Firehawk Games
Other RPGs => Other Game Systems => Topic started by: imported_Rasyr on September 20, 2011, 07:14:52 PM
-
Mike Mearls announced it in his article this morning.
Here is the article: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110920
Now, considering that in 2003, Monte let it slip that D&D development was supposed to be on a 5 year cycle, and that the next "expected release date" for the next version (whatever it looks like) is 2013, I would say that the timing of this fits right in with that schedule.
-
It will be interesting to see what the 4th Edition crowd does.
-
Indeed. There is definately a divide amongst the D&Ders I know between the 3.5 & 4th crowds. Will a revision go back to more skills etc or stay true to the obviousl mantra of simplification. My bet; if they hit their target growth numbers they go back to 3.5ish skills etc, if not they tweak 4th.
-
I expect it to be tweaks to 4th, going into a 4.5 edition...
-
Really? Have you read the 4E material or played it yet?
-
Really? Have you read the 4E material or played it yet?
A little bit, when it first came out...
However.....
When 3.5 was announced, Cook got upset that they released it 2 years early. Not that they did a 3.5 edition, but that released it early. It was also his rant that revealed the 5 year dev & release cycle. This says that "3.5" was always planned. In that sense of things, it is quite likely that they do a 4.5 version.
As for moving anything closer to what 3e was, I'd say that that was doubtful. The whole move into the 4e style of rules was done to move things away from the 3.x rules (which had been released under the OGL) in order to move away from the OGL itself (hasbro's lawyers hated the hell out of the OGL).
I just cannot see them allowing the rules to move back towards something that they tried so hard to move away from. Not to mention the fact that moving towards 3.x will be seen as taking a step backwards, something any company is loathe to do.
Now, having said that, there is nothing to stop them from tweaking 4e to add in a better skill system or improving it in any number of other ways.
And just because I expect version 4.5 rather than version 5, it doesn't mean that I will be right.....
They just might go straight to version 5. Afterall, Mearls has been spouting about "what makes D&D" and other nostalgic stuff, and that could mean that they take the ruels and go back to basics, and rebuild it from the ground up, using updated versions of the original rules....
There are many strong possibilities about which way they may jump. Until there is a little bit more information, I'll stay with 4.5 being where they are heading and then update my opinion as more information is available. (http:///bigsmile.gif)
-
Neato. Monte seems to be a bit of an ego. Oh and congrats on capping the century mark in memebership!
-
My interactions with Cook, as limited as they have been (this being back in 2000-2003) showed a huge ego on his part. As well a tendency to rehash (or be inspired by - i.e. rip-off) things and a refusal to acknowledge that he is doing so.
-
Ok, nevertheless I would guess on a new version of D&D. They made some changes with the whole Encounters thing and (because of the above-mentioned ego) Monte Cook would probably not rejoin WotC just to tweak other people's work.
But then, I was never much into D&D, so I can sit back and watch it from a healthy distance. (http:///smile.gif)
-
Monte Cook does have a reputation and I imagine some people are fans of his work. I'd probably bow to Tims wisdom in this area; a 4.5 is one the horizon. Has anyone seen the Gamma World Boxed set? It looks cool! LOL
-
Like I said, I am not positive, but everything I know (so far....) seems to point at a 4.5 version...
That may easily change as more information becomes available
-
ok, apparently I was wrong in thinking a 4.5 edition....
Margaret Weis posted the following : http://www.dragonlanceforums.com/forums/showthread.php?21813-Interview-with-WoTC-CEO&p=491745#post491745
I've talked to friends of Monte's who are friends of mine and they all say, Yes, he's working on 5e!
Margaret
I would guess that this "friend" that she heard it from is likely a person working at piazo....
-
Cool.
-
Ha, so I was right! (http:///tongue.gif)
-
Ha ha ha. 5th edition, eh? I played 4E for a while (asit was the only game I didn't have to GM) and it was ok. But, it leaves you wanting more......I am curious to see what they are going to change enough to warrant a new edition and not a .5.....I guess this is te model you should look closely at Tim....a new edition every 5years.
-
I find that idea (new edition every 5 years) a bit distasteful myself.
Now, every 10 years is better, I think, and then ONLY if it warrants or needs corrections and updates.
And beyond that, I have no problem with cranking out variants for specific settings -- note that I am a strong believer that the rules should be adapted to the setting and never the other way around. So, doing versions of the rules for specific setting or ideas (for example, doing a version that doesn't have levels or classes, and uses Spell Bases only is an interesting idea/combination and one that I hope to someday explore -- but that special adaption won't be a "new edition" as far as the core rules are concerned.
-
The whole edition thing has a few problems. There is no reason for people happy with the current edition to switch to a new one and you can't force them to. Of course, you can stop supporting it, but with OGL and all the possibilities of the internet, there is no need for official support, once a game has been out there for a while. So every edition means a potential loss of paying customers, that needs to be set off by new players attracted by the new edition. WotC tried this with 4e, which was clearly targeted on a different crowd than 3.x. Did they succeed? I don't have the numbers, but my overall impression is "not really". They pulled in a few new players and lost a large group to Pathfinder. They have created a situation similar to RM, where the fan-base is split between two editions of the game, but with the difference, that the two editions are controlled by different companies.
So any new edition would need to
a) give the current 4e players a reason to switch to 5.
b) attract new players to the game.
c) if at all possible, bring some of the lost 3x crowd back into the fold.
I for one don't envy Monte his job. (http:///smile.gif)
-
Everytime a game releases a new version, it is going to lose some of its players - those who decide not to move on to the new version, but stick with the older version. it is a fact of life and will ALWAYS happen, regardless of the game.
The problem that WotC faces is that the 3.x version was released under the OGL, and that allowed other companies to take the ball and run with it. Other companies that have build up their own followings, and essentially taken their customers from the D&D pool of customers.
This makes attracting them back that much more difficult.
Attracting new players -- WotC (i.e. Hasbro) is one of the few companies with the resources to do this. Very few others can.
As for getting 4e to move to 5e - that depends on how they handle the actual revision. The best way, IMO, it to basically work on improving 4e in a variety of ways, rather than try to redesign things from the ground up. That way, it is more natural for 4e customers to move to 5e, as it is the "same game" only improved...
-
I aggree. I have not played 4e, except for one demo game, so I don't know which parts would best be improved, but in general fixing those things that didn't work, adding more of the things that were a success and smothing out any bumps would be the wisest course imo.
-
Interesting perspective. I wonder how much the "hasbro" aspect of WoTC impacts their product schedule. All board games go through constant re-releases etc......I wonder is Hasbro kinda assumes the D&D is approached the same way?
-
Don't forget the players/GMs that looked at 4th edition, and had some qualms about 3rd/3.5 and then went the Old School Renaissance route with the retro-clones. I was one of those. Sure I play a ton of other games too, but I haven't played any modern incarnation of the rules in a long time.
-
I haven't played any modern incarnation of the rules in a long time.
Wouldn't that be because you are simply an old fart/grognard? (http:///bigsmile.gif)
-
LOL. TIM FIGHT! TIIIIMMMM FIGHT!
-
Don't forget the players/GMs that looked at 4th edition, and had some qualms about 3rd/3.5 and then went the Old School Renaissance route with the retro-clones.
Yeah. The 4e rules hit me so hard I stumbled all the way back into 2nd Edition.
-
Bah, ha ha a ha
-
Tim Fight!!! haha.
RPG Progression:
1-shot boxed set of basic D&D, Heroquest (the board game), Lord of the Rings (red box), Rolemaster Standard System, D&D 3rd Edition/3.5, and then a crap ton of RPGs I won't bother to mention. hehe. As far as "D&D" goes lately, the closest thing I've played has been the Labyrinth Lord retro-clone (Basic/Expert D&D).
I play some Story Games from time to time, White Wolf games (love me some Vampire: the Masquerade), and some other odds and ends.
I'm probably getting my Grognard card in the mail though, even though I'm only 32. (http:///smile.gif)
-
I think Grognard is more a state of mind than an actual reference to an age.
-
I work with a young guy (21ish) that tried 4E and immediately went back to 3.5. Basically said they use the 4E RULES TEY LIKE WITH 3.5 and thats all
-
That actually works both ways. There are elements of AD&D that I port into 3.X, like multiclassing.
-
And now he's gone again:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/322139-monte-cook-leaves-wizards-coast-no-longer-working-d-d-next-updated.html
-
Yeah, I saw the announcement he made on his own blog the other week...
Apparently he left due to some issues with WotC (not with the creative team), so that means most likely money or credit issues (but not positive).
And wait! He'll have a big announcement of what he is going to do coming soon....