Without a major overhaul there'd be a lot of "this is just 3.75" backlash. With a major overhaul the backlash is "we can't convert our old stuff."

Me, I'm glad they opted to choose fun over caring about backlash. Whether theie idea of fun matches mine or not remains to be seen.

i look forward to turning undead to be a more streamlined process.  the 3.x version seemed a bit too clunky and "legacy" compared to the general d20 mechanic.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadNo it wouldn't. What would have been realistic is to make compatibility a priority so conversions and continued use of existing material would be easy.

Precisely. And that's why the issue is a deal breaker, or at least potentially so. I also don't expect every single prestige class, feat, etc. to be converted over. But I also didn't expect to hear that I'd have to convert that stuff "conceptually," like I'd have to do if I wanted to use a bit from, say, GURPS in a D&D game. That's something of an exaggeration to illustrate a point, but the point remains - backwards compatibility is important to me. If I wanted a completely different game, I'd either buy one or use one of the many others I already have. It just struck me that the 4e designers were being a bit cavalier about the issue, given that 3.x is still a thriving game and hasn't lain moribund for a few years as 2e did.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat they did not is unsurprising, but still, an error.

I have to admit I did find it a bit surprising, and still do. I figured 4e would be more a smoothing out of rough edges found during the past 7 years of field testing, with stuff like the polymorph revision being among the most major parts of the retooling. I wasn't expecting a revamp in which backwards compatibility was effectively deemed unimportant as a goal.

Quote from: James McMurrayWithout a major overhaul there'd be a lot of "this is just 3.75" backlash. With a major overhaul the backlash is "we can't convert our old stuff."

Me, I'm glad they opted to choose fun over caring about backlash. Whether theie idea of fun matches mine or not remains to be seen.

I also feel fun should have been the paramount goal. And a lot of what I've read seems like it's gonna be awfully fun. I just didn't think 3.x was as far from the "fun" goal line as the 4e designers seem to think, at least in some regard.

By the way, it may seem I'm expecting 4e to be something that isn't D&D. I'm not. I fully expect it to "feel" like D&D. I'm just quibbling over a few things that I haven't liked the sound of; I may well find all my fears unfounded once 4e arrives.

The real issue with 4.0 is that the business model is broken, IMO. They have to run through the whole cycle of books, which takes 3-5 years, and then they can't count on new product sales any more. A smaller company willing to have an evergreen product and not beholden to the vicissitudes of corporatization could keep publishing more or less the same version of D&D forever, which I would heartily support; but a company beholden to profits pretty much has to do a new edition every few years, because evergreen sales will not reliably yield a yearly increase in profit, which is the 'growth' model demanded by shareholders in publicly traded corporations.

5.0 will be coming in 2012-3 or so, etc. etc. forever, until this business model goes away.

Quote from: CalithenaThe real issue with 4.0 is that the business model is broken, IMO. They have to run through the whole cycle of books, which takes 3-5 years, and then they can't count on new product sales any more. A smaller company willing to have an evergreen product and not beholden to the vicissitudes of corporatization could keep publishing more or less the same version of D&D forever, which I would heartily support; but a company beholden to profits pretty much has to do a new edition every few years, because evergreen sales will not reliably yield a yearly increase in profit, which is the 'growth' model demanded by shareholders in publicly traded corporations.

5.0 will be coming in 2012-3 or so, etc. etc. forever, until this business model goes away.

QFT.  there lies the major beef i have with the whole thing.  the sooner hasbro loses d&d and it becomes small-press (for lack of a better term) the better.  unrealistic, i know.  but i'm allowed to dream.

Quote from: James McMurrayWithout a major overhaul there'd be a lot of "this is just 3.75" backlash. With a major overhaul the backlash is "we can't convert our old stuff."

Me, I'm glad they opted to choose fun over caring about backlash. Whether theie idea of fun matches mine or not remains to be seen.

QFT.

Calithena is on to something with the issue of both WOTC and Hasbro being publically-traded corporations.  The first duty of the CEO is to do everything that he can possibly do to maximize shareholder value, and that usually means making every quarter profitable through never-ending growth.  This insanity is what leads to short-term, narrow-scope and shallow-minded policies intended to achieve such aims.  A smaller, closely-held business is more likely to look for the long-term, to understand exactly what it produces and how it works, and to dedicate the bulk of profits back into internal improvements- to take those profits and reinvest them into the company to improve its capabilities.  

The more that I look at what goes into publishing a tabletop RPG, the more I see that each game is enough work to merit treatment as a business in its own right- and that companies that have more than one game either makes moves meant to make administration easier or changes its configuration such that it becomes more of a gateway entity.  For the former, we have companies using the same system for all products as well as separating lines by brands that act as separate companies.  For the latter, we have companies that are publisher-only and work with developers to bring products to market- thus fostering a publisher/developer splint in the business organization.

I could even live with the 5-year edition cycle. What gets to me is the yearly corebook cycle one reads about. If they pull that one, I'm out, whether or not 4E is significantly better than 3.x, which is unlikely to begin with.

Quote5.0 will be coming in 2012-3 or so, etc. etc. forever, until this business model goes away.

If 4.0 is better than 3.5, and 5.0 is better than 4.0, and 6.0 is better than 4.0, etc... I'll keep buying and be thankful for their dedication to constant improvement.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf 4.0 is better than 3.5, and 5.0 is better than 4.0, and 6.0 is better than 4.0, etc... I'll keep buying and be thankful for their dedication to constant improvement.

sorry, i didn't get into this hobby for constant "updating".  if they want to keep making money, just keep spitting out random miniatures boosters, map packs, and adventures.  world book supplements are fine.  "new & improved!" editions, every few years?  go to hell, do not pass go, etc.  i'll spend my money elsewhere.  :mad:

I think from what I've seen so far Universalis has more in common with my gaming than this does.

Not that I have anything against Universalis, it's just quite far from a normal rpg setup and so seemed a useful comparator.

I wish 4e well, it matters to lots of folks and may bring people into the hobby, but I think if that had been around when I started out I wouldn't have.  The whole trend under WotC has been more towards figures, merchandise and kewl powerz and less towards anything I would actually find rewarding to play.

I'm wait and see. WQ already does most of the things that 4E would supposedly do.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI could even live with the 5-year edition cycle. What gets to me is the yearly corebook cycle one reads about. If they pull that one, I'm out, whether or not 4E is significantly better than 3.x, which is unlikely to begin with.

People seem to misunderstand this one too.

AFAIK, the "yearly corebook" model will not produce a revised set of core rules each year with the same classes and a few new rules tweaks. What we will be getting is a book like PHB II, DMG II and MM II-V each year. New classes, new feats, etc. New books will add to but not replace old books.

The exisitng publishing schedule already puts out this material, the proposed "corebook-a-year" model will produce the same sort of material but under a different book structure.