplements/lore for both, though WotC won't do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As for a 5e - of course there would be one, and Monte is a master system-builder.
Of course, two weeks after they started 5e, a splinter-group began 6e. Then a couple of those guys met privately and began 7e. Later the aliens that were spying on them from space began 8e....
Wishing that companies would stop producing new products for us to buy is like wishing for politicians who are honest... more pipe-dreams. They couldn't stay in-business (and create new FR goodies) if they didn't keep pushing forward (even if we don't always like the 'new shiny').
If you can't embrace capitalism move to Korea. At least 5e means they know 4e needs to go away, so why is anyone complaining? They are listening, and they are trying to fix things, and hopefully the next time-out they'll hit one out of the park.
Yea it's not a question of "IF" they're making 5E but "WHEN" they are. Monte could be working on 5E, which would put more light on his Legends and Lore articels every month. From where he and Mearls were going it appears from their musings that they want 5E to be very modular in design. What I think this means is that D&D would easily apply to how you want to design your game. Low and simple rules for a quick skirmish battle, moderate rules with more in depth campaign detail such as rules and guides for running a Kingdom and so forth, and Expert rules designed for the top-most use of combat and tactics, character creation, world-building, and full-blown campaign diven games.
This modularity, I think, would apply to aspects of race and class to magical items and monsters. But whether it's a good idea or not is another question. One that probably can't be answered til the product hits the shelves. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 14:27:58
|
For me, modular' is indeed the way to go, but honestly, if not done correctly it could cause more problems then it fixes.
OD&D - with each later book over-writing parts of earlier rules - and the tail-end of 2e (with 5 separate 'optional' fatigue systems) gives me great reservations about modular systems. Technically 3e was the ultimate modular system, and by its nature, we ended up with multiple versions of the exact same thing (and not just 3rd-party - 3eD&D was rife with redundancy toward the end).
How modular is a system truly if we have to constantly go back and tweak the original rules for the new stuff to fit? I believe 4e tried this approach as well, but the lack of flavor (or so I've heard) made many of the 'unique classes' seem very similar.
And I've seen other great systems that tried this approach - Rolemaster (which I still love, despite it's complexity) and GURPs; neither really took-off (although both had their followings, they never became the 'super system' they were designed to be).
Modular is a fantastic concept, but I fear it can never be perfected. If Monte can pull it off, then he truly is one of the 'gaming gods'. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 Nov 2011 14:28:48 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 18:10:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Technically 3e was the ultimate modular system, and by its nature, we ended up with multiple versions of the exact same thing (and not just 3rd-party - 3eD&D was rife with redundancy toward the end).
I don't think that's a failing of the system as much as it was a failing of those selling it. With the constant flow of splatbooks and sometimes less-than-stellar editing, redundancies were inevitable. I think some tighter editing and less focus on selling MOAR BOOKS! would have taken care of that issue. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 Nov 2011 : 19:23:22
|
You know you just wanted an endless stream of FR-regional splats Wooly.
We all did. 
And strangely, they kept doing the same exact places over and over and over... 
I think the two different Orca (whale) races was the breaking point for me - one was useless enough, but two different ones? WTH? And things like the Goliaths - seriously, FR has about 20-30 giant races already, with tons of giant-lore, and several giant-kin like Ogres that had their own sub-groups, all of which could have been explored. Why couldn't Goliaths have been a remnant of some proud, ancient Ogre-culture? Why bother going in another direction? FR not have enough sentient races already?
The same goes for Raptorrans - that fluff should have been merged with Avariels. Just needless redundancy.
Anyhow, I didn't mean to do the rant thing - like I keep saying, I think we are all way past that (Hey! That was an anti-3e rant! Does that even count?)
But yeah, better editing/traffic-copping was much needed, both in the Realms, and in the game as a whole. Some epic-level ball-dropping was going on there, IMHO. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 Nov 2011 19:24:30 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Monte Cook working on 5E!
