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

[tzor]

Judge's Guild was granted a license to produce AD&D and D&D materials, which had to be reviewed for continuity within the game systems.[1]

Is note even remotely like the "open source" gaming explosion. In essence that is what 4E's 3rd party situation is like.

A few other points to consider: Judges Guild founders were working closely with TSR and always sought approval. Remember that at this time there were other similiar people who wound up getting the wrath of TSR. Consider the case of the Arduin series.

David Hargrave was served with a cease and desist order from the offices of TSR when it was found that the original publications of the Arduin books contained direct references to the Dungeons & Dragons gaming system. Hargrave's method of handling the controversy was to simply use white-out and typing correction tape to mask the disputed references, and then the volumes were reprinted exactly that way. In some versions of the Arduin printings, these so-called "corrections" are clearly visible.

I don't think there is an article about it on wikipedia, but I know that Chaosium was sued for using AD&D attributes (never mind the rules) for their publication of "All the World's Monsters" during this same timeframe. IT was at this point that they were seriously considering trademarking terms like "STR" "INT" "WIS" "HP" and "AC" basically keeping anyone from making anything even remotely linkable with D&D unless they went the way of Judges Guild and that was going to be highly unlikely as they weren't going to do that.

[Swordslinger]

2: The itunes model shows that if you set the cost correctly and don't make to many barriers to entry or use you can sell stuff to even people who would normally pirate stuff.

The sad thing is they had that with the old character builder, where you could pay for one month and get every book that had been published up to that point in the CB.

It creates increasing incentives to buy the CB for people who didn't before. Now they've gone to this crazy new system where you have to have a DDI account to use it at all. Someone really needs to tell them that they're not WoW.

[Orion]

Even WoW isn't Wow, since they just went Freemium.

[A Man In Black]

Even WoW isn't Wow, since they just went Freemium.

No, they didn't.

[shadzar]

3e basically dominated the RPG industry simply because it was so much better than all the alternatives.

of those alternatives, AD&D was no longer offered to compete with 3e to find out which was liked better, it was forced out, same as 3rd was forced out and discontinued right when 4th came out. So you really have only the non-D&D games to compare it with in terms of sales as all forms of other D&D were no longer available on the market.

Several people in the 3e-era tried to make 2e-clones or even D20 variants with 2e flavor.

They failed.

When 4e came out, a 3e-clone became a competitor. See the difference?

Hackmaster....sicne they pretty much had the rights to AD&D due to that "secret" lawsuit settlement...

continued in response to the next part below...

Except 3.5 continues to be more popular than 4e, especially if you count PF. 4e did not force 3.5 out, because it was generally inferior. 3e did force AD&D out of the market, because it was generally superior. Even then, no one was forced to stop playing AD&D, they chose to. A TTRPG need not be supported in order to compete for players.

Agian this is only thanks to the OGL and SRD. AD&D had nothing that would allow user-created content, and WotC pulled 2nd when they released 3rd. only what products were in stores and warehouses already that left the publisher were avilable and Kay-Bee Toys was in a hurry to get rid of LOTS of merchandise, some nearly a decade old that had never been placed on the shelves.

3rd had no competition form its predecessor, but as you say 3.5 competes with 4th because of that OGL that will keep 3.5 in its near entirtiy forever.

If a 5th edition comes out, WotC will not produce 3rd still, and will probably discontinue 4th, so 5th will only have those OGL variants of 3rd and 3.5 to keep going.

the clones that cant contain the core of D&D cant really be counted amongst a competitor even though HackMaster from K&C was pretty darn close and the only ones legally able to use some of the D&D specific components.

you really cant compare newer editions, as i have said before, in regards to popularity, because that really becomes a matter of availability.

Stores cant carry loads of discontinued product that would even compare to current product.

the logic is the same as "which is heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks."

since AD&D didnt exist in any facility to compete, then you cant claim its dominance. You can only claim it held the highest use/sales for what was available, not the entire RPG industry, because the industry isnt what is just now, but what exist now as well.

that is just a marketing trap throw at executives.

did it dominate the market? yes, because it didnt have its predecessor to compete against. did it dominate the RPG industry? No, or everyone would have switched from AD&D (either edition) to 3rd, which they did not.

There was still stock of AD&D at the time, and it did sell out, so what are the figures there during the time it existed and before the only thing left in the first-owner market was 3rd?

"5th" will have to compete with the OGL which is 3rd/3.5 as anyone can still make those editions in some form, but 4th wont be around to compete when a 5th should come out.

While it pains me to say this,

Shaddzar has a point.

He is not making it effectively, and he doesn't know what is at the heart of his point but he does have one.

Basically, the edition wars WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the Open SRD. Pathfinder would not exist, and even the games worst grognards would have eventually shelled out cash and bought a small or reasonable number of 4E books.

The edition wars DO seem to be a big problem in discussion, but that wasnt what i was going for, but seems to be a stitch in peoples sides when even comparing editions.

under AD&D both existed int he same consumer-space, so there wasnt really a war, because people could play the older and not bother with the newer game players. while they probably did fight over what was better, it wasnt spurred on by the company as the company was still selling both.

WotC seemed to not want to compete with itself or predecessor, and pretty much CREATED the edition wars, by not really having a transition period. The edition wars started as a fight against WotC to try to exclaim and explain a precedent that was being set with D&D. All before had options of which D&D to buy on the market, and for the first time a D&D player was being told, we dont want you anymore as a customer unless you buy the newest edition; when they ended support for the older AS the newer came out.

The warning was given to people adopting and starting with 3rd that "this might happen to you too", and for many it did, and they moved form D&D to Pathfinder when 4th came out and canceled 3.x.

The players attacking 2nd and jumping on board with WotC furthered the edition wars and turned the frustration that was aimed at WotC into anger/hate/whatever stronger feeling of the players of the older edition that were just trying to mostly communicate with the company, but NOW had to fight the battle with fellow gamers.

Some of older editions preferred HAVE bought newer edition material to check it out, but didnt buy-in to the edition.

We will never know what the market would have done had WotC kept producing 2nd while introducing 3rd. It could have got many more people back into the game with 3rd, and new players alike, but we dont know IF those brand new players would not have tried/bought/liked 2nd and continued buying it. It really is speculation and all we can do about which would have been the better seller in the market. Any claims of "dominance" or anything based on what was available to sell or buy are really silly since it is all subjective speculation as no objective facts can be used to support such claims.

i think the OGL and SRD actually prevents edition wars in a sense, because it gives clear choices. Pathfinder isnt 3.x or 3.75...it is Pathfinder, the same as Boot Hill wasnt AD&D even though only few stats needed to be changed between them to make characters work between them.

I see Pathfinder v. 4th silly as an edition war, because well they arent editions of the same game...

[hogarth]

According to this blog, WotC announced they might be republishing old editions! Has anyone heard anything more on this suggestion?

EDIT: Here's a slightly more comprehensible version of the talk.

[Josh_Kablack]

Where are the Legends and Lore articles heading? A: Mearls: I’m just a manager, I don’t actually design stuff anymore

Related

[CapnTthePirateG]

"no rituals in mordenkainen. they think people are not using rituals much and are thinking about new ways to price them."

Ya think?

EDIT: But they're still trying to put in that idiot item rarity system. Remember how no one played seeker? I'm seeing something else no one uses...

[wotmaniac]

well, at least this appears to be promising:

Mearls worries that fourth ed lectured people about how they should play. He wants to have a dialogue, not dictate. wants to regain trust.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Yeah, at this point it strikes me that they finally realize how deep they've dug themselves in with their handling of 4e.

[shadzar]

According to this blog, WotC announced they might be republishing old editions! Has anyone heard anything more on this suggestion?

"Miniatures line redesigned. Turns out that roleplaying gamers don't like randomized miniatures."

YA THINK?!

EDIT: Here's a slightly more comprehensible version of the talk.

I dont think they have the guts to release, or even the rights, the old editions. Some of those rights were lost probable due to the Dragon Magazine Archive produced by WotC.

Like Magic the Gathering and the art on the cards had to be changed due to artists rights and "first-use" type of clauses, so were the piece of art and such in the DMA, which K&C pretty much got the use of AD&D and WotC didnt want to compete, since they failed to properly acquire rights and had at that time violated copyright laws for the third time....or at least they settled so it would come to looking like they were wrong...blahblahblah...

K&C acquired the rights to produce HackMaster after the Dragon Magazine Archive software was published where Wizards of the Coast failed to get permission to reprint many of the original articles such as the Knights of the Dinner Table comic in the electronic media archive. A lawsuit was settled out of court, and K&C started producing HackMaster afterwards. In part of that ability to use AD&D rules, K&C is required to maintain a higher level of humor than in the Knights of the Dinner Table comic for products that are revised from previous AD&D material.[1] Completely original works for Hackmaster are not subject to this restriction imposed by Wizards of the Coast.

I doubt they actually hve the balls to admit that older editions made prior to WotC are wanted, and like the thing said somewhere.. do the fans even trust WotC with the game anymore, and likewise would older edition fans trust them to make new content, when they have bashed the odler editions fans formt he first WotC created edition onward.

With Bill Slavesik finally detached from ALL things D&D, the prospects might be looking up for WotC and HASBRO, since the LW era is almost at an end from T$R, and MAYBE, just MAYBE fans will allow WotC to release older editions, but will likely keep WotC AND HASBRO on a short leash and walking the tightrope, where one slip means they fail.

2nd Edition didn’t speak to how Mearls played D&D – he liked dungeon crawls. He liked 3rd Edition. He worries that they lectured people with 4th Edition and said, “Here’s how it is now and you’re going to like it.” D&D has to serve the “creators” (us), and if they’re missing on it we won’t just passively consume it. We expect more because we’re creators – we’re much more intellectually engaged with our game than most people are with their games. They can’t dictate to us – they need a dialogue. They need to get back to that trust. If players hate what WotC publishes we’ll stop buying it. Gygax: “Make sure the DMs don’t figure out that they don’t need us.” Yep. With Legends and Lore, they’re trying to get that trust back. Let us know they’re listening.

The bolded part is where MANY of the edition wars started and were fanned on by Bill Slavisek, and Mearls L&L articles seem to take account he is listening...though he may still be heading down a wrong road trying to advance and evolve D&D, rather than just trying to stabilize it.

The problem with MANY of Mearls articles, as I told him and the tone didnt change, is that they read like a re-education system for the players, rather than the company listening to the players. It still looks as though they are coming form the aspect of "the game is made for us to play, us being the ones that designed it". Yeah every person will make the game what they want, but the problem for a company is you have to make what the consumer wants, or you fail as a business.

Now Wotc has created 2 D&Ds that are unrelated, to many, to the TSR D&Ds, so can looking back to step forward do any good, or should they jsut consider the resources used to get to this deadend as expended and a waste, but take that they learned the wrong direction in the process, and go back and start down a new path from where they diverged from what many people wanted?

Will they eave anyone behind at this dead-end to continue leading those who wish to see what might be on the other side of the wall (4th), or as always, just forsake it?

Mearls didnt like 2nd, because he liked dungeon crawls; is also a pretty stupid statement, since 2nd edition didnt prevent dungeon crawls, it just aired out the dungeons a bit form those foul smelling things that kept you trapped there and let some players get some fresh air. Likewise 1st had WSG in addition to the DSG, so there is no excuse to say it should have ben liked as AD&D itself allowed the group to decide what to play, so his problems with 2nd are NOT the edition, but how HE, himself and his group played it. A case probably of him joining the wrong group as they didnt want the same things he wanted. But AD&D allowed for both the hack-n-slasher in his dungeon crawls, and the explorer to travel through towns, and the merchant to barter and trade, all within both editions.

4th went full-on as a dungeon crawl with Warhammer miniature game-like scenarios that loosely connect in so far as it was written, and 3rd edition was too much magic-mart also forcing the dungeon crawl on players.

I say this as that is what MOST did, as the editions had a clear theme, rather than being open enough for things like GNS to propagate equally throughout the edition and the players.

Will the old edition players have to buy all new material to go with the 30 year old books they have, or will they be able to pick up their own books, while new players can purchase a new copy, or even older players can purchase a copy that might not be falling apart, and play together without much confusion such as the ability 2nd edition had with the revised books, where some errata was all that you needed to buy to use the old books, and remember that they have a slight different organization.

3rd edition BAB and higher numbers REF/WILL/FORT saves, with the skills feats and PrCs removed is not 2nd edition.

Can people accept THAC0, will be a BIG hurdle in releasing AD&D again. Likewise people getting confused over the simple PPD/RSW/PP/Breathe/Spells saves using the first save that applies starting at the left...would have to be overcome.

A LOT of ill-will from players bred in the 3rd/4th edition era has been cast BY WotC on and to older editions, so WotC will have to remove that ill-will in order to actually publish the older editions intact, or "evolve" them closer to 3rd and still keep those older editions players wanting what the older edition offered, without playing 3rd or making 3rd all over again...

[Swordslinger]

EDIT: But they're still trying to put in that idiot item rarity system. Remember how no one played seeker? I'm seeing something else no one uses...

The rarity system is fine, mostly the only issue is that they didn't have enough items to actually make the rarity system work, since they waited forever to actually make a magic item book for essentials and made all items except for a handful into uncommons, including alchemical items.

[fectin]

two other things from that talk:
"BOVD will not be as hardcore as third edition version."
So, what, it's going to be the "book of knuckle-rapping naughtiness"?

More encouragingly:
"There will be a public open playtest of the minis rules, well in advance, where you can print out cards and try out the game. You don't have to be a ddi subscriber to do the free playtest. From now on if we try something new we want to start trying open playtests."
...though there's still no reason to think they'll actually take any feedback from it.

[CapnTthePirateG]

EDIT: But they're still trying to put in that idiot item rarity system. Remember how no one played seeker? I'm seeing something else no one uses...

The rarity system is fine, mostly the only issue is that they didn't have enough items to actually make the rarity system work, since they waited forever to actually make a magic item book for essentials and made all items except for a handful into uncommons, including alchemical items.

How is it fine? From what I've heard, it basically tells item crafters to fuck off and is a lazy excuse for not making good items.

[Psychic Robot]

fuck magic item rarity. here's how the rules should work

1. the rng does not depend on magic items
2. magic items are rare and wondrous and will completely overpower characters because a sword that is magical should be able to fuck shit up

[MGuy]

fuck magic item rarity. here's how the rules should work

1. the rng does not depend on magic items
2. magic items are rare and wondrous and will completely overpower characters because a sword that is magical should be able to fuck shit up

Almost completely agree with this. I think Items should be rare and wondrous but not be the end all be all to a character once obtained.

[DSMatticus]

Having all magic items 'fuck shit up' means nobody has magic items except as a plot device, which is meh-fuck-that. But the idea of magic items increasing power/RNG-dependence is a bad one, and has to go. If you need the numbers to be a level appropriate challenge, then make the numbers a part of levelling up and walk the fuck away already.

They should probably just add options, like a parallel power-graft. You have your shtick, then you pick up a magic item, and you have a new shtick that is level-appropriate. So a swordsman who picks up the one and only Sw4rd 0f Ub3r F1r3!!!!!!!! can still just hit people in the face, and he can probably toggle it into fire damage for resistance purposes if he feels like it, or he could just wave it and create a level-appropriate wall of fire. Then cap yourself at like X magic-items, based on how many powers you want each magic item to have, and how many extra powers you want people to have, and then standardize magic items so they never become obsolete (unlock new powers levelling up, lower-level powers scale up). Finding the Sword of Uber Fire becomes a character-defining event with meaningful changes but your character will still never depend on it because he has his own 'sword things' ability to fall back on and it's not helping him do that, at all.

[Josh_Kablack]

The 3.x wealth-by-level paradigm had more than its fair share of problems, but it was leaps and bounds above the 2e paradigm of "magic weapons are rare and speshul and you may only see 2 in an entire campaign -- by the way you're fighting lycanthropes/demons/hosebeasts that are only harmed by +2 or better weapons again this session"

The 4th ed system was not an improvement upon the 3rd ed one and the Essentials "system" seems largely about combining the failures of the 2e and 3e systems into mega-fail where you both can't get items your character needs to be relevant and yet the right build can still stacks up piles of small bonuses.

[shadzar]

The 3.x wealth-by-level paradigm had more than its fair share of problems, but it was leaps and bounds above the 2e paradigm of "magic weapons are rare and speshul and you may only see 2 in an entire campaign -- by the way you're fighting lycanthropes/demons/hosebeatsts that are only harmed by +2 or better weapons again this session"

The 4th ed system was not an improvement upon the 3rd ed one and the Essentials "system" seems largely about combining the failures of the 2e and 3e systems into mega-fail where you both can't get items your character needs to be relevant and yet the right build can still stacks up piles of small bonuses.

you really dont understand 2nd edition at all if any of that is what you think. if you had that happen to you, then it is NOT a fault of the system, but, and as with most gripes about 2nd boil down to, your DM was just a bad one.

magic items are "rare and special" because it avoided the magic mart, and also everyone having one, making them meaningless. if everyone has one, then why have them at all?

+1 swords/weapons littered places but those other magic items were the more distinct things to hold back and not just give away.

one thing a system needs is reason. for those not wanting that reason to have fewer magic items, then you can add as many as you want and you shouldnt be able to break the system, but for those wanting less magic items for a reason, the system saying they should liter the highway then it becomes hard to remove them and make a good game out of it, because the magic items are so entrenched in the mechanics, you cannot readily remove them.

2nd had reason behind magic being rare, amongst them were the foundations the game world was in, but you could remove those limitations and add what you or the DM wanted. YOUR DM that didnt know what they were doing is not the fault of the edition.. not everyone is cut out to be a DM.

what kind of magic item mechanic or requirements, would YOU want a system to have then?

@DSMatticus: Magic items "fuck shit up" because they are magic and magic can do things beyond that of a mere mortal. as stated you need silver or +1 weapon to even hit and damage a lycanthrope, so the magic item goes beyond the capabilities of a mortal to do its job.

the plot device magic items are more like the One Ring...and those shouldnt be given away in Ye Olde Magick Shoppe for cheap.

[DSMatticus]

shadzar, I think you missed what I was saying. I was responding to PR's 2nd point, where he supposed all magic items should be awesome and overpowering. If that's the case, you can't really hand out magic items for players to use, because it breaks the party balance immediately.

But to you...

as stated you need silver or +1 weapon to even hit and damage a lycanthrope, so the magic item goes beyond the capabilities of a mortal to do its job.

This is not a good idea. A lycanthrope is a CR X challenge. Every character who is level X is expected to be able to go toe to toe with a lycanthrope. By giving a lycanthrope a huge BS DR overcome by something a level X character has a good chance of not having, you are creating situations where DM's are going to say, "sorry, you're sitting this one out. Have a sandwich, we'll let you know how it goes when you get back."

Characters should not depend on magic items to beat challenges characters of their level are expected to beat. If a character needs a certain ability (overcomes DR of some type) to overcome an appropriately-levelled challenge, then that ability should just be a class feature they got when they hit that level.

[shadzar]

as stated you need silver or +1 weapon to even hit and damage a lycanthrope, so the magic item goes beyond the capabilities of a mortal to do its job.

This is not a good idea. A lycanthrope is a CR X challenge.

Got to stop you here, cause you are mixing 2nd edition, which Josh was explicitly mentioned with the +2 weapons needing to hit such monsters, and 3rd edition that had a CR system, whereas 2nd did not....

The two just dont go together...

I was using the example of how magic weapon have a special use outside of, where i missed you were replying to PR; the "fuck shit up", which you said nobody would have them unless they are plot devices...

got mixed signals, since i didnt know you were addressing PR and thought you were replying to MGuy

[Swordslinger]

How is it fine? From what I've heard, it basically tells item crafters to fuck off and is a lazy excuse for not making good items.

I actually like that. I want there to be stuff you can find that's special, but at the same time, I realize that the system is based around you needing magic items to survive (and also people want some ability to spend gold on items).

The essentials item rarity system was a fair compromise. It wouldn't totally make the "magic is supposed to be special and unique" people happy, but it also didn't totally go the 3E & classic 4E route where everything is just gold and you get all your shit from magemart, because that's lame.

It's a fact that in 3E/4E, you needed magic items to survive, so being able to buy them to some degree is good, but at the same point buying everything really left you wondering why you bothered adventuring at all.

[Dog Quixote]

How is it fine? From what I've heard, it basically tells item crafters to fuck off and is a lazy excuse for not making good items.

I actually like that. I want there to be stuff you can find that's special, but at the same time, I realize that the system is based around you needing magic items to survive (and also people want some ability to spend gold on items).

The essentials item rarity system was a fair compromise. It wouldn't totally make the "magic is supposed to be special and unique" people happy, but it also didn't totally go the 3E & classic 4E route where everything is just gold and you get all your shit from magemart, because that's lame.

It's a fact that in 3E/4E, you needed magic items to survive, so being able to buy them to some degree is good, but at the same point buying everything really left you wondering why you bothered adventuring at all.

It might be ok if there was a clear and consistent logic to the power levels of the items that are rare, uncommon, common etc. But as always the rules are let down by poor implementation and the designers apparent ignorance about real power levels.

They seriously would have been better asking the Charop board to evaluate the items and classifying them that way.

[Lago PARANOIA]

What do I think is the absolute best way to handle magical items?

1) They shouldn't be necessary for you to function AND give you an option of not having them. I'm okay with the RNG assuming that you have a certain kind of sword, but it needs to happen with minimum fuss.

2) Limit of purchasability. I'm okay with +1 swords and even +2 swords being in special black market shops. In these cases they should be priced like collector's items in the real world--a +2 sword might be available for 1000 gp or 100,000 gp. Not +4 swords, unless it's as a specific plot device.

3) Past those two, many magical items should mildly break the RNG in favor of the player. Now while there should definitely be some new horizontal schtick-granting magical items there really should be +4 swords available when the game assumes that you only have a +1; moreover the difficulty should not retroactively increase.

4) Magical items past the required ones should be totally random. I mean totally random; not even as an adjustment for level. As Frank put it, you should be able to find a Ring of Orcus (I wouldn't go that far, however, but you get the idea) in your 2nd treasure pile at first level. Having wish lists and purchasing charts really does suck the fun out of them. Now while I can get behind a magical item crafting system where with a Green Crystal and a Mithral Hilt you have your choice between making a lightsaber, a magic carpet, or a Ring of Protection and a Cloak of the Mountebank the component drops still need to be random.

5) Magical items should be temporary. This is to mitigate the effects of 3 and 4. While it's fun for Dave to get a Hackmaster +12 as a 3rd level character and dominate a couple of combats, it's not fun for him to dominate the next 10 combats. Dave should make peace with the fact that he shouldn't expect to have his Hackmaster for more than 4 or 5 sessions. If you want to make it so that people still have named magical items you can have a player's possessions 'downgrade' to a lesser (horizontal advancement) but more permanent magical item. I'm strongly against the idea of a character having more than two permanent magical items however; very few series in source material actually do this unless the item has an overall small effect on the plot or it's supposed to be literally character defining like for Green Lantern or Lion-O.

[DSMatticus]

should be +4 swords available when the game assumes that you only have a +1; moreover the difficulty should not retroactively increase.

That doesn't solve the issue. The game is adaptive because it has a DM and is meant to be challenging. If you have a magic item with the attached quality "pwn goblins," then you're going to stop playing games about pwning goblins because it's not a story, it's just you saying, "Goblins? I will go pwn them. This happens, and we do something else with the remaining session."

This is an extreme example, but the same thing happens with small bonuses, they're just not pronounced. If a magic item raises your power level, everyone else has to have something to raise their power level or you're making them feel small in the pants. And if everyone is getting the same amount of power level raising, just make it a class feature so we have the absolute certainty that it happens and everything is symmetric and balanced, instead of making it a part of the loot/treasure system, which depends on either a smart DM or random chance.