PDA

View Full Version : Is Rich going to convert OotS to 5th Edition?



Surfing HalfOrc
2012-01-12, 12:10 AM
Pretty sure the answer is NO, but I just wanted to beat the rush! :smallbiggrin:

Anyways, has anyone seen the beta rules? From what little has been released, it seems like WotC is looking at returning to a more table-top and less MMO oriented game. I'm on the mailing list to hope for a chance to look over the rules, but I'm not as technically inclined to hash the numbers to the fine mist as some of the other folks here.

Howler Dagger
2012-01-12, 12:12 AM
Why are you even asking this before it comes out?

TheSummoner
2012-01-12, 12:14 AM
I think the best way to answer your question is with another question...

Did Rich convert OotS to 4th Edition?

Surfing HalfOrc
2012-01-12, 12:31 AM
Well, the beta rules ARE out, which I mentioned in my original post.

Also, Rich DID convert the OotS for the Invaders from the Fourth Edition Dimension strips in Snips, Snails and Dragon Tales. So it's not that far fetched of a question.

From what little I've read, the rules are meant to be modular in nature, adding in what you want over a basic set of rules. Kind of like GURPS, but more D&D oriented.

pendell
2012-01-12, 12:44 AM
Given the fate of fourth edition, I don't think Mr. Burlew will be in any rush to convert to 5th. Maybe it would be good fodder for a throwaway joke or a standalone extra, as in dragon tales. But what guarantee do any of us have that there won't be an edition 5.5 or 6.0 coming out in a year or two? Forcing him to go through it all again?

The logical course of action is to continue 3.5 rules through the end of the current story. If there's a sequel to the main story , possibly Rich could take up pen again using the rules system that -- at that time -- seems most likely to be constant through the duration of the story.

Although if Rich DOES write a sequel, frankly I hope he goes for a straight fantasy story and throws out the gaming rules altogether. I think he's got the skill to pull it off. It would also kill a lot of the nitpicking.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

t209
2012-01-12, 12:48 AM
I hope the next strip will be Thanh and his resistance survived when the universe was switched to 5 edition like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html)

skaddix
2012-01-12, 02:07 AM
i dont think the prime universe will change but the snarl verse assuming we ever travel there might very well not be operating on 3.5 edition.

Raistlin82
2012-01-12, 05:20 AM
No, but I'm assuming he will make some sort of joke on how "things are getting more videogame-y" and how "the old times were so much better", as per tradition...

Bedinsis
2012-01-12, 07:14 AM
Given the fate of fourth edition, I don't think Mr. Burlew will be in any rush to convert to 5th.

Why, was the 4th edition poorly received?

fergo
2012-01-12, 07:18 AM
i dont think the prime universe will change but the snarl verse assuming we ever travel there might very well not be operating on 3.5 edition.

I don't know... changing the edition would mean just re-doing all the jokes from the bonus material in SSDT, in my opinion.

Flame of Anor
2012-01-12, 07:28 AM
Pretty sure the answer is NO, but I just wanted to beat the rush! :smallbiggrin:

Anyways, has anyone seen the beta rules? From what little has been released, it seems like WotC is looking at returning to a more table-top and less MMO oriented game. I'm on the mailing list to hope for a chance to look over the rules, but I'm not as technically inclined to hash the numbers to the fine mist as some of the other folks here.

FIFTH EDITION ALREADY WHAT. :eek:

*breathe*

...seriously, though, four years after 4th?

The Glyphstone
2012-01-12, 07:32 AM
FIFTH EDITION ALREADY WHAT. :eek:

*breathe*

...seriously, though, four years after 4th?

3.0 was released in 2000, 3.5 in 2003. 4E came out in 2007. So they're roughly on track - if you count 3.5 and 3.0 separately, they're a little late. and only a little early if you don't. Face it, you're just old.:smallbiggrin:

Morty
2012-01-12, 07:35 AM
Are there any actual rules for 5th edition yet? I thought they'd just announced it and asked the players for ideas.

Golt
2012-01-12, 07:40 AM
@Morty
They are actually already doing closed playtesting with journalists. They don't want anything specific revealed yet because many things can change, but yeah. There are articles on Forbes and CNN, among others.

Castamir
2012-01-12, 07:40 AM
Why, was the 4th edition poorly received?
That's pretty much an understatement.

Folks who played 3.5 a lot are biased towards that version so their dislike of 4.0 can be blamed on the usual hate for changes. However, as a non-D&D player I think I can judge it more objectively. And IMHO D&D4 is a failure of epic proportions.

Pretty much, it removes every trace of strategic planning. And throws away the differences between classes, even ones that are supposed to be polar opposites like Wizard vs Warlord. They cast spells just the same except that some of Warlord spells have material focus: weapon. And even not most of them.

It's like Knights vs Ogres in Warcraft 2. Different looks and names but exact same stats -- even to the point of ogres running at a horse's speed. It's not balance but cookie-cutterness.

Looking around, it appears that Pathfinder which is mostly 3.6 seems to be all the rage.

Hasbro seems to be backpedaling from 4.0 changes as fast as they can.

So if OOTS gets converted to something, it'd be Pathfinder or 5.0.

Katana_Geldar
2012-01-12, 07:41 AM
Why, was the 4th edition poorly received?

That's a question for another forum, and a very long and complcated story.

pendell
2012-01-12, 08:23 AM
Why, was the 4th edition poorly received?

I could be totally mis-reading the situation, but my understanding is that Pathfinder ate 4e's lunch, forcing Wizards to come out with 5e in the hopes of recapturing market share.

I expect that, as with Windows Vista , when the company produces a followup product in a very short time, it's because the original new product was a clunker in terms of customer acceptance.

Ace of Spades (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325497.php) calls D&D 4E the modern equivalent of New Coke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke). Make of that what you will.

ETA: I'm not trying to debate whether 4e is better than 3.5e or not. But from a company perspective, the only metric that counts is sales volume, and by that metric, 4e lost to its competitors. If that's not factually true, I'd like to know it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

KillianHawkeye
2012-01-12, 08:38 AM
Pretty much, it removes every trace of strategic planning. And throws away the differences between classes, even ones that are supposed to be polar opposites like Wizard vs Warlord. They cast spells just the same except that some of Warlord spells have material focus: weapon. And even not most of them.

Anyone who actually played 4E could tell you that is patently false. Combat is all about strategy, and while every class has powers that they gain at certain levels, the effects of such powers vary greatly according to a class' role. Wizard powers are nothing like Warlord powers.

Anyway, I don't think there will be any point in converting OOTS to 5E whenever it comes out. There isn't much edition-specific humor anymore. Plus the major heroes and villains abilities are rooted pretty deeply in the 3rd Edition paradigm, so changing editions would make a lot of previous information useless (such as the list of Xykon's spells that O'Chul collected).

Basically, 5th Edition would have to be God's gift to roleplayers for the benefits to outweigh the costs.

Bedinsis
2012-01-12, 10:59 AM
[...]from a company perspective, the only metric that counts is sales volume, and by that metric, 4e lost to its competitors. If that's not factually true, I'd like to know it.

Thank you, the sales was the info I really wondered about.

Thanks to those who described the consumer reaction of D&D 4th edition as well, it was also interesting, but I think we're sliding off topic.

Seerow
2012-01-12, 11:29 AM
That's pretty much an understatement.

Folks who played 3.5 a lot are biased towards that version so their dislike of 4.0 can be blamed on the usual hate for changes. However, as a non-D&D player I think I can judge it more objectively. And IMHO D&D4 is a failure of epic proportions.

Pretty much, it removes every trace of strategic planning. And throws away the differences between classes, even ones that are supposed to be polar opposites like Wizard vs Warlord. They cast spells just the same except that some of Warlord spells have material focus: weapon. And even not most of them.


Lookie there, someone whose never played 4th edition, spouting off hearsay from disgruntled players as if it's fact.


Hint: Pretty much nothing you said about 4e is true. It had problems, but Warlords doing the exact same thing as wizards and lack of tactical gameplay was not among them.

pendell
2012-01-12, 11:47 AM
Found these comments (http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/316069-wizards-coast-seeks-unity-new-edition-7.html#post5769720) by Scott Rouse, Wizards' brand manager for D&D before he left the company.



The publishing goal was (and should be) to have the edition last 8-10 years and we truly believed that would be the case with 4e.

There are a lot of things that happened with 4e that violated the communities trust (failure to have DDi tools at launch, the GSL vs OGL) but after all that has happened with 4e is a shorter edition life-cycle really going to be the thing that turns you away from the opportunity of a better game that 5e offers? 4e is broken as a game and business and it needs to go away. The "they broke their promise" argument sounds vaguely familiar of the "they are killing my 3.x game" that was all over the boards when 4e was announced.

Edit for the sake of clarity that I am talking about the game as it stands now:

My statement about the game being broken is more a commentary on the environment in which 4e currently lives (play & business). The audience is fractured among a few D&D systems, the GSL did not accomplish what it was supposed to do (create broad 3pp support for the system), the designs has evolved over time (class changes, monsters etc), Essentials was/is confusing to new(er) players and veterans. If 4e was healthy we would not be talking about 5e right now.

And for the record, I am not bitter AT ALL. I enjoyed my time at WotC, I am proud of what I accomplished there, I still have a ton of friends that work on D&D and I hope 5e is a smashing success. To add to that, I am a pretty big 4e fanboi. It is my favorite D&D rules system and I wish I had more time to play in a campaign.



Respectfully,

Brian P.

FujinAkari
2012-01-12, 11:55 AM
Lookie there, someone whose never played 4th edition, spouting off hearsay from disgruntled players as if it's fact.


Hint: Pretty much nothing you said about 4e is true. It had problems, but Warlords doing the exact same thing as wizards and lack of tactical gameplay was not among them.

What's extra funny is the "no strategy" complaint actually applies to 3E/3.5, rather than the edition he's actually claiming.

As you said, 4E did have some very serious issues, the controller role fluctuated way too much in applicability, and specializations released in any noncore book were all but forgotten about in any book -except- the one they appeared in. Most annoyingly, the rules were rather closed - if you wanted to do something they didn't support, then it came down to a DM judgement call because the rules didn't adapt well.

However, that said, 4E was a better edition than 3.5. The game was actually balanced well and you didn't have to stop 87 times per session to try and figure out how the heck a rule worked. At level up you were presented with 12 or so valid options, rather than 200, 180 of which were significantly worse than the other 20. And, lets not forget, 4E actually made the healer interesting to play.

So yeah... from what I've seen all the people I've seen who dislike 4E have never actually played it, or maybe played it once but had per-emptively decided to hate it. If taken on its own merits, it is actually a pretty good system... I currently play one game of 4E, one game of Pathfinder, and a black crusade game ;)

OrzhvoPatriarch
2012-01-12, 12:07 PM
To answer the actual question of the thread: No, he will not do so in the main comic. It would take too many strips to do, would confuse readers who read the comic without actually playing Dnd, and would not advance the plot or develop the characters.

Whether the rules are more balanced or combat is more fun or anything like that has nothing to do with the comic. The discussions about the pros and cons of 4.0 vs 3.5, and speculation about 5.0 should not be done in this section. They should be done on the Roleplaying games section.

Flame of Anor
2012-01-12, 03:13 PM
Basically, 5th Edition would have to be God's gift to roleplayers for the benefits to outweigh the costs.

Very true. I'm pretty sure most people are super-wary of all the change and kind of sick of all the changing.


Found these comments (http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/316069-wizards-coast-seeks-unity-new-edition-7.html#post5769720) by Scott Rouse, Wizards' brand manager for D&D before he left the company.

Thanks, very enlightening.


However, that said, 4E was a better edition than 3.5. The game was actually balanced well and you didn't have to stop 87 times per session to try and figure out how the heck a rule worked. At level up you were presented with 12 or so valid options, rather than 200, 180 of which were significantly worse than the other 20. And, lets not forget, 4E actually made the healer interesting to play.

I don't want to start 3.5 vs. 4 Edition Wars again in this thread, and I hope the rest of you feel the same, but I will just point out that in 3.5 cleric is a Tier 1 class. This means he can spare some spells for healing and still really be a fun and powerful character.

Cirin
2012-01-12, 03:23 PM
Although if Rich DOES write a sequel, frankly I hope he goes for a straight fantasy story and throws out the gaming rules altogether.

Ugh. NO.

The D&Disms and game rules are what makes OotS not just another fantasy story, and turn it into something special and exceptional: seeing a serious yet funny fantasy tale done almost completely in the framework of a RPG game system.

Raistlin82
2012-01-12, 04:44 PM
4E was the best edition so far: it removed several ancestral flaws, gave balance, multiplied the options while keeping true to a core concept, etc...

{{scrubbed}}

Blisstake
2012-01-12, 04:54 PM
Whether 4th edition is good or not depends entirely on what your definition of a good tabletop RPG is. If balance is by far the biggest thing you look for, then you would probably enjoy 4e more; if you wanted quick and deadly combat, as well as a more organic class system, 3.5 would be better.

You can't really prove which one is better (and it really looks like some folks are trying that here); it all boils down to preference.

That said, it's impossible to deny that 4th edition didn't have its serious flaws, and when you compound that with some business factors (DDI content frequently delayed or changed, the Essentials line being released, resembling 4.5 to many), it makes sense that it didn't do as successfully.

veti
2012-01-12, 06:07 PM
Whether 4th edition is good or not depends entirely on what your definition of a good tabletop RPG is. If balance is by far the biggest thing you look for, then you would probably enjoy 4e more; if you wanted quick and deadly combat, as well as a more organic class system, 3.5 would be better.

Speaking for myself, I think the most important attribute is 'openness'. The system has to allow for the DM to craft their world to work the way they want, with as many bespoke rules, classes, spells and effects as they want. Speed comes a distant second to that as a requirement, and balance barely ranks above "realism".

What I'd really like to see, though, is a return to a system that encourages "creativity". Instead of endless, endless supplements listing more and more classes, powers and arcane rules, of which maybe 10% may fit with a given campaign's concept, how about a set of core rules plus some guidance on how to expand them yourself? If WotC wants more money after that point, adventure modules are the way to go. I don't, ever, want to see another book lying about where only about one chapter ever gets referenced.

The Giant
2012-01-12, 07:29 PM
Seriously? Are you actually spilling a brand new version of Edition Wars into a thread here on the OOTS forum? You should all know better.

Take any and all discussions of This Edition vs. That Edition to the Roleplaying General board (and keep them civil). Regarding the actual question of this thread, I'll probably make a News post later tonight. (Sneak Preview: "No.")

Thread locked for having jumped the topic tracks and never looking back.

EDIT: Aforementioned news post is up.