Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Oct 5, 2011 11:28:45 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Oct 5, 2011 11:28:45 GMT -6
People don’t automatically “upgrade” like they used to. True, but on the other hand it is also true that noobs - regular noobs, not children/friends of a previous editions' gamer - don't automatically stick to previous editions. Imagine when they are publishing 9e, what a small minority of D&D gamers would play the in-print version as opposed to a previous edition. You can't know that for sure: when that time will come, a lot of previous editions' gamers could sleep six feet under (or give up gaming), thus mixing the proportion again. Also, I hardly believe AD&D 3E could have sold less than TSR's last edition (AD&D 2E Revised Black, that counts as an edition too not being an Nth printing). In other words, there's no sure linear decrease from edition to edition. ICE seems to keep its fans happy by keeping multiple editions of Rolemaster in-print. But ICE doesn't sail rivers of gold for sure.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Oct 6, 2011 10:48:58 GMT -6
Post by Falconer on Oct 6, 2011 10:48:58 GMT -6
ICE doesn’t own its most valuable IP anymore (MERP), and even that was at best a distant second place in this hobby. Hasbro owns all of D&D lock, stock, and barrel.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 19, 2011 16:16:08 GMT -6
Post by Harbinger on Dec 19, 2011 16:16:08 GMT -6
Google brought me to this thread, so I'd thought I'd revive it.
I had been reading the Legends & Lore columns by Mike Mearls with great interest and hope. He obviously understands a lot about how older editions had a 'feel' that 4e lost when they rebuilt to core assumptions. 3e was perhaps rules-heavy, but it still felt a lot like D&D.
So I was really hoping 5e will take the modular toolbox approach he espoused at the beginning of his column. You'd have the basic system that would look a lot like BD&D, and then have 'advanced combat', 'advanced character creation', etc. rules that could be tacked on. Of course I don't know how much that would work in the real-world. If D&D 4e taught WoTC anything, it's to be wary about how cool designs can turn ugly when they meet the reality of play.
I've been less enthused since Monte took over the column. His columns give me the impression he's not as 'old-school' in his thinking. Perhaps however, the two of them will synergize their styles into the ultimate version of D&D ever published.... or at least the second best one after OD&D.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 19, 2011 16:24:04 GMT -6
Post by kesher on Dec 19, 2011 16:24:04 GMT -6
I dunno...at this point, I'm converted to the Pathfinder Beginner's Box, which, when the Core Rules are added, do exactly what you're describing. There's a lot I like about 4e, especially the Essentials line, but just can't see myself playing it. At this point, the PBB hits the sweet spot, especially as it looks like independent products are already being created for it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
D&D 5E
Dec 19, 2011 16:43:44 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2011 16:43:44 GMT -6
... Perhaps however, the two of them will synergize their styles into the ultimate version of D&D ever published.... or at least the second best one after OD&D. I must admit, I've had some interest in the rumored next version of D&D. I've always been happy with OD&D but a strong showing with the next version of the game can only be good for the hobby overall. In many ways WotC is in a tight spot. The only way to make a buck with D&D is to sell a lot of product, yet rules bloat is a commonly cited problem with the game. If I, Cameron DuBeers, were emperor my solution would be to make a classic version of the game ... like this 1959 edition of Risk ( www.winning-moves.com/product/Risk1959.asp). I'd be a benevolent dictator, however, with all the versions of the game we love available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
D&D 5E
Dec 19, 2011 16:45:40 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2011 16:45:40 GMT -6
I dunno...at this point, I'm converted to the Pathfinder Beginner's Box, which, when the Core Rules are added, do exactly what you're describing. I've been hearing good things about the PF boxed set, but I'm a bit confused ... "core rules"? One needs more stuff besides the boxed set to properly run the game? If you have the time, I'd love to hear a clarification. I've been thinking of picking up the boxed set.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 19, 2011 21:29:04 GMT -6
Post by Mushgnome on Dec 19, 2011 21:29:04 GMT -6
Mike Mearls wrote my favorite Alternate-3rd-Edition: Iron Heroes. Despite being incredibly complex and steeped in 3E d20-isms, IH had a richly old-school vibe, and we sure had some fun, over-the-top adventures with this system. The pervasive theme of Mearls' work is that PCs are not slaves to archetypes that proscribe role-playing choices (clerics hunt vampires; rangers are all like Aragorn; barbarians need to be a separate class from fighters) but rather PCs become-what-they-become through their choices and actions in play. What better sword&sorcery mini-manifesto? I have confidence in 5E--if all the creative stars and planets are in perfect alignment with business reality.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 19, 2011 23:35:26 GMT -6
Post by Harbinger on Dec 19, 2011 23:35:26 GMT -6
I dunno...at this point, I'm converted to the Pathfinder Beginner's Box, which, when the Core Rules are added, do exactly what you're describing.. Yeah, I guess you're right, but after having burned out on 4e, I never want to go back to any game that uses skills and feats (or shudder powers). I don't want to ignite the fierce debate around their merits - suffice to say I fall into the 'DM ruling' camp which is why I hangout here these days. In Mearl's posts, he did a great job of explaining the pros and cons of such mechanics. So I'm probably not a good candidate for a 5e customer.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Dec 20, 2011 0:09:55 GMT -6
I dunno...at this point, I'm converted to the Pathfinder Beginner's Box, which, when the Core Rules are added, do exactly what you're describing. I've been hearing good things about the PF boxed set, but I'm a bit confused ... "core rules"? One needs more stuff besides the boxed set to properly run the game? If you have the time, I'd love to hear a clarification. I've been thinking of picking up the boxed set. Hey Cameron. The boxed set IS complete, but only goes up to level 5. To go beyond that you either need to house rule or merge into the Core Rules which, though different, is no big thing to do. Harbinger: I hear you on that--I was there myself not long ago. For whatever reason, though, the PBB has hit my sweet spot.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 20, 2011 8:56:34 GMT -6
Post by Harbinger on Dec 20, 2011 8:56:34 GMT -6
Harbinger: I hear you on that--I was there myself not long ago. For whatever reason, though, the PBB has hit my sweet spot. Did it hit your sweet spot as a DM or as a PC? Do you think it unburdens the DM sufficiently; I found that 4e required me to study stat blocks too much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
D&D 5E
Dec 20, 2011 9:46:19 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2011 9:46:19 GMT -6
Hey Cameron. The boxed set IS complete, but only goes up to level 5. To go beyond that you either need to house rule or merge into the Core Rules which, though different, is no big thing to do. Ah! Okay that makes sense. Thanks!
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 20, 2011 10:23:05 GMT -6
Post by kesher on Dec 20, 2011 10:23:05 GMT -6
Harbinger: I hear you on that--I was there myself not long ago. For whatever reason, though, the PBB has hit my sweet spot. Did it hit your sweet spot as a DM or as a PC? Do you think it unburdens the DM sufficiently; I found that 4e required me to study stat blocks too much. Heh, well, I rarely end up as a player, though I had fun making a sample character. It's hitting my sweet spot as a DM, to use your excellent word, exactly because it "unburdens" me. For example, in the Pathfinder Bestiary, all the monsters have Feats. This always drove me a bit crazy with 3e--too much to keep track of. The BB simply does away with monster feats. The monsters in the Game Master's Guide have a stat block no more complicated than in the AD&D Monster Manual. In fact, I realized last night that the BB is, more or less, the AD&D my friends and I would really have loved to play, with simple Feats to add awesomeness and a few, easily understandable skills to help adjudicate player mayhem. It's hard for PCs to die, though it's certainly possible, but personally I've gotten a bit bored with ODD-level character mortality. Also, especially if you use the provided character Feat/Skill packages, I'm pretty sure you can make a character in no more than 15 minutes. And though Paizo keeps saying there isn't going to be a BB2 or EB, there are BB-oriented products already being created: Bestiary BoxBasic Paths: Fangs from the Past
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 20, 2011 21:11:44 GMT -6
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 20, 2011 21:11:44 GMT -6
Hey Cameron. The boxed set IS complete, but only goes up to level 5. To go beyond that you either need to house rule or merge into the Core Rules which, though different, is no big thing to do. Ah! Okay that makes sense. Thanks! Yeah, it's a great set and as I understand it (not being an "expert" on Pathfinder) nothing in the boxed set conflicts with anything in the core hardback. They just trimmed out some of the extras, which could be added in as appropriate. I keep thinking about some of the "All you need is Holmes Basic" threads on DF and this seems like a better produced product than Holmes. (Although 3E based rather than OD&D/AD&D.) The players and GM's books are slick pages with lots of color, well organized, and easy to read. The set seems like it could provide a heck of a lot of fun for levels 1-5, and since I rarely go much over that it's nearly a complete RPG by itself. Thumbs up for me!
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Dec 21, 2011 8:51:33 GMT -6
Post by kesher on Dec 21, 2011 8:51:33 GMT -6
You know, Fin, I've been thinking about that very point a lot lately. I think it's easy to get carried away thinking about high levels, especially in the context of "complete" systems like 4e's three tiers. In reality, though, through all the decades I've run games (and I've run far more than I've played), I don't think we ever had a character make it (legally!) past 6th or 7th level.
So, good point!
|
|
Chainsaw
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 303
|
D&D 5E
Dec 24, 2011 20:40:21 GMT -6
Post by Chainsaw on Dec 24, 2011 20:40:21 GMT -6
WotC is struggling for relevance as blogs, forums and retroclones have liberated long-time gamers from the WotC edition train and MMORPGs are more appealing to young people. This new 5E modular stuff seems like too little, too late to me.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 9, 2012 12:45:16 GMT -6
Post by noffham on Jan 9, 2012 12:45:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 9, 2012 15:56:16 GMT -6
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 9, 2012 15:56:16 GMT -6
I decided to sign up. I figured it would be interesting to at least be a part of the discussion. I'm not convinces that WotC will be able to blend the old style with the new, but if they do I want some input.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 9, 2012 16:32:12 GMT -6
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 9, 2012 16:32:12 GMT -6
I signed up as well. I expect a war to break out. Should be interesting to watch.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 9, 2012 19:57:47 GMT -6
Post by kesher on Jan 9, 2012 19:57:47 GMT -6
Ditto. For both the signing up and impending war. I think this: is an awesome statement. And, in the linked New York Times article, they quote our very own Tavis Allison!
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 10, 2012 0:05:20 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 10, 2012 0:05:20 GMT -6
From WotC's "dnd next" discussion group rules: By posting in this group you agree that your comments, suggestions, ideas, and/or creative materials or other information ("Feedback") are non-confidential and shall become the sole property of Wizards. Your ideas become the sole property of Wizards. edit: So, not only can Wizards use your ideas, you can't. Nor can anyone else, whether they use your idea or not
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 10, 2012 7:49:33 GMT -6
Post by vito on Jan 10, 2012 7:49:33 GMT -6
As a fan of both 4E and OSR, I say...
...f**k this.
I'm taking a break from D&D. for a while.
Maybe I'll play Burning Wheel or something.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Jan 10, 2012 8:59:20 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Jan 10, 2012 8:59:20 GMT -6
Your ideas become the sole property of Wizards. Well, that's how it works. Anyway they shouldn't be blamed too much IMHO: OGL is the trade-off since years, because with that people can steal their IPs changing them as much as necessary to stay lawful. OGL gave money to a lot of publishers for free.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 10, 2012 16:03:31 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 10, 2012 16:03:31 GMT -6
Your ideas become the sole property of Wizards. Well, that's how it works. Apparently, yes. But it didn't have to be that way. They might have proposed a more collaborative model, instead. Anyway they shouldn't be blamed too much IMHO: OGL is the trade-off since years, because with that people can steal their IPs changing them as much as necessary to stay lawful. OGL gave money to a lot of publishers for free. I didn't lay blame Azafuse; I simply pointed out what is there. As an aside, gamers are not required to retrospectively "trade" their ideas in exchange for the OGL. The OGL predates the 5E discussion, and is completely unrelated to it. Nor does the OGL facilitate "stealing". It facilitates the publishing of materials that build upon the foundations of D&D 3rd edition. This helps to grow the D&D (and RPG) community as a whole. Many parties, including WotC, benefit from this arrangement. Also, the OGL does not give money to anyone. With or without an OGL it is an enormous effort to produce a marketable product. That effort is what (potentially) earns a producer a return.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 10, 2012 20:12:57 GMT -6
Post by tavis on Jan 10, 2012 20:12:57 GMT -6
In the picture in the print edition of the NYT story, I am not quoted but you can just see my face (and Gronan of Simmerya's elbow) in the second row.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 10, 2012 20:46:44 GMT -6
Post by kesher on Jan 10, 2012 20:46:44 GMT -6
Hah! Is that dancing 20-sider for real?? What music was playing??
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 10, 2012 21:59:22 GMT -6
Post by tavis on Jan 10, 2012 21:59:22 GMT -6
I don't remember the music particularly, it was kind of a va-va-va-voom number I guess. Other things were competing for my attention! The dancing dice is one of the signature acts of www.d20burlesque.com/ - the others that evening were Shiela, the Thief revealing what was underneath her Cloak of Invisibility and an Action Castle game involving meeting a warrior-woman in a tavern; audience members took turns giving commands to the parser while one of the performers acted out the scene.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Jan 11, 2012 7:19:22 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Jan 11, 2012 7:19:22 GMT -6
They might have proposed a more collaborative model, instead. That hardly works, IMHO: I don't think a software house would allow someone to release a source code freely in the world. This behaviour is more likely a routine. Also, the OGL does not give money to anyone. It does in the way it requires no fee for publishing products. Without OGL a publisher should have paid higher not recurring costs for using copyrighted material (like the Class Template or the Spell Template or the Monster Template) than he actually does with OGL. OGL gives you access to a lot of copyrighted material (specific IPs excluded) and grants you the power to shape it at your will (thus allowing retroclones to exist). Money Earned with OGL: X. Money Earned without OGL: Y = X - Copyrights < X. That means you need to sell more copies of the same product to have Y=X. OGL doesn't make you a billionaire, but it makes things easier for sure.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 11, 2012 11:27:11 GMT -6
Post by kesher on Jan 11, 2012 11:27:11 GMT -6
I don't remember the music particularly, it was kind of a va-va-va-voom number I guess. Other things were competing for my attention! The dancing dice is one of the signature acts of www.d20burlesque.com/ - the others that evening were Shiela, the Thief revealing what was underneath her Cloak of Invisibility and an Action Castle game involving meeting a warrior-woman in a tavern; audience members took turns giving commands to the parser while one of the performers acted out the scene. Heee heeeeee. I know who I'm hiring for my next birthday...
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 11, 2012 13:45:45 GMT -6
Post by Harbinger on Jan 11, 2012 13:45:45 GMT -6
Thinking more about WoTC statements regarding modularity and making complexity optional, I think the approach is possible, with the exception of handling compatibility at the table for the stat-blocks found in the MM and modules. That one will need some creative solutions.
Base: B/X style Attributes, Classes, Spells, Combat.
Add-ons: - Feats and Skills - Minis combat (+Feats to support) - Powers (provides 4e style powers to add to classes, spells are recast as powers)
The problem will be dealing with the power-levels of monsters. For example, Feats and Skills boost 'to-hit' and damage levels, so how to do you make a monster work regardless of which options are chosen at the table? The only way I could see it work is to publish multiple stat blocks for each monster.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 11, 2012 16:27:27 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 11, 2012 16:27:27 GMT -6
That hardly works, IMHO: I don't think a software house would allow someone to release a source code freely in the world. Many of them do exactly that, in fact. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_and_open_source_software_packages just for starters. Wikipedia itself, BTW, is courtesy of a free open source software package called Mediawiki. It does in the way it requires no fee for publishing products. I understand what you are saying, Azafure. Sure, the OGL makes it easier for a publisher. My point was really that the OGL has nothing whatever to do with 5E. For one thing, the OGL already exists. It isn't realistic to ask people to retrospectively "pay" for the OGL by contributing ideas toward 5E. Moreover, the OGL is specifically for 3E. There is a similar license arrangement, the GSL, specifically for 4E. It seems likely that there might also be a new license arrangement, the 5GL(or whatever?), for 5E. Hence, I can't agree with your argument that it's reasonable to give Wizards sole ownership of our ideas toward 5E as "back payment" for the OGL.
|
|