Ooh, I liked the little eyebrow wink when you said 4rth was 'balanced'. A bit of hidden meaning there, hmm?
But yeah, I think Wizards should try to promote some of their old cool settings we've never seen in a while. The 'new' base world for 4rth was so empty compared to the others I think that hurt them as well. Maybe throw in a big buid your own world-guide with gods, lands and such to aid to the creative DM's and such. The earlier ones has left that task without tools in earlier core books.
I like the simplicity and power of 4th edition but the options of second edition, AD&D. More non combat rules and specialties primarily. Bring back the firebuiling skills, etc..
-No aggro mechanics, any creature with basic intelligence should attack the "tank" as long as he's holding the front lines anyways, aggro feels to much like a forced mechanic and takes us out of the story
-I'd like to see a better system for good weapons and armor, where we don't necessarily have to rely on spellcasters for better things, and expert craftsmen and special metals can have many comparable benefits to magic
-classes emphasize flexibility, and don't become too heavily defined into on one role, which also makes them more usable in different types of settings. Druids and Paladins come from European traditions, lets see shaman and holy warriors instead. If you want to make a druid or paladin, you still can, but a holy warrior in a Middle Eastern culture isn't going to rely on heavy armor, and would get some other benefit, perhaps focusing more on agility.
-of course WotC would want to tread carefully on class flexibility, newcomers and casuals may be a little intimidated by having too many options. A starting package or two, with suggested progression, for each class may do the trick.
-Generally the way magic and the world and cosmos works shouldn't be too setting specific, at least when presented in the Core book(s). The standard rules shouldn't limit the way a DM's homebrew universe can work.
-Less focus on a game that that is about combat. More emphasis on the idea that not all challenges are not about violence, and require using abilities and feats and skills, or resources of the characters, or puzzles for the players themselves. Gameplay + rewards for these challenges should be fresh, fun and elegant.
Of course, hack n' slash should always be a viable gameplay style as well, and all classes should be able to hold their own or have a role in battle.
I would like to see a game that you can have lots of home brewed content, in fourth it was insanely hard to make a balanced and fun class from scratch. How powerful you became depended on what class your took, not the feats you chose and your abilities
Since the first "Red Box" D&D had always been building upon itself and improving. 4th edition halted that trend. It was a cynical attempt to capitalize on the success of World of Warcraft. It was essentially tabletop WoW. Wizards of the Coast completely missed the boat on what tabletop games offer that MMORPGs do not. Keep up the good work GG, I always enjoy your videos.
4.0 is actually a pretty good as a system. What i dislike most are the fact that it does some unnatural things ( like relearning things ) That should go out i think. Other than that i'd mainly want more "fun" descriptions added to the book. Even the books devoted to equipment are nothing more than uninspiring stat books. ( in 3 and 3.5 i bought the books just for the fun of reading them ) As a DM I do encourage players to come up with unique look and feel which in total makes the game quite ok.
IMO the best thing that could happen to our hobby right now is if we regularly started abusing disinhibitors. While part of that statement is in jest, there is for me a kernel of seriousness behind its meaning.
Heck, what can I say? I'm 43...and have boxes full of TORG, CoC, Gurps, AND 1st, 2nd & 3rd Edition books. I CAN'T be the target audience for 5th edition (and never bought any 4th edition books) because I've got platers who aleady play earlier editions...because I don't NEED too. When a new player comes along, they use my old books...or buy used ones off eBay or Amazon for 5 bucks...or less. The thought of spending hundreds of dollars to start off again is laughable. Grognard to the GRAVE!!!
@VandalStork Yes, that's fine for YOU. But, aren't you at all interested in strengthening, building and maintaining the hobby that's been so good to you for so long? Because becoming/being an isolationist is counter productive to improving the hobby and building its population. The reason video gamers have no shortage of like kind to multigame with, are because they migrate with the hobby. If they mirrored too many within our hobby, their hobby would be dying or dead.
@XxSpiderzxweBxX I can't agree with that opinio. I didn't like the "flavor" of 4th, and was under no obligation to support it. I didn't like what I saw, and realised that I didn't need it anymore. Current D&D just changed too much, and I went in other directions. I didn't owe 4th edition any continued support, just because I liked the EARLIER editions. And the fact that 4th edition died so quickly proves that I'm not the only one who felt so. If WotC itself falls, we'll all play something else.
@VandalStork ....and this is your chance to help make D&D what you'd like it to be. While at the same time rallying under one umbrella, which strengthens the hobby by creating a tighter more organized community. Anyone declaring 'my way until death' isn't helping a hurting hobby, so the hobby should show equal recognition to those people and their feelings about said hobby or its direction. Its not about you, because a social-based hobby is comprised of "US"
@XxSpiderzxweBxX I still think you're looking at this too closely. If D&D vanished today - no 5th edition at all - then Pathfinder would just continue to grow, and Paizo would be the new "inheritor" to the old TSR legasy. Also, I just don't have the time, patience or finances to devote to yet another version of something I've already got three flippin' versions of. Most of my regular gamers are either in the same position, or are kids with limited finances. The money just isn't there.
@XxSpiderzxweBxX Trust me, they don't want or need my input. My suggestions would boil down to "Role play NOT Rules play. Quick, simple mechanics. Limited per-actions actions". Push come to shove, I'd say the best system ever was Call of Cthulhu. Basic as heck, and the real thrust is just simple roleplaying. Rules be danged, what's your CHARACTER thinking? I also like Gurps system of background building adventages and disadvantages, while still resolving everything with a toss of 3 six-siders.
Its a sad irony that a socially based hobby comprised of hobbyists with vast experience socializing because of the nature of said hobby, are such a social mess. The biggest hurdle before WotC is bringing together the narrowly opinionated masses that make up the D&d fan-base. I honestly believe that WE are the largest reason why our hobby isn't more successful.
Face it, they tried to draw in the MMO crowd via a game that primarily emulates the unseen portions of an MMO: math & mechanics. Moronic. Only the MOST hobby exhausted (video) gamer is going to give up, sacrifice or choose imagination and game piece hour over a video game. You dont draw in video game players by giving them less than they have, especially among a playerbase that is so visually dependent. They failed & Paizo took their cake for the 1st time in roleplaying history
It's not so much Paizo that "took their cake" as they are now essentially competing against themselves (PF is just D&D 3.5, with a handful of tweaks). The AD&D/2nd edition crowd said 3e was "dumbed-down D&D made to play like Diablo on paper." (Sound familiar?) The thing that saved 3rd edition was the OGL and what it meant -- loads of content from many publishers which led to a growth spurt of new RPG players. Then 3.0 went to 3.5 and they lost a ton of players...then 4.0 hit and more gone...etc.
@dannomagic So what is the solution? In my opinion it's something wholly new and innovative. An exciting creation that is appealing and allows for equal measure of roleplay and combat; what I see as the key elements of D&D.
I like the basic DnD idea in principle. Base set, Humans. Elves, Dwarves, Halflings - Fighter, wizard, thief, Cleric to Xth level - and just build from there. Allow for multiclass and have feats or the like, but keep the base tight. Next Player book have four more races, four more classes. Have options for minis in the Dungeon masters guide, or even have its own guide - ie. thats an option for "how you want to run the game". Anything that is optional shoudl be in the DMs domain.
Having just started playing 4e, I think it's a great system and I'm disappointed it is not more popular. I have no problem with them coming out with a new edition in order to bring players back into the fold but tbh I think a large part of the market is older players who won't be satisifed unless we're playing with paper and pencil, or they're in love with Pathfinder, etc. Agreed I think 4e needs to take a step back from the "video-game" like feel of spells/powers toward it's roleplaying roots
As for what I'd like to see for 5th edition, personally I really love the really out-of-the-box ideas that are present in 2nd. It seems like 2nd edition was a goldmine for some really interesting ideas and it was nice to see a setting like Dark sun getting made for 4th ed, but what about settings like "Spelljammer"? With 3rd & 4th edition it felt like WOTC were too embarrassed to even try re-marketing the idea and instead had several typical western fantasy settings. I Would like some new stuff.
I've never been big on Edition wars, but this is the first time I've really felt a need to be vocal... since really in my opinion I HIGHLY doubt that the game designers making 5th want to make a good or coherent game. 4th edition, love it or hate it, you can tell that the designers and artists were excited about what they were working on. They didn't release what everyone wanted they released what they thought was fresh and fun... 5th ed really just strikes me as a huge money grab, nothing more.
I like my Lovecraftian horrors, and I would like to see WotC dealing with them more in the DnD universe. Despite there being quite a number of Lovcraft-esque races (specifically those listed in the Lords of Madness supplement), they still lack a home plane (if you don't count the realms of the beholder/illithid deities). The demons have the Abyss and the devils have Baator. I want my Far Realms, dammit.
@Sroge4 I like to mix my games too. Lovecraft with D&D always goes well. The first Cthulhu setting was actually in Tunnels & Trolls, way before Chaosium for ahold of it.
D&D 4e wasn't a bad game, like was said, its a very stream lined game, and does harken back to the feel of Basic D&D. As far as 4e's death, the playtest and development of 5e is at least 2 yrs in the making, with playtests scheduled for conventions in 2013, so that means it will be late 2013/2014 at least before release, with continued support of 4e in the interim. Essentials, on the other hand, are a bit of the death of 4e, the DM supplements for Essentials aren't bad, Monster Vault was Solid!
@LordSeussMD Oh certainly there were good supplements for D&D4, but I suppose the damage was done with various decisions that made players stick to 3.5 through Pathfinder.
On the topic of expanding the player base, what Pathfinder did with their rulebooks is definitely the right way to go. I think a lot of potential table-top RPG players are put off by the amount of books necessary to start a DnD-campaign. One core rulebook, encompassing both GMs guide, rules and player's handbook, would be ideal. Although there might be sense in making a thinner, cheaper Player's Handbook would be nice, so that the gm can more easily convince his potential players to get started.
@MrPointless Actually, of all the things Pathfinder did, that was probably their worst move. Games that encompass everything in a single book can work, if the book itself is thin enough to be reasonably carried around. The Pathfinder book is a hulk of a book, for roleplaying standpoints, and just doesn't work. Most games with everything in one book put players off, the books for Players and books for DMs strategy helps in sales and in suspension of belief.
@MrPointless "One core rulebook, encompassing both GMs guide, rules and player's handbook, would be ideal."
Coming from the DM's perspective...i don't like the players reading the monster entries as casual reading nor do i like them poking around in the DM supliments. It takes away from the element of suprise & can cause other issues with conflicting interprtations of "how" the "guidelines" should be implemented. Its not a massive issue but it detracts from the overall mistique
@clackclickbang Exactly. And just because the Core Rulebook is all-encompassing, doesn't mean that Player's Handbooks can't exist for those that only wish to make a minor investment. I do understand why some would like their players to be... 'oblivious' in lack of better words... of the rules and 'code' a gm generally abides by, but I find that people with gm experience generally make for better players and characters, simply because they grasp the game concept(s) and universe better.
Not so much an input on the content, but the artwork this time around really should aim way above "above average". Much of the artwork in the books for DnD 3.5, 4,0, and - hell, even Pathfinder, is a bit weak in places (most of pathfinder is good, but those weak spots...). I guess it's my own personal OCD, but whenever I see bad anatomy in my Core Rulebook, I want to tape over the page. It shouldn't be that hard, considering how many good fantasy artists you can find just by going on deviantArt!
@MrPointless "Not so much an input on the content, but the artwork this time around really should aim way above "above average"."
I agree with you there. The artwork, especially in the core books, should raise the bar of imagination and wonderment. I never liked the modern artwork where things looked all cartoon like and blocky with massive shoulder armors etc.
A character portrayed in the 4e PH with armor had a ton of buckles, "penalized 4 rounds for suit up"
@nozzer2002 "interested .WOTC has been to much damage to the hobby in my view...thanks for the video by the way !"
I agree!!! Too much has the game wandered from what it was to something that barely resembles the game other than in names. Our group still plays a 1st-2nd meld and has for over 20 years. We tried the other 2 versions 2 years apiece....we had to go back to what was good....it invoked us to use ingenuity and imagination. 3rd = stack numbers , 4th = more of a chess game
where i thought 4th edition fell down was it was too much of a cash cow for WOTC. If you look at 2nd edition all you you needed was the 3 main books and you were ready to go, with 4th edition it seems to me you need a ton of books and a ton of money to play the game.Ive always been a rules light and miniatures DM.All ive seen WOTC coast do is split the D&D community, thats why i said in a earlier post that i dont give a crap about 5th or WOTC as long as WOTC is involved in D&D am not [cont]
@nozzer2002 Ah, but 2nd ed did release a hell of a lot of bad sourcebooks too. Admittedly I feel that 4E is hollow without some of the supplements. The way the fans fractured so violently over 4E was quite sad.
D&D I think doesn't help in introducing new players to the hobby. The reason is that the complexity of the game(and many others) basicly forces you start playing with someone who already knows the rules. That person is then stuck in the GM position even if he doesn't wish to be one. An RPG that would attract new players will have to be: cheap(miniless gameplay), simple and relatable(most people now days are introduced to RPGs through computer RPGs, me included)
@marvelona Forgot approachable, too many RPG's this days don't give out enough or the correct examples. The classic old Red Box had a great little solo adventure you could play through to understand the rules <- more of this
It is extremely difficult at age 32 to conceive of a Dungeons and Dragons game that would appeal to the 16-25 range. There is a bit of a generational gap between those who started with Hawk the Slayer, Conan the Barbarian and LoTR books and those whose introduction to fantasy was an MMORPG. The expectation and imaginative processes are too different. We older gamers are very static and stuck in our already established worlds. This may sound defeatist but I don't think the divide can be bridged.
@Argonova If D&D was made with, let's say, Westeros as a base campaign setting, it would be connecting with a current trend and maybe draw in old and new gamers alike.
I grew up with 3.5, and with World of Warcraft as well. If I were to make a wishlist, I would have them bring the mini's back, no one I know likes those silly tiddly-wink things they've been making for 4E. Also, if they can solve the "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" problem without making everyone COMPLETELY equal, I'd be pleased. Many a campaign I've ever had has crashed and burned from lack of interest after the Sorcerer starts using upper-level fireball and lightning bolt. :(
I haven't been a fan of editions of dnd for a while, but I think OGL would help a lot. That and a really basic ruleset, and then supplements for more complicated rules that DMs could adopt if needed. What makes dnd fun is the roleplaying so make combat abstract, while DMs and players who want longer combats can adopt feats etc from supplements. And I think they need to stop marketing dnd like a video game, because video games will always win, focus on what video games can't do, roleplaying.
@markamadeojohnson Some people think OGL is a bad idea however, due to it weakening WOTC through the amount of money it loses to competitors. It's a tricky one.
@clackclickbang but isn't D&D strengthened by having more innovators making more products? It keeps WOTC innovating or else they lose money to competitors that have more innovation. Then D&D becomes a stronger game right? Does "some people" mean people at WOTC or consumers, because I don't see how it can be bad for consumers, and its only bad for WOTC if they do a poor job (they will always have a leg up anyway by name recognition and owning the game).
Well however they do it WOTC needs to do one thing. It needs to be open source that matches with the OGL of the old, or at least be similar to Pathfinder's OGL. Sure a lot of shit products came out of it, but there were also tons of good ones. Plus everyone was having fun. Pen and paper rpgs are not competing with each other that much unlike other industries that I can name.
Where I tend to get upset are the edition war trolls from one side or the other telling people that they're having badwrongfun. 4e is my favorite by a long shot, but I would still play in a PF game in a heartbeat, so long as the group is right. I've learned that the group itself is more important than the system being played. I could play my favorite system, but if the group is full of douchebags, I won't be having fun. I could play a less favored system with good friends, and have a blast.
@clackclickbang I wasn't implying that you were one. Just that I frequent a lot of forums, and that is what I deal with. Sorry if I came across that way. They exist on both sides. I've moved away from D&D completely for a while and my group is going to be taking on Hellfrost. Savage Worlds is my favorite system. :)
I enjoy almost all editions of D&D in one way or another. Each has its own feel, which not many other games can claim. This is both a good and a bad thing. Look at BRP. It is up to what, 6th edition now? However, their idea of an "edition" is basically a book of printed errata. It's 100% backwards compatible. This is both a good and a bad thing. It's good because it remains consistent, but bad because it doesn't evolve. No one system can please everyone, though.
Well of course you know what the downfall of tabletop RPGs is, video games. I have nothing against video games of course but that I think is the major cause. Kids nowadays are more likely to buy The elder scrolls Skyrim than the newest D&D or pathfinder book.
@markisonlin3 But of course they are! But roleplaying has been on the wane for a decade or so now. I would love for the hobby to receive a boost, but it needs major advertising for that to happen.
In regards to the mini's use. The systems are pracitcally identical, as I said, in terms of mini's rules. The only major differences are that 3.5/PF charges extra for diagonal movement, while 4e has more forced movement. You have to ignore a LARGE portion of the rules in either system to get rid of minis. Without them, it's almost impossible to track size, movement, reach, range, cover, concealment, terrain, AoE's, AoO's, LOS, LOE, flanking, lighting, etc. Both use minis for all of this.
Again, 4e wasn't a failure initially. It was massively successful if you followed the timeline. What killed it was when Mearls took over, he tried to expand the market into the people that didn't convert to the system. This became D&D Essentials. The problem was, it abandoned a lot of the design goals that 4e originally set forth, and the people it tried to target had already moved on to pathfinder and other retro clones. The people who did move to 4th were put off by the change in direction.
@Droogie128 I would say I abandoned D&D 4 because the majority of my group preferred 3.5 and older editions. It was a push to get them playing Pathfinder, to be honest. We all found 4th to be a very generic, plain old game. Nothing terribly exciting about it. All a bit "meh."
@clackclickbang It's an extremely dynamic and flexible system, as Essentials has shown. The different directions they have taken it have been impressive. I also loved that the martial classes finally evolved beyond being the "D&D for Dummies" classes. Essentials resurrected this idea, though. One of the major reasons it failed. I also loved the fact that classes were designed to be part of a group, instead of the group being designed as cohorts to the caster.
@clackclickbang It's mostly a matter of preference, but I've been playing it since its release. It has evolved a lot, and has more depth than any edition before it by a mile. 5e looks to be a modular system, and from the sounds of it, might work somewhat like Savage Worlds. Not mechanically, but in that it will be designed on a per setting basis, while remaining compatible. That's some of the info that I have received thus far.
@Droogie128 I have enjoyed all of your reviews, but this one I will disagree with. I do have a review request for you, though. It's a system I stumbled upon, it's free, and all donations on the site go to charity. I've talked to the designer, and he seems very open to feedback and making changes. It's a d20 D&D based game at its core, but really becomes its own thing.
Basically, WOTC need to distinguish D&D from anything related to a video game. It needs to be its own distinct entity. No video game influence. Get rid of the miniatures. We did not use them. Just pencil paper, a Map keeper, etc. Anything on the computer should be with the emphasis of tools to supplement and support the experience, not supersede it. Make older content available as PDFs. There's so much material to draw from.
@TheWolfDogMoon There is a hell of a lot of material to draw on, but will they do it? How retrospective should D&D be? Will it draw in new players or just bring back some of the older gamers?
@TheWolfDogMoon "It needs to be its own distinct entity. No video game influence. Get rid of the miniatures. We did not use them. Just pencil paper, a Map keeper, etc."
I couldnt agree with you more. 4e just felt like some vamped up version of HeroQuest.
@TheWolfDogMoon I agree. Capitalise on popular and ongoing trends. Book series' like those of George R R Martin and even the release of the Hobbit in the movies should perhaps indicate where current interest lies.
Already have got in touch on their forums. It needs to use 2nd Edition as the blueprint. Pathfinder is really, really cool. Somehow WOTC needs to combine the Nostalgia and Source Material of the early editions as the foundation. 1st or 2nd Edition.
4th edition is the reason we start playing Pathfinder in my group. I was utterly bored by the fact that roleplay was not rewarded by the system and you had to roll for a lot of things. This is a flaw is most d20 games but I really think Pathfinder does this a lot better. I am very curious what DnD5 will do with this and I hope it will be less rolling more roleplay. Although it is a bit in the nature of the game to roll a lot of course. I become a bigger WoD fan every day. End Rambling
@Komeister Good ramble! You share many of my thoughts. WoD is a game better equipped for those in need of story and character and roleplaying that doesn't rely heavily on dice-rolling. Not that D&D and Pathfinder always do, mind you, but there's certainly less need to roll dice with WoD.
I played D & D some time ago; my class was Psionicist, a telepath. it was fun, so the new edition should have rules to allow psionic characters.
We are going through a cultural change, entering the age of the Long Tail, in which consumers will have all their wants satisfied with far more choices, but with each market shrinking. People will choose to spend their money in other products besides D & D. Some prefer to player with a machine, not a person, let a chip role virtual die, crunch numbers.
@mollytherealdeal I don't think RPGs are dying however. While we're undergoing a bit of drop-off, the players can be drawn in if the product is exciting and innovative enough.
But if they want new players, I don't think something like 4th ed. is very good for it, it's a bit too complicated with too many options (races, classes and holy crap, look at the amount of feats).
Now, I don't know if they should just go back to something like 2nd ed. and make the basic rules a bit more simple, then add all the other stuff with additional books (should be good for the money stream as well) but current players might not like that idea.
I don't know how many of them would be willing to give it a try after 3/4e, they might fear getting burned again, but if it was modular, it would help cos you could just drop the thing you don't like.
It's going to be a hard sell in any case and I'll keep my eye on it, but I think I will be happiest with 1/2e, when you start requiring the use of miniatures in combat, it gets a bit too much. (Yes, I know of Chainmail :) )
I have been caught up in 4e primarily because of inertia - most of the players I know play 4e and therefore so do I. I did manage to finally join a pathfinder game about 4 months back - and I can say that I definitely enjoy the game more than 4e. It has much less crunch and more flavor. That being said, I am much more excited about seeing where Pathfinder develops and finding new people to play with in that system than I am of seeing 5e.
@lambastedpolemic This is the sad thing about D&D. 4th ed has polarised the players to such an extent that Pathfinder seems so much more appealing and approachable.
It seems like immersion-oriented gamers like you and AndersWWAD have a style which is more about interactive storytelling than working within the scope of rules out of a book. Have you found that the various AD&D editions (and Pathfinder) have led you to appreciably different styles of play? (Disregarding 4th Ed. and its use of miniatures)
@SHPrevodenje Pathfinder is the system we use for Planescape, but the rules are a last recourse rather than a crutch. To be fair on 4th ed, we could be using that just as well, and we would have ignored the sections we don't like. Not all of us even have the Pathfinder book; we just refer to 3.5 books when necessary.
it will be interesting to see how well 4th ed carry`s on after they pull the plug.all the other versions have their hardcore of fans who while the game may be dead keep it alive all be it in a more underground sorta way.iv only really played 2nd ed so i cant say what they should do ,but maybe moving back to the feel of the earlier stuff since that's less likely to have pathfinder looming over it.its a tricky one since pathfinder kinda is the book they should have made in the first place.
I belive that companies often treat "listening to their consumers" too seriously. Obviously if you listen what you're going to recive is great deal of negative feedback - meaning, they'll write you should change something only when it doesn't work for them. I can't think of example of a positive feedback rly, you wouldn't write the producers: "Oh yeah, those rules you got on page 56? They work just as they should, just so you know." ... of course that won't happen. Thats what ruins many games.
... developers just paying attention to overwhelming majority of "whining" and having compleetly wrong idea that everything about their game is bad and needs a compleet overhaul... and than they are all surprised to see people still stick to 3.5 - because it "work just fine for them"
@YuriPRIME I agree. My job sees a lot more complaints than compliments, and of course it's the complaints that get the most attention. It's always the way. It shouldn't be, however.
I would have liked to have tried it somewhen, so I can judge it myself. But of course, they will retract materials availability for it and such. Ho hum.
WHAT! A 5th edition... ALREADY! The hell?! I've only just got used to 4th Edition. There are still people in my club complaining about it being too different from 3.5 Edition. This is why people get so pissed off, the companies release new editions so quickly that it makes it clear that they're just abandoning their games and by extension their customers without care.
@TornadoCreator They're acting more and more like businesses and less and less like gamers. I can see why from one perspective, but it does seem to have damaged their product.
I want a rerelease and compilation of all things Planescape relevant, including all versions of the Manual of the Planes and Planes based material, and I want it integratable with all other settings... including Spelljammer...
I want detailed settings for - The Demiplane of Dread, Oerth, Athas, Golarion, Akiton, Castrovel, Eberron, Aebrynis, Sanctuary, Áereth, Kulthea, Tellene, Eredane, Uresia, and the Ages of Terra... C'thuvian, Lost, Thurian, Hyborian, Antiquity, Gothic, Near-Future - Earth!
@clackclickbang There is an approach that would not be a detriment to the economic considerations of the corporate entity, and that would benefit the people to which it serves. Making a pitch would not be easy, for no other reason than previous reluctance on the part of the employed elements of the entity to show a negative reaction to suggestions from outside the entity is well established, and I have only a few rudimentary thoughts at the moment... a basic paradigm.
nostalgia... I do not pine over old systems, I pine over old settings...
I want a complete Mystara given the attention that was given to Forgotten Realms... and as was "promised" would occur before the 2nd edition collapse.
I want a complete re-release of all the Era's of Dragonlance, with that same attention to detail previously mentioned.
I want a compiled and integrated Spelljammer setting to be updated to modern mechanical systems, and again given to fully detailed setting fluff books...
@thespiritcoyote A newly revisited Spelljammer would be excellent! Mystara would be a perfect way to return to D&D roots if nostalgia was the chosen route.
to be hounest, it would impress me more (as it did for 3e) to put forth complete settings that complete mechanics... mechanics /can/ evolve from a strong base-set... and D&D has a plethora of strong base-set mechanics to start with...
I mean seriously and in all earnestness, there is not an edition or sub-version of D&D ever printed I fully loath... just parts that do not fit every situation, and that is simply unfixable, an inherent flaw in any system.
@thespiritcoyote I agree. I'm more likely to buy a game with an interesting setting these days than one with a different rules set. Settings help my ideas. Rules just tend to stifle more than anything else.
Wizards should build off pathfinder & 3.5. No 1 hit minions bs & have a more open licence like ogl but again focus on video games like Neverwinter nights 2 not so much on mmo which can be fun but same old sh#t, I want an epic role-playing not just pigeon hole classes full of super balance mirror copies of each other, abilities & spells that do the same thing with same damage with different name sure takes a great deal imagination to come-up with, just liquid paper!
I have never plaied D&D 3.5 a lot but liked the Story a lot .By Story i mean forgotten Realms, What i heared about D&D 4 is it was very streamlind. This is not what Roleplay shut be. 3.5 was very free for every player but in 4 i misst this good Campainbooks.
As you sad: I am interessed in Story as in Rules. When D&D 5 can deliver good Settings than i will buy one of them. I dont thing we need 3 Monstermanuels with the crazyest stuff.
@Hellstorm87 I do wonder what will become of the Forgotten Realms and the other settings D&D has become committed to during 3rd and 4th ed (such as Eberron). I suppose time will tell!
Well, this fits in perfectly with the five year development cycle that Monte Cook let slip when he discussed the early release of 3.5, so you can probably expect more of the same in five years. Personally? I've been playing 2nd Ed since 1992, and I seriously doubt 5e will have much in it to get me to switch; none of the other editions (or PF) did.
The only thing that would get me to buy anything would be setting material that is easily adaptable to 2nd ed; I doubt that will happen though.
@clackclickbang If you do so, I eagerly look forward to your reports on it. While I seriously doubt I'll have anything to do with the edition, I'd never flatly rule it out before checking out the system details.
But, as I said, give me good setting information, especially if it is easy to convert (I'd like to see an all-version conversion guide), I'll buy. Especially Spelljammer that is authentic to the 2nd Ed products. :D
And allow me to clarify: I'm not against the "old school" way. I love that stuff. But why spend money on yet more books that will become "obsolete" in a few years? If you want a change just dig out your older books that you have probably spent hundreds on. But If I'm going to invest in yet another edition, it needs to be more than simply rearranged rules, it needs to be a next generation type deal.
Reinventing rules is a waste of time. The next generation of games needs to embrace available technology. I'm not talking about Skype games, I'm talking about developing an interactive interface that allows instant tracking of equipment, combat (using individualized graphics) and environment. Instead of buying a bunch of books you would purchase apps that helps the GM and players engage the world. Many will say they already have this, but I'm talking the next level here. Gaming through Ipads.
Well, for starters they need to make D&D for people who like D&D. They shouldn't try to modernize the rules or try to mimic an MMORPG. I think with the publishing industry being less expensive due to printing in China, I would like to see all of the campaign settings from 2E come back. I was a huge Birthright fan and I want it back.
Ooh, I liked the little eyebrow wink when you said 4rth was 'balanced'. A bit of hidden meaning there, hmm?
But yeah, I think Wizards should try to promote some of their old cool settings we've never seen in a while. The 'new' base world for 4rth was so empty compared to the others I think that hurt them as well. Maybe throw in a big buid your own world-guide with gods, lands and such to aid to the creative DM's and such. The earlier ones has left that task without tools in earlier core books.
Tiffaniumi 17 hours ago
I want an AD&D fourth edition options book..
Markleberry 1 day ago
More Scooby Doo mysteries..
Markleberry 1 day ago
I like the simplicity and power of 4th edition but the options of second edition, AD&D. More non combat rules and specialties primarily. Bring back the firebuiling skills, etc..
Markleberry 1 day ago
-Hexogonal grid like 4e
-Get rid of sub-class nonsense of 4e
-No aggro mechanics, any creature with basic intelligence should attack the "tank" as long as he's holding the front lines anyways, aggro feels to much like a forced mechanic and takes us out of the story
-I'd like to see a better system for good weapons and armor, where we don't necessarily have to rely on spellcasters for better things, and expert craftsmen and special metals can have many comparable benefits to magic
Davetacular45 3 days ago
@Davetacular45 (contiuned)
-classes emphasize flexibility, and don't become too heavily defined into on one role, which also makes them more usable in different types of settings. Druids and Paladins come from European traditions, lets see shaman and holy warriors instead. If you want to make a druid or paladin, you still can, but a holy warrior in a Middle Eastern culture isn't going to rely on heavy armor, and would get some other benefit, perhaps focusing more on agility.
Davetacular45 3 days ago
@Davetacular45 (continued)
-of course WotC would want to tread carefully on class flexibility, newcomers and casuals may be a little intimidated by having too many options. A starting package or two, with suggested progression, for each class may do the trick.
-Generally the way magic and the world and cosmos works shouldn't be too setting specific, at least when presented in the Core book(s). The standard rules shouldn't limit the way a DM's homebrew universe can work.
Davetacular45 3 days ago
@Davetacular45 (continued)
-Less focus on a game that that is about combat. More emphasis on the idea that not all challenges are not about violence, and require using abilities and feats and skills, or resources of the characters, or puzzles for the players themselves. Gameplay + rewards for these challenges should be fresh, fun and elegant.
Of course, hack n' slash should always be a viable gameplay style as well, and all classes should be able to hold their own or have a role in battle.
Davetacular45 3 days ago
@Davetacular45 I agree. But I feel roleplay should be rewarded as much if not more than combat.
clackclickbang 2 days ago
Good riddance, 2nd edition forever! Haha
DungeonQuestGames 1 week ago
@DungeonQuestGames I know people who share your view.
clackclickbang 2 days ago
I would like to see a game that you can have lots of home brewed content, in fourth it was insanely hard to make a balanced and fun class from scratch. How powerful you became depended on what class your took, not the feats you chose and your abilities
kevinkizziah 1 week ago
@kevinkizziah Bravo for that!
clackclickbang 2 days ago
Gentleman you ARE a gentleman
docdagon 2 weeks ago
@docdagon Very kind of you to say so.
clackclickbang 1 week ago
Since the first "Red Box" D&D had always been building upon itself and improving. 4th edition halted that trend. It was a cynical attempt to capitalize on the success of World of Warcraft. It was essentially tabletop WoW. Wizards of the Coast completely missed the boat on what tabletop games offer that MMORPGs do not. Keep up the good work GG, I always enjoy your videos.
AtomicJimmyMack 2 weeks ago 4
@AtomicJimmyMack My thanks to you! Here's to a new and exciting D&D!
clackclickbang 1 week ago
Just one core rulebook like Pathfinder.
mysterymountainman 3 weeks ago 2
@mysterymountainman Good plan!
clackclickbang 1 week ago
@mysterymountainman for less than 45 bucks..
Markleberry 1 day ago
4.0 is actually a pretty good as a system. What i dislike most are the fact that it does some unnatural things ( like relearning things ) That should go out i think. Other than that i'd mainly want more "fun" descriptions added to the book. Even the books devoted to equipment are nothing more than uninspiring stat books. ( in 3 and 3.5 i bought the books just for the fun of reading them ) As a DM I do encourage players to come up with unique look and feel which in total makes the game quite ok.
msh1044 3 weeks ago
@msh1044 I agree wholeheartedly. Uniqueness if what makes a game interesting.
clackclickbang 3 weeks ago
IMO the best thing that could happen to our hobby right now is if we regularly started abusing disinhibitors. While part of that statement is in jest, there is for me a kernel of seriousness behind its meaning.
XxSpiderzxweBxX 1 month ago
Comment removed
XxSpiderzxweBxX 1 month ago
Heck, what can I say? I'm 43...and have boxes full of TORG, CoC, Gurps, AND 1st, 2nd & 3rd Edition books. I CAN'T be the target audience for 5th edition (and never bought any 4th edition books) because I've got platers who aleady play earlier editions...because I don't NEED too. When a new player comes along, they use my old books...or buy used ones off eBay or Amazon for 5 bucks...or less. The thought of spending hundreds of dollars to start off again is laughable. Grognard to the GRAVE!!!
VandalStork 1 month ago
@VandalStork Yes, that's fine for YOU. But, aren't you at all interested in strengthening, building and maintaining the hobby that's been so good to you for so long? Because becoming/being an isolationist is counter productive to improving the hobby and building its population. The reason video gamers have no shortage of like kind to multigame with, are because they migrate with the hobby. If they mirrored too many within our hobby, their hobby would be dying or dead.
XxSpiderzxweBxX 1 month ago
@XxSpiderzxweBxX I can't agree with that opinio. I didn't like the "flavor" of 4th, and was under no obligation to support it. I didn't like what I saw, and realised that I didn't need it anymore. Current D&D just changed too much, and I went in other directions. I didn't owe 4th edition any continued support, just because I liked the EARLIER editions. And the fact that 4th edition died so quickly proves that I'm not the only one who felt so. If WotC itself falls, we'll all play something else.
VandalStork 1 month ago
@VandalStork ....and this is your chance to help make D&D what you'd like it to be. While at the same time rallying under one umbrella, which strengthens the hobby by creating a tighter more organized community. Anyone declaring 'my way until death' isn't helping a hurting hobby, so the hobby should show equal recognition to those people and their feelings about said hobby or its direction. Its not about you, because a social-based hobby is comprised of "US"
XxSpiderzxweBxX 1 month ago
@XxSpiderzxweBxX I still think you're looking at this too closely. If D&D vanished today - no 5th edition at all - then Pathfinder would just continue to grow, and Paizo would be the new "inheritor" to the old TSR legasy. Also, I just don't have the time, patience or finances to devote to yet another version of something I've already got three flippin' versions of. Most of my regular gamers are either in the same position, or are kids with limited finances. The money just isn't there.
VandalStork 4 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@XxSpiderzxweBxX Trust me, they don't want or need my input. My suggestions would boil down to "Role play NOT Rules play. Quick, simple mechanics. Limited per-actions actions". Push come to shove, I'd say the best system ever was Call of Cthulhu. Basic as heck, and the real thrust is just simple roleplaying. Rules be danged, what's your CHARACTER thinking? I also like Gurps system of background building adventages and disadvantages, while still resolving everything with a toss of 3 six-siders.
VandalStork 4 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Its a sad irony that a socially based hobby comprised of hobbyists with vast experience socializing because of the nature of said hobby, are such a social mess. The biggest hurdle before WotC is bringing together the narrowly opinionated masses that make up the D&d fan-base. I honestly believe that WE are the largest reason why our hobby isn't more successful.
XxSpiderzxweBxX 1 month ago
Face it, they tried to draw in the MMO crowd via a game that primarily emulates the unseen portions of an MMO: math & mechanics. Moronic. Only the MOST hobby exhausted (video) gamer is going to give up, sacrifice or choose imagination and game piece hour over a video game. You dont draw in video game players by giving them less than they have, especially among a playerbase that is so visually dependent. They failed & Paizo took their cake for the 1st time in roleplaying history
XxSpiderzxweBxX 1 month ago
It's not so much Paizo that "took their cake" as they are now essentially competing against themselves (PF is just D&D 3.5, with a handful of tweaks). The AD&D/2nd edition crowd said 3e was "dumbed-down D&D made to play like Diablo on paper." (Sound familiar?) The thing that saved 3rd edition was the OGL and what it meant -- loads of content from many publishers which led to a growth spurt of new RPG players. Then 3.0 went to 3.5 and they lost a ton of players...then 4.0 hit and more gone...etc.
dannomagic 4 weeks ago
@dannomagic So what is the solution? In my opinion it's something wholly new and innovative. An exciting creation that is appealing and allows for equal measure of roleplay and combat; what I see as the key elements of D&D.
clackclickbang 3 weeks ago
I like the basic DnD idea in principle. Base set, Humans. Elves, Dwarves, Halflings - Fighter, wizard, thief, Cleric to Xth level - and just build from there. Allow for multiclass and have feats or the like, but keep the base tight. Next Player book have four more races, four more classes. Have options for minis in the Dungeon masters guide, or even have its own guide - ie. thats an option for "how you want to run the game". Anything that is optional shoudl be in the DMs domain.
Dann7000 1 month ago
i want the fighter to get platemail again.
InRagedTaurenWarrior 1 month ago
Comment removed
miltpilt 1 month ago
Just 1 player race. Tinker gnomes
Insertsexjokehere 1 month ago
@Insertsexjokehere God help us.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
Having just started playing 4e, I think it's a great system and I'm disappointed it is not more popular. I have no problem with them coming out with a new edition in order to bring players back into the fold but tbh I think a large part of the market is older players who won't be satisifed unless we're playing with paper and pencil, or they're in love with Pathfinder, etc. Agreed I think 4e needs to take a step back from the "video-game" like feel of spells/powers toward it's roleplaying roots
JDizzleton1 1 month ago
@JDizzleton1 I will be very interested to see where they go next.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
As for what I'd like to see for 5th edition, personally I really love the really out-of-the-box ideas that are present in 2nd. It seems like 2nd edition was a goldmine for some really interesting ideas and it was nice to see a setting like Dark sun getting made for 4th ed, but what about settings like "Spelljammer"? With 3rd & 4th edition it felt like WOTC were too embarrassed to even try re-marketing the idea and instead had several typical western fantasy settings. I Would like some new stuff.
NVLUTZ007 1 month ago
I've never been big on Edition wars, but this is the first time I've really felt a need to be vocal... since really in my opinion I HIGHLY doubt that the game designers making 5th want to make a good or coherent game. 4th edition, love it or hate it, you can tell that the designers and artists were excited about what they were working on. They didn't release what everyone wanted they released what they thought was fresh and fun... 5th ed really just strikes me as a huge money grab, nothing more.
NVLUTZ007 1 month ago
@NVLUTZ007 I'd love for this new edition to be fresh, innovative and exciting. I will try to remain hopeful throughout.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
I like my Lovecraftian horrors, and I would like to see WotC dealing with them more in the DnD universe. Despite there being quite a number of Lovcraft-esque races (specifically those listed in the Lords of Madness supplement), they still lack a home plane (if you don't count the realms of the beholder/illithid deities). The demons have the Abyss and the devils have Baator. I want my Far Realms, dammit.
Sroge4 1 month ago
@Sroge4 I like to mix my games too. Lovecraft with D&D always goes well. The first Cthulhu setting was actually in Tunnels & Trolls, way before Chaosium for ahold of it.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
A lot of players worried about WotC money issues. Maybe they should set a budget first. and openly tell the players a budget they have.
rezpatriot 1 month ago
@rezpatriot I'm not sure that would be savvy business-sense. That kind of behaviour makes share prices drop.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
i use to love the Erol Otis artwork in the older editions !
nozzer2002 1 month ago
@nozzer2002 Older, classic fantasy art rules all.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
D&D 4e wasn't a bad game, like was said, its a very stream lined game, and does harken back to the feel of Basic D&D. As far as 4e's death, the playtest and development of 5e is at least 2 yrs in the making, with playtests scheduled for conventions in 2013, so that means it will be late 2013/2014 at least before release, with continued support of 4e in the interim. Essentials, on the other hand, are a bit of the death of 4e, the DM supplements for Essentials aren't bad, Monster Vault was Solid!
LordSeussMD 1 month ago
@LordSeussMD Oh certainly there were good supplements for D&D4, but I suppose the damage was done with various decisions that made players stick to 3.5 through Pathfinder.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
WTOC should become a video game company. :)
Antiks72 1 month ago
@Antiks72 I'm not sure they'd be too good at it..
clackclickbang 1 month ago
On the topic of expanding the player base, what Pathfinder did with their rulebooks is definitely the right way to go. I think a lot of potential table-top RPG players are put off by the amount of books necessary to start a DnD-campaign. One core rulebook, encompassing both GMs guide, rules and player's handbook, would be ideal. Although there might be sense in making a thinner, cheaper Player's Handbook would be nice, so that the gm can more easily convince his potential players to get started.
MrPointless 1 month ago
@MrPointless Actually, of all the things Pathfinder did, that was probably their worst move. Games that encompass everything in a single book can work, if the book itself is thin enough to be reasonably carried around. The Pathfinder book is a hulk of a book, for roleplaying standpoints, and just doesn't work. Most games with everything in one book put players off, the books for Players and books for DMs strategy helps in sales and in suspension of belief.
LordSeussMD 1 month ago
@MrPointless "One core rulebook, encompassing both GMs guide, rules and player's handbook, would be ideal."
Coming from the DM's perspective...i don't like the players reading the monster entries as casual reading nor do i like them poking around in the DM supliments. It takes away from the element of suprise & can cause other issues with conflicting interprtations of "how" the "guidelines" should be implemented. Its not a massive issue but it detracts from the overall mistique
hexusziggurat 1 month ago
@MrPointless I agree. I think the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is an excellent an incredibly useful tome.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
@clackclickbang Exactly. And just because the Core Rulebook is all-encompassing, doesn't mean that Player's Handbooks can't exist for those that only wish to make a minor investment. I do understand why some would like their players to be... 'oblivious' in lack of better words... of the rules and 'code' a gm generally abides by, but I find that people with gm experience generally make for better players and characters, simply because they grasp the game concept(s) and universe better.
MrPointless 1 month ago
Not so much an input on the content, but the artwork this time around really should aim way above "above average". Much of the artwork in the books for DnD 3.5, 4,0, and - hell, even Pathfinder, is a bit weak in places (most of pathfinder is good, but those weak spots...). I guess it's my own personal OCD, but whenever I see bad anatomy in my Core Rulebook, I want to tape over the page. It shouldn't be that hard, considering how many good fantasy artists you can find just by going on deviantArt!
MrPointless 1 month ago
@MrPointless "Not so much an input on the content, but the artwork this time around really should aim way above "above average"."
I agree with you there. The artwork, especially in the core books, should raise the bar of imagination and wonderment. I never liked the modern artwork where things looked all cartoon like and blocky with massive shoulder armors etc.
A character portrayed in the 4e PH with armor had a ton of buckles, "penalized 4 rounds for suit up"
hexusziggurat 1 month ago
@MrPointless I'd love for D&D to go back to the old way of good solid fantasy art without manga-esque influence.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
old school minies cars
nordatnature 1 month ago
@nordatnature Pardon?
clackclickbang 1 month ago
I'd like a fluid Hackmaster/Advanced Dungeons and Dragons with larger core rulebooks!
nmajon 1 month ago
@nmajon Hurrah!
clackclickbang 1 month ago
interested .WOTC has been to much damage to the hobby in my view...thanks for the video by the way !
nozzer2002 1 month ago
@nozzer2002 "interested .WOTC has been to much damage to the hobby in my view...thanks for the video by the way !"
I agree!!! Too much has the game wandered from what it was to something that barely resembles the game other than in names. Our group still plays a 1st-2nd meld and has for over 20 years. We tried the other 2 versions 2 years apiece....we had to go back to what was good....it invoked us to use ingenuity and imagination. 3rd = stack numbers , 4th = more of a chess game
hexusziggurat 1 month ago
@nozzer2002 Thanks for watching!
clackclickbang 1 month ago
where i thought 4th edition fell down was it was too much of a cash cow for WOTC. If you look at 2nd edition all you you needed was the 3 main books and you were ready to go, with 4th edition it seems to me you need a ton of books and a ton of money to play the game.Ive always been a rules light and miniatures DM.All ive seen WOTC coast do is split the D&D community, thats why i said in a earlier post that i dont give a crap about 5th or WOTC as long as WOTC is involved in D&D am not [cont]
nozzer2002 1 month ago
@nozzer2002 Ah, but 2nd ed did release a hell of a lot of bad sourcebooks too. Admittedly I feel that 4E is hollow without some of the supplements. The way the fans fractured so violently over 4E was quite sad.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
Good video! wizards needs to make 5E somewhat compatible with 3.5 or I'll stay with Pathfinder which is damn awesome! OLG! OLG! OLG! OLG! OLG! OLG!
runebeo 2 months ago
@runebeo OLG or OGL? That is the question.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
D&D I think doesn't help in introducing new players to the hobby. The reason is that the complexity of the game(and many others) basicly forces you start playing with someone who already knows the rules. That person is then stuck in the GM position even if he doesn't wish to be one. An RPG that would attract new players will have to be: cheap(miniless gameplay), simple and relatable(most people now days are introduced to RPGs through computer RPGs, me included)
marvelona 2 months ago
@marvelona Forgot approachable, too many RPG's this days don't give out enough or the correct examples. The classic old Red Box had a great little solo adventure you could play through to understand the rules <- more of this
marvelona 2 months ago
@marvelona I completely agree with you on this. Damn good point.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
It is extremely difficult at age 32 to conceive of a Dungeons and Dragons game that would appeal to the 16-25 range. There is a bit of a generational gap between those who started with Hawk the Slayer, Conan the Barbarian and LoTR books and those whose introduction to fantasy was an MMORPG. The expectation and imaginative processes are too different. We older gamers are very static and stuck in our already established worlds. This may sound defeatist but I don't think the divide can be bridged.
Argonova 2 months ago
@Argonova If D&D was made with, let's say, Westeros as a base campaign setting, it would be connecting with a current trend and maybe draw in old and new gamers alike.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
I grew up with 3.5, and with World of Warcraft as well. If I were to make a wishlist, I would have them bring the mini's back, no one I know likes those silly tiddly-wink things they've been making for 4E. Also, if they can solve the "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" problem without making everyone COMPLETELY equal, I'd be pleased. Many a campaign I've ever had has crashed and burned from lack of interest after the Sorcerer starts using upper-level fireball and lightning bolt. :(
TtheWriter 2 months ago
@TtheWriter I resent equality and balance that stifles gameplay.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
I would have to say naming it simply Dungeons and Dragons is fine. They should make
the rules like 1st and or 2nd ed. I beleive roleplaying might be getting weaker because of
online games and facebook.
dtbaz821 2 months ago
@dtbaz821 Quite possibly. The internet takes our time away from the tables.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
I haven't been a fan of editions of dnd for a while, but I think OGL would help a lot. That and a really basic ruleset, and then supplements for more complicated rules that DMs could adopt if needed. What makes dnd fun is the roleplaying so make combat abstract, while DMs and players who want longer combats can adopt feats etc from supplements. And I think they need to stop marketing dnd like a video game, because video games will always win, focus on what video games can't do, roleplaying.
markamadeojohnson 2 months ago
@markamadeojohnson Some people think OGL is a bad idea however, due to it weakening WOTC through the amount of money it loses to competitors. It's a tricky one.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
@clackclickbang but isn't D&D strengthened by having more innovators making more products? It keeps WOTC innovating or else they lose money to competitors that have more innovation. Then D&D becomes a stronger game right? Does "some people" mean people at WOTC or consumers, because I don't see how it can be bad for consumers, and its only bad for WOTC if they do a poor job (they will always have a leg up anyway by name recognition and owning the game).
markamadeojohnson 1 month ago
@markamadeojohnson D&D may be strengthened but it doesn't necessarily strengthen WOTC as they're losing money to competitors.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
Well however they do it WOTC needs to do one thing. It needs to be open source that matches with the OGL of the old, or at least be similar to Pathfinder's OGL. Sure a lot of shit products came out of it, but there were also tons of good ones. Plus everyone was having fun. Pen and paper rpgs are not competing with each other that much unlike other industries that I can name.
Snowman0147 2 months ago
@Snowman0147 But will anyone go back to D&D from Pathfinder? Actually, I'm sure some would...
clackclickbang 1 month ago
i feel the need to say this.
FOR X-COOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM
shrelock 2 months ago
@shrelock Inappropriate on this video, but huzzah nonetheless!
clackclickbang 1 month ago
Where I tend to get upset are the edition war trolls from one side or the other telling people that they're having badwrongfun. 4e is my favorite by a long shot, but I would still play in a PF game in a heartbeat, so long as the group is right. I've learned that the group itself is more important than the system being played. I could play my favorite system, but if the group is full of douchebags, I won't be having fun. I could play a less favored system with good friends, and have a blast.
Droogie128 2 months ago 2
@Droogie128 I could never be a troll. Far too unhygienic. That, and I love a huge variety of RPGs.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
@clackclickbang I wasn't implying that you were one. Just that I frequent a lot of forums, and that is what I deal with. Sorry if I came across that way. They exist on both sides. I've moved away from D&D completely for a while and my group is going to be taking on Hellfrost. Savage Worlds is my favorite system. :)
Droogie128 1 month ago
I enjoy almost all editions of D&D in one way or another. Each has its own feel, which not many other games can claim. This is both a good and a bad thing. Look at BRP. It is up to what, 6th edition now? However, their idea of an "edition" is basically a book of printed errata. It's 100% backwards compatible. This is both a good and a bad thing. It's good because it remains consistent, but bad because it doesn't evolve. No one system can please everyone, though.
Droogie128 2 months ago
Well of course you know what the downfall of tabletop RPGs is, video games. I have nothing against video games of course but that I think is the major cause. Kids nowadays are more likely to buy The elder scrolls Skyrim than the newest D&D or pathfinder book.
markisonlin3 2 months ago
@markisonlin3 But of course they are! But roleplaying has been on the wane for a decade or so now. I would love for the hobby to receive a boost, but it needs major advertising for that to happen.
clackclickbang 1 month ago
In regards to the mini's use. The systems are pracitcally identical, as I said, in terms of mini's rules. The only major differences are that 3.5/PF charges extra for diagonal movement, while 4e has more forced movement. You have to ignore a LARGE portion of the rules in either system to get rid of minis. Without them, it's almost impossible to track size, movement, reach, range, cover, concealment, terrain, AoE's, AoO's, LOS, LOE, flanking, lighting, etc. Both use minis for all of this.
Droogie128 2 months ago
Again, 4e wasn't a failure initially. It was massively successful if you followed the timeline. What killed it was when Mearls took over, he tried to expand the market into the people that didn't convert to the system. This became D&D Essentials. The problem was, it abandoned a lot of the design goals that 4e originally set forth, and the people it tried to target had already moved on to pathfinder and other retro clones. The people who did move to 4th were put off by the change in direction.
Droogie128 2 months ago
@Droogie128 I would say I abandoned D&D 4 because the majority of my group preferred 3.5 and older editions. It was a push to get them playing Pathfinder, to be honest. We all found 4th to be a very generic, plain old game. Nothing terribly exciting about it. All a bit "meh."
clackclickbang 2 months ago 4
@clackclickbang It's an extremely dynamic and flexible system, as Essentials has shown. The different directions they have taken it have been impressive. I also loved that the martial classes finally evolved beyond being the "D&D for Dummies" classes. Essentials resurrected this idea, though. One of the major reasons it failed. I also loved the fact that classes were designed to be part of a group, instead of the group being designed as cohorts to the caster.
Droogie128 2 months ago
@clackclickbang It's mostly a matter of preference, but I've been playing it since its release. It has evolved a lot, and has more depth than any edition before it by a mile. 5e looks to be a modular system, and from the sounds of it, might work somewhat like Savage Worlds. Not mechanically, but in that it will be designed on a per setting basis, while remaining compatible. That's some of the info that I have received thus far.
Droogie128 2 months ago
@Droogie128 I have enjoyed all of your reviews, but this one I will disagree with. I do have a review request for you, though. It's a system I stumbled upon, it's free, and all donations on the site go to charity. I've talked to the designer, and he seems very open to feedback and making changes. It's a d20 D&D based game at its core, but really becomes its own thing.
Droogie128 2 months ago
@Droogie128 What's the name of this game you want me to review?
clackclickbang 1 month ago
Basically, WOTC need to distinguish D&D from anything related to a video game. It needs to be its own distinct entity. No video game influence. Get rid of the miniatures. We did not use them. Just pencil paper, a Map keeper, etc. Anything on the computer should be with the emphasis of tools to supplement and support the experience, not supersede it. Make older content available as PDFs. There's so much material to draw from.
TheWolfDogMoon 2 months ago 2
@TheWolfDogMoon There is a hell of a lot of material to draw on, but will they do it? How retrospective should D&D be? Will it draw in new players or just bring back some of the older gamers?
clackclickbang 2 months ago
@TheWolfDogMoon "It needs to be its own distinct entity. No video game influence. Get rid of the miniatures. We did not use them. Just pencil paper, a Map keeper, etc."
I couldnt agree with you more. 4e just felt like some vamped up version of HeroQuest.
hexusziggurat 1 month ago
It'd be cool to blend some elements of Aes Sedai into D&D or Heraldry like is so apparent in George RR Martin. Just brainstorming here.
TheWolfDogMoon 2 months ago
@TheWolfDogMoon I agree. Capitalise on popular and ongoing trends. Book series' like those of George R R Martin and even the release of the Hobbit in the movies should perhaps indicate where current interest lies.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
Already have got in touch on their forums. It needs to use 2nd Edition as the blueprint. Pathfinder is really, really cool. Somehow WOTC needs to combine the Nostalgia and Source Material of the early editions as the foundation. 1st or 2nd Edition.
TheWolfDogMoon 2 months ago
@TheWolfDogMoon I don't know how much relying on nostalgia will harm the game though. Will it draw new players in?
clackclickbang 2 months ago
4th edition is the reason we start playing Pathfinder in my group. I was utterly bored by the fact that roleplay was not rewarded by the system and you had to roll for a lot of things. This is a flaw is most d20 games but I really think Pathfinder does this a lot better. I am very curious what DnD5 will do with this and I hope it will be less rolling more roleplay. Although it is a bit in the nature of the game to roll a lot of course. I become a bigger WoD fan every day. End Rambling
Komeister 2 months ago
@Komeister Good ramble! You share many of my thoughts. WoD is a game better equipped for those in need of story and character and roleplaying that doesn't rely heavily on dice-rolling. Not that D&D and Pathfinder always do, mind you, but there's certainly less need to roll dice with WoD.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
I played D & D some time ago; my class was Psionicist, a telepath. it was fun, so the new edition should have rules to allow psionic characters.
We are going through a cultural change, entering the age of the Long Tail, in which consumers will have all their wants satisfied with far more choices, but with each market shrinking. People will choose to spend their money in other products besides D & D. Some prefer to player with a machine, not a person, let a chip role virtual die, crunch numbers.
mollytherealdeal 2 months ago
@mollytherealdeal I don't think RPGs are dying however. While we're undergoing a bit of drop-off, the players can be drawn in if the product is exciting and innovative enough.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
I really don't know.
But if they want new players, I don't think something like 4th ed. is very good for it, it's a bit too complicated with too many options (races, classes and holy crap, look at the amount of feats).
Now, I don't know if they should just go back to something like 2nd ed. and make the basic rules a bit more simple, then add all the other stuff with additional books (should be good for the money stream as well) but current players might not like that idea.
Go figure.
TeeAaaKoo 2 months ago
@TeeAaaKoo Simple rules and simple settings would be a good jumping on point, but would it attract old players back to the fold?
clackclickbang 2 months ago
@clackclickbang Well, that is the $100,000,000 question.
I don't know how many of them would be willing to give it a try after 3/4e, they might fear getting burned again, but if it was modular, it would help cos you could just drop the thing you don't like.
It's going to be a hard sell in any case and I'll keep my eye on it, but I think I will be happiest with 1/2e, when you start requiring the use of miniatures in combat, it gets a bit too much. (Yes, I know of Chainmail :) )
TeeAaaKoo 1 month ago
I have been caught up in 4e primarily because of inertia - most of the players I know play 4e and therefore so do I. I did manage to finally join a pathfinder game about 4 months back - and I can say that I definitely enjoy the game more than 4e. It has much less crunch and more flavor. That being said, I am much more excited about seeing where Pathfinder develops and finding new people to play with in that system than I am of seeing 5e.
lambastedpolemic 2 months ago
@lambastedpolemic This is the sad thing about D&D. 4th ed has polarised the players to such an extent that Pathfinder seems so much more appealing and approachable.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
Pathfinder has the Class & level fans d20 style game market sown up. So if anything D&D 5th needs to step away and go into totally new territory.
aikighost 2 months ago
@aikighost I agree with this comment. WOTC needs to forge into new and exciting ground.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Nice and simple.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
i dont give a crap about 5th edition and i dont give a crap about WOTC
nozzer2002 2 months ago
@nozzer2002 Hard words!
clackclickbang 2 months ago
Wotc could just start making Pathfinder OGL products and call them D&D using all the copyright elements that Paizo can not utilize.
puddincupp 2 months ago 2
@puddincupp Ha! But then that would be admitting that they're on the back foot. That would be bad for D&D.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
I was a fan of the realms, and this is why I did not buy anything from the 4E.
leostomicek 2 months ago
@leostomicek I quite agree with that statement.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
It seems like immersion-oriented gamers like you and AndersWWAD have a style which is more about interactive storytelling than working within the scope of rules out of a book. Have you found that the various AD&D editions (and Pathfinder) have led you to appreciably different styles of play? (Disregarding 4th Ed. and its use of miniatures)
SHPrevodenje 2 months ago
@SHPrevodenje Pathfinder is the system we use for Planescape, but the rules are a last recourse rather than a crutch. To be fair on 4th ed, we could be using that just as well, and we would have ignored the sections we don't like. Not all of us even have the Pathfinder book; we just refer to 3.5 books when necessary.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
it will be interesting to see how well 4th ed carry`s on after they pull the plug.all the other versions have their hardcore of fans who while the game may be dead keep it alive all be it in a more underground sorta way.iv only really played 2nd ed so i cant say what they should do ,but maybe moving back to the feel of the earlier stuff since that's less likely to have pathfinder looming over it.its a tricky one since pathfinder kinda is the book they should have made in the first place.
Brainleaf74 2 months ago
@Brainleaf74 I likewise wonder that. Will there be 4th ed purists when all online support is pulled from this MMO style RPG?
clackclickbang 2 months ago
To start, they must purge the whitebread MMO from the game. Start fresh. They should NOT return to 3.5 either, that is truly a recipe for stagnation.
DirtyBriefcase 2 months ago
@DirtyBriefcase Indeed. Move forward toward exciting and innovate new ventures!
clackclickbang 2 months ago
I belive that companies often treat "listening to their consumers" too seriously. Obviously if you listen what you're going to recive is great deal of negative feedback - meaning, they'll write you should change something only when it doesn't work for them. I can't think of example of a positive feedback rly, you wouldn't write the producers: "Oh yeah, those rules you got on page 56? They work just as they should, just so you know." ... of course that won't happen. Thats what ruins many games.
YuriPRIME 2 months ago
... developers just paying attention to overwhelming majority of "whining" and having compleetly wrong idea that everything about their game is bad and needs a compleet overhaul... and than they are all surprised to see people still stick to 3.5 - because it "work just fine for them"
YuriPRIME 2 months ago
@YuriPRIME I agree. My job sees a lot more complaints than compliments, and of course it's the complaints that get the most attention. It's always the way. It shouldn't be, however.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
I would have liked to have tried it somewhen, so I can judge it myself. But of course, they will retract materials availability for it and such. Ho hum.
RobertJFreemantle 2 months ago
@RobertJFreemantle Might as well wait until D&D 5 now!
clackclickbang 2 months ago
i celebrate the death of 4th editon !
nozzer2002 2 months ago
@nozzer2002 Never celebrate death! Look upon the highlights of history with a warm nostalgic feeling.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
WHAT! A 5th edition... ALREADY! The hell?! I've only just got used to 4th Edition. There are still people in my club complaining about it being too different from 3.5 Edition. This is why people get so pissed off, the companies release new editions so quickly that it makes it clear that they're just abandoning their games and by extension their customers without care.
TornadoCreator 2 months ago
@TornadoCreator They're acting more and more like businesses and less and less like gamers. I can see why from one perspective, but it does seem to have damaged their product.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
I want a rerelease and compilation of all things Planescape relevant, including all versions of the Manual of the Planes and Planes based material, and I want it integratable with all other settings... including Spelljammer...
I want detailed settings for - The Demiplane of Dread, Oerth, Athas, Golarion, Akiton, Castrovel, Eberron, Aebrynis, Sanctuary, Áereth, Kulthea, Tellene, Eredane, Uresia, and the Ages of Terra... C'thuvian, Lost, Thurian, Hyborian, Antiquity, Gothic, Near-Future - Earth!
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote I doubt WOTC would ever re-release the old products in print. Maybe in PDF, but they seem reticent to even do that at times.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
@clackclickbang There is an approach that would not be a detriment to the economic considerations of the corporate entity, and that would benefit the people to which it serves. Making a pitch would not be easy, for no other reason than previous reluctance on the part of the employed elements of the entity to show a negative reaction to suggestions from outside the entity is well established, and I have only a few rudimentary thoughts at the moment... a basic paradigm.
Still I can dream no? XD
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
Wizards should just buy pathfinder and then release that.
morganlean 2 months ago
@morganlean Ha! I hope that doesn't happen.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
nostalgia... I do not pine over old systems, I pine over old settings...
I want a complete Mystara given the attention that was given to Forgotten Realms... and as was "promised" would occur before the 2nd edition collapse.
I want a complete re-release of all the Era's of Dragonlance, with that same attention to detail previously mentioned.
I want a compiled and integrated Spelljammer setting to be updated to modern mechanical systems, and again given to fully detailed setting fluff books...
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote A newly revisited Spelljammer would be excellent! Mystara would be a perfect way to return to D&D roots if nostalgia was the chosen route.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
to be hounest, it would impress me more (as it did for 3e) to put forth complete settings that complete mechanics... mechanics /can/ evolve from a strong base-set... and D&D has a plethora of strong base-set mechanics to start with...
I mean seriously and in all earnestness, there is not an edition or sub-version of D&D ever printed I fully loath... just parts that do not fit every situation, and that is simply unfixable, an inherent flaw in any system.
settings are what matters most to me.
thespiritcoyote 2 months ago
@thespiritcoyote I agree. I'm more likely to buy a game with an interesting setting these days than one with a different rules set. Settings help my ideas. Rules just tend to stifle more than anything else.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
Wizards should build off pathfinder & 3.5. No 1 hit minions bs & have a more open licence like ogl but again focus on video games like Neverwinter nights 2 not so much on mmo which can be fun but same old sh#t, I want an epic role-playing not just pigeon hole classes full of super balance mirror copies of each other, abilities & spells that do the same thing with same damage with different name sure takes a great deal imagination to come-up with, just liquid paper!
runebeo 2 months ago
@runebeo D&D should be less like a video game and more like a tabletop RPG.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
I have never plaied D&D 3.5 a lot but liked the Story a lot .By Story i mean forgotten Realms, What i heared about D&D 4 is it was very streamlind. This is not what Roleplay shut be. 3.5 was very free for every player but in 4 i misst this good Campainbooks.
As you sad: I am interessed in Story as in Rules. When D&D 5 can deliver good Settings than i will buy one of them. I dont thing we need 3 Monstermanuels with the crazyest stuff.
We need something inspiring.
good day
Hellstorm87 2 months ago
@Hellstorm87 I do wonder what will become of the Forgotten Realms and the other settings D&D has become committed to during 3rd and 4th ed (such as Eberron). I suppose time will tell!
clackclickbang 2 months ago
Well, this fits in perfectly with the five year development cycle that Monte Cook let slip when he discussed the early release of 3.5, so you can probably expect more of the same in five years. Personally? I've been playing 2nd Ed since 1992, and I seriously doubt 5e will have much in it to get me to switch; none of the other editions (or PF) did.
The only thing that would get me to buy anything would be setting material that is easily adaptable to 2nd ed; I doubt that will happen though.
aulddragon 2 months ago
@aulddragon Same here. This will have to pull out all of the stops in order to get me interested, which is why I may volunteer for the testing of it.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
@clackclickbang If you do so, I eagerly look forward to your reports on it. While I seriously doubt I'll have anything to do with the edition, I'd never flatly rule it out before checking out the system details.
But, as I said, give me good setting information, especially if it is easy to convert (I'd like to see an all-version conversion guide), I'll buy. Especially Spelljammer that is authentic to the 2nd Ed products. :D
aulddragon 2 months ago
And allow me to clarify: I'm not against the "old school" way. I love that stuff. But why spend money on yet more books that will become "obsolete" in a few years? If you want a change just dig out your older books that you have probably spent hundreds on. But If I'm going to invest in yet another edition, it needs to be more than simply rearranged rules, it needs to be a next generation type deal.
Backfromthedeadguy 2 months ago
@Backfromthedeadguy I agree. D&D 5 needs to be something exciting and innovative to grab me this time around.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
Reinventing rules is a waste of time. The next generation of games needs to embrace available technology. I'm not talking about Skype games, I'm talking about developing an interactive interface that allows instant tracking of equipment, combat (using individualized graphics) and environment. Instead of buying a bunch of books you would purchase apps that helps the GM and players engage the world. Many will say they already have this, but I'm talking the next level here. Gaming through Ipads.
Backfromthedeadguy 2 months ago
@Backfromthedeadguy Gaming through ipads, eh? Novel! I think that could take off.
clackclickbang 2 months ago
Well, for starters they need to make D&D for people who like D&D. They shouldn't try to modernize the rules or try to mimic an MMORPG. I think with the publishing industry being less expensive due to printing in China, I would like to see all of the campaign settings from 2E come back. I was a huge Birthright fan and I want it back.
Ulairi 2 months ago