Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522075The same could be said about WotC trying to bring back elements of older editions without alienating the 4E crowd by doing things that drive them nuts.

And without you pouring gazoline on the threads here, on RPGnet (where you got yourself threadbanned) and on ENWorld also, as you've been busy doing for the last while.

Quote from: estar;522071I will confirm this, the playtest 1.0 document covers roughly the same stuff that the holmes blue book covers. It needs some final polishing but Wizards could easily turn it into a new Basic set. A true basic set.

You've said this a couple times before.  So it does have the "sockets" that the SA poster said they didn't?  I get the idea they have the simple framework done and it's solid, now all that's left is the "widgets" and "doohickeys"?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522075The same could be said about WotC trying to bring back elements of older editions without alienating the 4E crowd by doing things that drive them nuts.

Except no-one gives a shit about you, because your game was the worst selling one in the history of D&D.

They want TSR numbers, not RPGnet numbers.

Quote from: estar;522071I will confirm this, the playtest 1.0 document covers roughly the same stuff that the holmes blue book covers. It needs some final polishing but Wizards could easily turn it into a new Basic set. A true basic set.

Yes, that was my feeling as well.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522075The same could be said about WotC trying to bring back elements of older editions without alienating the 4E crowd by doing things that drive them nuts.

I am probably a bit biased on this one, but I really think 4E is the odd edition out, and while it is important to bring 4E fans into the fold, they really need to worry about the lost fans to survive. Basically it seems 4E was designed for folks who never really quite liked D&D in the first place (or had major issues with it and played simply because that is what their group played or they were holding out for developments). But to restore the D&D brand, IMO, they really need to purge some of the stuff that 4E brought to the table. Basically I think they should try to get the former fanbase back with the core system, and offer up enough modular options that 4E folks can rebuild a 4E style game if they choose to. I believe the things they need to do to bring folks like myself back to the table, very well may irritate your standard 4E player.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522083I am probably a bit biased on this one, but I really think 4E is the odd edition out, and while it is important to bring 4E fans into the fold, they really need to worry about the lost fans to survive. Basically it seems 4E was designed for folks who never really quite liked D&D in the first place (or had major issues with it and played simply because that is what their group played or they were holding out for developments). But to restore the D&D brand, IMO, they really need to purge some of the stuff that 4E brought to the table. Basically I think they should try to get the former fanbase back with the core system, and offer up enough modular options that 4E folks can rebuild a 4E style game if they choose to. I believe the things they need to do to bring folks like myself back to the table, very well may irritate your standard 4E player.

There is a reason why Pathfinder is and was kicking 4e butt to the curb where it counts, sales.  The game should'nt be aimed at expressly trying to get Pathfinder players per say but that huge contigient of lasped 3/3.5e lapsed players into the fold, for that alot of the 4e stuff must go.

For example I don't want 5e to be a redo of 3e I have Pathfinder and FantasyCraft for that niche but I do want a game that brings back the best of what it offers along with with 1e's simplicity.  Add in modern sensibilities, and new twists on old stuff and you've got something.  It must be it's own game to get me truly interested.

Quote from: RPGPundit;522082Yes, that was my feeling as well.

And I will third on those feelings: yes it's coherent, yes the 1.0 playtest covers roughly the same ground as Holmes basic, and yes, it could be released as a "true" basic set with some polishing, of course.

We can argue over the numbers of who plays what, but I have a strong feeling that WotC won't reach their target numbers if they alienate the 4E crowd.

Quote from: Marleycat;522080You've said this a couple times before.  So it does have the "sockets" that the SA poster said they didn't?  I get the idea they have the simple framework done and it's solid, now all that's left is the "widgets" and "doohickeys"?

No they have more to go with the core like higher levels and more classes. But you can see hints of what they are working on throughout the playtest.  So far I haven't seen any showstoppers yet for fans of any edition. But there is still a lot of ground to cover.

Don't get me wrong people will bitch about these rules, just not what they are bitching about right now. The playtest rules are a step in right direction for tabletop roleplaying as a whole not judt for old style, new style whatever. The main reason is that the core is clean, simple, and straight forward. And they should be able to add the optional detail to what there for people who prefer that.

Isn't this really old news, which had been pretty much proved a fake?

Quote from: estar;522091No they have more to go with the core like higher levels and more classes. But you can see hints of what they are working on throughout the playtest.  So far I haven't seen any showstoppers yet for fans of any edition. But there is still a lot of ground to cover.

Don't get me wrong people will bitch about these rules, just not what they are bitching about right now. The playtest rules are a step in right direction for tabletop roleplaying as a whole not judt for old style, new style whatever. The main reason is that the core is clean, simple, and straight forward. And they should be able to add the optional detail to what there for people who prefer that.

Sounds good.  I expect people to bitch, that's what they do.  Looks like they have the big thing done, clean, simple and straightforward base with that they can do the rest nice and robust and solid.

A starting document that covers the ground of the old basic sets is a good start, but I hope when they finish it covers all the ground, at least lightly, that the old AD&D DMG covers.

All of 4e covers the ground of the blue box...but there needs to be more than what goes on during fighting.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;522087We can argue over the numbers of who plays what, but I have a strong feeling that WotC won't reach their target numbers if they alienate the 4E crowd.

It really doesn't matter who they do or do not alienate. If the target numbers are just too unrealistic for a tabletop roleplaying game then it is what it is.

Theoretically, they can please every fucking D&D fan that ever picked up the dice AND convince them to sit round the fire singing hippie songs together and STLL not generate the revenue that corporate wants to see.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;522083I am probably a bit biased on this one, but I really think 4E is the odd edition out, and while it is important to bring 4E fans into the fold, they really need to worry about the lost fans to survive. Basically it seems 4E was designed for folks who never really quite liked D&D in the first place (or had major issues with it and played simply because that is what their group played or they were holding out for developments). But to restore the D&D brand, IMO, they really need to purge some of the stuff that 4E brought to the table. Basically I think they should try to get the former fanbase back with the core system, and offer up enough modular options that 4E folks can rebuild a 4E style game if they choose to. I believe the things they need to do to bring folks like myself back to the table, very well may irritate your standard 4E player.

See, this I DON'T get. Not to single you out, mind you. I know you mean well, and as a member of community I would too, olive branches, kumbaya, and all that. But as a business decision? It's like trying to roll up Sisyphus' boulder while shooting yourself in the foot.

As a business you want the old fans back (obviously your new ones weren't good enough to maintain status quo), and you want the new game K.I.S.S. for new fans -- especially kids -- to join. 4e fans already have 4e recently in print and an established DDI. Trying to appease everyone in the same product at this point is madness. Someone must lose out; so why not the "edition" that wasn't cutting it.

The easiest business decision, considering I too believe 4e to be the most odd-one-out of the editions, is to relabel 4e as a Tactical edition, keeping it as its own (now 4+ years tested) tactical legacy with occasional product depending on fan popularity. Then run D&DNext RPG as closely to earlier editions as possible. This would be a compromise that 4e will get additional future product, but will not carry the flagship history as the RPG.

This does two beneficial things. It greatly simplifies D&DNext RPG design, making it more KISS casual player friendly, and wholly discards "who wins, who loses" paranoiac bickering. And it spins off an already established Tactics line of the likes to compete with Games Workshop Gorka Morka/Necromunda Tactical games. It also sets them up where any Realm Expansion with Mass Combat in the RPG can relatively cross over into Warhammer-style army Tactical Miniatures. This positioning puts them into relative parity competition with GW's offered product lines.

And if they're really smart they'd play up to their strengths of pre-fab My Precious Encounters (TM), a la Duplicate Bridge, and run tourney player score lists like the did for Encounters. I just don't see this as a hard decision business wise. Dragging it out like this just heightens sturm und drang, but to no real benefit. Might as well have 4e players bite the bullet, but get a huge consolation prize (something no other edition really got before -- it's own spin-off line recognition).

Quote from: Opaopajr;522157See, this I DON'T get. Not to single you out, mind you. I know you mean well, and as a member of community I would too, olive branches, kumbaya, and all that. But as a business decision? It's like trying to roll up Sisyphus' boulder while shooting yourself in the foot.

As a business you want the old fans back (obviously your new ones weren't good enough to maintain status quo), and you want the new game K.I.S.S. for new fans -- especially kids -- to join. 4e fans already have 4e recently in print and an established DDI. Trying to appease everyone in the same product at this point is madness. Someone must lose out; so why not the "edition" that wasn't cutting it.

Given the brevity of 4E's lifespan and the storm of negative reaction to it, my opinion is this was the edition that wasn't cutting it. So my argument is built on the assumption that they stand to gain more if they reclaim the lost fanbase, than if they please the 4e fanbase (i also dont think 4e brought in as many new players as 3e brought in).

QuoteThe easiest business decision, considering I too believe 4e to be the most odd-one-out of the editions, is to relabel 4e as a Tactical edition, keeping it as its own (now 4+ years tested) tactical legacy with occasional product depending on fan popularity. Then run D&DNext RPG as closely to earlier editions as possible. This would be a compromise that 4e will get additional future product, but will not carry the flagship history as the RPG.

I think this may be an idea worth pursuing. Mixing the two camp's preferences in next could backfire. But seperating them out and offering two different products may be a good idea.

QuoteThis does two beneficial things. It greatly simplifies D&DNext RPG design, making it more KISS casual player friendly, and wholly discards "who wins, who loses" paranoiac bickering. And it spins off an already established Tactics line of the likes to compete with Games Workshop Gorka Morka/Necromunda Tactical games. It also sets them up where any Realm Expansion with Mass Combat in the RPG can relatively cross over into Warhammer-style army Tactical Miniatures. This positioning puts them into relative parity competition with GW's lines.

And if they're really smart they'd play up to their strengths of pre-fab My Precious Encounters (TM), a la Duplicate Bridge, and run tourney player score lists like the did for Encounters. I just don't see this as a hard decision business wise. Dragging it out like this just heightens sturm und drang, but to no real benefit. Might as well have 4e players bite the bullet, but get a huge consolation prize (something no other edition really got before -- it's own spin-off line recognition).

Again this could work, but their current plan seems to be "one edition to rule them all", which means there will be winners and losers (at least as far as the core system is concerned). But i do agree, flamewars probably dont help them much at this stage (but making your preferences isn't a bad thing).

There is also more going on here PR wise. They really upset lots of D&D fans over the past few years. WoTC went from being king of the mountain to one among many companies competing for the same player base. That is a pret staggering development. Personally i dont think the way to win this pr game is to attack 4e or 4e fans (makes about no more sense now than when they did it a few years ago to 3e fans). But acknowledging their failure to please the customers they had is important (because that is fundamentally what occured).