Link:
www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discus...
Thanks to Curt at Games Plus in Prospect, IL.
The Content for those tose lazy to click:
Show
Here we go with the Wizards of the Coast 2011 Fall Catalog.
Madness at Gardmore Abbey a Dungeons & Dragons Adventure boxed set by James Wyatt, Steve Townshend, Creighton Broadhurst
This deluxe adventure takes heroes into the ruins of Gardmore Abbey, once the base of a militant order of paladins devoted to Bahamut. According to legend, the paladins hid a dark artifact in the abbey for safekeeping, and evil forces gathered to assault the abbey and take it back. What the legends don't tell is that this artifact is the deck of Many Things..
This adventure brings characters into the extensive dungeons beneath the ruins - dungeons that are warped and twisted with the raw froces of Chaos surrounding the cards of the deck, forces that dramatically alter the place with each successive visit.
Components:
Sept 20, 2011 $39.99
Player's Option: Heroes of the Feywild a D&D Supplement by Rodney Thompson and Steve Townshend
Player's Option: Heroes of the Feywild enables players to weave elements of the Feywild into their existing and future characters, in much the same way that Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow gave players reasons to explore their characters' dark connections to the Shadowfell.
This book contains exciting new character builds and options that are thematically rooted to the Feywild, a wild and verdent plane of arcane splendor, full of dangerous and whimsical creatures. Characters who trace their origins or backgrounds to the Feywild gain access to unique feats, powers, and mechanics. The book explores what makes fey-themed characters so fun and distinct.
(note: usable for Encounters from Nov 15, 2011 through Feb 8, 2012)
160 page hardcover
November 15, 2011 $29.95
Shadowghast Manor - Dungeon Tiles a D&D Accessory by Peter Lee and Jason A Engle
This roleplaying game accessory gives Dungeon Masters an easy and inexpensive way to include great-looking terrain in their games. This set provides ready-to-use, configurable tiles with which to build exciting encounter locations. This particular set emphasizes haunted houses and crypts as an extension to the Dungeon Tiles Master Sets.
6 double-sided sheets
December 20, 2011 $11.95
Book of Vile Darkness a D&D Supplement by Robert J. Schwalb
The Book of Vile Darkness has existed since the dawn of the Dungeons & Dragons game, but only the most indomitable minds dare to look upon the malevolent thoughts and forbidden secrets bound therein!
In addition to showcasing characters and locations featured in the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness SyFy Original Movie, this roleplaying game product game product is intended for Dungeon Masters looking to broaden their campaigns to include dark subject matter and truly evil threats. It features a detailed look at the nature of evil and the complex challenge of confronting the many dilemmas found within the deepest shadows.
It includes:
December 20, 2011 $29.95
Axis & Allies Angels Twenty Aircraft Miniatures Base Set
Axis & Allies Aircraft Miniatures are here! Dogfight your opponent in this all new air combat game. The Axis & Allies Angels Twenty Base Set will contain 30 authentically detailed aircraft miniatures that war gamers and WWII enthusiasts can use to recreate furious air battles of WWII. Pre-painted and assembled, these 1:100 scale aircraft are made of durable plastic and can also be used in the Axis & Allies Miniatures land game.
October 18, 2011
Axis & Allies Angels Twenty Base Set Starter $39.99
Axis & Allies Angels Twenty Base Set Booster $16.99
(note: Sorry, catalog does not say how many figs/package)
The Legend of Drizzt Board Game by Peter Lee
The adventures of Drizzt Do'Urden, as told in the New York Times best-selling Forgotten Realms novels by R.A. Salvatore, come to life in this thrilling board game. Take on the role of the legendary drow ranger or one of his famous adventuring companions, battle fearsome foes, and win treasure and glory.
Designed for 1-5 players, this board game features multiple scenarios, challenging quests, and cooperative game play. The contents of this game can also be combined with other D&D Adventure System Cooperative Play board games, including Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Arshadalon, to create an even more exciting experience.
Components:
October 18, 2011 $64.99
Here we go with the Wizards of the Coast 2011 Fall Catalog.
Madness at Gardmore Abbey a Dungeons & Dragons Adventure boxed set by James Wyatt, Steve Townshend, Creighton Broadhurst
This deluxe adventure takes heroes into the ruins of Gardmore Abbey, once the base of a militant order of paladins devoted to Bahamut. According to legend, the paladins hid a dark artifact in the abbey for safekeeping, and evil forces gathered to assault the abbey and take it back. What the legends don't tell is that this artifact is the deck of Many Things..
This adventure brings characters into the extensive dungeons beneath the ruins - dungeons that are warped and twisted with the raw froces of Chaos surrounding the cards of the deck, forces that dramatically alter the place with each successive visit.
Components:
- Four 32-page books that present the adventure location of Gardmore Abbey, new monsters, enemies and allies, quests, and encounters
- Two double-sided battle maps depicting dramatic locations in the adventure
- A die-cut card stock sheet of monster tokens
- A die-cut card stock sheet of dungeon tiles
- A deck of 22 cards representing the Deck of Many Things
Sept 20, 2011 $39.99
Player's Option: Heroes of the Feywild a D&D Supplement by Rodney Thompson and Steve Townshend
Player's Option: Heroes of the Feywild enables players to weave elements of the Feywild into their existing and future characters, in much the same way that Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow gave players reasons to explore their characters' dark connections to the Shadowfell.
This book contains exciting new character builds and options that are thematically rooted to the Feywild, a wild and verdent plane of arcane splendor, full of dangerous and whimsical creatures. Characters who trace their origins or backgrounds to the Feywild gain access to unique feats, powers, and mechanics. The book explores what makes fey-themed characters so fun and distinct.
(note: usable for Encounters from Nov 15, 2011 through Feb 8, 2012)
160 page hardcover
November 15, 2011 $29.95
Shadowghast Manor - Dungeon Tiles a D&D Accessory by Peter Lee and Jason A Engle
This roleplaying game accessory gives Dungeon Masters an easy and inexpensive way to include great-looking terrain in their games. This set provides ready-to-use, configurable tiles with which to build exciting encounter locations. This particular set emphasizes haunted houses and crypts as an extension to the Dungeon Tiles Master Sets.
6 double-sided sheets
December 20, 2011 $11.95
Book of Vile Darkness a D&D Supplement by Robert J. Schwalb
The Book of Vile Darkness has existed since the dawn of the Dungeons & Dragons game, but only the most indomitable minds dare to look upon the malevolent thoughts and forbidden secrets bound therein!
In addition to showcasing characters and locations featured in the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness SyFy Original Movie, this roleplaying game product game product is intended for Dungeon Masters looking to broaden their campaigns to include dark subject matter and truly evil threats. It features a detailed look at the nature of evil and the complex challenge of confronting the many dilemmas found within the deepest shadows.
It includes:
- a 32-page book of character options, filed with malignant secrets and musings to inspire players;
- A 96-pagegame supplement for Dungeon Masters that includes an extensive toolkit to create and use truly evil villians, guidance fro running games with evil adventures, and game statistics for some of the most despicable creatures to infest any campaign world;
- A full-color, double-sided poster map presenting iconic evil sites for heroes to explore.
December 20, 2011 $29.95
Axis & Allies Angels Twenty Aircraft Miniatures Base Set
Axis & Allies Aircraft Miniatures are here! Dogfight your opponent in this all new air combat game. The Axis & Allies Angels Twenty Base Set will contain 30 authentically detailed aircraft miniatures that war gamers and WWII enthusiasts can use to recreate furious air battles of WWII. Pre-painted and assembled, these 1:100 scale aircraft are made of durable plastic and can also be used in the Axis & Allies Miniatures land game.
October 18, 2011
Axis & Allies Angels Twenty Base Set Starter $39.99
Axis & Allies Angels Twenty Base Set Booster $16.99
(note: Sorry, catalog does not say how many figs/package)
The Legend of Drizzt Board Game by Peter Lee
The adventures of Drizzt Do'Urden, as told in the New York Times best-selling Forgotten Realms novels by R.A. Salvatore, come to life in this thrilling board game. Take on the role of the legendary drow ranger or one of his famous adventuring companions, battle fearsome foes, and win treasure and glory.
Designed for 1-5 players, this board game features multiple scenarios, challenging quests, and cooperative game play. The contents of this game can also be combined with other D&D Adventure System Cooperative Play board games, including Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Arshadalon, to create an even more exciting experience.
Components:
- 42 plastic heroes and monsters
- 13 sheets of interlocking card stock dungeon tiles
- 200 encounter and treasure cards
- Rulebook
- Scenario book
- 20-sided dice
October 18, 2011 $64.99
1) Its Hilarious that the Book of Vile Darkness is a Boxset
2) I still stand by my original statement that if they really intend to ship BVD when the movie comes out, I think we wont see it until 2012.
Thats the schedule we've had since DDXP, but I'm struck by two points.
1) Its Hilarious that the Book of Vile Darkness is a Boxset
2) I still stand by my original statement that if they really intend to ship BVD when the movie comes out, I think we wont see it until 2012.
Little off topic, but is there a release date for the movie? Tentative or otherwise?
Thats the schedule we've had since DDXP, but I'm struck by two points.
1) Its Hilarious that the Book of Vile Darkness is a Boxset
2) I still stand by my original statement that if they really intend to ship BVD when the movie comes out, I think we wont see it until 2012.
Little off topic, but is there a release date for the movie? Tentative or otherwise?
Late 2011 or December 2011, depending on your source. The issue is that was probably based on the original shooting schedule not the one that started shooting in Baton Rouge on January 17th. Even for a SyFy (they make me spell it that way) movie, thats a pretty quick turn, first day of shooting till final 90 minutes with Special Effects in 11 months. I also worry about the Neverwinter Campaign setting book (August) since the Neverwinter game is now scheduled for December and appears to be in danger of slipping to 2012 according to many, thought WOTC never said Neverwinter Campaign book ships when the game does, Mike was real clear about BOVD and the movie being tied together (and the description frankly does to). In addition at least the original pitch last year was that the DVD of the movie and the Book (now boxset) were coming out at the same time, not that the movie was going to be on Syfy channel when the boxset came out.
-Tig
The whole 'Player's Option' name makes me twitch. Really didn't care for the originals (2e).
Same with 'Unearthed Arcana' when it came out for 3e.
I suppose folks who liked the originals have the opposite reaction - and that's the point...
marketing :shrug:
Booring. Where's me DMG3, DMs book of Feywild, Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, Primal Power 2 and Psionic Power 2?
The whole Book of Vile Darkness thing bugs me. Parents are just going to LOVE this product...guess it's time for the masses to start irrationally fearing D&D again.
Booring. Where's me DMG3, DMs book of Feywild, Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, Primal Power 2 and Psionic Power 2?
We've known for a while the 4e style "power" books were done.
I'm surprised to see the Book of Vile Darkness is just a DM book: I thought it would be a player resource for playing evil characters: evil deity support maybe, an Abyssal Pact for for Hexblades, some evil races like goblinoids and kobolds, stuff like that.
It features a detailed look at the nature of evil and the complex challenge of confronting the many dilemmas found within the deepest shadows.
Given some of the treatment the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' have received from WotC up to now (alignments described as being like 'sports teams'; the 'unaligned' Raven Queen described as enslaving souls to increase her power; an NPC who is trying to restart a global war purely for personal glory being 'unaligned' while someone who is just trying to protect her people from foreign influence is 'evil'; torturing people being implied to be heroic as long as the victims are sufficiently evil, etc...), this bit worries me. I simply don't trust WotC to address such an issue in anything approaching an appropriate manner.
All of these board games must be the Hasbro influence creeping in. I suppose they may be useful for dungeon tiles and more minis if the scale isn't different. I wonder if this is also partly the influence of the big box stores wanting something they can market on the shelf space?
The scale is right. We've used DDM for Castle Ravenloft, so the minis and tilesizes are compatable.
Wow...I just looked at the "massive" list of releases for fall of 2011.
Pathetic
Nice job Hasbeen - way to ruin a game that's been around more than 35 years.
Please do the world a favor and sell D&D to people that are actually INTELLIGENT.
It looks to me like the intelligent people are in charge now.
With the release schedule of the first two years, it's no wonder that they ran into a creative wall 2 1/2 years in. Somebody should have slammed on the brakes when Arcane Power and Player's Handbook 2 came out within two months of each other.
Without rethinking the design constraints they were under and with the original publishing schedule, 4E would have been creatively void by mid 2013
Here's what the schedule would have looked like had Essentials not come along:
November 2010: Divine Power 2
March 2011: Player's Handbook 4: Shadow
April 2011: Primal Power 2
July 2011: Neverwinter Campaign Guide
August 2011: Shadow Power
November 2011: Psionic Power 2
March 2012: Player's Handbook 5: Elemental
April 2012: Elemental Power
July 2012: X Campaign Guide
September 2012: Shadow Power 2
March 2013: Elemental Power 2
There you go, without opening up new design space for classes, 4E done in 5 years, time for a new edition.
Now, you tell me who's smart, and who isn't. The folks who recognize when they are about to run dry, so they start digging a new well plenty of time beforehand, or the folks who drain the well completely and then die of thirst because they couldn't plan ahead?
edit: That being said, I still want all of the above books to come out. If that schedule needs to be peppered with Heroes of X books, so be it. I'm happy as long as D&D 4E continues. When we do finally move on to 5E, hopefully not until 2015 or so, it will need to knock my socks off and be as great an advance over 4E as 4E was over 3.x, otherwise I will stick with my system of choice.
edit: That being said, I still want all of the above books to come out. If that schedule needs to be peppered with Heroes of X books, so be it. I'm happy as long as D&D 4E continues. When we do finally move on to 5E, hopefully not until 2015 or so, it will need to knock my socks off and be as great an advance over 4E as 4E was over 3.x, otherwise I will stick with my system of choice.I would still be buying product if they were supporting the original class design and or publishing these books. If the books come along looking like the heroes of books I'll wait for 5th ed. Which I still think will be along in 2013.
If they continue forward using only Essentials design, eschewing pre-E design, then we are still looking at mid 2013 before they run out of creative space. 4E will only survive until 2015 if they continue to develop in both design spaces.
Wow...I just looked at the "massive" list of releases for fall of 2011.
Pathetic
Nice job Hasbeen - way to ruin a game that's been around more than 35 years.
Please do the world a favor and sell D&D to people that are actually INTELLIGENT.
It looks to me like the intelligent people are in charge now.
With the release schedule of the first two years, it's no wonder that they ran into a creative wall 2 1/2 years in. Somebody should have slammed on the brakes when Arcane Power and Player's Handbook 2 came out within two months of each other.
Without rethinking the design constraints they were under and with the original publishing schedule, 4E would have been creatively void by mid 2013
Here's what the schedule would have looked like had Essentials not come along:
November 2010: Divine Power 2
March 2011: Player's Handbook 4: Shadow
April 2011: Primal Power 2
July 2011: Neverwinter Campaign Guide
August 2011: Shadow Power
November 2011: Psionic Power 2
March 2012: Player's Handbook 5: Elemental
April 2012: Elemental Power
July 2012: X Campaign Guide
September 2012: Shadow Power 2
March 2013: Elemental Power 2
There you go, without opening up new design space for classes, 4E done in 5 years, time for a new edition.
Now, you tell me who's smart, and who isn't. The folks who recognize when they are about to run dry, so they start digging a new well plenty of time beforehand, or the folks who drain the well completely and then die of thirst because they couldn't plan ahead?
edit: That being said, I still want all of the above books to come out. If that schedule needs to be peppered with Heroes of X books, so be it. I'm happy as long as D&D 4E continues. When we do finally move on to 5E, hopefully not until 2015 or so, it will need to knock my socks off and be as great an advance over 4E as 4E was over 3.x, otherwise I will stick with my system of choice.
Drool, I would buy all those books. With that schedule I would still actually be buying something. Now, WotC is not getting my money no more. Also, you forgot about DM books that could easily add a year or two. Also, AV3, Book of Themes, etc.
Hmm, I wonder if their new business model is put out a (player) book every 6 months or so tied to an Encounters season. Is shadowfell tied to one?
"Player's Option: Heroes of the Feywild ...(note: usable for Encounters from Nov 15, 2011 through Feb 8, 2012)"
Hmm, I wonder if their new business model is put out a (player) book every 6 months or so tied to an Encounters season. Is shadowfell tied to one?
Yep, Evard's Something or Other starts about three weeks after Heroes of Shadow is due to be released.
would like them to have a 160 page heroes of sword and spell, or any other hardcover stuff
If they continue forward using only Essentials design, eschewing pre-E design, then we are still looking at mid 2013 before they run out of creative space. 4E will only survive until 2015 if they continue to develop in both design spaces.
But they are only supporting the 4.5 material which I & my group have no interest at all in. I'll wait for 2013 and buy 5th. By throwing the 4.0 customers uner the bus & failing to learn from the 3.x dibacle they have lost my money until they change editions.
I still hold out hope they will but the bus in reverse and produce something that doesn't look retro. It's not looking good at this point.
I should know better than to ask this, but how did everyone decide that 2013 is the 5th edition? The PHB clearly says, on page 7, that "...[4th Ed.] firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play." That means we won't see a new edition until 2018...
If they continue forward using only Essentials design, eschewing pre-E design, then we are still looking at mid 2013 before they run out of creative space. 4E will only survive until 2015 if they continue to develop in both design spaces.
But they are only supporting the 4.5 material which I & my group have no interest at all in. I'll wait for 2013 and buy 5th. By throwing the 4.0 customers uner the bus & failing to learn from the 3.x dibacle they have lost my money until they change editions.
I still hold out hope they will but the bus in reverse and produce something that doesn't look retro. It's not looking good at this point.
I should know better than to ask this, but how did everyone decide that 2013 is the 5th edition? The PHB clearly says, on page 7, that "...[4th Ed.] firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play." That means we won't see a new edition until 2018...
Simple answer, they are guessing. 4e is difficult from a design perspective. Each class requires dozens of powers, several paragon paths, several feats, a few different ways to play them, and so on. Creatively 4e can't support anywhere near as much material as say 3e could. This is why we now have the Essentials. WotC has tried to extend the life of 4e by changing the way a class works. The assumption I guess would be that if the Essentials didn't sell well than WotC will likely not try and keep it around for another 7 years.
R&D is usually about a year ahead of release so people are using that to come up with their guesses. Just to say it, I don't like the Essentials, but I have seen nothing to support the theory that they are not selling well. Maybe others have, but not I. I suspect if they do sell well, and R&D can keep the material coming at the new slower pace then 4e will most likely persist. That being said, I don't see 2013 as too bad of a guess. But, it is only that, a guess.
I should know better than to ask this, but how did everyone decide that 2013 is the 5th edition? The PHB clearly says, on page 7, that "...[4th Ed.] firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play." That means we won't see a new edition until 2018...
There is only so much bloat a system will handle, and only so much creative space to explore. Wizards themselves have said that player focused books sell the best (or, at least, books with player options), but that every time they increase the value of X+1, sales decrease from the previous book (i.e.; Player's Handbook 3 sold less than Player's Handbook 2, which sold less than the Player's Handbook; Martial Power 2 sold less than Martial Power, and so on).
Based on this knowledge, and the lack of any other Power 2 book on the schedule, it can be implied that Martial Power 2 did not sell well enough to warrant continuing the "Power" line to 2 across the remaining Power Sources, despite the fact that there is still creative territory to cover (the primary author of Psionic Power claims that he has at least one more build for each Psionic class in varying stages of development). The same reasoning can also be used to infer that no Power 3 book will ever be published, even if there were creative ground to cover (I think Martial is fairly well developed. I'm hard pressed to think of much ground that has not already been covered under the previous design paradigm, certainly not enough to fill up a book).
Under the previous release schedule, the final Power 2 book would have been released in March of 2013, and without a new Power Source, there would be no Player's Handbook 6 in 2013.
What it amounts to is that Wizards published too much too quickly, which lead to them running short of creative ground much sooner than they originally planned. Part of the reason for this was the design constraints with which they had shackled themselves with at the outset of 4E.
Realizing that they were running short of creative ground, they developed the Essentials class builds, which threw off many of the previous design constraints. This frees up more creative space in which they can design. However, I don't see more than three years of development space in the "Essentials model," which still puts 4E winding down in 2013 and 5E coming out that much sooner.
What many are assuming is that Wizards has completely abandoned the previous class design. I think it would be foolish to do so, because there is still two and a half years of design space to explore. If Wizards continues to devlelop under both sets of design parameters, the life of 4E can be reasonably extended to 2015.
Wow...I just looked at the "massive" list of releases for fall of 2011.
Pathetic
Nice job Hasbeen - way to ruin a game that's been around more than 35 years.
Please do the world a favor and sell D&D to people that are actually INTELLIGENT.
It looks to me like the intelligent people are in charge now.
With the release schedule of the first two years, it's no wonder that they ran into a creative wall 2 1/2 years in. Somebody should have slammed on the brakes when Arcane Power and Player's Handbook 2 came out within two months of each other.
Without rethinking the design constraints they were under and with the original publishing schedule, 4E would have been creatively void by mid 2013
Here's what the schedule would have looked like had Essentials not come along:
November 2010: Divine Power 2
March 2011: Player's Handbook 4: Shadow
April 2011: Primal Power 2
July 2011: Neverwinter Campaign Guide
August 2011: Shadow Power
November 2011: Psionic Power 2
March 2012: Player's Handbook 5: Elemental
April 2012: Elemental Power
July 2012: X Campaign Guide
September 2012: Shadow Power 2
March 2013: Elemental Power 2
There you go, without opening up new design space for classes, 4E done in 5 years, time for a new edition.
Now, you tell me who's smart, and who isn't. The folks who recognize when they are about to run dry, so they start digging a new well plenty of time beforehand, or the folks who drain the well completely and then die of thirst because they couldn't plan ahead?
edit: That being said, I still want all of the above books to come out. If that schedule needs to be peppered with Heroes of X books, so be it. I'm happy as long as D&D 4E continues. When we do finally move on to 5E, hopefully not until 2015 or so, it will need to knock my socks off and be as great an advance over 4E as 4E was over 3.x, otherwise I will stick with my system of choice.
That list is like a kick in the £alls. Now I am reminded of what could have been. I would have preferred them to release this schedule, hang up the cleats in 2013 and do 5th.
That being said- not a fan of the Player's option books. The board games are the best part of the fall release schedule.
Now on this train of thought- if they had not cancelled skirmish, ddm would have survived.
March 2009- Feywild
July 2009- Legendary Evils (60 set)
November 2009- Savage Encounters (60 set)
March 2010- Streets of Shadow (60 set)
July 2010- Lords of Madness
November 2010- Some set of 60
March 2011- next month grrrrrrrr set of 60
Now I'm really sad....
It looks to me like the intelligent people are in charge now.
With the release schedule of the first two years, it's no wonder that they ran into a creative wall 2 1/2 years in. Somebody should have slammed on the brakes when Arcane Power and Player's Handbook 2 came out within two months of each other.
Without rethinking the design constraints they were under and with the original publishing schedule, 4E would have been creatively void by mid 2013
Here's what the schedule would have looked like had Essentials not come along:
November 2010: Divine Power 2
March 2011: Player's Handbook 4: Shadow
April 2011: Primal Power 2
July 2011: Neverwinter Campaign Guide
August 2011: Shadow Power
November 2011: Psionic Power 2
March 2012: Player's Handbook 5: Elemental
April 2012: Elemental Power
July 2012: X Campaign Guide
September 2012: Shadow Power 2
March 2013: Elemental Power 2
There you go, without opening up new design space for classes, 4E done in 5 years, time for a new edition.
Now, you tell me who's smart, and who isn't. The folks who recognize when they are about to run dry, so they start digging a new well plenty of time beforehand, or the folks who drain the well completely and then die of thirst because they couldn't plan ahead?
edit: That being said, I still want all of the above books to come out. If that schedule needs to be peppered with Heroes of X books, so be it. I'm happy as long as D&D 4E continues. When we do finally move on to 5E, hopefully not until 2015 or so, it will need to knock my socks off and be as great an advance over 4E as 4E was over 3.x, otherwise I will stick with my system of choice.
That list is like a kick in the £alls. Now I am reminded of what could have been. I would have preferred them to release this schedule, hang up the cleats in 2013 and do 5th. That being said- not a fan of the Player's option books. The board games are the best part of the fall release schedule.
Here's the thing. I don't see the books on that list as off the table (or, more accurately, the material that would be in those books). That design space is still there to be explored and published.
I would prefer to see most of it done via the "Power" line of books, but I would also be willing to see the material that would be published in Divine Power 2 under the title "Heroes of the Astral Sea" if it would boost sales.
Given the history of declining sales as the number increases, I can see that publishing Heroes of (whatever) is preferable to publishing Player's Handbooks 4, 5 & 6. "Heroes of" clearly qualifies as supplemental material, where it seems that Player's Handbook 3 was considered iterative by some retailers.
Unfortunately, this also means that Heroes of Shadow was a missed opportunity. If Heroes of Shadow had contained 4 or 5 classes designed under the old paradigm, and not suffered the drop in sales expected had it been titled Player's Handbook 4, it would have proved that there is a psychological barrier to sales inherent in "X+1," while still validating the original design parameters.
Of course, it might have been too much to ask that the company take it on faith that the decline in sales from PHB2 to PHB3 was psychological resistance to the "X+1," rather than dissatisfaction with 4E as a whole.
Now that Essentials is out, and it has garnered some fans, some new players, and brought some gorgnards back into the fold, I don't think it was a mistake by any definition of the word. In fact, as I described, I think it needed to happen, and sooner rather than later. However, going forward, I think the books that are going to sell the best are those that contain options and classes that support both design philosophies.
If they continue forward using only Essentials design, eschewing pre-E design, then we are still looking at mid 2013 before they run out of creative space. 4E will only survive until 2015 if they continue to develop in both design spaces.
But they are only supporting the 4.5 material which I & my group have no interest at all in. I'll wait for 2013 and buy 5th. By throwing the 4.0 customers uner the bus & failing to learn from the 3.x dibacle they have lost my money until they change editions.
I still hold out hope they will but the bus in reverse and produce something that doesn't look retro. It's not looking good at this point.
I should know better than to ask this, but how did everyone decide that 2013 is the 5th edition? The PHB clearly says, on page 7, that "...[4th Ed.] firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play." That means we won't see a new edition until 2018...
Heh, do you think that they could see 10 years to the future under the quarter-capitalism of Hasbro? They also promised when 4e was new, that there would be no 4.5 yet here it is under the name of Essentials.
If they continue forward using only Essentials design, eschewing pre-E design, then we are still looking at mid 2013 before they run out of creative space. 4E will only survive until 2015 if they continue to develop in both design spaces.
But they are only supporting the 4.5 material which I & my group have no interest at all in. I'll wait for 2013 and buy 5th. By throwing the 4.0 customers uner the bus & failing to learn from the 3.x dibacle they have lost my money until they change editions.
I still hold out hope they will but the bus in reverse and produce something that doesn't look retro. It's not looking good at this point.
I should know better than to ask this, but how did everyone decide that 2013 is the 5th edition? The PHB clearly says, on page 7, that "...[4th Ed.] firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play." That means we won't see a new edition until 2018...
Simple answer, they are guessing. 4e is difficult from a design perspective. Each class requires dozens of powers, several paragon paths, several feats, a few different ways to play them, and so on. Creatively 4e can't support anywhere near as much material as say 3e could. This is why we now have the Essentials. WotC has tried to extend the life of 4e by changing the way a class works. The assumption I guess would be that if the Essentials didn't sell well than WotC will likely not try and keep it around for another 7 years.
Wait, what? Having more need for powers, paragon paths, feats, etc. means that there is possibility for more support for a class instead of less. It is much harder to make new support for E-classes, many of which have fixed class abilities and less options. Compared to 3e it is even clearer. How could you have more options for e.g. monk in 3e than 4e?
I should know better than to ask this, but how did everyone decide that 2013 is the 5th edition? The PHB clearly says, on page 7, that "...[4th Ed.] firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play." That means we won't see a new edition until 2018...
There is only so much bloat a system will handle, and only so much creative space to explore. Wizards themselves have said that player focused books sell the best (or, at least, books with player options), but that every time they increase the value of X+1, sales decrease from the previous book (i.e.; Player's Handbook 3 sold less than Player's Handbook 2, which sold less than the Player's Handbook; Martial Power 2 sold less than Martial Power, and so on).
I think part of the reason newer books have sold less is that people have become used to Character Builder and Compendium and have realized that they do not need to buy Power Books since they contain almost no material that isn't put on CB and Compendium later. WotC could handle this problem by making DDI a micro-purchase system where you could buy book contents separately instead of having them automatically. This could be comboed with activation codes for the corresponding DDI support in the physical books. So you could buy the book and get the DDI content for normal price, or just the DDI content for somewhat lessened price.
Wait, what? Having more need for powers, paragon paths, feats, etc. means that there is possibility for more support for a class instead of less. It is much harder to make new support for E-classes, many of which have fixed class abilities and less options. Compared to 3e it is even clearer. How could you have more options for e.g. monk in 3e than 4e?
But at some point, there is no real need of more powers. I think Fighter, Rogue, Ranger and Warlord are pretty well mined at this point. I'm hard pressed to think of a character concept for those four classes that I cannot make with the material in the Player's Handbook, Martial Power 1 & 2, and assorted Dragon articles (heck, even a dual shield wielding Fighter concept is covered). About the only concept I feel is lacking is a true dual wielding, swashbucking type Rogue, and that might be better covered via an Essentials type build (with a modified version of Sneak Attack to offset the dual weapon strikes).
Yes, there are classes that need new builds (maybe need is the wrong word, "have a vast amount of unexplored territory"). But how many new builds do they need? We already know due to the dip in sales between Martial Power 1 and Martial Power 2 that Wizards does not think they could publish Martial Power 3 and see a profit. I think Power 2 is and should be the limit. How long will it take them to get Power 2 out for all of the sources? I've already shown you, mid 2013, and the old class design will not take any more bloat.
They needed to open up the design space, and sooner rather than later. They also need to keep publishing material gathered from both design spaces, or they will run dry just as soon.
Since none of your old books have been replaced or invalidated by the new design philosophy (unlike the 3.5 edition change), you can still play 4E just as you have been, with or without the Essentials style material on the table. Since this is the truth (and not opinion, as it can be verified empiricly by an unbiased observer), I don't see the harm in letting them explore the new design space for a while before dipping back into the old well. Who knows, maybe in the meantime, the old well will have filled back up, allowing for more depth of content.
I should know better than to ask this, but how did everyone decide that 2013 is the 5th edition? The PHB clearly says, on page 7, that "...[4th Ed.] firmly establishes D&D for the next decade of play." That means we won't see a new edition until 2018...
There is only so much bloat a system will handle, and only so much creative space to explore. Wizards themselves have said that player focused books sell the best (or, at least, books with player options), but that every time they increase the value of X+1, sales decrease from the previous book (i.e.; Player's Handbook 3 sold less than Player's Handbook 2, which sold less than the Player's Handbook; Martial Power 2 sold less than Martial Power, and so on).
I think part of the reason newer books have sold less is that people have become used to Character Builder and Compendium and have realized that they do not need to buy Power Books since they contain almost no material that isn't put on CB and Compendium later. WotC could handle this problem by making DDI a micro-purchase system where you could buy book contents separately instead of having them automatically. This could be comboed with activation codes for the corresponding DDI support in the physical books. So you could buy the book and get the DDI content for normal price, or just the DDI content for somewhat lessened price.
I have mentioned ideas like this multiple times. Selling the books to people who have access and ability to continue to access DDi is really hard. Of course, I want all the books since, whenver the edition does change, the chance of the old edition DDi still being up and running is slim. Then again, many people are short-sighted, and only think about what is needed for right now.
So you're suggesting its better that we get strung along, peppered with inferior product and the invariable "soon" responses to our inquries instead of an actually SCHEDULED list of products?
I think not.
I've met ADD children with more organizational skills than these idiots.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that they needed to explore and experiment if they wanted 4E to have even close to its intended lifespan.
And inferior is a totally subjective opinion. The material doesn't break the game. By and large, it is balanced with previously released material. It has brought new and lapsed players back into the game, as intended. And some people find it interesting and fun, including many of the players I interact with in my home game and in Encounters, quite a few of whom have been fans of 4E since day one.
What it is, is not "inferior," but "different." You don't like "different," that's fine, but 4E will die out in two years if they don't break new ground and try some "different" things.
Since none of your old books have been replaced or invalidated by the new design philosophy (unlike the 3.5 edition change), you can still play 4E just as you have been, with or without the Essentials style material on the table. Since this is the truth (and not opinion, as it can be verified empiricly by an unbiased observer), I don't see the harm in letting them explore the new design space for a while before dipping back into the old well. Who knows, maybe in the meantime, the old well will have filled back up, allowing for more depth of content.
If they had published all the other Power Book 2s, Shadow Classes, Elemental Classes and their Power Books, I would agree that they should then explore new design space. As it is, they now left the original 4e paradigm half-unexplored. That makes me bitter since I liked that paradigm much more than the Essentials one.
Since none of your old books have been replaced or invalidated by the new design philosophy (unlike the 3.5 edition change), you can still play 4E just as you have been, with or without the Essentials style material on the table. Since this is the truth (and not opinion, as it can be verified empiricly by an unbiased observer), I don't see the harm in letting them explore the new design space for a while before dipping back into the old well. Who knows, maybe in the meantime, the old well will have filled back up, allowing for more depth of content.
If they had published all the other Power Book 2s, Shadow Classes, Elemental Classes and their Power Books, I would agree that they should then explore new design space. As it is, they now left the original 4e paradigm half-unexplored. That makes me bitter since I liked that paradigm much more than the Essentials one.
Although Malak Lightfoot has made some sound points I have to go with Excalainen on this one. After they had released Player's Handbook 4 with Shadow, a DDM3 for Epic play and a MM4 that fleshed out the remaining monsters in 2011, I'd happily be more positive towards Essentails. I see the point of hitting a bigger market with one book- a bit of everything for everyone. I can't really attempt to debunk the wisdom behind it. But it doesn't mean that I have to like it. Buying Heroes of Shadow that has 25% of pre-E material isn't very appealing to me (25% is very optimistic too). Sure, we are going to get pre-e material now that the Essentials line is over with. I just wonder how watered down it will be due to stinky essentials.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that they needed to explore and experiment if they wanted 4E to have even close to its intended lifespan.
And inferior is a totally subjective opinion. The material doesn't break the game. By and large, it is balanced with previously released material. It has brought new and lapsed players back into the game, as intended. And some people find it interesting and fun, including many of the players I interact with in my home game and in Encounters, quite a few of whom have been fans of 4E since day one.
What it is, is not "inferior," but "different." You don't like "different," that's fine, but 4E will die out in two years if they don't break new ground and try some "different" things.
I'm going to disagree. Having to use Essential characters for Encounters does in fact "break" the game, there are now classes and races you can use for Encounters and those you can't. I'm not going to get into balance between the two, its not the point. We have character classes we can use on Wednesday and ones we can't and yet you are arguing that it doesnt break the game and that both types are characters are equal. There were lots of people that complained that there favorite character didnt make PH1, now we dont even have the all of the PH1 character classes available for Encounters, much less those for PH2 or PH3. Its silly to argue its the same game, but for WOTC weekly organized play you need to use one of the 8 (?) character classes from the Essentials.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that they needed to explore and experiment if they wanted 4E to have even close to its intended lifespan.
And inferior is a totally subjective opinion. The material doesn't break the game. By and large, it is balanced with previously released material. It has brought new and lapsed players back into the game, as intended. And some people find it interesting and fun, including many of the players I interact with in my home game and in Encounters, quite a few of whom have been fans of 4E since day one.
What it is, is not "inferior," but "different." You don't like "different," that's fine, but 4E will die out in two years if they don't break new ground and try some "different" things.
I'm going to disagree. Having to use Essential characters for Encounters does in fact "break" the game, there are now classes and races you can use for Encounters and those you can't. I'm not going to get into balance between the two, its not the point. We have character classes we can use on Wednesday and ones we can't and yet you are arguing that it doesnt break the game and that both types are characters are equal. There were lots of people that complained that there favorite character didnt make PH1, now we dont even have the all of the PH1 character classes available for Encounters, much less those for PH2 or PH3. Its silly to argue its the same game, but for WOTC weekly organized play you need to use one of the 8 (?) character classes from the Essentials.
Well of course, because there is Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, and then there is Dungeons and Dragons Encounters edition. Also known as Essentials.
I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree. Cause splitting it like that still says that it's a different edition, not necessarily a new one.
I see Essentials in the same light as a parallel universe idea. There is 4th edition (primary universe) and Essentials (alternate universe). Both spring from the same thing, but are different forms of the same thing.
Since none of your old books have been replaced or invalidated by the new design philosophy (unlike the 3.5 edition change), you can still play 4E just as you have been, with or without the Essentials style material on the table. Since this is the truth (and not opinion, as it can be verified empiricly by an unbiased observer), I don't see the harm in letting them explore the new design space for a while before dipping back into the old well. Who knows, maybe in the meantime, the old well will have filled back up, allowing for more depth of content.
If they had published all the other Power Book 2s, Shadow Classes, Elemental Classes and their Power Books, I would agree that they should then explore new design space. As it is, they now left the original 4e paradigm half-unexplored. That makes me bitter since I liked that paradigm much more than the Essentials one.
There are currently, not including Essentials subclasses, 4 Martial, 6 Arcane, 5 Divine, 5 Primal, 4 Psionic, and 1 Shadow class for a total of 25 published classes. Assuming Shadow and Elemental would get 4 classes each in their respective PHBs, it is 25 published and 8 unpublished, 25% unfinished.
Extrapolating this out to include builds, assuming at least 1 build remains for each class (2 for the Runepriest, Seeker and Assassin, and 4 for the unpublished classes, and that Martial is complete), there are currently 5 Fighter, 5 Ranger, 5 Rogue, 5 Warlord, 3 Artificer, 3 Bard, 4 Sorcerer, 3 Swordmage, 6 Warlock, 5 Wizard, 3 Avenger, 3 Cleric, 3 Invoker, 3 Paladin, 2 Runepriest, 4 Barbarian, 3 Druid, 2 Seeker, 5 Shaman, 4 Warden, 3 Ardent, 4 Battlemind, 3 Monk, 3 Psion and 2 Assasssin builds (Total = 91), leaving 6 Arcane, 6 Divine, 6 Primal, 4 Psionic, 17 Shadow and 16 Elemental builds (Total = 55), which seems greatly unifinshed with the unpublished classes included. Considering just published classes, there are only 24 unpublished builds for published classes, just over 25% again.
You don't wait until your product has run out its development cycle before you begin working on a new product. you develop parallel so that one climbs as the other ramps down. If playtesting of the Essentials subclasses had taken significantly longer than projected after all of the previous material had been developed, we could have seen six months to a year without any new player focused material. Would you have been willing to take that risk? Wizards and Hasbro weren't, because their business is staying in business.
I'm going to disagree. Having to use Essential characters for Encounters does in fact "break" the game, there are now classes and races you can use for Encounters and those you can't. I'm not going to get into balance between the two, its not the point. We have character classes we can use on Wednesday and ones we can't and yet you are arguing that it doesnt break the game and that both types are characters are equal. There were lots of people that complained that there favorite character didnt make PH1, now we dont even have the all of the PH1 character classes available for Encounters, much less those for PH2 or PH3. Its silly to argue its the same game, but for WOTC weekly organized play you need to use one of the 8 (?) character classes from the Essentials.
This has not been the reality at any table I've run or been a part of. It is what Wizards wants, but every local DM sees the wisdom of not excluding people from their table for having a favorite Class, Race or Build and wanting to play them (My current Encounters table is 1 Monk, 1 Cleric, 1 Hybrid Paladin / Warlock, 1 Wizard, 1 Cavalier, 1 Slayer, 1 Hexblade and 1 Warpriest).
If you have not even gone to Encounters because you have assumed that you will need to play an Essentials build, I recommend that you contact the DM at your FLGS and see if he is following that restriction before complaining that you cannot play. I remember during last season that there were several stores and tables that could not hold Encounters because they did not have enough players willing to play Essentials characters. Those stores quickly relented, and I can guaran-damn-tee that those same stores didn't even try to enforce Essentials+ this season.
I second that. We tend to encourage people to "play by the rules" and play an Essentials character, but I don't know any reasonable DM's who would refuse you if you asked if you could play something else (as long as you aren't a jerk about it).
Wow, so even WotC sanctioned events are houseruled...
I second that. We tend to encourage people to "play by the rules" and play an Essentials character, but I don't know any reasonable DM's who would refuse you if you asked if you could play something else (as long as you aren't a jerk about it).
Wow, so even WotC sanctioned events are houseruled...
If it is a choice between holding the event and not, you bet your sweet bippy it is.
And Wizards understands this. It is far more important that people be seen in public playing D&D and having a good time than it is for stores and DMs to slavishly adhere to Essentials+.
This has not been the reality at any table I've run or been a part of. It is what Wizards wants, but every local DM sees the wisdom of not excluding people from their table for having a favorite Class, Race or Build and wanting to play them (My current Encounters table is 1 Monk, 1 Cleric, 1 Hybrid Paladin / Warlock, 1 Wizard, 1 Cavalier, 1 Slayer, 1 Hexblade and 1 Warpriest).
If you have not even gone to Encounters because you have assumed that you will need to play an Essentials build, I recommend that you contact the DM at your FLGS and see if he is following that restriction before complaining that you cannot play. I remember during last season that there were several stores and tables that could not hold Encounters because they did not have enough players willing to play Essentials characters. Those stores quickly relented, and I can guaran-damn-tee that those same stores didn't even try to enforce Essentials+ this season.
Its how it was being run at both of our FLGS (now one since the second one is out of business as of a week ago) and two I have visited on business trips. Its what WOTC wants them to do, its a "way to increase WOTC sales" and as you quite clearly pointed out (which again supports my point), its caused a decline in those actually attending Encounters. I usually think of WOTC management as South Park's Underpants Gnomes who philosophy was:
1) Collect Underpants
2) ?
3) Profit
Thats what Essentials is:
1) Create Essentials
2) ?
3) Profit
And much like the Underpants Gnomes plan, step 3 hasnt occurred, so they keep working on what they should do for #2. Even if encounters were bringing them to the store in droves, there is nothing new (except the new cards) to sell them which is what Encounters was supposed to do, bring new players to FLGS and get them to buy things, no new things, not alot of sales, just alot of work to organize encounters. We have our first book this year in April, Heroes of Shadow, about half of the people have told me, if the same first 75+ pages appears in the front of that book that appears in the current two Heroes books, they arent going to buy it, same with the Feywild book coming in Nov. By my count about 1/3 of the heroes book is duplicated in the other Heroes book (first 3 chapters, most of chapter 6, 7-end). Really only chapters 4 (classes) & 5 (Races) different (plus some on the feats). Has anyone asked if that trend is going to continue for this years two Heroes books?
-Tig
We have our first book this year in April, Heroes of Shadow, about half of the people have told me, if the same first 75+ pages appears in the front of that book that appears in the current two Heroes books, they arent going to buy it, same with the Feywild book coming in Nov. By my count about 1/3 of the heroes book is duplicated in the other Heroes book (first 3 chapters, most of chapter 6, 7-end). Really only chapters 4 (classes) & 5 (Races) different (plus some on the feats). Has anyone asked if that trend is going to continue for this years two Heroes books?
-Tig
Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of the Feywild should not be reprinting a whole bunch of material. Fallen Lands and Forgotten Kingdoms reprinted material so that a player could pick up one or the other and still be able to play.
That being said, it is possible that they will decide to reprint that stuff, but I doubt it.
I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree. Cause splitting it like that still says that it's a different edition, not necessarily a new one.
I see Essentials in the same light as a parallel universe idea. There is 4th edition (primary universe) and Essentials (alternate universe). Both spring from the same thing, but are different forms of the same thing.
That pretty much sums it up.
I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree. Cause splitting it like that still says that it's a different edition, not necessarily a new one.
I see Essentials in the same light as a parallel universe idea. There is 4th edition (primary universe) and Essentials (alternate universe). Both spring from the same thing, but are different forms of the same thing.
That pretty much sums it up.
Yeah kinda like fringe. Where one universe is on the verge of collapsing from the incursion of the other...
I second that. We tend to encourage people to "play by the rules" and play an Essentials character, but I don't know any reasonable DM's who would refuse you if you asked if you could play something else (as long as you aren't a jerk about it).
Wow, so even WotC sanctioned events are houseruled...
Yeah, that's actually how you play D&D. This isn't chess. WotC is well aware that their "rules" will be taken as "suggestions".
Wow...I just looked at the "massive" list of releases for fall of 2011.
Pathetic
Nice job Hasbeen - way to ruin a game that's been around more than 35 years.
Please do the world a favor and sell D&D to people that are actually INTELLIGENT.
It looks to me like the intelligent people are in charge now.
With the release schedule of the first two years, it's no wonder that they ran into a creative wall 2 1/2 years in. Somebody should have slammed on the brakes when Arcane Power and Player's Handbook 2 came out within two months of each other.
Without rethinking the design constraints they were under and with the original publishing schedule, 4E would have been creatively void by mid 2013
Here's what the schedule would have looked like had Essentials not come along:
November 2010: Divine Power 2
March 2011: Player's Handbook 4: Shadow
April 2011: Primal Power 2
July 2011: Neverwinter Campaign Guide
August 2011: Shadow Power
November 2011: Psionic Power 2
March 2012: Player's Handbook 5: Elemental
April 2012: Elemental Power
July 2012: X Campaign Guide
September 2012: Shadow Power 2
March 2013: Elemental Power 2
There you go, without opening up new design space for classes, 4E done in 5 years, time for a new edition.
Now, you tell me who's smart, and who isn't. The folks who recognize when they are about to run dry, so they start digging a new well plenty of time beforehand, or the folks who drain the well completely and then die of thirst because they couldn't plan ahead?
edit: That being said, I still want all of the above books to come out. If that schedule needs to be peppered with Heroes of X books, so be it. I'm happy as long as D&D 4E continues. When we do finally move on to 5E, hopefully not until 2015 or so, it will need to knock my socks off and be as great an advance over 4E as 4E was over 3.x, otherwise I will stick with my system of choice.
So you're suggesting its better that we get strung along, peppered with inferior product and the invariable "soon" responses to our inquries instead of an actually SCHEDULED list of products?
I think not.
I've met ADD children with more organizational skills than these idiots.
Essentials has already stetched the gap between player books to what? 4 months? Do the above schedule with a mere 1 extra dead month between publish gets at least another year out of it. Maybe by that time they'd come up with a new AEDU source (perhaps monster classes) or found a way to do Essentials less disruptively.
It looks to me like the intelligent people are in charge now.
With the release schedule of the first two years, it's no wonder that they ran into a creative wall 2 1/2 years in. Somebody should have slammed on the brakes when Arcane Power and Player's Handbook 2 came out within two months of each other.
Without rethinking the design constraints they were under and with the original publishing schedule, 4E would have been creatively void by mid 2013
Here's what the schedule would have looked like had Essentials not come along:
< snip! >
There you go, without opening up new design space for classes, 4E done in 5 years, time for a new edition.
Now, you tell me who's smart, and who isn't. The folks who recognize when they are about to run dry, so they start digging a new well plenty of time beforehand, or the folks who drain the well completely and then die of thirst because they couldn't plan ahead?
edit: That being said, I still want all of the above books to come out. If that schedule needs to be peppered with Heroes of X books, so be it. I'm happy as long as D&D 4E continues. When we do finally move on to 5E, hopefully not until 2015 or so, it will need to knock my socks off and be as great an advance over 4E as 4E was over 3.x, otherwise I will stick with my system of choice.
I might buy your premise if the digging-a-well metaphor wasn't so strained.
Your premise pre-supposes that the only content that would be published were ones already mentioned/suggested/hinted-at, that new settings would not generate inspiration for additional material for existing classes (e.g. Arena Fighter build in Dark Sun). It pre-supposes that they would not also have shifted their publishing schedule of their own volition to slow the rate of book releases. It also pre-supposes that the move to Essentials-style class designs was made from careful analysis of data rather than simply having someone new as lead designer. The quick change of schedule after last Gen Con (inserting Heroes of Sword and Spell into the schedule in place of the just-announced-at-Gen-Con Gazetteer of the Nentir Vale) as a reaction to being surprised at how attached players actually were to the AEDU design pattern is an indication to me that they have lost a connection with what the player base likes, and have been giving excessive weight to feedback from the sort of people who decided they hated 4e before it was released. It just strikes me as the behavior of those operating without good data.
The shift in class design patterns strikes me as more of the usual sort of "write two letters" scenario when someone new takes over rather than any long-term planning scenario. They admitted that Essentials was pushed through R&D faster than their normal process (a few months less time than usual) so it's clear that a perceived weakness in current/recent sales figures were the concern rather than long-term planning. Were books coming out at a high frequency? Sure. But I don't think the pace was significantly different than it was in 3.5e (which had more campaign setting detail books than 4e does, which did space out the release of new class material to be a bit slower than it has/had been in 4e).
As Mearls seems quite happy with himself I don't see the rift being fixed any time soon. For some reason that hack thinks everyone is happy with his less than useable ideas.
While "hack" is too pejorative a term for my taste, I will note that he does seem to be pleased with his design. That's not the metric he should be shooting for, though...
“If the computer or the game designer is having more fun than the player, you have made a terrible mistake.” -Sid Meier
I suspect that it's simply that Mearls is designing (or has set the design scheme for) what appeals to him rather than broadly to 4e players - he's long stated that he prefers to play FPS games and doesn't understand the appeal of MMORPGs (not denigrating one's personal taste, just comparing narrow/shallow vs. broad/deep character options), so I really shouldn't be surprised that I find his class design paradigm to be... lacking.
I might buy your premise if the digging-a-well metaphor wasn't so strained.
The point being that it takes a long time to go from concept to production. You don't wait until your current product is played out before you begin developing your new product or the new direction for the old one.
It is obvious that there are a lot of people who do not understand this.
Your premise pre-supposes that the only content that would be published were ones already mentioned/suggested/hinted-at, that new settings would not generate inspiration for additional material for existing classes (e.g. Arena Fighter build in Dark Sun).
I don't consider it a relevant point. If a campaign setting inspires a build or class, it will be published with the campaign setting, and it won't wait for the next Power book (like the aforementioned Arena Fighter build).
We are already down one Power Source (Ki was considered unworkable, as it became obvious during development that it would be the "Asian Power Source."). The only other Power Sources I can think of that might be viable are Incarnum (Ki could have become this) and Technology (and given the resistance Psionics gets despite being part of Fantasy literature since before D&D existed and part of our mythology for thousands of years, a "Technology Power Source" would go over like a lead balloon). When the Monk was moved to Psionic, and Ki was killed, we were told that Shadow and Elemental were still considered viable, which most of us took to meant that they had general ideas for four or more classes for both Power Sources. No mention was made at the time of any other potential Power Source.
It pre-supposes that they would not also have shifted their publishing schedule of their own volition to slow the rate of book releases.
They have slowed production of their own volition. My point was that they should have done so much sooner (for example, Arcane Power should have come out after the Eberron Player's Guide, so that the Artificer could have benefitted from it as the Swordmage did, rather than being the red headed stepchild of the Arcane Power Source).
It also pre-supposes that the move to Essentials-style class designs was made from careful analysis of data rather than simply having someone new as lead designer.
We have been told that Essentials development began before Mike Mearls was promoted to lead designer. It may have begun after Heinsoo was canned, which means that interim management oversaw the nascent phase of the project (or it may even have begun under Heinsoo, and if he was resistant to the idea, that could have lead to his departure).
What is certainly true is that very few of us here know the facts, so all we have is supposition and conjecture.
The quick change of schedule after last Gen Con (inserting Heroes of Sword and Spell into the schedule in place of the just-announced-at-Gen-Con Gazetteer of the Nentir Vale)
It was my understanding that the Nentir Vale Gazeteer was still on the schedule when Class Compendium was announced, it simply dropped of the schedule first.
as a reaction to being surprised at how attached players actually were to the AEDU design pattern is an indication to me that they have lost a connection with what the player base likes, and have been giving excessive weight to feedback from the sort of people who decided they hated 4e before it was released. It just strikes me as the behavior of those operating without good data.
The shift in class design patterns strikes me as more of the usual sort of "write two letters" scenario when someone new takes over rather than any long-term planning scenario. They admitted that Essentials was pushed through R&D faster than their normal process (a few months less time than usual) so it's clear that a perceived weakness in current/recent sales figures were the concern rather than long-term planning.
There is some hard data they had. That data was that there was a significant population of D&D players who did not embrace the new edition, which probably resulted in lower than anticipated sales. It is very likely that the directive behind Essentials was to get some (as many as possible) of those players back.
Were books coming out at a high frequency? Sure. But I don't think the pace was significantly different than it was in 3.5e (which had more campaign setting detail books than 4e does, which did space out the release of new class material to be a bit slower than it has/had been in 4e).
We have gotten player oriented material at a much faster pace in 4E than we did for 3.0, and also much faster than 3.5 (although, player material for 3.5 came much faster than 3.0 simply because they reprinted and repackaged a bunch of the 3.0 material).
As Mearls seems quite happy with himself I don't see the rift being fixed any time soon. For some reason that hack thinks everyone is happy with his less than useable ideas.
While "hack" is too pejorative a term for my taste, I will note that he does seem to be pleased with his design. That's not the metric he should be shooting for, though...
“If the computer or the game designer is having more fun than the player, you have made a terrible mistake.” -Sid Meier
I suspect that it's simply that Mearls is designing (or has set the design scheme for) what appeals to him rather than broadly to 4e players - he's long stated that he prefers to play FPS games and doesn't understand the appeal of MMORPGs (not denigrating one's personal taste, just comparing narrow/shallow vs. broad/deep character options), so I really shouldn't be surprised that I find his class design paradigm to be... lacking.
Why do the two theories of class design need to be mutually exclusive? Presumably they have done the base conceptual work already for the Shadow and Elemental Power Sources, they "just" need to be developed and tested.
Mike has also claimed that aside from 4E, 2E was his favorite edition of D&D. That his favored form of videogame is FPS, and that he dislikes MMORPGs, has no bearing on the fact that he loves D&D. I do wonder if his videogame preferences can be used to finally kill all the "D&D is turning into WoW" stupidity we see very so often.
And just like design does not need to be mutually exclusive, why are people so adamant that we pick a side on the Essentials issue. As I have said many times, I want to see all the books I pointed to upthread be published. I also like Essentials class design. Even if some of the classes are a "little" boring, the fact that they are willing to explore new design space is exciting to me. One does not need to be a fan of one OR the other, I think it is possible to appreciate both.
The point being that it takes a long time to go from concept to production. You don't wait until your current product is played out before you begin developing your new product or the new direction for the old one.
It is obvious that there are a lot of people who do not understand this.
Working in the software industry, I quite understand this. However, I strongly feel that the evidence shows that "edition lifespan" was not a driving factor behind the Essentials design shift.
We have been told that Essentials development began before Mike Mearls was promoted to lead designer. It may have begun after Heinsoo was canned, which means that interim management oversaw the nascent phase of the project (or it may even have begun under Heinsoo, and if he was resistant to the idea, that could have lead to his departure).
What is certainly true is that very few of us here know the facts, so all we have is supposition and conjecture.
We know the timeline; it's a matter of public record. Essentials development started in fall '09 (this was mentioned in a Gen Con podcast; the same source also acknowledged the accelerated timeline for its development). Heinsoo was laid off in Dec '09. Andy Collins (previously Development & Editing Manager) left voluntarily in mid-2010, and Mearls was promoted to Group Manager of D&D R&D (including both Design and Development) shortly after that. We were told that Mearls set the design philosophy for the Essentials classes, which places him in a lead designer role for the project (whether he was formally "Lead Designer" in title/position in the group's organization hierarchy I don't know).
It was my understanding that the Nentir Vale Gazeteer was still on the schedule when Class Compendium was announced, it simply dropped of the schedule first.
The Gazetteer disappeared before the Class Compendium was announced. The questions about the fate of the Gazetteer following its disappearance from the Product Catalog (back in September/October) were appearing quite some time before the Class Compendium got any mention. You could look through this forum's past threads to confirm that.
There is some hard data they had. That data was that there was a significant population of D&D players who did not embrace the new edition, which probably resulted in lower than anticipated sales. It is very likely that the directive behind Essentials was to get some (as many as possible) of those players back.
I don't doubt that was the directive behind Essentials - try to get as many "holdouts" as possible, fast! - but that is counter to the notion of doing it in some long-term effort to extend/expand the content to be published in the lifespan of 4e. I also saw an article about the launch of 4e, and that it was more successful than 3e; the 4e PHB got a second printing far, far faster than 3e did. However, that doesn't account for any decline in sales afterward.
Why do the two theories of class design need to be mutually exclusive? Presumably they have done the base conceptual work already for the Shadow and Elemental Power Sources, they "just" need to be developed and tested.
They're mutually exclusive because the design philosophy priorities that Mearls set are contrary to what they were for 4e before. You don't get the same end result because they're two different recipes.
As I have said many times, I want to see all the books I pointed to upthread be published.
I'd love to see all those books published. I just don't expect them to be. I'm not picking sides, I'm stating the conclusion I've reached based on available evidence.
(and given the resistance Psionics gets despite being part of Fantasy literature since before D&D existed and part of our mythology for thousands of years, a "Technology Power Source" would go over like a lead balloon).
The world 'psionics' was coined in the mid-twentieth century, and the idea it represents - that powers of the mind, such as those claimed by the mediums and mystics of the prior century, or demonstrated by mythical beings before that, could be scientifically investigated, analyzed, trained, technologically enhanced, and developed - is entirely unsuited to the fantasy genre. Magic of the mind - like the schools of illusion and enchantment - OTOH, are just fine.
So, yeah, lead baloon, definitely - unless the game were expanded to be multi-genre. Technology isn't a problem in Gamma World, for instance.
An 'Elemental' Power source would likely be well-received, OTOH. And, in spite of the race-politics objections to 'Ki,' I don't doubt that there would be a market for it.
Not only that, but Essentials, by introducing different roles within the same class, has further opened up "The Grid." Where, before, the grid was "Role" along one dimension, and "Source" along the other, 'Source' can now be replaced with 'Class.' (!!!)
(and given the resistance Psionics gets despite being part of Fantasy literature since before D&D existed and part of our mythology for thousands of years, a "Technology Power Source" would go over like a lead balloon).
The world 'psionics' was coined in the mid-twentieth century, and the idea it represents - that powers of the mind, such as those claimed by the mediums and mystics of the prior century, or demonstrated by mythical beings before that, could be scientifically investigated, analyzed, trained, technologically enhanced, and developed - is entirely unsuited to the fantasy genre. Magic of the mind - like the schools of illusion and enchantment - OTOH, are just fine.
So, as near as I can tell, it is the terminology that trips you up, and not the concept. You readily admit that "mental magic" has been part of our mythology long before Parapsychology began to study it (even longer, if you accept that psychic powers have been well established in the collective Asian consciousness for millennia).
If the Psionic Power Source had instead been the Mental Power Source, and the Psion had instead been the Psychic, you would have no problem with it, conceptually?
The reason the terminology has been kept is because Psionics have been in D&D since the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st Edition) Player's Handbook (much inspired by Katherine Kurtz's Deryni novels, the first of which was published in 1974, the year before D&D was published). The reason why the much of the "scientific" terminology was retained was so that they would not have to explain, in new words, terms that we already knew. Telekiniesis, Telepathy and Teleportation were all terms already in Dungeons & Dragons (and our collective consciousness, thanks to Science Fiction) that came from the same "scientific" background.
I never hear the "psionics isn't fantasy" crowd crusading to have these terms removed from D&D, regardless of the fact that they come from the same source as the material they so despise.
If you would like, I will provide a reading list of psionics in fantasy, most of it quite good (and some of it excellent). I have done it before, and will gladly do so again.
If you would like, I will provide a reading list of psionics in fantasy, most of it quite good (and some of it excellent). I have done it before, and will gladly do so again.
I would like that ....
I remember a certain book in which The Order of Man featured back in the day.. these mystics could mess with time flow and similar things but lived under cover like monks because the enemy was aliens of Cthuloid potence... I think they eventually found out they had been real cautious for a long time under cover and were capable of completely defeating the enemy who had enslaved mankind all in a matter of moments.
They deleted 3 Essential style books and are reworking the only one left from the original 2011 schedule (HOS), have moved it a month later, made it hardback oh and today gave us a preview from the book that doesnt actually appear in the book, but you think Essentials is going just like they planned it?
Um, Bart may have goofed and posted up something that didn't make the cut, but that proves nothing of how well Essentials has done.
Also, they did not delete the books. They are choosing other formats for such material. And where is the proof that the three books were "Essentials style"?
4) Or they ordered another large print run expecting them to sell just as quickly. It did not, leaving them with a backstock.
Which is basically 3 (ie gross incompetance)
According to Brian & Matt's Linkedin pages, they work for Wizards. The Linkedin pages of the freelancers clearly state that they are freelancers or that they regularly work for a different company and do freelance work on the side (like Andy Claurice).
See now you are just making things up. Brians linkin page clearly says he is a freelancer for Wizards. I'm guessing that Matts does too, just so everyone can see this is what it says, this is from Brians Linkedin page.
Current
-
- Principle User Experience Architect (Contractor) at NASA
- Freelance Writer / Game Designer at Wizards of the Coast
Brian works for NASA (as a contractor). He freelances for WOTC. Want to try and keep the spin going?
And if most of the book remains the same, then 30 days extra is plenty of time to reformat the book for hardcover.
Mike said they were going to do more playtesting etc to bring higher quality books to us, the first one we get, they add a whopping 30 days to its schedule, while having to reformat it while removing some material and adding others, and you want us to believe that this "extra" playtesting occurred as well? Really?
And the first portion of one of those cancelled books is premiering in Dragon this month. I would expect to see the rest of it trickling through Dragon over the course of the year.
I would love to believe we will see all this data in DDI this year, I just dont believe that we will. Honestly the dragon and Dungeon for the first two months of this year has been fairly pathetic, and throwing it not gathering them into issues makes it even more annoying.
They deleted 3 Essential style books and are reworking the only one left from the original 2011 schedule (HOS), have moved it a month later, made it hardback oh and today gave us a preview from the book that doesnt actually appear in the book, but you think Essentials is going just like they planned it?
Um, Bart may have goofed and posted up something that didn't make the cut, but that proves nothing of how well Essentials has done.
Also, they did not delete the books. They are choosing other formats for such material. And where is the proof that the three books were "Essentials style"?
As for the Bart comment, originally HoS was just going to be reformatted for hardback, however instead it was reworked which lead to the removal of some material (ie what Bart posted) and addition of others and modification of some material because we dont have the 3 other books coming out. I'm not arguing how Essentials did (it doesnt matter), I'm arguing the plan is changing with regards to essentials (ie see 4 deleted books, HoS reworked and HoF being put into super get it done in time for November mode).
And I disagree with your comment that they did not delete books. The books were announced, the were put on a delivery schedule and now they will not be printed, thats deleting a book. The material (or some of the material) is going to come to us via DDI, but the books themselves are gone. As for why I think 3 of the books were Essentials, they told us so. Mordenkainen's Magical Emporium it was going to give us the Common, Uncommon and Rare attributes for magic items highlighted in Essentials. We also have Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier and Hero Builder's Handbook announced at Gencon, both of which were largely Essentials and then by November, the Champions book had become Class Compendium:Heroes of Sword and Spell which is clearly an Essentials type book, you seen its preview in the November Ampersand.
-Tig
You don't wait until your product has run out its development cycle before you begin working on a new product. you develop parallel so that one climbs as the other ramps down. If playtesting of the Essentials subclasses had taken significantly longer than projected after all of the previous material had been developed, we could have seen six months to a year without any new player focused material. Would you have been willing to take that risk? Wizards and Hasbro weren't, because their business is staying in business.
Best paragraph of the thread.
Sorry but I don't see anything to complain about except the lack of mini production. Boxed sets good, Adveture game for Drizzt good, more sturr set in the Nentir Vale good. this autumn sounds awesome too me. I'm struggleing to keep up with all the products what with the essentials line, adventure system and some wicked titles being released.
Are you new to D&D? if so that would explain it.
They are ramping down actual D&D content in favor of board games and other products. For people that like D&D itself (the pencil and paper tabletop role-playing game) this is not acceptable.
They are ramping down actual D&D content in favor of board games and other products. For people that like D&D itself (the pencil and paper tabletop role-playing game) this is not acceptable.
Well, actually, since my funds have been limited for a while, I don't mind so much.
The slowdown in new product is going to allow me to set some aside to pick up some of the older books I couldn't justify spending on.
If I were flush with cash, yeah, I'd like a little more "oomph!" in the schedule. As strapped as I am, I think we've got the right amount of stuff coming.
They are ramping down actual D&D content in favor of board games and other products. For people that like D&D itself (the pencil and paper tabletop role-playing game) this is not acceptable.
Well, actually, since my funds have been limited for a while, I don't mind so much.
The slowdown in new product is going to allow me to set some aside to pick up some of the older books I couldn't justify spending on.
If I were flush with cash, yeah, I'd like a little more "oomph!" in the schedule. As strapped as I am, I think we've got the right amount of stuff coming.
I agree. I haven't been able to buy a new book since PHB2. I was talking about those that are bent out of shape over it...