D&D 4E Would 4E be Popular?

[Rasyr]

Ergo, I find the claim of similarity to TSR in the '90s ---and the image of fractious players staunchly refusing to aknowledge any d20 variant but their own--- really silly.

Please note that I was not the one who said WotC was like the old TSR, I just discussed the issue about how I think that d20M is not the same game as d20, even though they do share the same core resolution mechanic. However, with both systems using different class-systems, and the class system being such a core component of the system, that makes them, to me at least, completely separate games. If they were the same game, then there would only be a need for a single SRD, and then the files could be sorted by genre, rather than by "game". To me, the fact that they are sorted by "game" says that WotC considers them to be different games as well.


However, if any company is acting like the old TSR (in any way, but most assuredly not in their online manners) it is Mongoose. Massive release schedules, multiple settings (apparently all licensed and none of them actually their own), books that are extremely specialized (like many of the 2E books TSR put out), etc...

 

[Dark Jezter]

True, but there are many others that didn't complain with the advent of 3.0 and even 3.5 that are worried sick about WotC busting in with a new edition that invalidates the material that came before.

If 4e comes out, it won't "invalidate" the material that's out right now. There will be absolutely nothing stopping people from playing 3.x except for an obsessive-compulsive need to have the newest edition of the game. Hell, there are people who still play 1e and 2e, and it's not like the gaming police have kicked down their door and forced them to buy the newest edition of the game.

 

[Kanegrundar]

If 4e comes out, it won't "invalidate" the material that's out right now. There will be absolutely nothing stopping people from playing 3.x except for an obsessive-compulsive need to have the newest edition of the game. Hell, there are people who still play 1e and 2e, and it's not like the gaming police have kicked down their door and forced them to buy the newest edition of the game.

Thanks, I'm glad that's all cleared up. The point is, essentially the same as it was when 2E changed over to 3E, with one fundamental difference: 3/3.5 works, 2E didn't (or at least not nearly as well). To go and change the system, and end up putting out rehashed books that were already covered in 3E would be crappy. I fully realize that WotC isn't going to kick down my door and take my 3E material, to argue otherwise is just stupid. However, I still contend that the move will be a harder one for WotC to pull off with anything akin to the success of 3.0 and 3.5 just because there isn't that much in the current edition to improve!!! To think that they could end up putting out an overwhelmingly superior product that will take all the support (other than what we would hopefully still recieve for 3E under the OGL) would be akin to a slap in the face, IMO. Especially when 3.5 material is still selling very well compared to other RPG products.

Kane

 

[The Sophist]

<shrugs> Wasn't much of a joke.

And your sig is?

But I guess, really, C&C is the 15th edition of D&D.

Chainmail (with fantasy supplement)
OD&D
OD&D plus supplements
Holmes Basic
AD&D (1e)
Moldvay Basic & Cook Basic
Mentzer B/E/M/C/I
AD&D (1.5 e -- Unearthed Arcana)
AD&D (2e)
RC D&D
AD&D (2.5 e -- various options)
D&D ("3" e)
Hackmaster ("4"e)
D&D ("3.5"e)
C&C

Could 15 be the magic number? It is looking good to me...

But I will look at the 16th edition, once WotC publishes it next year (and probably leave it on the shelf, especially if it requires miniatures).

 

[buzz]

Like it or not since WotC went with the Open Gaming Lisence, 3E is bigger than just D&D.

3e is a specific edition of D&D. It is no bigger than itself. d20, however, can refer to the larger set of games that use it as a foundation.

Changing over to 4E, and (possibly) not being compatible with all the various systems, like AU, that use 3E as a base would alienate alot of people that while are technically playing 3E and buy 3E material, still don't play straight D&D.

I suppose it might. What makes you think that WotC has interest in doing this? Where are there indications that a fourth edition of the game is coming anytime soon, and that it's going to to coincide with the abandoment of the OGL, and that it's going to be wholly incompatible with the current edition? Nowhere, that's where.

Just take a look around the boards and you'll see the factioning going on.

As big as ENWorld is, it absolutely no indicator of gamers as a whole. Using the same baseline, I see many gamers who are embracing the diversity of products out there to blend themselves a nice, tasty d20 melange. But that would be just as anedcdotal.

There are a lot of people that state what version of 3E they are playing.

It's often helpful to do so, so you know which books to bring.

That suggests sub-systems of 3E to me and that suggests and fractioning of the marketshare.

So, say, one group using Relics & Rituals on a regular basis is playing a different game than one using Complete Arcane, then? Than one using Torn Asunder? They're all using different subsystems, they must be splintering the market, right?

I don't tihnk the phrase "fractioning the marketshare" means what you think it means. All of these people are playing D&D.

Those people that stuck with 3.0 and didn't buy 3.5 are not likely to pick up 4.0. After all, they didn't change over the last time, so they wouldn't be any more likely to now.

All depends on when, if ever, it comes out and what its content looks like.

Plus, there are many people that don't play anything other than D20 Modern, or any one of the other OGL games like Grim Tales or EQ, but still use D&D material to supplement their games in those other 3E-based sub-systems.

True. What does this have to do with your point?

Sure the OGL allows other publishers to propogate the D20 system, but several are creating their own versions that have, at times, limited portability into mainstream D&D or D20 Modern.

True. What does this have to do with your point?

The idea that just because all these games are D20 and that they are (somewhat) compatible doesn't mean that people are finding a sub-system that they like and saying to heck with the rest. That's just being blind.

But I thought that was your point. You're the one depicting this fractured market where everyone is isolating themselves in d20-deprivation-chambers.

Sorry if I'm getting snarky, but I just don't see that what you're trying to posit makes any sense. You're essentially arguing that everyone playing variants of a single house system is somehow more divisive than everyone playing wholly different systems that have nothing to do with each other. You're also putting forth the idea that having a hsot of publishers make use of the OGL to make products that share this systemas a core is somehow an incredibly bad thing, and you're putting all the blame on WotC. I.e., you're claming that diversity and wide availability of choice within a given system is a terrible thing. That's just nuts.

 

[buzz]

Please note that I was not the one who said WotC was like the old TSR, I just discussed the issue about how I think that d20M is not the same game as d20, even though they do share the same core resolution mechanic.

Ah, I thought you were talking about 3.0 and 3.5. My bad.

I still think that d20M and d20 are similar enough that knowledge of one lets you basically play the other. Imean, it's not like we're comparing StoryTeller to GURPS.

 

[buzz]

However, I still contend that the move will be a harder one for WotC to pull off with anything akin to the success of 3.0 and 3.5 just because there isn't that much in the current edition to improve!!! To think that they could end up putting out an overwhelmingly superior product that will take all the support (other than what we would hopefully still recieve for 3E under the OGL) would be akin to a slap in the face, IMO. Especially when 3.5 material is still selling very well compared to other RPG products.

Well, if and when there is ever an indication that a fourth edition is on the horizon, and said fourth edition is more than a reprint with some errata fixed and new art, we can deal with it then. Until that point, this is all just chicken-littleing.

 

[diaglo]

And your sig is?

But I guess, really, C&C is the 15th edition of D&D.

Chainmail (with fantasy supplement)
OD&D
OD&D plus supplements
Holmes Basic
AD&D (1e)
Moldvay Basic & Cook Basic
Mentzer B/E/M/C/I
AD&D (1.5 e -- Unearthed Arcana)
AD&D (2e)
RC D&D
AD&D (2.5 e -- various options)
D&D ("3" e)
Hackmaster ("4"e)
D&D ("3.5"e)
C&C

Could 15 be the magic number? It is looking good to me...

But I will look at the 16th edition, once WotC publishes it next year (and probably leave it on the shelf, especially if it requires miniatures).

don't forget Holmes Basic was split into two editions. 2edD&D Holmes and 3edD&D Holmes.

3edD&D Holmes was released after (1ed)ADnD
edit: and before Moldvay/Cook

 

[Kanegrundar]

Well, if and when there is ever an indication that a fourth edition is on the horizon, and said fourth edition is more than a reprint with some errata fixed and new art, we can deal with it then. Until that point, this is all just chicken-littleing.

I think we've gotten into a whole new realm here. I don't know if I was clear in this, but allow be to rectify my stance as I was primarily playing Devil's Advocate. I know that WotC has given us no clear indications of a 4th edition. This whole thread is based on more of what if's that other posters have brought up. It's based on the assumption that 4E will be a whole new edition. Bascially, it assumes many of the things that Rasyr (I believe) was predicting (little to no backwards compatibility, emphasis on miniatures, no OGL, etc...). Since a simple revision isn't quite so much to get up in arms about, the discussion has focused more on the bad what ifs.

I've never claimed that diversity and selection was a bad thing? So me where I said that. Sorry if I'm getting "snarky" now. My point is that IF (since this thread is not based on any fact that 4E is coming soon, but what would happen IF it did and how it would happen) 4E came out with little to no backwards compatibility, WotC would end up hurting themselves. Since all these other groups that play all these other D20 games, but still use D&D material to supplement the games, they are less likely to jump on the 4E bandwagon since there is essentially nothing there for them. Hopefully, that's less difficult to understand.

And since when is talking about the future chicken-littleing? It's just discussing possible avencues for the future of D&D. If you don't want to think about, then don't discuss it.

Kane

 

[buzz]

My point is that IF (since this thread is not based on any fact that 4E is coming soon, but what would happen IF it did and how it would happen) 4E came out with little to no backwards compatibility, WotC would end up hurting themselves.

Quite probably. I don't think that WotC is this dumb, though. I think that D&D will remain largely the same for many editions to come.

And since when is talking about the future chicken-littleing? It's just discussing possible avencues for the future of D&D. If you don't want to think about, then don't discuss it.

Assuming a doom-and-gloom future is a smallish hen kinda thing to do, IMO. But that may not really be what you were doing. It's so common to see this kind of hypothesizing as part of general WotC "I told you so" type bashing that it makes me bristle. Didn't mean to unnecessarily turn up the heat, though.

I have faith in WotC. They have yet to really let me down, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.