Double post.

Quote from: danbuter;528078Too bad, since 2e (core books) was the best edition of D&D. For 3e, the only real changes I would have made would have been Ascending AC and maybe the 3e saves (which I do like much more than prior editions).

Careful you'll be shoved into 1989''s and my corner speaking heresy like that.

Personally I think a hidden factor in this is that 1e was in print for an extraordinary amount of time. Longer than 2e plus the whole Pat Pulling/Jack Chick factor.  Not the actual substance of game which is objectively better especially since you could port in whatever 1e stuff you wanted straight over no adjustments needed. They are the same game beyond the fluff despite what some say.

Perhaps the most important factor in 1e's and 0e success is the lack of competition and strong moving force of being the original product.

I am quite surprised to find 3e outshone (given what I read earlier), but what do you know. Although as Randal pointed out, the problem is the sheer volume of 3e material might not compare to 1e.

Quote from: Rincewind1;528085Perhaps the most important factor in 1e's and 0e success is the lack of competition and strong moving force of being the original product.

I am quite surprised to find 3e outshone (given what I read earlier), but what do you know. Although as Randal pointed out, the problem is the sheer volume of 3e material might not compare to 1e.

Yeah, seems obvious to me. The playerbase was whole because there literally was no other option and the hobby being what it is, word of mouth is paramount and literally makes or breaks a game sight unseen even today, let alone when I was like 5 or 10.

If 3e was just cleaned up and revised a bit it wouldn't be close. Pathfinder proves it in spades, queen sized even. Instead they make 4e and well Dungeon Delver's sig pretty much says it all, quite succinctly and with humor I might add.

Quote from: Benoist;528070Actually, according to Ryan Dancey's account of the state of affairs at TSR when WotC bought the company, it did exactly the reverse: bury it into the ground.

Well, yes, eventually...

Quote from: RPGPundit;527937THIS is exactly right. It will be the single determinant factor in whether D&D will be able to be solidly #1 again; whether or not 5e manages to create an edition that lets people play the game how they like to play it rather than being TOLD how they must play it.

RPGPundit

There has never, ever been anything stopping players from doing this. It can't happen. What will be a determining factor is if players get the game they want *supported*. I don't know if you can please everyone. In fact I think even trying dilutes your efforts. You end up with a whole lot of bland, half-ass material. Better to work on a few, solid concepts. Which can't happen if you are trying to pander to *everyone*. Seems like a massive waste of time and effort to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

RPGPundit

No, Pathfinder is the well-maintained girl who looks like the wife did before she let herself go, and unlike the wife, treats the guy decently.  Whether the guy dumps the substitute depends on IF the old wife shapes up, and that remains to be seen.

JG

I don't care, I play OSRIC and C&C or Warhammer Fantasy anymore, D&D what?

5e?  won't buy it anyhow.

I'm astonished at how many people think this will be an either/or equation. Like owning a copy of LotFP somehow means you could never play or own a 5E product.

Some people will buy 5E because it's he latest thing. Others will judge it on its own merits and if they like what they see it will sit very comfortably next to the 4E and PF books.

Personally I'd be happy to play a game of 1E, 2E, 3/3.5, PF any retroclone you care to name etc. I'll judge 5E solely on how I like the rules.

The only D&D game I'd refuse to play is 4E because it's a steaming pile of shit...

Quote from: Fiasco;528223I'm astonished at how many people think this will be an either/or equation. Like owning a copy of LotFP somehow means you could never play or own a 5E product.

Some people will buy 5E because it's he latest thing. Others will judge it on its own merits and if they like what they see it will sit very comfortably next to the 4E and PF books.

Personally I'd be happy to play a game of 1E, 2E, 3/3.5, PF any retroclone you care to name etc. I'll judge 5E solely on how I like the rules.

The only D&D game I'd refuse to play is 4E because it's a steaming pile of shit...

I will say it one more time. My wish is that they make 5e a fun and solid game on its own merits that's its own thing not some 3e rehash so that I can play both Pathfinder and 5e and not look back. Oh yeah I agree with you about 4e except there are a couple of good things in it like monster creation.

Quote from: Marleycat;528225I will say it one more time. My wish is that they make 5e a fun and solid game on its own merits that's its own thing not some 3e rehash so that I can play both Pathfinder and 5e and not look back. Oh yeah I agree with you about 4e except there are a couple of good things in it like monster creation.

I never read the 4E DMG (the only 4E product I own is the PHB) but I am in favour of separate mechanics for monsters/NPCs and PCS.   If 5E cuts down the time to resolve combats and to stat monsters/NPCs I'll be very much a fan.

Quote from: Fiasco;528235I never read the 4E DMG (the only 4E product I own is the PHB) but I am in favour of separate mechanics for monsters/NPCs and PCS.   If 5E cuts down the time to resolve combats and to stat monsters/NPCs I'll be very much a fan.

It turned out the monster damage was too weak in the 4E DMG1.  This was later corrected in the DMG1 errata.

IIRC, the 4E Monster Manual 3 was the first 4E book which featured the corrected monster damage.

(Dunno if this corrected monster damage table ever showed up in the 4E Essentials DM's Kit or Monster Vault).

Quote from: RPGPundit;527938The problem I see with Pathfinder is that a very significant portion of its fanbase are people who'd rather be playing D&D, if they felt like they could.  They want a D&D that is currently supported, that supports their playstyle, and that isn't 4e.   Pathfinder is just the cheap floozy they're shacking up with until their wife gets off the sauce and they can stand to live with her again.  As soon as that happens, they'll dump the substitute like yesterday's news.

You've got it wrong. Paizo's fanbase (and its business model) is built around the adventure paths. They tapped into a huge demand for high-quality, well-produced, well-written adventures and campaigns that busy DMs can plug and play. The Pathfinder core books support the setting material, not the other way around.

Unless 5E releases with a shoot-the-lights-out adventure path, Pathfinder players will shrug and continue with the next Paizo adventure path. And since Paizo seems to have secured the services of the best adventure writers in the business, I don't rate it likely WotC steals their market share.

WotC made a big mistake when it hitched its cart to endless crunch expansions and system mastery. Paizo was very astute to recognize the primacy of adventures and coherent campaigns in  today's market. Most GMs simply don't have the time to make up their own adventures, let alone Level 1-14 mega-campaigns.

Quote from: Haffrung;530641You've got it wrong. Paizo's fanbase (and its business model) is built around the adventure paths. They tapped into a huge demand for high-quality, well-produced, well-written adventures and campaigns that busy DMs can plug and play. The Pathfinder core books support the setting material, not the other way around.

Unless 5E releases with a shoot-the-lights-out adventure path, Pathfinder players will shrug and continue with the next Paizo adventure path. And since Paizo seems to have secured the services of the best adventure writers in the business, I don't rate it likely WotC steals their market share.

WotC made a big mistake when it hitched its cart to endless crunch expansions and system mastery. Paizo was very astute to recognize the primacy of adventures and coherent campaigns in  today's market. Most GMs simply don't have the time to make up their own adventures, let alone Level 1-14 mega-campaigns.

I see the opposite happening I see Wotc making overtures to Paizo to write Adventure Paths for 5e. Best for all concerned if they do it, especially the fanbase.

Quote from: Marleycat;530642I see the opposite happening I see Wotc making overtures to Paizo to write Adventure Paths for 5e. Best for all concerned if they do it, especially the fanbase.

Why would Paizo do that? First, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot by supporting a game that's in direct competition with their own. And second, they only have so much writing/editing/layout resources at their disposal. Writing adventures for WotC would mean cutting back on the release of Pathfinder adventures. Doesn't make sense.