D&D is not an iPhone

[leozelig]

I think some of us enjoyed that wizards were overpowered by fighters at lower levels and that the reverse was true as the levels began to increase. Having played both, I can say I enjoyed the power when it was there and enjoyed the challenge when it wasn't. I liked that things felt substantially different and not just the same abilities with different names and stats behind them.

I didn't hate 4E, but for me it was just okay. It ended up getting about as bloated as all the past versions. That is a cycle I expect to repeat itself with each addition and I'm generally okay with it. A new edition will come out and it won't feel bloated at all. Then, more and more supplements will get added and it will start to feel less "simplified." At first, players will love this. Some players will start to regret their character builds as new ones come out. Some will happily add more and more options to their old characters. Newer players will start to be overwhelmed with all the choices and the "complexity" that they now see in front of them.

I really wished they focused more on the adventure modules and adventure paths. That is one of the reasons I think Paizo is doing so well with Pathfinder. You can spin off as many of those as you want and they don't ramp up the complexity nearly as fast as the endless character supplements do.

Oh man, I couldn't agree with you more. When the iconic fighter class became three classes, different but the same, it was over for me. Hopefully, they don't do that again with the new edition.

[Niven81]

You've hit the nail on the head. If they had left the older versions in print, they could have spun off the adventures and supplements in multiple formats keeping their fan-base happy while raking in the cash. WotC should have hired you for their R&D team.

Since no one else seems to have saw fit to quote you I must. This is what I have been saying for years. TSR and later WOTC could have been making bank by keeping all previous editions viable and then producing new material for every edition on a yearly basis.

[sehmerus]

guess what, Wotc has decided to release thier entire library of all edition (even basic) on pdf. they plan to do it in WAVES, and the first wave was Finally done last week, you can now log into Drivethrurpg.com and purchase a ton of top quality pdf of many of BASIC, 1e, 2e, 3e, & 4e Material. and more is planned to be released on a monthly or semi-monthly basis. this is great news for me cuz i use my tablet alot. now i can use it for old school gaming.

[Trenloe]

guess what, Wotc has decided to release thier entire library of all edition (even basic) on pdf. they plan to do it in WAVES, and the first wave was Finally done last week, you can now log into Drivethrurpg.com and purchase a ton of top quality pdf of many of BASIC, 1e, 2e, 3e, & 4e Material. and more is planned to be released on a monthly or semi-monthly basis. this is great news for me cuz i use my tablet alot. now i can use it for old school gaming.

More info and link here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...ad.php?t=18089

[Bleak Midwinter]

Oh man, I couldn't agree with you more. When the iconic fighter class became three classes, different but the same, it was over for me. Hopefully, they don't do that again with the new edition.

It's a tricky one. Although any given fighter could cover more of the fighter bases in 3.5, the bases were much smaller. I would say that 4E is the first edition in which the fighter is a class with a lot of options. You could play an effective fighter in previous editions but I never saw a fighter with more than a couple of tricks that they relied on heavily. Moving to 4E, with the emphasis on tactics and positioning, makes me see the front-line fighter as a much richer class even if there are three varieties of said class, with three different emphases.

[Zeus]

With 5E I think the Fighter options will be likely implemented as additional Specialities and Maneuvers as opposed to new standalone classes. e.g. Specialities: Swashbuckler, Two Weapon Fighter, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master etc. etc. I for one will be looking for fewer base classes but greater number of class options.

[S Ferguson]

I think some of us enjoyed that wizards were overpowered by fighters at lower levels and that the reverse was true as the levels began to increase. Having played both, I can say I enjoyed the power when it was there and enjoyed the challenge when it wasn't. I liked that things felt substantially different and not just the same abilities with different names and stats behind them.

I didn't hate 4E, but for me it was just okay. It ended up getting about as bloated as all the past versions. That is a cycle I expect to repeat itself with each addition and I'm generally okay with it. A new edition will come out and it won't feel bloated at all. Then, more and more supplements will get added and it will start to feel less "simplified." At first, players will love this. Some players will start to regret their character builds as new ones come out. Some will happily add more and more options to their old characters. Newer players will start to be overwhelmed with all the choices and the "complexity" that they now see in front of them.

I really wished they focused more on the adventure modules and adventure paths. That is one of the reasons I think Paizo is doing so well with Pathfinder. You can spin off as many of those as you want and they don't ramp up the complexity nearly as fast as the endless character supplements do.

I agree. The tendency to "bloat" each edition has been the thorn in my D&D side for years. I mean how many players handbooks and GM's guides do you need before it just overwhelms you(or your wallet)? And There hasn't really been any module creation since they started the (bleak) process of "World Building." Now you "campaign" in a world detailed to the core.

I fondly remember when you could run an adventure in any setting (well, within reason), something I find you just can't do anymore. Pathfinder did ramp up the adventures, but at a cost to selectivity: now you play in their world or a sanctioned world with the PFS. or your own with paths which are like 6-12 part nightmares to orchestrate. The "bloat" here is in the specifics of the modules. One follows the other (in a chained together fashion).

And I enjoyed the power rush of high level wizardry as well, seeing it was so hard to get your character there.

[Emrak]

I think there's probably a larger issue here. The expectations of society change but individual tastes can linger for some time.

Would 1E be lauded if it were released today? Probably not.
Changing a rule base isn't just a profit booster (but it is), it's not just a "pushing the reset button to mitigate splat book power creep" (but it is), it's also a way to create a fresh, new take on an old IP hopefully tailored to the tastes of contemporary players.

[S Ferguson]

I think there's probably a larger issue here. The expectations of society change but individual tastes can linger for some time.

Would 1E be lauded if it were released today? Probably not.
Changing a rule base isn't just a profit booster (but it is), it's not just a "pushing the reset button to mitigate splat book power creep" (but it is), it's also a way to create a fresh, new take on an old IP hopefully tailored to the tastes of contemporary players.

We aren't contemporary gamers?
The 1e rules are virtually identical to Castles and Crusades and it has a strong following, so there is a demand? I'd say so. Is it because we have a pining for certain rules? Perhaps, but that isn't what drives my market dollar. Production for the sake of production has never sat well with me. And with WoTC rereleasing the lines entire stock in PDFs, it would seem they recognize a gap to fill too.

[JFK]

Part of the issue is the age-old conundrum for business: How do we give the biggest group what they want, and what do they really want, anyway? In earlier versions, a player and his/her character had hard limits that defined things. Racial level/class limits, stricter limits on alignment, very strict limits on magic use (small spells at lower levels, books needed, severe rules for scribing a new spell, etc.), and the bell curve mathematics for hit/miss, fail/success were more fully realized than with a D20+ model. In short, it was much harder to survive, let alone flourish. But, this excluded some potential players, who didn't like the fact only a human could be a Paladin, or that a dwarf could only reach certain levels. In trying to reach a bigger base, and trying to give players what players (think) they want, the rulesets really became walks in the park. And while walks in the park are pretty, they can also be somewhat bland. For D&D, I want my walk in the park to include being chased by some form of monster. A walk in the jurassic park.