| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 22:38:34
|
Yet had WotC just fixed those problems with 3.5 in a slightly updated ruleset just 5 years after doing it again....how would that look? I mean, c'mon people were pissed they revised the game so early. People were mad and felt cheated out of their 3.0 books. Even if the conversion is simple (and in some instances it is, others it's not) people don't want to do it because they'd rather be doing stuff for their campaign rather than re-tooling the system to fix a new adventure.
|
 |
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 00:49:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
A huge complaint that people had with WotC is that they felt they were too greedy. Creating 3rd Edition in 2000 and then revising it in nearly the same way Paizo did in 2003, it put a sour taste in a LOT of people's mouths and they were pretty vocal about the revision if my memory serves me. I feel the same exact thing would've happened again regarding the system. A small overhaul wouldn't have gone over well but I think people's hindsight is "well, I would've accepted a small revision to 4E". But we'll never truly know.
Third wasn't created because anything was wrong with 2nd. TSR was a poorly run business, not a bad game model. Third came into play because the fastest/easiest way to make money in a game is to make a new edition (ie something everyone "has" to buy). The problem as I stated before is that every time you do this with an RPG, you end up splintering your customer base a bit more. |
|
|
|
ksu_bond
Learned Scribe
New Zealand
214 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 01:37:55
|
| Can't say that I agree with the nothing wrong with 2e as I've followed the Realms for quite some time, well before 3e came out...however, I didn't get into playing DnD until 3e as I found the rules more to my liking than the previous editions...so to each there own...as far a rules go, I never had a problem with 4e, rather I disliked the impact that it had on FR lore (over time I've come to appreciate some of the changes, but there are many I still have a hard time stomaching)... |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 03:34:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
Third wasn't created because anything was wrong with 2nd.
2E was a patchwork, wonky system that worked great for people who'd been playing it forever and had already memorized their 10 binders full of notes, rules changes and ad-hoc rules fixes.
And yes it's true that TSR ran itself into the ground--nobody disputes that--it's just that suggesting 2nd Edition wasn't a "bad game model" and so WotC only made 3E to get people to spend money is ignoring history.
Third Edition came into being because WotC set themselves the goal of revitalizing Dungeons & Dragons as a brand and as a game.
This quickly changed to "make as much money as possible" when Hasbro took over, but that doesn't change the success of 3E or the reasoning that went into its creation.
*****
The idea that new editions splinter the customer base has some merit, but it only goes so far.
With each new edition there is no such thing as a clean break. Gamers by and large will try new editions, will buy different sets of game books and will then pick and choose which they want to use, while keeping in mind that can switch back if that's what people feel like playing.
Certainly some will make the choice not to buy into the a new edition, but who those people are often depends on how old the prior edition is and how set in their ways people are.
For 2nd Edition there were a lot of older gamers that didn't make the switch to 3E, but only because they'd been playing 2E for years and years (and in many cases 1E before that).
Likewise, there were younger gamers that came on in the 90s through 2E who made the switch gladly to 3E. These gamers made up a large portion of the gaming community and they didn't just play D&D.
Their enthusiasm for 3E meant the next generation of gamers coming of age would be playing 3E, not 2E, and adopting is as their rules system of choice.
The 3.0 Core Rulebooks would not have repeatedly sold out otherwise, which is to say 3E grew the D&D fan base.
In no way, shape or form did it splinter the D&D fan base.
The difference between the 2E to 3E transition as opposed to the 3.5 to 4E to 5E transition is that the time between editions has shrunk considerably. The same generation of gamers will have seen all three rules iterations.
WotC plus Paizo have saturated the (ever shrinking, unfortunately) market with rules sets like TSR saturated the market with too many campaign worlds.
That saturation--literally having two or three sets of core rulebooks plus expansions on the bookshelf--coupled with an ever increasing price tag is what's turning some people off.
Their strategy to cater to all editions makes sense in this regard, because they're trying to bring people back under one roof.
Whether or not there are enough gamers to comprise the next generation of D&D fans remains to be seen.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 05 Jun 2014 04:42:41 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 08:40:13
|
Well Jeremy that sounds exactly right to me and is my experience of DnD.
I started with 2nd edition and while i liked playing the game the rules were cumbersome and i dont know of many people that played a game beyond 5th level.
When 3rd edition came out i recognised the mathematical potential of the rules to make the game work. Everything fit nicely and the players and monsters were all using the same rules. Even better house-rules that fit seemlessly with the whole system were so easy to create. My own system is now entirely different from 3.5 or 3.75 and yet anyone who had used those systems would instantly be able to pick it up and use it without any explanation.
I didnt mind the release of 3.5 since i saw it as an update or improvement to the rules (which like computer software is a necessity). For pathfinder (3.75) i saw another update and so was happy to go along with it and again it proved to be even better. I would have bought rules 3.8, 3.9, 3.99 since they were all built from the same base and mostly compatible with each other.
The 4th edition rules wasnt an upgrade it was an entirely new system and one that i found initially interesting but ultimately souless (too much like a computer game).
And as for the setting changes. Again 1st edition, 2nd edition, and 3rd edition were all the same setting with little updates to the lore (although the later updates to the timeline were not so great). 4th edition is not the same setting and again ultimately proved souless for me. 5th edition is another new setting or pehaps an upgrade to 4th edition. Either way i didnt want a new piece of software, i wanted an upgrade to the existing software.
3rd edition saved DnD. 4th edition killed it, and 5th edition may well prove to put the nails in the coffin, cremate it, and bury the ashes in the ground.
When you release a piece of software you spend the time upgrading it and improving it and adding on additional modules until it is perfect. This satisfies your existing customers and draws new customers to the product.
Then typically once perfected you release an entirely new system to get new customers while keeping the old system going (with a lower development and upgrade cycle) to appease the old customers you have, and gradually the old customers convert to the new system and once you reach suitably low numbers on the old product you discontinue upgrade and support for it.
And that is just the program behind it, the actual business process (or campaign setting) it supports should never change so that people are familiar with the process and can easily switch between your old product and your new one
You never, ever release a new piece of software, get it to a working product, delete it and abandon your old customers and then release a new system with a completely new business process only to abandon that a few years later. Thats just stupid business.
I realise i am drawing parallels between roleplaying games and business software but they are both niche products and so the same rules should apply. |
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions Candlekeep Archive
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 1
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 2
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 3
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 4
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 5
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 6
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 7
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 8
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 9
Alternate Realms Site |
|
|
|
hobbitfan
Learned Scribe
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 09:00:11
|
My experience of 4E Realms pretty much mirrors your own. To me it felt hugely disrespectful to the fanbase as well as an irresponsible way to treat a valued setting.
I'm really curious to see how WOTC's 5E team handles the Realms. If they crap on the fans again, I'm done with them as a customer. |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 18:04:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
2E was a patchwork, wonky system that worked great for people who'd been playing it forever and had already memorized their 10 binders full of notes, rules changes and ad-hoc rules fixes.
That's a bunch of hooey. 2nd edition was a very simple system to learn and play (I am specifically referring to 2nd here, not 2.5) and played perfectly well just out of the box so to speak. What third did was completely change the entire aspect of D&D from one of problem solving and role playing development of characters to one of based on mechanical character development (ie more stats) and set challenges that relied more on stats than brains.
You are effectively making up history by trying to claim that 2nd was a bad system (since 2nd was little more than a clarification of first and a translation of much of the rules from High Gygaxian into common), as one can easily argue that AD&D lasted for more than 20 years. What third was more than anything was an attempt by WoTC to immediately ramp up profits from a recently acquired company by producing a product that everyone had to buy (and changing it enough that if you wanted to play the new game you had to buy everything all over again). |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11825 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 02:04:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well.
That and they are usually writing themselves into a corner. The options that they provide start to break down whenever person A takes option Q from Y book and combines with with option Z form R book and option X from N book.
Someone with better market knowledge than me can probably clarify this, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that WotC, and in fact all major RPG producers (White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games...) have always kept launching new rulesets if there was no reason for it. My first assumption is that their sales, in most or all these cases, were falling to the point the line would cease to be profitable, and the alternative to a new ruleset would be to discontinue the line.
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11825 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 02:13:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
2E was a patchwork, wonky system that worked great for people who'd been playing it forever and had already memorized their 10 binders full of notes, rules changes and ad-hoc rules fixes.
That's a bunch of hooey. 2nd edition was a very simple system to learn and play (I am specifically referring to 2nd here, not 2.5) and played perfectly well just out of the box so to speak. What third did was completely change the entire aspect of D&D from one of problem solving and role playing development of characters to one of based on mechanical character development (ie more stats) and set challenges that relied more on stats than brains.
You are effectively making up history by trying to claim that 2nd was a bad system (since 2nd was little more than a clarification of first and a translation of much of the rules from High Gygaxian into common), as one can easily argue that AD&D lasted for more than 20 years. What third was more than anything was an attempt by WoTC to immediately ramp up profits from a recently acquired company by producing a product that everyone had to buy (and changing it enough that if you wanted to play the new game you had to buy everything all over again).
2nd edition was flat out broken. The stuff I could do with a 2nd edition wizard were seriously SERIOUSLY broken. The sheer concept of contingent type spells needed rework. The concepts of spells being stored in other spells needed rework. Did I love it? At the time I relished in it. But when I pulled back the rulesets, I discovered that I could easily create NPC's that were effectively unbeatable based upon how magic worked (drow liches were just plain nasty with their high magic resistance AND the defensive spellcasting that an archmage can do). Its a lot harder to develop that totally unbeatable person in 3.5. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 02:32:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
2nd edition was flat out broken. The stuff I could do with a 2nd edition wizard were seriously SERIOUSLY broken. The sheer concept of contingent type spells needed rework. The concepts of spells being stored in other spells needed rework. Did I love it? At the time I relished in it. But when I pulled back the rulesets, I discovered that I could easily create NPC's that were effectively unbeatable based upon how magic worked (drow liches were just plain nasty with their high magic resistance AND the defensive spellcasting that an archmage can do). Its a lot harder to develop that totally unbeatable person in 3.5.
What does this have to do with anything? AD&D isn't a competitive game and thus a mature DM isn't trying to make "unbeatable" NPCs anyways. And while 3rd may have made unbeatable combos harder (but again, it wasn't like this was a problem in any adult AD&D games anyways), it added the absurdity of a player run game and characters that were half vampire paladins and so on. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 03:25:40
|
| D&D3E improved a lot on AD&D2E, of course; that's progress. But like every (A)D&D edition before and after (except perhaps 1E, or perhaps not), 3E started off nice and clean and organized and kinda fair-balanced but inevitably evolved into an ugly mountain of sourcebooks and rules and optional rules and things which could be abused and mixed out of their standalone contexts countless different ways. Unbeatable NPCs were not new to 2E, nor did they disappear after 2E. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 06:42:45
|
| Wait, why are half-vampire Paladins a bad thing?? |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 09:53:08
|
I enjoyed the half-vampire template, though I probably would've had him become a Paladin of Tyranny (Unearthed Arcana) had that option been present. Or maybe slowly convert levels from the PHB paladin to the Tyranny one slowly.
In 4e, I had a Paladin who also had the Vampiric Bloodline feats, gave a different feel and role-play experience to the character. The group, thankfully, wasn't overtly good aligned so the need to destroy the character wasn't there so long as I didn't jepordize missions or ruin chances of the group getting gold (heavy mercenary-vibe group, think The Black Company |
|
|
|
Barastir
Master of Realmslore
Brazil
1600 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 12:19:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
2E was a patchwork, wonky system that worked great for people who'd been playing it forever and had already memorized their 10 binders full of notes, rules changes and ad-hoc rules fixes.
(...)
You all ignore the first rule that said that most of the rules were optional. When 3e came 2nd edition was there for 13 years, IIRC, and of course during this time a lot of optionals appeared. In fact, 3e was in the same way, with lots of completes, substitution levels, and so on. Of course, it was easier for those that accompanied 3e from the start and saw the development of the rules as they were published not to be lost in the maelstrom. But both editions can work nicely if you want to, and all have their own flaws (a friend of mine made the indestructible kobold sorcerer with 3e rules).
After all, good sense must prevail, for systems can be bended. Just see what better suits your campaign, set the limits you think necessary, and all will have fun.  |
"Goodness is not a natural state, but must be
fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiated from the heart."
The Paladin's Virtues, excerpt from the "Quentin's Monograph"
(by Ed Greenwood) |
Edited by - Barastir on 06 Jun 2014 12:21:23 |
|
|
|
ksu_bond
Learned Scribe
New Zealand
214 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2014 : 15:49:50
|
| In an "adult" game indeed...role-playing games since the 90s have had to deal with the rise of the uber-munchkin players, so while 3/3.5 was rife with munchkin's (it just happened to be the common rule set avaiable at the time) they would have arisen regardless of what rules were being used...admittedly some DM's handle these players better than others...so the claim that in a particular rule set (such as 2e) or in an "adult" game these things wouldn't happen is likewise misleading and an over-simplification...for proof of this look at modern computer/console games...even the "free" online games such as Tribal Wars have developed a problem in that people can "pay to win"... |
Edited by - ksu_bond on 07 Jun 2014 15:52:06 |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2014 : 20:37:22
|
Systems aside, I don't think the Forgotten Realms in the gaming space matters anymore. Looks how it was marketed under 4e, Forgotten Realms didn't have a logo. It was plain text under the D&D logo, then there were some Realms books that didn't say Forgotten Realms at all.
Let's looks at the 5e offerings, we have 2 adventures coming out set in the Realms. No mention on the covers (based on the images on Amazon) that they're Realms adventures at all. No logo, no text.
I'd be shocked if we saw a Player's Guide AND a Campaign Setting this edition.
To me, the older stuff is more important then ever before but it's not going to attract a new audience, not when other game systems have eclipsed the amount of material put out by WOTC.
|
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
Edited by - SirUrza on 08 Jun 2014 20:38:16 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2014 : 21:04:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
Systems aside, I don't think the Forgotten Realms in the gaming space matters anymore. Looks how it was marketed under 4e, Forgotten Realms didn't have a logo. It was plain text under the D&D logo, then there were some Realms books that didn't say Forgotten Realms at all.
I'd beg to differ. Since the start of the playtest we've seen specifically the Forgotten Realms name dropped consistently dropped though out most of the playtest products. Second, this link to the Tyranny of Dragons specifically states it takes place along the Sword Coast and the North. So obviously the Forgotten Realms is going to be a heavily supported setting in the next edition.
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
Let's looks at the 5e offerings, we have 2 adventures coming out set in the Realms. No mention on the covers (based on the images on Amazon) that they're Realms adventures at all. No logo, no text.
You obviously didn't look hard enough as it's right there in the lower part of the front cover. It's says Forgotten Realms: The Sundering and has this symbol.
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
I'd be shocked if we saw a Player's Guide AND a Campaign Setting this edition.
To me, the older stuff is more important then ever before but it's not going to attract a new audience, not when other game systems have eclipsed the amount of material put out by WOTC.
I'd be shocked if they didn't considering all the hoopla of the Realms being talked about for the past year. I mean, if what your saying is true then why even bother with the Sundering event? Why bother putting a LOT of time and effort into the collaboration between the game's designers and the writers of the setting? It doesn't add up. What it does say is that the Realms are going to probably be the flagship setting for this edition and that we'll see more products of it than we ever saw in 4E (which is a good thing). |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jun 2014 : 23:30:03
|
I wouldnt be surprised to see a 5E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting released. Alongside counterparts for Greyhawk and any other settings Wizbro deems worth the investment to continue.
But not before all the FR novels and trilogies which detail the transition to FR5E have already been marketed. Dont want to spoil the stories (or book revenues!) with neat little heres-what-happened synopses in the game products.
Meanwhile, modules and adventures and whatnot will be generic and setting neutral, possibly including comments about how to tailor them into mainstream campaign settings.
It happened with 2E, 3E, 4E ... why should 5E deviate from a proven formula for success? Methinks the novel revenues significantly outweigh gamebook revenues, both in terms of how many fans buy into them and how much raw profit is generated - although admitttedly thats just my opinion, I dont really know and WotC has always kept their real numbers away from public domain. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The "new" FR and 5th Edition
