Quote from: ggroy;524347Was there a widespread dissatisfaction with 2E AD&D during 1997-1999?

It was the same dissatisfaction that had been part of AD&D since circa-1980.

You can see this in the debate topics that would come up again and again and again; you can see it in the house rules that were incredibly common and popular: THAC0. Penalties for changing alignments. Wizards using swords. Dual-classing vs. multiclassing. The lack of a skill system. The lack of a unified mechanic. Demihuman level limits.

And this is, overwhelmingly, the stuff that 3E went after in its house-cleaning.

Quote from: Marleycat;524354@Justin, I know exactly what I hate about 4e and most 3e supporters have my same dislikes to varying degrees.

Are you currently playing 4E?

Are you deeply dissatisfied with the game you are playing?

Would you say that the dissatisfaction you have with the game you are playing is widely shared by the vast majority of people playing the game you're currently playing?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;524589It was the same dissatisfaction that had been part of AD&D since circa-1980.

You can see this in the debate topics that would come up again and again and again; you can see it in the house rules that were incredibly common and popular: THAC0. Penalties for changing alignments. Wizards using swords. Dual-classing vs. multiclassing. The lack of a skill system. The lack of a unified mechanic. Demihuman level limits.

And this is, overwhelmingly, the stuff that 3E went after in its house-cleaning.



Are you currently playing 4E?

Are you deeply dissatisfied with the game you are playing?


Would you say that the dissatisfaction you have with the game you are playing is widely shared by the vast majority of people playing the game you're currently playing?

Not currently playing 4e tried it and it doesn't work for me obviously so I gave my books away several months ago. Currently play Pathfinder but not completely satisfied with it but it's easy to find games for it. Would rather be playing Fantasy Craft but I would have to GM it and just don't have the time to do so currently. Also playing Dark Heresy but that's not relevant to your inquiry.

As to dissatisfaction of other people about Pathfinder? Probably slightly less overall than myself but there are plenty that are not completely satisfied just in differing ways than myself or levels to the best of my knowledge.

I know its daft but D&D still has a lot of loyalty as a brand. I think there are plenty of 4e fans and pathfinder players who will buy into 5e because it's D&D.

You have to remember that a lot of 4e players adopted it because it was the new iteration of D&D a substantial proportion will do the same again.
Pratically all the Pathfinder players are there becuase 4e didn't scratch their particular itch but they wanted to play a game that was as close to D&D as they could get.

I see no reason why a substanital proportion of both groups wouldn't adopt 5e out of simple brand loyalty.

It's not daft to want to play the game that basically is the term RPG to the general public.  You're virtually guaranteed to find a game or start one with little to no effort, I like that.  It also will be among the best supported in all areas by virtue of being the current Dnd.

The thing with Pathfinder is that it is a middle ground of not being willing to rework the 3e engine like Fantasy Craft so you grin and bear it. Then with FC it's possibly the best iteration of the 3e engine ever made and it shows exactly how an excellent modular game can be made. But it has little name recognition to the general player base  as less game material support because it's NOT 3/3.5e it just looks like it.

Quote from: Marleycat;524657It's not daft to want to play the game that basically is the term RPG to the general public.  You're virtually guaranteed to find a game or start one with little to no effort, I like that.  It also will be among the best supported in all areas by virtue of being the current Dnd.

The problem with this line of thought is, how long will the current D&D remain that way before it changes again?  As long as it is making money then it gets support. As soon as profits start to taper off, the game is changed again.

I suppose its easy to find games for the current incarnation of the rules but how easy is it to find quality lasting campaigns?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;524658The problem with this line of thought is, how long will the current D&D remain that way before it changes again?  As long as it is making money then it gets support. As soon as profits start to taper off, the game is changed again.

I suppose its easy to find games for the current incarnation of the rules but how easy is it to find quality lasting campaigns?

Easier than it will be for the last version or than Fantasy Craft, or Bunnies and Burrows, or Paranoia....

Basically there will be be DnD games they may not be anything else.

Yup, and if 5e is done correctly it will forever be the easiest to find players willing to give it a go if it meets the stated design goals.  Don't know if it will happen but I will hold out hope until its here and I give it a shot.

And of course, 4-7 years later, we'll have 6e.

*sigh*

I wish they would get off the treadmill.

Quote from: Benoist;524673And of course, 4-7 years later, we'll have 6e.

*sigh*

I wish they would get off the treadmill.

That will never happen fully but they could go the Pathfinder route easily enough if they had the balls to stand up against the powergamers, rules lawyers, and general whiners. I have 5 books in total I need nothing else until they reboot the system. I might pick up 1-2 books yearly but that is totally optional to what I need to play the game.

Quote from: Marleycat;524676the powergamers, rules lawyers, and general whiners.

You mean their general player base? :rotfl:

Quote from: Marleycat;524676That will never happen fully but they could go the Pathfinder route easily enough if they had the balls to stand up against the powergamers, rules lawyers, and general whiners.

There are several ways I think they could try it, but at this point it's premature to say the least. I mean, they're trying to basically save the commercial viability of the tabletop game at the moment. IF it's successful (and unlike some people, I think it can be successful), we'll see then what can be done in regards to the edition treadmill.

Of course, the modularity built into the system could help tremendously in this regard if it is made of the right stuff that allows for the core to basically remain while the modules would change over the years. It's not impossible either. There are too many unknowns at this point to make projections one way or the other. I just hope R&D is thinking about that possibility seriously (which is unlikely).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;524677You mean their general player base? :rotfl:

A significant share of the player base they've been cattering to during the past few years, yes.

Quote from: Benoist;524678There are several ways I think they could try it, but at this point it's premature to say the least. I mean, they're trying to basically save the commercial viability of the tabletop game at the moment. IF it's successful (and unlike some people, I think it can be successful), we'll see then what can be done in regards to the edition treadmill.

Of course, the modularity built into the system could help tremendously in this regard if it is made of the right stuff that allows for the core to basically remain while the modules would change over the years. It's not impossible either. There are too many unknowns at this point to make projections one way or the other. I just hope R&D is thinking about that possibility seriously (which is unlikely).

I tend to be in your camp on this issue. I have no solid ideas how it could be done but regardless a paradigm shift would be needed.  I do think if the modularity is done correctly it would allow them to go in different directions and other focuses beyond supplements.

Quote from: Marleycat;524682I tend to be in your camp on this issue. I have no solid ideas how it could be done but regardless a paradigm shift would be needed.  I do think if the modularity is done correctly it would allow them to go in different directions and other focuses beyond supplements.

Remember though their stated aim is that you can bring your AD&d style fighter to a game and I can play my 4e style BooYakaSha Dragon born Warrior Prince and we are balanced.

Quote from: Marleycat;524676That will never happen fully but they could go the Pathfinder route easily enough if they had the balls to stand up against the powergamers, rules lawyers, and general whiners. I have 5 books in total I need nothing else until they reboot the system. I might pick up 1-2 books yearly but that is totally optional to what I need to play the game.

The people they need to stand up to are not players, but the bosses at Hasbro.  I'm sure that's the driver behind the new rulebooks every five years (or less) paradigm Wizards seems to be working under.  It's all about making lots of money selling those rulebooks.  The whole unifying the player base talk is simply the best face the designers can put on it this time around.

It's a terrible way to run a business if you ask me.  Each time they do it the cash they bring in will decrease as players get increasingly fed up and increasingly divided in their tastes.

As far as I can tell, Hasbro's strategy is to squeeze as much money out of D&D as possible until the returns just aren't worth it anymore.  It's almost as if they don't think the brand has a good long-term prognosis no matter what they do.

Given that the average age of a D&D player is probably about 15 years older than it was 20 years ago (or so I suspect), they may have good reason to feel this way.