24 réponses à ce sujet

[kamal_]

wizards.com link

[steelfire_dragon]

yeah saw it there earlier...

[NWN DM]

Yikes... well at least the money grab should be painfully transparent to everyone the 3rd time around.

[The Fred]

Seriously?

[Dorateen]

If this happens, what a sad indictment of 4th edition in terms of application to cRPGs.

2nd edition of course gave us the classics, from Pool of Radiance all the way to Baldur's Gate.

3rd edition gaves us Pool of Radiance 2 and bioware's Neverwinter Nights

With 3.5 we had Icewind Dale 2, Temple of Elemental Evil, and Neverwinter Nights 2

But 4th edition couldn't even produce a single-player title for the PC?

Let's hope they get back on the right track and restore the good name of Dungeons & Dragons

Harumph!

[The Fred]

4th hasn't even gone cold yet and they're thinking of 5. Are they taking the underwhelming response from 3.5th-lovers as evidence that they screwed up, and rushing to sweep it under the carpet? 4th edition, the Forgotten Edition? Or are they just seeking to grab more cash whilst the punters are willing?

I think they'd have better luck going back to 3.5th, or making a 3.75th.

[painofdungeoneternal]

Generally every other version is bad, but frankly the folks who made 4th edition, while they got some cool things added, by and large my taste preferences just don't jive with whoever is calling the shots. On the other hand a lot of the house rules i've always added or subscribed to seem like they are in Pathfinder as official rules. Maybe they will copy pathfinder a bit more than WoW for their next version.

I have a feeling 4th edition is "We gutted the game so we could make it better and appeal to non-D&D players"

The 5th edition is "We added as new features many things which used to be in 3.5 edition to appeal to actual current customers"

Fortunately we don't really need them to continue enjoying the use of the 3.5 rules.

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

Are there any more licensing issues floating around out there? I can cynically imagine 4th edition being cooked up to get out of the deal with Atari and pave the way for a DnD MMORPG. Maybe now they want a new edition that's specific to some other lucrative field. Maybe the opposite is happening, that with computer and video games being what they are, PnP has to be something different, more playful and less math-driven hack-n-slash.

[The Fred]

painofdungeoneternal wrote...
Generally every other version is bad, but frankly the folks who made 4th edition, while they got some cool things added, by and large my taste preferences just don't jive with whoever is calling the shots.

The thing is that I get the impression that they're really misjudging their playerbase. Maybe we're biased because we're playing a 3.5th Ed PC game, but when I followed Kamal's link above I eventually ended up on a "Rule of Three" article. Now look at this:

"With 4E, the cleric became less necessary because other classes could heal. Do you think this is a direction you'd like to move the game further in the future?"

Basically they are trying to stop people from being shoehorned into the "healer" role (interesting to note that Guild Wars 2 is dropping the "healer" class too). Well, that's great, but now look at the view of the community: A Player's Guide to Healing (And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal).

OK, that's not a big deal, but it just struck me as funny that the first link I followed from that page screamed "they don't know what they're doing" at me.

painofdungeoneternal wrote... 
On the other hand a lot of the house rules i've always added or subscribed to seem like they are in Pathfinder as official rules. Maybe they will copy pathfinder a bit more than WoW for their next version.

Pathfinder actually just looks like a nicely revised 3.5th. They took some of what was less good about it and adjusted it to make it make a bit more sense. The problem with a lot of the 3.5th stuff is that it isn't backwards-compatable. Look at the Monk. In my campaign (and in Pathfinder) the Monk uses the same ki mechanics as the Ninja, which makes more sense.

Lugaid of the Red Stripes wrote...
...and less math-driven hack-n-slash.

Heh, that sounds kinda paradoxical, but I know what you mean. I just get images of fighters cleaving their way through digits as the party mages differentiate in their heads.

Modifié par The Fred, 11 janvier 2012 - 12:28 .

[dunniteowl]

I stand the test of time as a predictor of doom, Doom, DOOM for 4th edition and that it was, in all point of fact, just one more effort on WotCs part to garner more cash from their playerbase. I also believe I am still correct in being totally not surprised to see 5th edition already in the making, less than 2 full years post release 4.0.

I reiterate, if I end up with the cash in some manner, I will by whatever means necessary, purchase D&D from WotC and then straighten this mess out once and for all. Worst thing to ever really happen to D&D was WotC, only marginally better than Hasbro buying WotC in turn.

IN this case, it's all about the Benjamins and quality, playability or player loyalty be damned.

Cretins.

(By the way, I spotted the announcement in the New York Times.)

Modifié par dunniteowl, 12 janvier 2012 - 01:54 .

[The Fred]

dunniteowl wrote...
I reiterate, if I end up with the cash in some manner, I will by whatever means necessary, purchase D&D from WotC and then straighten this mess out once and for all.

This.

Corporate takeover!

[NWN DM]

Time for another "Occupy" movement.

[The Fred]

1% of the Wizards have 99% of the optimisation! Equality for Barbarians! Occupy... Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?

[kamal_]

So will it be...
Spellplague 2: Electric Boogaloo
or
Elminster wakes up and realized it was all a dream, and he's really named Dr. Robert Hartley?

[Ranger Solo]

I think they should had two versions. Basic and Advance like they did with 2E. The basic can be the way to go for new people who don't know much about D&D to see what it is all about. Once they get suited enough they could move up to Advance. Trying to make 1 game for all was wrong in my opinion because we all play and know things differently. So it should be split into Basic and Advance.

Am I dreaming again?

[kamal_]

Ranger Solo wrote...

I think they should had two versions. Basic and Advance like they did with 2E. The basic can be the way to go for new people who don't know much about D&D to see what it is all about. Once they get suited enough they could move up to Advance. Trying to make 1 game for all was wrong in my opinion because we all play and know things differently. So it should be split into Basic and Advance.

Am I dreaming again?

There's Dungeons and Dragons Essentials, and they have the red box, which old timers like myself will recognize.

[Axe_Edge]

I see it as a chance for a correction to be made that has been needed since 1989....

They're "Thieves", not rogues. Thievery is a profession, rogues are street rats.


Seriously, though, they want to make a product they feel will appeal to everyone. Anytime a company tries to do something most people will like, there is less differentiaion within the project. The details become symetrical, due to a portion of the intended audience whining about what they like (such as a class) having a shortfall. The lack of differences between the classes in 4e is an example.

Clerics in AD&D are played differently than in WOW. They have more of a role than just suiting them up so they can take damage while healing. Throw some "Stormlord" into that cleric and the party won't need a healer much longer. The Stormlord will own (in NWN2 terms, anyway).

Some great AD&D sessions were made by very different, asymetrical, less than optimal PCs working their way through an adventure. Puzzle pieces are jagged and varied, but they come together nicely.

Modifié par Axe_Edge, 13 janvier 2012 - 01:10 .

[dunniteowl]

And when it comes to puzzles and their solutions, Dwarves swear by the axiom: Don't force it, get a Dwarven Hammer. As long as the pieces fit, any set of adventurers can overcome -- even if they aren't optimized to PWN anyone else in the Realms.

I'm just saying...

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

I think they should develop a whole suite of related games, or rather a single system that can easily scale between different formats. If you think about it, the tabletop game was originally something along the lines of those old weekly bridge nights, back when people actually had time to hang out with their friends, and high school kids could sit around playing Diplomacy around a table. Now those long hours are all split up, with the school kids slinging Pokemon in between classes, and the college set procrastinating with a few minutes of Farmville here and there. If anyone actually manages to find a few hours to spend on a game, it's when they're home along 2 o'clock at night, after a long day at work, and they need to lose themselves in a big, immersive cRPG. People still want to play together, but it's getting harder to get everyone around the big table at the same time. Accordingly, the game needs to adapt. There needs to be a quick, simple version, so the kids can shoot d20's at recess, and a computerized version, so people can play a quick game huddled around an iPad, or as they leisurely procrastinate together online. There needs to be a big, complicated version, too. People like tinkering with big, complicated systems, and with computing power being as cheap and ubiquitous as it is, there's no reason for the high end of the game to be tied down to pencil and paper; two-digit integers and graph paper. In short, I think they have to recognize that the game will be played in places far removed from the card table, and build-in the necessary flexibility from the beginning. (Time is the only issue I can think of off the top of my head, 6 second rounds being intolerably long in a video game, and rather short for a board game, not to mention the odd length of days in video games).

[NWN DM]

We need a computer game based on the Rolemaster Standard System.

[The Fred]

Axe_Edge wrote...
They're "Thieves", not rogues. Thievery is a profession, rogues are street rats.

To be fair, my Thief->Fighter dual with 0 in Pick Pockets and Open Locks never does any actual thieving.

On topic: I agree, it does open up some new possibilities. Will they seize them? Probably not.

[nicethugbert]

Queens of the Stone Age - No One Knows

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

NWN DM wrote...

We need a computer game based on the Rolemaster Standard System.

That would be awesome. I found rolemaster a lttle too cumbersome for pnp gaming, but it would be perfect for a computer game.

As to 5th edition... These guys just don't get it.

As long as Hasbro/WotC continues to insist on forcing users to use newer editions they will continue to alienate their existing fans. As long as they continue to ****** off their existing fan base every few years with another reboot  D&D will continue to be a marginal property.

Different people want different things from their games. The old TSR subconsciously understood this and was serendipitously quite successful marketing different versions of the game for different players. OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D catered to different gaming styles and all were quite popular and profitable. Don't get me wrong. I realize that TSR had money problems, but as I understand it these were mostly related to excessive supplement development. The three core systems were all profitable, popular, and all are still actively played today in the form of OGL clones.

The trick to broadening the Appeal of D&D isn't to create a single edition that everyone will play. This is a fools errand. People are simply too diverse. If you really want the franchise to grow the trick is to stop locking all your previous editions each time you come up with a new one.

I also realize that the model I'm proposing would break the back of WotC if applied using traditional publication models. But this is the information age. WotC can support legacy titles without the ancillary expenses of printing and distribution. The fact is I can get a PDF of a 1st edition players handbook whether or not WotC likes it or not. The only real question is, "do they want a cut?"

Of course not being a pirate I bought legal copies from Paizo back when they were still available and I just direct new players to use OSRIC for character generation, but that's not an option any more. There is no longer a legal, cost effective way to get these materials and that's a HUGE loss not just to me as a consumer of these materials, but to the gaming culture as a whole who are missing a chance to see the actual documents that drove the RPG revolution that I was fortunate enough to be a part of.

WotC's assumption that if I can't get my AD&D materials I'll run out and by 4th edition is just stupid. I have no intention of buying a whole new edition of rules, essentially an entirely different game, just because some schmuck bought the rights to write "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover. If WOTC is serious about breaking D&D into a larger market they need to respect us legacy players and stop trying to force us to use systems we clearly don't want.

No skin off my butt, though. As far as I'm concerned WotC can kiss my fat hairy butt. I'll just use OSRIC instead of D&D.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 16 janvier 2012 - 05:46 .

[Pstemarie]

Dorateen wrote...

If this happens, what a sad indictment of 4th edition in terms of application to cRPGs.

2nd edition of course gave us the classics, from Pool of Radiance all the way to Baldur's Gate.

3rd edition gaves us Pool of Radiance 2 and bioware's Neverwinter Nights

With 3.5 we had Icewind Dale 2, Temple of Elemental Evil, and Neverwinter Nights 2

But 4th edition couldn't even produce a single-player title for the PC?

Let's hope they get back on the right track and restore the good name of Dungeons & Dragons

Harumph!

That's cause 4th edition was so seriously "dumbed" down that no one with any moderate level of experience with 3.0/3.5 - or the earlier incarnations all the back to AD&D found it worth time pursuing. Then came pathfinder....

[nicethugbert]

I like Iron Heroes.