Well, Mike Mearls got promoted. Any hope for 5e?

[Swordslinger]

'Course they've also decided that zone effects should only go off at the end of a monster's turn, rendering zones impotent wastes of space unless your DM runs mobs as braindead animals. So even three years later, they still don't have a clue how to design controllers.

I don't have a huge issue with that, because I think it encourages more strategic play. It also makes the defender work better with the controller. Put a knight next to something in a damage zone, and it now has to either try to move (and provoke a knight AoO) or sit in the zone and eat the damage.

The old zones were too good anyway. Honestly I couldn't imagine a character that wouldn't take them. Sleep was about the only thing that somewhat competed with a zone spell (flaming sphere) and that was just because of orb of imposition. Aside from that, you'd much rather have flaming sphere. The fact that you can burn a move + a minor to do auto-damage was crazy good and you became less controller and more striker. The zones didn't really force people take action, because taking damage was an end result no matter what you did. Though now that the zones got changed to end of turn, they should have got a damage boost to compensate (though they didn't).

I could potentially see the warlock having autodamage zones because he's a striker so he's supposed to be dishing out damage, but the wizard's zones being end of turn makes a lot more sense to me.

Though the real reason I suspect they changed zones was because they were far too effective minion killers.

[Lago PARANOIA]

As I previously pointed out, a lower number than Win 95, 98 and 2000, so your contention that marketing means you gotta give a product higher numbers to sell is absurd.

Well, Windows also benefits from the fact that it started out at substantially higher numbers. Between 1E to 4.5E there's not a whole lot of places you can stick more numbers. If you're not willing to do a D&D 5E you either need to do something deceptive and stupid like AD&D3E, call it D&D Zero, D&D i, D&D A, or some other wacky suffix.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Wait, that zone thing isn't a warlock-specific change but a nerf to the entire system?

That is so fucking stupid that I can't believe that they would do that. They really do think that their game is a MMORPG.

[tzor]

Well, you can do the following if you want to lie massively. You can do the Prius thing.

You basically lump 1E, 2E and (gasp) 3.XE together (First Gen)
You basically consider 4E and 4E Essencials together (Second Gen)

So now you have

D&D - Third Gen

[Swordslinger]

Wait, that zone thing isn't a warlock-specific change but a nerf to the entire system?

Yes and no. They reprinted the warlock and wizard for essentials, both of which feature the zone thing, though they have not (as far as I know) made those changes official to the actual rules yet. They don't appear in any actual errata document that I know of.

The new wizard is actually called the wizard(arcanist) , and the warlock had a new subname too, so presumably the old classes still exist, even though the new ones are carbon copies with nerfs.

[Saxony]

I think DnD 5th Edition would work. Really, it's the word of mouth that matters. I don't care what the next edition is called, unless good word of mouth erases 4th Edition's bad word of mouth, I will never buy it and I don't think any one in my group will, either. I must hear from a real person I know that DnD: Next Edition doesn't suck and is, in fact, better than what I already have (3.5).

Giving it a tagline like "DnD: Catchy Phrase" sounds like "Halo: Combat Evolved". Stupid and contrite. However, the Halo series has done very very well. I hear Microsoft forced the issue, thinking Halo 1 would not sell well without the tagline. They ditched the taglines after the first game, going off numbers, but eventually coming back to words instead of numbers for new releases. Then adding in both numbers and words combined...

Halo: Combat evolved
Halo 2
Halo 3
Halo Wars
Halo 3: ODST
Halo Reach
Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

It's really a crapshoot. But there is variety. I think that's the key. It doesn't just go up in numbers forever (1, 2, 3, 4, 5...), but it never regresses, either.

Theory: If you're going to use a number, you must use the current one or upgrade to a new number (unless you're blatantly remaking something as a tribute, that will not sell for DnD).

Take Call of Duty for example. They never go to a lesser number. They'll stay on a number if they think more money can be milked out of it (See Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2, the best selling games in the history of video games if I recall correctly... or at the very least top 5 ever), but they never ever go back.

I think we can all agree DnD: Next Edition must have good word of mouth or it will tank, regardless of title. Anything containing an old number but being incompatible with that corresponding edition (IE: A new edition, not just starting to print 3.5 books again) will feel like a deceptive cash grab. "So... they're going back to 3rd Edition... but it's not really 3.0 or 3.5? And I have to buy all the books again and learn all new rules? WTF? I thought they were printing new 3.5 books again". Though I can see Frank's point of view. I can see it going either way. Grognards could celebrate it, or they could hate it for not being 3.5 Edition.

In any case, I think we should look at old examples of super successful franchises. Windows, Halo, Call of Duty, Resident Evil. We all like empirical information and hate armchair theorycrafting, right?

They never go back to a lesser number unless they are blatantly remaking or "going back" to the edition corresponding to that number. If DnD: Next Edition is DnD: 3rd Edition, it must enormously borrow from 3.0 and 3.5 edition or I assume bad things will happen. Honestly, I don't know why that's bad, I won't bore you with groundless hypotheses. But the evidence suggests it, so I'll believe it. If we have ADnD: 3e, and it isn't a lot like 3rd edition, it will tank.

Names I would be okay with:

Most okay with DnD 5th Edition. It makes sense and clearly states the product I purchase is not 4th Edition. I'd call it the default option; neutral and informative (DnD: Next Edition For Reals, not DnD: Side Product you don't give two shits about).

Least okay with DnD: Stupid Tagline. I don't know what it is without asking or reading it (Is it DnD: Side Product or DnD: Next Edition For Reals?). It's a marketing term, stupid and contrite. I purposefully shun lingo blitzing products unless they are really good (Like Amnesia: The Dark Descent, or Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. Sounds retarded but were heavily recommended). This would put me off the product.

I would be okay with new 3.5 books getting printed again (and it may actually work for Wizards, rather than gambling on a new edition). That may be the only product my group will actually buy. If my group won't play the new edition, I won't either.

Not okay with ADnD: 3e, it's like DnD: Stupid Tagline (but the stupid flashy word is at the beginning instead of the end).

tl;dr I'm copyrighting DnD: 3rd Edition, Monkey shit in a tuba, The Role Playening

[Fucks]

Grognards, FT among them, will bad-mouth the new D&D anyways, so what the fuck?

[Swordslinger]

I think we can all agree DnD: Next Edition must have good word of mouth or it will tank, regardless of title. Anything containing an old number but being incompatible with that corresponding edition (IE: A new edition, not just starting to print 3.5 books again) will feel like a deceptive cash grab.

The problem is that removing stuff is every bit as important as adding it, because a lot of the problems with 3E and 4E are material that exists, not the lack of material or even the core rules.

If they wanted money without producing a new real edition,, what they really need to do is produce a "Best of" series, that contains the best stuff of 3E in one book, and a best of 4E in another. And this would be more of an act of reduction rather than addition. You take all the stuff that was stupidly UP and the stuff that was stupidly OP and you just remove it. Filter your existing material until you've got one say 3-4 books of material for each edition and sell that book.

The biggest problem with D&D (any edition) is that the company insults you by making you feel like playtesters. Essentials feels like what 4E should have been if they'd playtested it properly. But no, in fact you have to deal with bad math, broken feats, broken spells and any number of other problems inherent in the system. People don't want a game ruined because shivering touch got by the editors. They want a system that works.

So why not instead of focusing on something new and untested, just take the old stuff and refine it? And I don't mean 3.5 style where you make a few changes and call it a day. I mean straight up take every book ever published for that edition, take the most balanced stuff and remove everything else. 5 balanced choices are superior to 50 different options with 2 obvious best choices.

Instead of making something new, make something high quality and good.

[Stubbazubba]

Pray tell me, which number does the latest version Windows have, then?

As I previously pointed out, a lower number than Win 95, 98 and 2000, so your contention that marketing means you gotta give a product higher numbers to sell is absurd. If you wanna talk the geek market, which did a bigger box office:: Episode IV or Episode I ? (for a followup, which has better reviews and is generally better liked?)

You're failing to read what he has repeatedly asserted: Bigger number is not the best way to go.

Thus, if you (as WotC) want to reimagine D&D, it doesn't make any sense to call it D&D 5E

His primary contention is that AD&D 3 would be a misleading title; unless you are already D&D savvy (in which case you know it's the fifth edition of D&D before they actually announce the name), then it is far too easy to associate AD&D3 with D&D3, so people will be looking for the latest version, which they would mistakenly believe to be 4e.

Star Wars is not a geek example; knowledge of Star Wars and the episode numbers is ubiquitous, a very, very small percentage of people do not know that IV, V, and VI came before I, II, and III, such that the point is negligible. Knowledge of AD&D and D&D's production history is a few orders of magnitude smaller.

When you're deciding on the name of a new version of a product, you don't base that decision on people who are already fans of the product; you base it around what will bring new blood in. The old fans already have said product, and while you want to give them every reason to upgrade, you're better off getting a larger swath of new customers than trying to squeeze out every drop of nostalgic effect in order to convert every old customer. The former is far easier than the latter. If the newer version is truly better than the last, then the old fans will convert because they're aware of the new version and not completely retarded; marketing has very little to do with it. Marketing is about getting new customers.

So, the question, then, is what will bring more new customers? Throwing the AD&D 2e fans a bone, trying to convince them to overcome the distrust that's been building up for over a decade, and hoping that the number 3 will get more new customers than the first 3e did? In short, something derivative, which either AD&D 3e or D&D 5e would be? Or naming it something that screams innovative, bold, better, new, etc.?

[K]

Grognards, FT among them, will bad-mouth the new D&D anyways, so what the fuck?

Grognards do get on board when a superior edition is produced. 3e basically dominated the RPG industry simply because it was so much better than all the alternatives. Another example is that I've never even heard anyone talk about SR 2e because 3e was just a straight improvement, while nWoD was such a downgrade that even the company is going back to oWoD.

The problem is that for DnD 4e we knew before it was even printed that it was going to be a terrible product. We read their teaser discussions of game mechanics and saw that they were working from flawed assumptions. We were unsurprised when they produced a less fun and more complicated game. Contrast that to the teaser discussion for 3e where people just got excited because they were addressing the flaws of a previous edition.

Since Mike Mearls is basically failing in the same way as 4e, it's hard to imagine that he can produce a better product than 3e regardless of the marketing tricks used. I mean, he obviously reads the gaming boards and steals ideas, but he doesn't seem to actually understand and that is the fundamental undoing of a new edition.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Pray tell me, which number does the latest version Windows have, then?

As I previously pointed out, a lower number than Win 95, 98 and 2000, so your contention that marketing means you gotta give a product higher numbers to sell is absurd. If you wanna talk the geek market, which did a bigger box office:: Episode IV or Episode I ? (for a followup, which has better reviews and is generally better liked?)

Was Episode IV actually marketed as "Episode IV"?

[Kaelik]

Was Episode IV actually marketed as "Episode IV"?

No, as point of fact, it was never even called episode IV until V came out.

[K]

For the record, the classy way to revert an edition is to rename it DnD Classic Edition as a way of both recognizing the step backward and branching it into Classic DnD (based on 3.x) and Essentials DnD (based on 4.x).

Basically you need to branch off 4e as a separate product and continue 3e design work.

[Draco_Argentum]

For Windows it would probably be a matter of going back to the most popular version, which I think is XP. So having a "Windows XP2" or something would be a possibilty. Remember that Windows XP is the most popular operating system in the world right now (39% of all web browsers as of June 2011), and that if both Vista and 7 had been bombs, putting out a new iteration of XP would be the obvious thing to do.

WotC is in the position of having released Windows XP and followed that up with NT3 and ME. Of course the next issuance is going to be Windows XP Service Pack 2. Duh.

-Username17

MS released ME which is the D&D4 of operating systems then followed it with XP. So your marketing geniuses kept the naming standard after a widely reviled product and launched a major success.



Also the actual version number of Windows 7 is 6.1, its Vista's version. This is an example of MS changing a name doing the break in the naming standard after a terrible release. So it could go either way.

[fectin]

For Windows it would probably be a matter of going back to the most popular version, which I think is XP. So having a "Windows XP2" or something would be a possibilty. Remember that Windows XP is the most popular operating system in the world right now (39% of all web browsers as of June 2011), and that if both Vista and 7 had been bombs, putting out a new iteration of XP would be the obvious thing to do.

WotC is in the position of having released Windows XP and followed that up with NT3 and ME. Of course the next issuance is going to be Windows XP Service Pack 2. Duh.

-Username17

MS released ME which is the D&D4 of operating systems then followed it with XP. So your marketing geniuses kept the naming standard after a widely reviled product and launched a major success.



Also the actual version number of Windows 7 is 6.1, its Vista's version. This is an example of MS changing a name doing the break in the naming standard after a terrible release. So it could go either way.

MIllenium Edition is named after a year. XP is letters without meaning. How are those conventions the same?

[Username17]

Grognards, FT among them, will bad-mouth the new D&D anyways, so what the fuck?

That is factually untrue.

-Username17

[hogarth]

For the record, the classy way to revert an edition is to rename it DnD Classic Edition as a way of both recognizing the step backward and branching it into Classic DnD (based on 3.x) and Essentials DnD (based on 4.x).

Basically you need to branch off 4e as a separate product and continue 3e design work.

That sounds more plausible than going from 4 to 3.

But, to use the Old Coke -> New Coke -> Classic Coke analogy, putting the Classic Coke label on a bottle of Diet Fresca doesn't solve anything for people who like Old Coke.

[Fucks]

Grognards, FT among them, will bad-mouth the new D&D anyways, so what the fuck?

That is factually untrue.

We'll see.

[tzor]

Was Episode IV actually marketed as "Episode IV"?

YES (Please ingore Kaelik) "Episode IV" was on the initial three dimensional text screen before the little space ship flies across the screen. Of course when there was only one "Star Wars" one doesn't need to advertise this fact. And I forget wether the novelization had the espiode number as a part of it's cover or not.

In point of fact, after Star Wars came out, it was suggested that there was going to be a "tri-trilogy" and that this was going to be the biggest thing ever. That fell flat when they realized that they could not let the plot lines dangle for that long and so what would have been Epsiodes 5,6,7,8,and 9 merely became 5 & 6.

I suspect that the real reason was that Star Wars is supposed to be a movie in the mindset of the "serial movies" and as a result it probably sounded better to have the splash screen start off with a number other than one.

[hogarth]

Grognards, FT among them, will bad-mouth the new D&D anyways, so what the fuck?

That is factually untrue.

We'll see.

See what? Whether at least one grognard bad-mouths 5E, or whether at least one grognard doesn't bad-mouth 5E?

[Kaelik]

Was Episode IV actually marketed as "Episode IV"?

YES (Please ingore Kaelik) "Episode IV" was on the initial three dimensional text screen before the little space ship flies across the screen.

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, originally released as Star Wars, is a 1977 science fantasy film written and directed by George Lucas.

[Leress]

Kaelik, I think this link will help your case better.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Opening_crawl

[Stubbazubba]

Was Episode IV actually marketed as "Episode IV"?

YES (Please ingore Kaelik) "Episode IV" was on the initial three dimensional text screen before the little space ship flies across the screen. Of course when there was only one "Star Wars" one doesn't need to advertise this fact. And I forget wether the novelization had the espiode number as a part of it's cover or not.

That's not the same thing as being marketed as Episode IV, though. Of course it was in the yellow text creep at the beginning, for the reasons you provided, but it wasn't marketed like that. In fact, the original trilogy was never really marketed by Episode numbers, that started with Episode I of the prequel trilogy.

[tzor]

George Lucas was babbling about the "Tri Trilogy" shortly after the movie came out. Wikipedia indicates he thought of the idea during the final reediting of the novel ...

It wasn't long after I began writing Star Wars that I realized the story was more than a single film could hold. As the saga of the Skywalkers and Jedi Knights unfolded, I began to see it as a tale that could take at least nine films to tell—three trilogies—and I realized, in making my way through the back story and after story, that I was really setting out to write the middle story.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik, I think this link will help your case better.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Opening_crawl

I was only referring to the marketing. I recalled the lack in the opening crawl, but was having difficulty finding it, so I just proved Tzor to be wrong about the marketing, because that took less time.