I had this weird vibe earlier today that the reason they pulled all the PDFs was towards this end. This would all be one massive conversion document with a core set of rules, and the old editions would be 'updated' to fit within the 'grand unifying document' and re-released.

Lotsa work if this were true. But then, lotsa work in any case.

Re-printing as a version 5 would be ideal, as that'd still keep the 4e lovers sweet.

WotC is in a tough spot.

The last two major rulesets released (3 and 4) are not compatible with each-other nor with older versions.  Yet players like both, and yet there are also players that like the 2E or older games.

What their fractured potential customers want in a game is in many cases diametrically opposed.  Existing potential customers include the OSR group, which for the most part has little interest in anything WotC does, they are well supported by other sources (lots of OSR stuff being produced) and have their games of choice (be it a clone, C&C, S&W, or any of the older actual rule sets).

The other potential customers are Pathfinder fans, but many of them are also disinterested in WotC, almost all of them are passionate about Paizo, and they also have a well supported game.  And guess what?  The typical Paizo product has better production values than the typical WotC product to begin with.

To draw new customers, they need a better entry point than they currently have.  There are threads on RPG.net asking what is needed to play 4E, and people get irate that anyone could be so stupid to ask such a question, but then there will be dozens of different answers to what should be an easy question.  Their approach to 5E will need to be simpler and streamlined in comparison to attract new people.  By the way, Paizo's Beginner Box?  With all due respect to Frank, it might the best Beginner RPG product ever, so they're competing with that.

It seems to me all they are doing is further fracturing their current customers with little hope of drawing new ones or uniting the D&D gamers.

Grug Greyskin wrote:WotC is in a tough spot.

The last two major rulesets released (3 and 4) are not compatible with each-other nor with older versions.  Yet players like both, and yet there are also players that like the 2E or older games.

Can a simple rules set be implemented that's immediately compatible with 1E and 2E?
Maybe along with manual that describes conversion from 5E to 4E, or 5E to 3E?

Grug Greyskin wrote:The other potential customers are Pathfinder fans, but many of them are also disinterested in WotC, almost all of them are passionate about Paizo, and they also have a well supported game.  And guess what?  The typical Paizo product has better production values than the typical WotC product to begin with.

A potential pitfall for Paizo -- to paraphrase the intro to Eldritch Wizardry -- is proliferation of rules sets.
Do they really need an advanced players' guide or a hardbound book on ultimate magic?
Don't get me wrong.
I think Pathfinder is freakin' awesome.
But I hate to see them price themselves out of profits.

Grug Greyskin wrote:By the way, Paizo's Beginner Box?  With all due respect to Frank, it might the best Beginner RPG product ever, so they're competing with that.

I agree.
And this would be my suggestion to WoTC.
Generate a high quality box set and then crank out modules.

Even though I have the luxury of being an old dude (relative to most gamers) and am able to afford hardback books, I really don't want to.
For instance, I have a copy of Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk that I use as a lap desk for my MacBook.
How sad is that?

Invincible Overlord wrote:
It's a business, and if they don't sell books, they are not making money.

No, you don't need an Ultimate Magic book, or an Advanced Players Guide... but they are really cool...  :D

Oh, yeah. I agree on both points.

I was just wondering how well advanced players guides sell as opposed to adventure path books or their standalone modules.

If the latter generate more sales, it seems like you'd want to continue down that path, pun intended.

Maybe both types are selling well.
I hope so!

Modules are not generally money-makers as most gamers still like to play their own stuff. Besides, why bother with modules when, for a 5 person game (let's say), only one person needs to buy it... but, if you make the Ultimate Guide to Guiding Ultimate Characters, all 5 of them will want/need it and that is why supplements and accessories, rather than modules, are the biggest point of interest.

This actually means WotC should make the game simpler. A basic system allows infinite rules variation. Look at Basic Role Play for example, or RoleMaster, where the same core can be expanded with very little effort and include play in virtually all genres.

That said, it would not be hard to make a game that bridges all the current editions but then you run into "its not any of them; I don't like it." Or you get "it has too much like X, and not enough Y; I don't like it."

I think they should just re-release Primal Order and be done with it. Update, of course, to reflect the now-current major games.

All three of the posts above make sense to me.
I had not considered, for example, the need for only one module, as opposed to five Ultimate Guides to Ultimatums.

And I think I've learned something, despite my best efforts not to :)

I figure these are the ways they can go with this (5E):

1) Computer game on paper
Something that feels like WoW, Diablo, etc
2) Something new
That isn't editions 0-4 or computer-y
3) Reclaim 3E
Admit it was a mistake to abandon a pretty popular ruleset
4) Retro
Identical or very similar/compatible with one or more editions 2E or earlier
5) Ultimate
An attempt to meld 'the best elements of every edition that came before'
4.5) Compromise
A simple (0-2) core, with optional rules that add in 2.5, 3/3.5, 4 elements


(1) is a terrible idea.  Everything computer games can do, they can do better than paper games.  Combat resolves faster, you don't have to know the rules all that well, you can ‘connect' people without the difficulty of coordinating face to face time.  If you try and compete there, you might as well just quit.  Everything will feel like a computer game…except slower and cumbersome.  What paper offers is infinite possibilities.  You're not just limited to attacking or a dialogue tree -- you can literally (try to) do anything you can possibly think of.  And you can take the campaign in directions you want, that relate to characters' backgrounds and choices, not just what's been programmed.
(2) Is there anything out there still begging to be tried?  Regardless, if your plan is to keep producing brand new rulesets every 5 years, you're dooming your fanbase to perpetual fractioning, where each new iteration is steadily less and less popular as more and more people choose to stay behind (or get introduced to the game by a group that stayed back).  Eventually, you reach the point where there's almost no one left to care about a new edition.  And companies will pop up to create clones that try to steal away angry players whose editions got abandoned, like with Pathfinder.
(3) Probably too late.  People who jumped ship to head for Pathfinder are probably mostly too bitter to welcome back WotC 3E.  Fighting for ½ a market doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
(4) This has simplicity and attractability going for it.  Not sure how they'd deal with the problem of free retroclones, though.

It feels to me like 4-5, particularly the latter 2, are the only likely and sensible options

As an aside, the writer of this newspaper article is also the author of the book Gaming Geeks and  Fantasy Freaks (might be the other way round), which is worth a read, even if it suffers from what I feel is an incredibly ill-conceived title.
Gives his take on gaming/geek culture (LARPing, Warcraft etc) and whilst a bit patchy is generally a positive take on "Geeks and Freaks" (If you will!) As a bonus, IIRC a few guys from here get a mention as well.

May not be a "must have" gamers book, but worth a look - and if anyone just wants a read I'll be happy to lend out mine, just PM your address (though you must promise not to pdf it and release it onto the interweb )

Carl