Troll Lord Games

Hmm, I wonder if it will be D&D this time? ...

This thread should probably go in the "Other games" forum.

Anywho . .

"Folk down here really don't care, really don't care, don't care , really don't ," ~ Led Zeppelin!

Rhuvein wrote:
"Folk down here really don't care, really don't care, don't care , really don't ," ~ Led Zeppelin!

Simultaneously dismissing WotC's D&D and quoting Zeppelin. Well done, sir. Well done.

As it has been pointed out, for many rpg editions, not only D&D, but others not called D&D, what exactly is stopping anyone from continuing playing 4e after 5e comes out?

I never understood doomsayers or armchair rpg economists.

Sir Ironside wrote:As it has been pointed out, for many rpg editions, not only D&D, but others not called D&D, what exactly is stopping anyone from continuing playing 4e after 5e comes out?

I never understood doomsayers or armchair rpg economists.

Quite true! I still prefer old school 1st edition AD&D!

Sir Ironside wrote:As it has been pointed out, for many rpg editions, not only D&D, but others not called D&D, what exactly is stopping anyone from continuing playing 4e after 5e comes out?

I never understood doomsayers or armchair rpg economists.

I would normally agree, but I think an update from 4e to 5e might be different.

In the case of 4e, if you are relying much on the digital subscription offerings, such as the full Compendium in order to play and build characters, you will be losing something if they no longer offer it. As long as all of the errata and books are available, all of the rules will exist, but I think in 4e more than in any other edition, the experience could be greatly impacted if the digital portion were discontinued in favor of a new edition.

With the errata for the first PHB alone running to 23 pages, my guess is many people use the compendium directly as their rulebooks are no longer up-to-date, and this wasn't something that happened in previous editions to my knowledge.

While quite a bit of 3.5 information is still available on the Wizards site, who knows what the impact will be in a 4e to 5e update; it's not just static information they are maintaining at that point.

Sir Ironside wrote:As it has been pointed out, for many rpg editions, not only D&D, but others not called D&D, what exactly is stopping anyone from continuing playing 4e after 5e comes out?

I never understood doomsayers or armchair rpg economists.

Well, MUCH of 4E is on subscription (which could be discontinued) for many players. So, that could be a reason. Also, what are you talking about vis-a-vis "doomsayers or armchair rpg economists"?

Aergraith wrote:With the errata for the first PHB alone running to 23 pages, my guess is many people use the compendium directly as their rulebooks are no longer up-to-date, and this wasn't something that happened in previous editions to my knowledge.

Interesting point. I'm probably what you'd call a Casual D&D4e player. By that I mean, I've collected a few things for 4e - Essentials, Essentials box sets, Red Box, a few modules, shadowfell and dark sun stuff. Besides that I've ran the first part of the red box a few times and enjoy reading the stuff I have. But I really haven't used the Character generator but a few times or used/purchased any of the Big Three hard backs and their successors. With the background - now to my questions.

1. How much of that errata is for essentials vs. the hardbacks?

2. Allegedly (I've seen it in different places but am not going to search for reference an link right now) the essentials will remain in print as WOTC signature brand. I would think this would remain even after a 5th Edition comes around. Purely because of the circumstances surrounding 3.X and early editions. And I say that as an Arm Chair RPG Economist! What Pathfinder, the OGL and the OSR have done is more or less taken money from the coffers of WOTC. IMHO, it re-energized the hobby, but, why make the same mistake twice. I think in its own right 4e is successful, so why hobble that success or cede it over others when it is clear there is nostalgia factor for gamers. Keep it in print in a limited form and when gamers are ready to return to the game they cut their teeth on, we'll see a 4e revival sometime down the line after the 8th edition or so. And WOTC will be primed to do it. What say you?

3. Lastly, with 5th Edition, I do hope there is a direct tie to an MMORPG with Character Builder. By that, I mean, whatever the MMO looks like, I hope that there is a feature that will when use character builder and have the subscription to game, you can automatically see that character in the MMO if you upload it - or in reverse - download the character from the MMO to a Pen & Paper or a Virtual Table Top game - including updates, magic items, etc. (no question here, really just a comment)

TheMetal1 wrote: 1. How much of that errata is for essentials vs. the hardbacks?

The 23 pages I cited was just for the 1st PHB. The Essentials actually are very light on errata so far.

TheMetal1 wrote: 2. Allegedly (I've seen it in different places but am not going to search for reference an link right now) the essentials will remain in print as WOTC signature brand.

As long as they aren't fighting for shelf space with 5e.

I don't know much about any of this, I am just guessing.

This kind of stuff is exactly why I now play C&C.

The whole very quick and unnecessary up grade from 3.0 to 3.5, plus all the "splat" books, just turned me off. And now it looks like WotC is up to it again.

Aergraith wrote: As long as they aren't fighting for shelf space with 5e.

You hit the nail on the head. That's why 3.X was killed off...

The thing is, its HASBRO not WotC that drives all of this.

Hasbro bought WotC to get M:TG, D&D came along as part of that package. Hasbro has never got D&D or known how to promote market or manage it, they have always wanted to turn it into a board game because when it comes down to it they are a toy/boardgame company.

At the end of the day WotC has very little say in when a new edition is going to come along, all of that is driven from higher up sadly by people who dont get their own product.

There are folks that like 4th Edition, and that's all well and good. I can not be counted among them. To me, 4e was, by far, the worst version of D&D ever produced. I'll at least give 5e a glance, because in my opinion it can't be any worse than the current edition. If it can bring back the feeling of D&D to me, then maybe I'll get on board. Until then, it'll be C&C, 3.5, and Pathfinder for me.

But yeah, I agree with Rhuvein...this should probably be moved to "Other Games."

I don't really have an opinion about the various editions (I only ever played 1st - not from any disdain for other editions, but only because I stopped playing around '87 and only recently got back into RPGs, so I just missed the others ... ), but I was really struck by one comment made on the linked message board about how 5 years seemed like a good life-cycle for an RPG. What?! I can understand someone talking about the life-cycle of a video game console - the tech improves, so you need new machines - but I wasn't aware that RPGs became obsolete on a regular basis ... That really seems like the issue with D&D and some other RPGs - the companies seems to think that they need a more or less new ruleset every few years to keep "current," but if a ruleset is really solid, and people are enjoying it, it shouldn't need more than some errata and a few rules tweaks at most (cf. C&C or Savage Worlds ... ).

I play a weekly game for 4E and own almost every hardback they've released. I'd say it's about 30 and maybe I've missed about 4 or 5. That's right they've released something like 35 hardbacks in just over 3 years. That's absurd. I buy them because I'm a geek about such things but I can't imagine most people can be pumping that much money down the drain. I'm actually excited to see 5th edition because as much as I've enjoyed 4E, it's just too much of a departure for my tastes. And this is coming from someone who pretty much abandoned the hobby during the 3E era because I quite disliked that game. It was only once I found C&C that I really fell in love with the hobby again. So I'll almost certainly buy the core books for 5E simply because I can't find a C&C group in my town. Once I find a solid C&C group (if I ever do), I doubt I'll continue to keep up with D&D unless 5E is some kind of amazing C&C clone.

Aergraith wrote:

Sir Ironside wrote:As it has been pointed out, for many rpg editions, not only D&D, but others not called D&D, what exactly is stopping anyone from continuing playing 4e after 5e comes out?

I never understood doomsayers or armchair rpg economists.

I would normally agree, but I think an update from 4e to 5e might be different.

In the case of 4e, if you are relying much on the digital subscription offerings, such as the full Compendium in order to play and build characters, you will be losing something if they no longer offer it. As long as all of the errata and books are available, all of the rules will exist, but I think in 4e more than in any other edition, the experience could be greatly impacted if the digital portion were discontinued in favor of a new edition.

I've never gotten into 4e. I knew about the digital stuff, so I didn't take that into consideration. Brilliant on WotC's part, makes me thankful I never bothered with 4e.

With the errata for the first PHB alone running to 23 pages, my guess is many people use the compendium directly as their rulebooks are no longer up-to-date, and this wasn't something that happened in previous editions to my knowledge.

And, people still bitch about C&C's errata. TLG doesn't even come near WotC's resources and WotC still is flooded with errata?

Aergraith wrote:I would think this would remain even after a 5th Edition comes around. Purely because of the circumstances surrounding 3.X and early editions. And I say that as an Arm Chair RPG Economist!

When someone adds, "I think" or "I would think" it doesn't bother me... as much.

It is really those who post thinking they have their finger on the pulse of rpg economics. Like those who told us again and again that high pdf prices would scare away potential customers, for example. Or, the, "This is why they do this...".

Good luck to 'em, says I.

I still like 1st edition & 2nd edition AD&D. C&C comes closest to that sort of engine. I never really got into 3.x/D20 - too much number crunching for me. I deal with data all day long (I analyze billing trends in the NYS Medicaid system looking for fraud and abuse) - the last thing I want to do during 'play time' is crunch scads of numbers for a simple encounter in a RPG.

I do like C&C, old school AD&D/OSRIC - the newer versions... meh.

I tried 4e. S'ok I guess but too high powered for my taste. Nothing that would inspire me to spend a few hundred on new rulebooks while my old 1979 editions of AD&D are still perfectly servicable (and being used by my own kids). I have little hope that the new edition will spark my interest either, but as I said - good luck to 'em.

Sir Ironside wrote:

Aergraith wrote:

Sir Ironside wrote:As it has been pointed out, for many rpg editions, not only D&D, but others not called D&D, what exactly is stopping anyone from continuing playing 4e after 5e comes out?

I never understood doomsayers or armchair rpg economists.

I would normally agree, but I think an update from 4e to 5e might be different.

In the case of 4e, if you are relying much on the digital subscription offerings, such as the full Compendium in order to play and build characters, you will be losing something if they no longer offer it. As long as all of the errata and books are available, all of the rules will exist, but I think in 4e more than in any other edition, the experience could be greatly impacted if the digital portion were discontinued in favor of a new edition.

I've never gotten into 4e. I knew about the digital stuff, so I didn't take that into consideration. Brilliant on WotC's part, makes me thankful I never bothered with 4e.

With the errata for the first PHB alone running to 23 pages, my guess is many people use the compendium directly as their rulebooks are no longer up-to-date, and this wasn't something that happened in previous editions to my knowledge.

And, people still bitch about C&C's errata. TLG doesn't even come near WotC's resources and WotC still is flooded with errata?

The C&C errata doesn't seem particularly onerous. But to be fair to WotC, its the games fault more than it's theirs. The design of the system (and perhaps the business model? my apologies to RPG economics) necessitates thousands of powers, feats and rituals. Keeping them balanced (as 4E heavily emphasizes) would be an effort of superhuman proportions. They do a pretty good job but with that many powers and feats and all the potential interactions. They often don't see a problem until the optimizers have had a few months to really chew on the material. Also of note, I'm pretty sure they've eliminated all the original designers who conceived 4E which tells me even they kind of know that it has serious issues.

For a great 5th ed, Wizards could do worse than to license C&C!

Relaxo wrote:For a great 5th ed, Wizards could do worse than to license C&C!

Over my dead body ...

mbeacom wrote: The C&C errata doesn't seem particularly onerous. But to be fair to WotC, its the games fault more than it's theirs. The design of the system (and perhaps the business model? my apologies to RPG economics) necessitates thousands of powers, feats and rituals. Keeping them balanced (as 4E heavily emphasizes) would be an effort of superhuman proportions.

Yes, it is the "card game" phenomena. "Gotta collect them all". Makes sense as that business model now drives their D&D line.

mbeacom wrote:The C&C errata doesn't seem particularly onerous. But to be fair to WotC, its the games fault more than it's theirs. The design of the system (and perhaps the business model? my apologies to RPG economics) necessitates thousands of powers, feats and rituals. Keeping them balanced (as 4E heavily emphasizes) would be an effort of superhuman proportions. They do a pretty good job but with that many powers and feats and all the potential interactions. They often don't see a problem until the optimizers have had a few months to really chew on the material. Also of note, I'm pretty sure they've eliminated all the original designers who conceived 4E which tells me even they kind of know that it has serious issues.

That is what play-testing is for. Its 101 of rpg design.

If they did change the creators, then a plan should've been in place to the smooth transfer.

I still blame the company for so many pieces of errata. It was their decisions, they have to live with it.

I'd venture a guess that $$$ and deadlines were the top priority over game design. If this is true then it is corporate suits that caused the errata problem not the creators.

This is not a tirade against the corporate side of things. And with what they sold it didn't seem to slow down people purchasing their books, but like I said earlier it was their decisions.

Rhuvein wrote:This thread should probably go in the "Other games" forum.

Agreed, Rhu, and now it is there. Er, here. Whatever.

Just me being a pushy moderator!

kreider204 wrote:

Relaxo wrote:For a great 5th ed, Wizards could do worse than to license C&C!

Over my dead body ...

Indeed, it would be a nightmare. I'm comfortable assuming neither Hasbro or TLG would ever consider it though.

Sir Ironside wrote:

mbeacom wrote:The C&C errata doesn't seem particularly onerous. But to be fair to WotC, its the games fault more than it's theirs. The design of the system (and perhaps the business model? my apologies to RPG economics) necessitates thousands of powers, feats and rituals. Keeping them balanced (as 4E heavily emphasizes) would be an effort of superhuman proportions. They do a pretty good job but with that many powers and feats and all the potential interactions. They often don't see a problem until the optimizers have had a few months to really chew on the material. Also of note, I'm pretty sure they've eliminated all the original designers who conceived 4E which tells me even they kind of know that it has serious issues.

That is what play-testing is for. Its 101 of rpg design.

If they did change the creators, then a plan should've been in place to the smooth transfer.

I still blame the company for so many pieces of errata. It was their decisions, they have to live with it.

I'd venture a guess that $$$ and deadlines were the top priority over game design. If this is true then it is corporate suits that caused the errata problem not the creators.

This is not a tirade against the corporate side of things. And with what they sold it didn't seem to slow down people purchasing their books, but like I said earlier it was their decisions.

I didn't mean to say that WotC isn't responsible or that they shouldn't reap what they sow but that the flaws inherent in the design create a burden that a normal product quality cycle can't reasonably account for.

Good luck to em. I liked 1st, 2nd and even (Core) 3rd edition (A)D&D. When the rules glut started getting to be more than I could personally bear, I went a different direction and have not regretted it, but I have no ill will for WoTC/Hasbro for trying to turn a profit.