Rather than blow up the shouts, I'm making a thread. I'm sure most of us know, and everyone does now, that D&D5E was announced today, in the New York Times of all locales. It's going to be showed off in a limited fashion at GenCon and D&DExperience, then this summer they're going to invite people to playtest (which is a great sign). I was hoping we could get as many CBGers to submit to the playtest so one of us could get chosen and we could do some Skype or IRC games.
Now, we have absolutely no information on the new system, unless something was talked about while I was at work. Part of the obligitory nature of these types of threads is for us to list what we would love to see. Here's mine:
Keep
- Monster progression table: I want this to remain largely the same. Having a monsters defenses, hp, attack, and damage be based on their level/role is an excellent balance mechanism. CR was too kitschy.
- Roles/Power Sources: I loved this, as I love grids and symmetry.
- At-Will Spells: Nothing made my group's first spellcaster hate the game more than having 3 spells a day and having to resort to a crossbow when it was all said and done (Sorcerer, 3E)
- Tiers: These were a great story telling structure.
- Themes: Late in the Edition power creep that really opened the game up for more diversity. This could be something later, though.
- Classes: Classes need to remain for it to feel like D&D.
Change
- Start Classic: The initial class/race offerings should be the classics from 2E/3E, though it wouldn't hurt to toss in the Warlord and Warlock as they are the 4E PHB1 classics. Though I really think almost everything could be done with the initial 3E classes, minus sorcerer and plus psion/psychic warrior.
- Bring Back Class-spanning spells: One of 4E's weaknesses were the specificity of class powers; magic missile didn't belong to all arcanists, dispel magic didn't belong to all casters ... this made it hard to identify with the powers used.
- Avoid Card Structure: I didn't like power cards; they were hard to read at a glance. At least include lists with descriptions, like I was working on before the announcement. Martial attacks can simply be described by how they modify the basic attack, for instance.
- Less Stuff: 4E characters bloated fast. It seemed that everyone was fighting to find the best use for every action they had in each round. If minor action and immediate action abilities are reduced, the game can progress faster.
I am very curious that Monty Cook was brought back to WotC. It screams of a very different departure point for D&D5E. I also need to try to not throw out my shoulder patting myself on the back for being right about a new edition; apparently I have a few ranks in "Divination (Internet Rumblings)".
I'm glad somebody made this thread, I saw the NYT and saw it in the shout box here, but didn't feel qualified to make the thread due to my lack of specific crunch-based opinions.
The things I liked about 4E? At-will spells and the removal of mental and social stats (Int, Wis, Cha). The things I hated? That combat was a pain for me. I just felt disengaged, waiting until my turn in the initiative to use the same at-will against the guy next to me. Mind you, I'm notoriously bad at building good characters, but it did not engage me. So, with the combat not being engaging in a combat-based system, it bugged me.
My primary concern however is this crowd-sourcing of mechanics. Yes, the WotC forums ahve historically been filled with better material than the splatbooks themselves (although I haven't been there since the CBG got it's own website), however I generally dislike generalist approaches. D&D might be losing because it strives too hard to be inclusive. A clear goal and a proper execution of that goal is what I think brings success, like some of our best settings. Nobody points to Jade Stage and praises it because it has a place for every new spell, we like it because it is a discrete piece of art that is internally consistent and flavorful. I have seen my friends and colleagues drifting from D&D into other games, because those games are capable of approaching a specific flavor competently, without trying to be universal. Maybe it's time D&D chose a direction and committed, either that or it can fade away amongst the crowd of genre-specific RPG's out there now.
4E didn't remove mental and social stats ... not sure what you meant there. But I agree that something about the mechanics of D&D4 made players distinctly aware that they were playing a game. I have never seen players more disengaged when it wasn't their turn, but I can't see a mechanical reason. Perhaps it's too many options for you once your turn comes around, so you're focusing on what you're going to do next instead of watching the game go?
4E nailed DMing. 4E failed on the player side.
What 5E needs to do is:
- Make individual classes feel more unique : So many of the powers in 4E were just variations of the same thing everyone else has.
- Make Power Sources feel more unique: 3.5 did a fairly good job of making each power source feel different where as 4E did not. I love the idea of Power Sources mattering but 4E didn't pull it off as well as it could have.
- Eliminate Power cards and return to the old style spell/ability description.
- Make the chance to hit higher than 50/50 base.
- Less immediate interrupts: Makes the game flow better.
Oh blarg. I don't know what I was thinking when I said they removed mental stats. Maybe my memory is shot. I guess I meant the reduced emphasis on social rules, where the rulebooks pertained almost entirely to functions of combat and mechanics. I originally thought it would be great, but instead of filling in the blanks with DM creativity, that part of the game seemed to atrophy and we ended up playing a mini's combat game.
I fully agree with E_E, and I still think writing your name like that looks like a worried emoticon looking over it's shoulder.
Numinous, 4E put social firmly into the combat, but compartmentalized it more from the other abilities. Aside from choosing whether your skill training went into Diplomacy instead of Athletics, being a good social character didn't hurt your ability to fight. Skill Challenges, though poorly explained at first, were the way to incorporate the mechanics with the roleplay.
I truthfully never got to run a game of my own creation in 4E beyond 2 sessions; my longest games were premades, and those are intrinsically dungeon-crawly. Perhaps my opinions would have been different had I ran more of my own social games.
>>My primary concern however is this crowd-sourcing of mechanics.
I doubt they really care or will listen to any customers on that issue. They see that it helped Paizo win plaudits and seem to want to jump on the bandwagon by appearing to value customer input, but my gut instinct is it will be smoke and mirrors. I do invite them to prove me wrong, however. :)
Wizards was a very good company that believed in a strong message board presence with back and forth with users until it went insane and launched Gleemax. It may or may not have improved since Gleemax's demise, but I doubt it.
It looks to me like what's going on here is that WotC basically wants a do-over on 4th edition. :grin:
I wonder how much of this is in response to Pathfinder. It seems 4th edition was a somewhat bold attempt to redesign the game mechanics that generated a lot of controversy and a lot of people ended up hating. Part of this was because they did a lot of stupid things in 4e, but part of it is also that some people want to play the same game until the end of time and they hate change. On the other hand, Pathfinder is essentially a few bandages and a coat of paint on the same old 3rd edition rules, even the broken 3e rules. So, there are probably a lot of people who want to play Pathfinder not so much because of anything that it did inherently, but because it manages to be able to be both "new" (because it is a new game) and "the same old 3e that you're familiar with" at the same time. So, all this talk about trying to pull in mechanics from previous editions is their way of trying to do the same thing, to come up with something "new" but yet not so new it'll scare away all the people who don't really want anything truly new.
I agree with Light Dragon on the whole thing about listening to customers being more of a PR thing than anything legit. To be honest, it's probably good, because I'm not sure what useful information they could get from listening to the internet mobs, anyway. The fans hanging around on the forums bitching about whatever feature of the game is going to be a vocal minority, but a minority is what they will be, and you don't want to base too many of your important decisions on the opinions of a small, vocal group that is very radicalized and doesn't really know what they're talking about.
I don't really know enough about D&D these days to have an actual list of wants. My gut feeling would be to get back to a less combat-centric game, or, alternatively, do like FATE and Exalted (and Asura!) and a bunch of other systems, and come up with some rules that enable the use of the normal combat mechanics during social conflicts. That might not be the kind of D&D that most people these days even want, though; I honestly don't know. It would also probably require getting rid of the 4e thing where you use a battle map all the time, but that's something else I'm perfectly fine with.
If this post seems mostly negative, it probably is. I'm rather skeptical.
This has been a long time coming. I think most people that noticed WotC brought back Monte Cook, one of the head designers of 3.0, knew this was why. I didn't know it had been announced, however.
I'd like to say, "that's it, I'm out, I'm done," but I know I'll probably get suckered into buying the first PHB, DMG, and MM...at least out of curiosity. I'll try to get in on the playtest for sure.
I honestly hoped that this wouldn't happen at least until after they delivered on their promise of fully-functioning online tools and game table...and they were pretty close to that goal, too.
Well luckily for me I've only played 3x for about 4 years - so I hadn't played it long enough to be burned out by it, so when Pathfinder came along and I joined in that game, and I moved to that, I didn't have any negative 3x baggage to carry along.
4e did not impress me, and 5e at this point doesn't even intrigue me, so I won't worry about it until one of my players sticks a book in my face, and even then, I might not even look. WotC has never been my go to publisher... good luck with the company though, I wish them the best. All I really want to say to them is "Go away, you bodda me, kid!"
I'm starting to feel very cynical about the whole D&D endeavor, really. Is releasing a new edition really about improving the game, or is it about selling books and having an excuse to re-release old books and settings with new rules? It seems to me that the latter is more likely. Isn't a new edition of the rules essentially an admission of failure, a suggestion that the last edition was not only flawed, but flawed enough that an entire new version of the game is required? And if not one - not two - not three - not even four - but five iterations (so far!) of the same game are required to perfect the gaming experience, what does that say about the game in question? Either it was deeply flawed to begin with (in which case, why spend so much time improving it?) or another edition isn't really necessary.
I don't think releasing a new edition is about creating a superior gaming experience; I think it's about releasing the same tired, safe, risk-free stuff in the name of making a buck. Why not create a bunch of new settings, or adaptations of the rules-set for different time periods and genres? Heck, why not make something totally new? The answer, tragically, seems to be that creativity is too risky, and not profitable enough. Better to trot out the beholders and half-elves for another ride round the block. It's the same reason Hollywood is obsessed with remakes and sequels, the reason we have to suffer through a dozen Spider Man reboots and Transformers movies and Crystal Skulls and Stranger Tides for every Avatar or Hugo, the reason there are 10000 games about space marines or dragons or alien invasions and stuff like Amnesia: the Dark Descent only shows up once in a blue moon. The thing is, it's not even the fault of the creators, who're probably just trying to keep the wolves from the door: it's the hopelessly commodified, artistically indifferent system itself, and the people who fuel it, rubes and nostalgic suckers included.
I'm definitely out. Unless 5e is hailed as a revolutionary new system that completely reinvigorates a tired franchise and brings some great new, exciting settings with it to boot, I'm not buying the books. Because what`s the need? If I want to play D&D, I can. I really, really doubt that a tweaked rules-system to run the same old dungeon delves is worth the money.
>>or is it about selling books and having an excuse to re-release old books and settings with new rules? It seems to me that the latter is more likely
I would assume that. I wouldn't blame them for it though. :) They need to make a profit. I'm annoyed when they keep adding the PR-assh*t BS that "oh this is the most amazing thing kiddos" like Gleemax; but I don't blame them for trying it. ... They just lose me as a customer when they treat me and the audience like stupid 13 year olds (as opposed to shrewd 13-year-olds).
>> Isn't a new edition of the rules essentially an admission of failure, a suggestion that the last edition was not only flawed, but flawed enough that an entire new version of the game is required?
Well recall that was the selling point of 4E? "3E is cr*p, dumb*****. Upgrade." And Exalted's puerile "upgrade your game" ads. :p
It's not unique though... don't forget, Call of Cthulu has gone through about 7 or 8 editions now? Although the amusing thing about that is that 3E's pretty much the same as 8E... I GM a group where I have the 3E book, someone has 5E another has 7E or something along those lines. Chaosium just improved the quality of the rulebooks. The difference is that you get more bang for your buck with a DnD upgrade- you get a new system :) But the other difference is there is no reason to upgrade CoC since the editions are interchangeable- whereas with DnD that isn't the case.
The risk they have in introducing 5E is in further fragmenting their playerbase... Wired Magazine's article on this subject touched on that.
---
Tangent. But steerpike- beholders were unique... they're product identity. They were a risk. I'd also take a shot at Avatar being original- the plot was tired- 3D was a risk, but the plot was tired.
I'd also defend Wizard's change of systems from a creativity standpoint. 4E was a risk because it changed a lot... staying with 3E wouldn't have been a risk. Now, I don't like 4E but heck, that's an example of a risk backfiring on their part :). Another risk--the open design license that allowed Paizo to flourish. Another risk--the terrible online content of Gleemax. Eberron was also a very new setting- a risk. Their 3E strategy was to not inundate the market with settings like they did in 3E ... when they did that they divided the market too much so it wasn't profitable to release books in all the lines. It's a part of the reason for 2E's money woes. The Dungeon and Dragon magazine editorials and 30 Years of Adventure went into the economics, If I recall correctly.
The 3E focus was crunch and not fluff... and near its end-life they started producing adventures again to create a shared feeling like 1E player's had when they all adventured in the classics... which were really terrible adventures in a lot of ways when you look back on them (lots of gotcha moments, etc. that one couldn't plan to circumvent "eg. tomb of horrors"). 4E was beginning to focus a bit more on settings with their "year of ..." dark sun, eberron, forgotten realms, etc. And speaking of inventive- Dark Sun is inventive... not my cup of tea, but it's inventive. It's from 2E-era, but still- it hadn't been touched in years.
Also; Note to the OP (Xeviat)- could you please change the thread title to : "obligatory". Thanks.
I never converted from 3.5 and I'm soon to be converting to Pathfinder, but my first and last thought on 5th edition:
Already?
I think one of the problems is that they do try to do something "new," but then, at the same time, they try to do something that can still be called "Dungeons & Dragons." So, it has to have new stuff, but not too much new stuff. As I stated before, I think this is why Pathfinder is successful-- it adds just enough new stuff, mechanics fixes, and other little shiny goodies that everyone regards it as this shiny new thing, but then at the same time it's still, fundamentally, basically 3e D&D in a way that 4e definitely isn't. 4e was a more radical departure, and, even if it wasn't full of fundamentally stupid problems (which it is) there would still be people who didn't like it simply because it was different, and yet, it was still called "D&D." It has a legacy.
I wouldn't always think of the need for a new edition as a failure. In theory, it could simply be an attempt to add new and innovative mechanics that weren't around when the original game was first released, or to tweak things that didn't quite work in the original, or, well, any number of improvements. Truthfully, some of it is probably just a response to changing preferences of gamers, too.
But that's just the theory. In practice, yeah, the "D&D brand" probably means a lot more to WotC than innovation and originality and all that other stuff put together. Like I said, it has a legacy. Even if they do try to do something new, they'll still try to cash in on that legacy. They'll slap the D&D name on it and include enough references back to the old stuff (think 4e) and if that fails, then maybe it was just because they didn't include enough old stuff (think Pathfinder) or they really should have just never changed anything in the first place (think various OD&D retro-clones) or whatever. They're trying to balance doing something new for the people that like new but not so new that they lose out on the people who like old.
Too often, all that results is them ruining something that might have been better without trying to bring in a whole bunch of "traditional D&D stuff" from the 1970s and 80s and 90s and so on. I think that Eberron would have been a much better setting if it wasn't loaded down with a whole bunch of stereotypical D&D crap that it needed to have in order to be a "D&D setting."
I share your cynicism. The odds of them coming up with something truly new, going off in a new direction, and with a new name and a lack of baggage are... not good.
I suppose I'm just one of those "liburals" who like change (spelling to emphasize pronunciation). I don't fault a game company for releasing a new edition. L5R is on its 4th Edition, M&M is on its 3rd Edition, and Hero and GURPs are on I-don't-want-to-google-it editions. Yes, 4-5 years is a short lifespan for a game, but this is the age of the internet and things are moving faster. Input can be gathered quicker.
It's simply easier to clean off the table and start from scratch than it would be to patch things up. 4E's a playable game, but something fundamentally feels off for some players (1 in my own group). I guess someone has decided that they want to appease those people.
I'm a terminal optimist, so for now all I can do is hope I get in the playtest and hope for the best. D&D was my first tabletop game, and no matter how I try to get away from it I find myself drawn back just the same.
GURPS is on 4th, since the mid-80s. That's not terrible. D&D wasn't bad, either, until it went to WotC. Ai, ai, Hasbro!
I guess the biggest concern for me is whether or not it actually is as diverse a system as they have claimed to be working on in recent statements. If it is, I might actually be interested in grabbing the books. I would like to see them put a little more effort into adventures that people might look at and say "Hey I might buy that so I can run it 30 times" - I very much felt this way about Expedition to Undermountain and Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, both of which were released very late in the 3.5 cycle. I think it'd be really cool if that were the case and the only book collection you'd need for a while would be the PHB, DMG and MM along with a large module of your choice like the Expeditions were.
Are there any details whatsoever on the elements, mechanics or design considerations of 5e so far?
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
Are there any details whatsoever on the elements, mechanics or design considerations of 5e so far?
Don't believe so. Check this article out (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/9329-Speak-Your-Mind-in-the-Next-Version-of-Dungeons-Dragons), it has some interesting tidbits (nothing to really sink your teeth into, but it at least gives us a look inside the thoughts of the people in charge). However, it's easy to really hype something up when they haven't chosen to reveal any of the actual crunch behind it.
If there's ever been a time I've wanted to stay away from the D20 system, it's now, but I'm not so stubborn as to turn a blind eye to 5E. I sincerely hope for the best, and if they turn out with a great, new system, then awesome! :)
Xev, I like change too. That's why I'm annoyed by the continuous tinkering with editions: all they're
really changing are a few mechanics, but the core idea, the worlds, the essential game isn't new at all.
Quote from: Light DragonI would assume that. I wouldn't blame them for it though. smile They need to make a profit.
Agreed. But that's exactly what sucks. Mass-market consumerism is often pretty inimical to art.
QuoteEberron was also a very new setting- a risk.
Any business decision is, of course, a risk in a sense, in that it's either going to make money or not. It's true Eberron was a substantial risk - and Eberron is one of the things I totally give Wizards mad props for. Eberron is awesome. But if you look at the number of settings that TSR put out for 2nd edition AD&D - Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, the Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Mystara/Hollow World, Dragonlance, Birthright, Al-Qadim, Wilderlands, etc etc - and then compare it to the number that WotC put out for 3rd edition - Eberron, Ghostwalk (barely), Rokugon (except not really, since that was taken from Legend of the Five Rings) - you can see a disturbing pattern emerging. There were some great settings produced by inventive 3rd party publishers for 3e due to the OGL (also one of the decisions I give them props for), which helped a lot, but the trend from WotC seems to be to stop genuinely creating new, cool, unique stuff and instead repackage the old, generic stuff with some tweaked mechanics.
As you point out, putting out so many settings probably contributed to TSR's financial troubles, while it seems that holding onto product identity like a crusty safety blanket and re-releasing the same old stuff time and time again is keeping WotC in the black. TSR died a noble death; WotC will strike any Mephistophelean bargain to ensure its immortality. That's exactly what I find so sad about the entire situation. It's also why I won't spend any money on D&D again, short of some earth-shatteringly awesome creative rejuvenation. Ultimately these decisions come down to what sells, and I know what my dollar is voting for.
EDIT:
Quote from: XeviatI don't fault a game company for releasing a new edition.
Me neither. The truer fault lies with consumers.
Gamers of the world unite! :P
I thought the great thing about 3rd, and to an extant 2nd/ADnd, was that it was a fairly ambiguous setting, able to accommodate practically anything fantasy setting you could think of and any other genre with just a little work. The idea of the d20 was easy enough, and everything made sense, but I'll admit at times it wasn't the most exciting of systems.
I also thought 4th did the exact opposite, as it seemed to me the core rules where adapted to the "Points of Light" Forgotten Realms they came up with. The introduction of the tiefling and the dragonborn (or whatever they were called) and all the other WoW jazz totally threw off the "generic fantasty" vibe that a core rule set SHOULD have.
I'm not sure how tiefling and dragonborn were WoWie, but perhaps that sentence is more compound than I'm reading it. Many settings, from Elder Scrolls to Everquest, have races outside of the traditional mammalian standard bearers. Perhaps those should be left to supplements, though, and ensure that D&D's tropes are hit first.
Here I was all ready to start retooling L5R for my setting, and now I'm going to end up waiting and seeing what D&D5 is all about. My storytelling really suits D&D, since it started there. Lets just hope that 5E is still D&D.
One bit of information we are being fed is that 5E is going to try to encompass all of the editions, and be somehow modular. Someone on the WotC boards made the following hypothesis: certain elements of the game could be removed without affecting the rest. For example:
1st Edition style: Class abilities, that's it.
2nd Edition style: Add skills and proficiencies.
3rd Edition style: Add professional skills and feats.
4th Edition style: Remove professional skills, trade some feats for powers.
If skills aren't required to play the game, and if feats aren't required to patch the basic math of the game, then all of these elements can become optional ways to diversify characters. It's an idea that I greatly like, as it would allow a quick game to be played 1st Edition style by just picking your race and your class, all the way up to complex 3E and 4E styles.
That's if that's the direction they're actually going in.
Quote from: Steerpike
QuoteEberron was also a very new setting- a risk.
Any business decision is, of course, a risk in a sense, in that it's either going to make money or not. It's true Eberron was a substantial risk - and Eberron is one of the things I totally give Wizards mad props for. Eberron is awesome. But if you look at the number of settings that TSR put out for 2nd edition AD&D - Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, the Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Mystara/Hollow World, Dragonlance, Birthright, Al-Qadim, Wilderlands, etc etc - and then compare it to the number that WotC put out for 3rd edition - Eberron, Ghostwalk (barely), Rokugon (except not really, since that was taken from Legend of the Five Rings) - you can see a disturbing pattern emerging. There were some great settings produced by inventive 3rd party publishers for 3e due to the OGL (also one of the decisions I give them props for), which helped a lot, but the trend from WotC seems to be to stop genuinely creating new, cool, unique stuff and instead repackage the old, generic stuff with some tweaked mechanics.
Outside of Eberron and Forgotten Realms, WotC did not publish any settings in 3.x that were not either stand alone products (Ghostwalk) or were settings WotC created specifically to whore out to 3rd party companies so they could shoulder the burden (and risk) of create supplements (Rokugan, Dragonlance). The problem with Setting books is that it targets a niche population of a niche population of a niche population. First off you need to be a DM (1/5th of the population), second off you need to DM in that setting (very tiny), thirdly you need to have a desire to explore the regions/issues/people/etc. covered in the setting splat book (even tinier). There just isn't a big market for such books, which is why WoTC was forced to do away with them when 4E came along. They have to make money and you can do that with much more ease by creating generalized splat books targeted towards players. :(
Of course, when a campaign setting takes off, it can be really, really profitable and reach a market beyond GMs. Think about how much money Forgotten Realms has brought in for the gaming industry - not just dozens (I'm guessing hundreds at this point) of roleplaying books and expansions but multiple video-game franchises (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Pool of Radiance), novel franchises (Salvatore and many, many others), and even a comics series. The world originated the first graphical MMORPG ever (the original Neverwinter Nights) and many of its novels were best-sellers and remain in print today. Whether or not you like the world, it's had an enormous impact, had an effect on the industry as a whole, and made a ton of money at the same time.
Eberron certainly hasn't reached the same dizzy heights, but it's already got a computer game, several novels, and a graphic novel, plus dozens of books and accessories.
Though it didn't originate as a roleplaying setting, think about how many products Middle Earth has produced. Games, films, cartoons, memorabilia, costumes, dozens of editions of the novel, etc.
So there is money to be made in settings. Settings, more than rules-expansions or character splatbooks, can acquire strong fan-bases and followings. They can fire the imagination and produce more creative works - a lot more. It seems to me that it's just easier and safer not to introduce new ones.
They should tap in to some novels to make settings from. The Shadows of the Apt series would be a ridiculously good gaming setting (as I'm sure the author has done). Things like that.
That being said, I'm looking forward to the mechanics of 5e, see what has changed and what hasn't.
I think D&D tried to seem a whole more "generic" than it was. Maybe in some ways it was, but only because D&D tropes had gotten so fully integrated into popular culture's definition of fantasy. I still think a lot of what the OGL would call "Product Identity" was still all over the place; you can see this in settings like Eberron where they seemingly have to bend over backwards to accommodate old D&D standbys like elves, alignment, and a bunch of high level spells that would probably destroy the society that Eberron is trying to portray but still have to be in there anyway because they're part of D&D*. Of course, that's largely because it was the winner of a "take all of the standard D&D crap and cram it into a unique setting" contest.
*I do want to point out, to its credit, Eberron does handle the ramifications of what having various powerful magic available on a large scale would really do to a setting far better than most "traditional fantasy" type settings.
Quote from: Steerpike
Of course, when a campaign setting takes off, it can be really, really profitable and reach a market beyond GMs. Think about how much money Forgotten Realms has brought in for the gaming industry - not just dozens (I'm guessing hundreds at this point) of roleplaying books and expansions but multiple video-game franchises (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Pool of Radiance), novel franchises (Salvatore and many, many others), and even a comics series. The world originated the first graphical MMORPG ever (the original Neverwinter Nights) and many of its novels were best-sellers and remain in print today. Whether or not you like the world, it's had an enormous impact, had an effect on the industry as a whole, and made a ton of money at the same time.
Eberron certainly hasn't reached the same dizzy heights, but it's already got a computer game, several novels, and a graphic novel, plus dozens of books and accessories.
Though it didn't originate as a roleplaying setting, think about how many products Middle Earth has produced. Games, films, cartoons, memorabilia, costumes, dozens of editions of the novel, etc.
So there is money to be made in settings. Settings, more than rules-expansions or character splatbooks, can acquire strong fan-bases and followings. They can fire the imagination and produce more creative works - a lot more. It seems to me that it's just easier and safer not to introduce new ones.
Peripherals, like books and games, make Settings profitable but the setting splat books themselves are very poor money makers. If they made a ton of money, the cash-strapped WotC would not have cut the production of all Splat books when 4E was created. As we have seen since 2008, the profitability of the Forgotten Realms peripherals were not diminished by the loss of splat books because, typically, they target a different (though some what related) audience. Most people do not enjoy digging into what are, essentially, History books (remember, kids these days often claim history is the most difficult subject in school).
Of course, we, the denizens of this site, are total oddballs in that we spend our free time writing imaginary histories for make believe worlds. :D
Having said that, FR would not be popular if it did not begin with splat books, which energized a small core of creative people to generate thousands of pages of content for the setting (through splat books, novels, games, comics, etc.).
The danger I see for Wizards is that FR is very much old hat. Eberron was their new poster child setting but, over the course of 4E's life, it has received very little new content (hardly any DDI articles, only a handful of books, no splats, no comics). In fact, no setting (besides FR) is really generating a large amounts of content (and even that has been drastically curtailed since 3.x). WotC really needs to either push a new setting to the forefront or refocus on FR because, right now, I (and many gamers I know) have lost a lot of interest in all D&D settings.
Quote from: Llum
They should tap in to some novels to make settings from. The Shadows of the Apt series would be a ridiculously good gaming setting (as I'm sure the author has done). Things like that.
That being said, I'm looking forward to the mechanics of 5e, see what has changed and what hasn't.
Licensees are almost always profitable and short term.
Xeviat- Thanks! :)
---
Quotecompare it to the number that WotC put out for 3rd edition - Eberron, Ghostwalk (barely), Rokugon (except not really, since that was taken from Legend of the Five Rings) - you can see a disturbing pattern emerging. There were some great settings produced by inventive 3rd party publishers for 3e due to the OGL (also one of the decisions I give them props for), which helped a lot, but the trend from WotC seems to be to stop genuinely creating new, cool, unique stuff and instead repackage the old, generic stuff with some tweaked mechanics.
I agree that they focused on mechanics. I wonder though if your criticism is that they didn't express enough creativity in the mechanics or just that focusing on mechanics is inherently lazier than focusing on the vibrant settings.
Before Paizo started incorporating its APG extra classes into later books and adventures, I would have thought WoTC did a decent job with inventing LOTS of new mechanics and classes and features... but now I think they made a poor business decision. Paizo has managed, without alienating customers, to increase the value of its APG by making large parts of it open content and then placing references to it everywhere- but in adventures where they reprint some things without being so overbearing as to destroy value in the new products. Still, back in 2004 the internet wasn't as accessible at the gaming table as it is in 2009/2012, so WoTC open sourcing some classes and prestige classes may not have worked...especially since they didn't make their money from adventures... which was a business decision- just focus on mechanics books and nothing else... it was an odd decision, but they let the 3PP cover the adventures because of the lower margins.
QuoteAs you point out, putting out so many settings probably contributed to TSR's financial troubles, while it seems that holding onto product identity like a crusty safety blanket and re-releasing the same old stuff time and time again is keeping WotC in the black. TSR died a noble death; WotC will strike any Mephistophelean bargain to ensure its immortality. That's exactly what I find so sad about the entire situation. It's also why I won't spend any money on D&D again, short of some earth-shatteringly awesome creative rejuvenation. Ultimately these decisions come down to what sells, and I know what my dollar is voting for.
That's fair. I'm more interested in settings generally.
Speaking of settings- let us not forget the Wheel of Time setting book and special edition in Dragon magazine. :)
>> It seems to me that it's just easier and safer not to introduce new ones.
Well... people also have setting fatigue and a barrier to get into each new setting? Once you're playing in one setting, most people won't want to play in another. They've already 'found' a setting, so to speak- so the market is really tiny. Elemental Elf and Sparkletwist generally have been expressing my opinions. I know I only play in one setting at a time in DnD world- my own- which sadly needed to incorporate boring Golarion so I could better use the Adventure Paths. :p and I didn't want to have to convert all the lore on the fly.
Light Dragon, were you the one who posted that thought on WotC's boards?
Which thought?
You said thank you, I was assuming you might have been the one who posted the idea about removing skills, feats, and powers from characters to simplify them and make them old school ...
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11
Quote from: Ghostman
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11
The sad thing is how true this is. So many people do weird things with D&D, it would be hard to find any kind of concusses.
The best place to actually get feed back would probably be at major conventions like the D&D Experience, PAX and GenCon.
Xeviat- no, I was saying thank you for the change in the title. I appreciated it. :)
Ah, sorry my hasty spelling made your eyes bleed.
I would look at what d&d fundamentally is, work from there. Make three levels of complexity. Stop selling merely adventures, but sell interlocking locales.
Vreeg, it would be great if they had more of a setting for the basic products.
It's interesting that you note three levels of complexity. Are you referring to tiers of play, or complexity within the levels? Something like I mentioned earlier, with optional modular components that can be added or removed?
WotC has, outside of Dungeon Mag, really pulled themselves out of the Adventure-writing business. Unfortunately, its not hugely profitable subsection of the RPG market. This was why WotC originally created the OGL - with the hope that WotC would write profitable supplements, while 3rd party companies would focus on Adventures.
Towards the tail end of 4E, the only adventures released were more Location-Campaign-Settings + Adventures within that locale than the traditional "here's an adventure for 10th level characters".
Quote from: Xeviat
Vreeg, it would be great if they had more of a setting for the basic products.
It's interesting that you note three levels of complexity. Are you referring to tiers of play, or complexity within the levels? Something like I mentioned earlier, with optional modular components that can be added or removed?
Exactly.
A system with some modularity, a bit more of a toolkit approach, but based on three levels of detail, sort of what kids thought they were getting back in the day with, "advanced dungeons and dragons" and the "expert set". A basic set of class-based, vancian rules to learn and then a few more levels of optional rules.
They need to go back to a ruleset with the roles balanced around exploration, not balanced around combat. But part of the modularity needs to also be based on emphasizing different game balances, so by using the advanced social rules, it shifts the rules balance to a more social heavy game, by using the advanced magic rules, it shifts the game balance more towards, magic, etc.
To EE's point, I would release locale subsets, like towns, guilds, forests, islands, that a GM could insert relatively easily into their own settings. Whether anyone understood, that is why Hommlet and the underdark were in so many otherwise homebrew settings, becasue they were locale based adventures.
I know the types of products that really helped me with worldbuilding back in 3E were Dieties and Demigods, the Epic Level Handbook (odd, I know), and the DMG1 and 2. The DMG1 had a settlement building system that really gave me an idea of what settlements were like. It felt "natural", even if the results might have not been "realistic". That's not a fault of the system changes, but it is a fault of designer decisions as to what to put in the books.
I do think the perspective around here is a bit skewed, being a the bunch of setting and system builders that we are. One of you is the "Captain of Crunch" and is always creating new variations on things, and the other has a homebrew system he's been tinkering with for 20+ years. The "toolkit" approach is far less likely to generally appeal to people who want to just buy a book and sit down and play a game without having to worry about any that. This was the problem with Fudge-- it was all optional rules and tools, and it felt like an incomplete mess. It took something like FATE coming along and nailing a lot down before the mechanic really took off.
Quote from: sparkletwist
I do think the perspective around here is a bit skewed, being a the bunch of setting and system builders that we are. One of you is the "Captain of Crunch" and is always creating new variations on things, and the other has a homebrew system he's been tinkering with for 20+ years. The "toolkit" approach is far less likely to generally appeal to people who want to just buy a book and sit down and play a game without having to worry about any that. This was the problem with Fudge-- it was all optional rules and tools, and it felt like an incomplete mess. It took something like FATE coming along and nailing a lot down before the mechanic really took off.
That's why I want three basic levels of complexity. The basic rules should be exactly what you say. Totally agree. Something like the complexity level of S&W, and I like the idea of balancing the roles/classes on the idea of the exploration. And that basic ruleset needs to be a stand alone.
The toolkit idea is for the advanced rules.
You've missed my point. I'm saying the levels of complexity over the basic set aren't needed because the people that it would appeal to are likely to be the ones tinkering around with the system with a million house rules anyway. They don't need another product, and, furthermore, to do so only divides the community and drives them into competition with themselves.
What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.
Given the edition wars between 3e and 4e and whatever, they're not going to want to release a product that only further divides their already fragmented marketplace.
Quote from: sparkletwist
You've missed my point. I'm saying the levels of complexity over the basic set aren't needed because the people that it would appeal to are likely to be the ones tinkering around with the system with a million house rules anyway. They don't need another product, and, furthermore, to do so only divides the community and drives them into competition with themselves.
What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.
Given the edition wars between 3e and 4e and whatever, they're not going to want to release a product that only further divides their already fragmented marketplace.
We were talking about rulesets...splatbooks are a very small issue and will rarely raise the kind of concern you mention. Some poeple buy them, but many gamers have none.
I'd also say one of the very largest problems D&D5e faces is attracting the new and young audience and keeping some interest by the older group. And so frankly; it NEEDS a simple stand alone basic version as well as advanced rules for the more experienced gamers and for those who play the basic for a while and move on. So I am saying that the levels of complexity built in from the beginning are the only way you can do both. I do a lot of product development and marketing; the idea is to appeal to both demographics within the same brand family.
You'll always get people houseruling, but advanced rules actually gives them a head-start.
No. It needs one set of rules that is well-tested, well-defined, and easy for players to get into. I agree with you about the emphasis on exploration and such needing to come back to the front, because reducing D&D to a simplistic board game or computer game pretty much ruins the point of playing a traditional tabletop RPG. However, that said, that should be where they take the game, then. No messing around and trying to please everyone all the time or whatever a mess of optional rules is supposed to accomplish. One rule set is already a monumental enough task. Looking at the number of complaints, errata, and such from 4e, I'd argue they've got their hands full trying to do that-- and yet, you somehow expect them to be able to put out not one, but essentially three rulesets with interlocking optional components that can be added or removed at-will.
You can casually dismiss splatbooks with anecdotal evidence all you want, but the fact is, they are getting published. Things like D&D Insider also serve as a flow of supplemental material, containing much of the same kind of material. When splatbooks (or articles in Dragon magazine, or whatever) for a modular edition or whatever this is are published, the issue I raised is going to come up and is going to have to be resolved-- and I don't see a good way to do so.
Quote from: sparkletwist
No. It needs one set of rules that is well-tested, well-defined, and easy for players to get into. I agree with you about the emphasis on exploration and such needing to come back to the front, because reducing D&D to a simplistic board game or computer game pretty much ruins the point of playing a traditional tabletop RPG. However, that said, that should be where they take the game, then. No messing around and trying to please everyone all the time or whatever a mess of optional rules is supposed to accomplish. One rule set is already a monumental enough task. Looking at the number of complaints, errata, and such from 4e, I'd argue they've got their hands full trying to do that-- and yet, you somehow expect them to be able to put out not one, but essentially three rulesets with interlocking optional components that can be added or removed at-will.
You can casually dismiss splatbooks with anecdotal evidence all you want, but the fact is, they are getting published. Things like D&D Insider also serve as a flow of supplemental material, containing much of the same kind of material. When splatbooks (or articles in Dragon magazine, or whatever) for a modular edition or whatever this is are published, the issue I raised is going to come up and is going to have to be resolved-- and I don't see a good way to do so.
What optional rules and modularity acccomplish is to allow the game to attract a new, more inexperienced gamer as well as be interesting for the grognards as well as speaking to the tinkerers as well as allowing the game to grow with the players as well as allowing the rules to apply to a larger amount of settings and gamestyles. That is what it
would accomplish, not supposedly. This is D&D, not some little game.
One set of rules will fit one or two of these catagories, which is fine for the scope of most new games, not for the flagship brand of the industry.
And my comment was not about what I expected them to do; it was what I would do. You may be right in what they will do...I say go big or go home. I agree with starting basic and carefully directed...but to quickly build on that .
When I first saw the thread title, I thought this was a joke...I had lost track, what with not playing as often--didn't realize almost four years had passed since 4e came out.
My 2cp on the most recent topic, is that every group I've ever played in all the players have owned multiple splat books. Some players owned almost all of them. All were purchased almost entirely for crunch. At least on that level, having regular D&D and advanced D&D could potentially exacerbate the issues that crunch splatbooks create now. That is, every splatbook has to account (or may wish to account) for the additional rules introduced in successive PHBs (at least 4e seemed to mostly limit new rules to main PHBs, but even that was an issue).
Anyway, I'm sure I'll wind up buying whatever 5e winds up being. D&D isn't my favorite RPG out there, but it has player-base going for it, and some other advantages.
The latest from Monte Cook (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120116):
Quote from: Legends & Lore ArticleThis new approach comes out of a single idea. At its heart, D&D isn't about rules. It's about participating in an exciting fantasy adventure. The rules are just the means to enable that to happen. They're not an end unto themselves. The reason most of us play is for the story that arises out of our games. We talk about the green devil mouth in the Tomb of Horrors. The diabolical plans of Strahd in Ravenloft. The cowardly kobold Meepo in Sunless Citadel. These stories bring us together. As D&D players, we shouldn't allow rule preferences to separate us. In the end, we have a lot more in common than we have differences, even if some of us prefer the simple-yet-wahoo style of old school Basic D&D and others the carefully balanced elegance of 4th edition—or anything in between.
So if this new endeavor is just like your favorite prior version of the game, why play this one? First, we hope you're going to enjoy the distillation of the things that make D&D the game we all love into a single, unified package, with the ability to pick and choose other options as you desire.
Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide.
What I'm drawing from this is that WotC wants to make D&D more modular and allow individual players and DM's more liberty to custom craft the game they want to play. They already have this, in a way, via the original 4E and the Essentials line. One is very complex while the other simple. Both product lines can be played simultaneously at the same table with little to no effort to maintain such a duality.
I see 5E pulling this schtick again but taking it to the next level.
I'm really hoping the modularity on the player side is with subsystems that can be added and removed with little consequence. I could see basic characters getting +2 to all skill checks, while advanced characters instead choose skills to be trained in (worse at the untrained, better at the trained). I don't see how to make feats modular, though.
Modular rules on the DM side of the screen are far easier to address. Does your game have grim and gritty rules for injury? Does your game use other rules that make the game more "realistic"? Does your game run fast and action packed? Does your game focus on adventuring and exploration or does your game focus on combat?
If advanced rules make a character better, and not just more focused, then every rules lawyer is going to want to play the better character. I fundamentally believe that everyone at the table needs to be on the same level.
I am deeply worried about 5E from what I've heard so far. On the contrary, I was ecstatic (that word really doesn't have an "x" in it?) with 4E from the very first day it was revealed. I really need to hear some news about crunch, otherwise all this pie in the sky dream telling is going to make me double down on some sort of 4E distillation.
I've DMed and played quite a bit of 4E and had my share players who used Essentials classes. They aren't as potent as a finely tuned PHB-based characters but they are easily on par with above average and below PHB builds, most especially in the all important Heroic tier.
If 5E is going for modular, I could see them having a modualr system then I worry about balance. I'd hate to see An Essentials Wizard try to compete with a 3.5 Style Wizard.
Their approach to modularity doesn't sound too bad so far. If I understood it correctly, you just pick a level of choice granularity for your character based on your preferences and the game you are playing. I think they will all essentially be based on the same system (the "finest" granularity where the player has ultimate freedom and can mess around with the tiniest details of his character within the limits set up by the rules), but the players choosing simpler sheets will make fewer, more significant choices, e.g. instead of picking Cleave, longsword proficiency, a fighter level, weapon focus, skill levels in profession: fencing or whatever they just pick a bundle called e.g. Swordsman and through that they achieve regular and static bonusses.
That is, either you make a bunch of choices with little impact or a few choices with a big impact.
I do agree with Sparkle's point that system optionality is an issue and, to a degree, an evil. A system engineered to do everything often ends up being unnecessarily complex and strangely unevocative. Most players and DMs need some fixed points to get the creative juices running, just like we often need a map, a time period, or a premise before we can build a setting. We don't want Kitchen Sink game systems like we don't want Kitchen Sink game settings.
EDIT: based solely on the evidence from the above blog post I do not believe D&D is at risk of "overoptionalizing", though. Yet.
Re Crow: What blog post?
Quote from: Superfluous Crowbased solely on the evidence from the above blog post I do not believe D&D is at risk of "overoptionalizing", though.
Do you mean the blog post where Monte Cook says that not only are there a bunch of optional rules that can be inserted and removed at-will but
different players in what is supposedly the same game can all be playing with different versions of the rules? I'm really not sure how you can say it isn't at risk of "overoptionalizing" after reading
that.
Quote from: LordVreegWhat optional rules and modularity acccomplish is to allow the game to attract a new, more inexperienced gamer as well as be interesting for the grognards as well as speaking to the tinkerers as well as allowing the game to grow with the players as well as allowing the rules to apply to a larger amount of settings and gamestyles. That is what it would accomplish, not supposedly.
Optional rules and modularity do not accomplish these objectives on their own. That's what they would accomplish
if the designers can design the rules to appeal to both groups and
if they can make the two (or three, or however many) levels of rules interlock in a functional way with mechanics that play right and
if WotC can successfully market it. Based on the previous track record of D&D (and that of the RPG industry in general) those are some pretty big ifs. Until and unless whoever is behind 5e can meet those conditions, it's all still just a "supposedly." Remember the Segway? There was lots of talk about what it would accomplish, too. But the preconditions to its revolution were not met and it fell into the realm of "supposedly."
Going back to splatbooks, Phoenix's experience is closer to my own. There are lots of the things out there, and companies are eager to print more. I have no idea how they think they're going to support multiple levels of play in any satisfactory way in a splatbook full of crunch, especially when the levels of play are so widely divergent between a fast and loose 1e game and a super-crunchy 3e featfest.
If crow's idea is the way they're going, I could see it working. Rather than picking skills, a basic ruleset has pre-chosen skills for each class. Rather than picking feats, a player chooses a style and gets bonuses based on that. Or maybe feats could be separated into basic and advanced feats, with basic feats as always on bonuses that just change a number on your sheet and advanced feats being things you have to actively pay attention for.
And Beejazz, this is the blog post in question. (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120116)
There is definitely a risk, but I think it will take more than what he is alluding to there.
And I don't think they are making more than one set of rules, is what I'm saying. You can just look at the rules at different "scales" if you will. Players will be most comfortable with different degrees of control, and 5e simply tries to acknowledge this. I think.
It's an ambitious goal, but not completely implausible. It might help renew D&D while keeping it true to its origins with the added bonus of adding something unique, something no other system can do.
Quote from: XeviatI'm not sure how tiefling and dragonborn were WoWie, but perhaps that sentence is more compound than I'm reading it. Many settings, from Elder Scrolls to Everquest, have races outside of the traditional mammalian standard bearers.
Just wanted to respond to this earlier point. Both of your examples - Everquest and Elder Scrolls - are computer games. I think what Leetz was saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Leetz) wasn't that the dragonborn and tieflings were actual WoW ripoffs but that they felt like imports from the computer gaming world. It seems to me that a lot of 4E has computer games in mind. The problem is that that's totally and utterly backwards. Computer roleplaying games should be trying to mimic the story, immersiveness, detail, and dynamism that come from pen & paper roleplaying, except with graphics and sound and stuff. Instead, because computer games are successful, the trend is, absurdly, to make the pen & paper game imitate computer games. More specifically, it seems to me that 4E imitated computer games in all the worst ways, in the ways that computer rgs tend to degenerate into mindless clickfests of character optimization and loot gathering, i.e. World of Warcraft. 4E's emphasis on anal-retentive levels of character balance, powers, tactics, etc all have a certain whiff of the MMORPG about them.
QuoteJust wanted to respond to this earlier point. Both of your examples - Everquest and Elder Scrolls - are computer games. I think what Leetz was saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Leetz) wasn't that the dragonborn and tieflings were actual WoW ripoffs but that they felt like imports from the computer gaming world. It seems to me that a lot of 4E has computer games in mind.
This is supposing a link between medium and content that I do not think exists.
Sure, there's nothing intrinsically "computery" about tieflings and dragonborn, it's just that currently (one might say coincidentally) a lot of computer games in the MMORPG genre seem to have a thing for races along those lines. My point is that I don't think WotC included dragonborn and tieflings for essentially creative reasons. I think they included them to round out the pantheon of playable races to make it more closely resemble a present-day MMORPG's roster. Does that make sense? Not so much about essentializing races to a given medium so much as about imitating what's hot right now.
Quote from: Steerpike
Sure, there's nothing intrinsically "computery" about tieflings and dragonborn, it's just that currently (one might say coincidentally) a lot of computer games in the MMORPG genre seem to have a thing for races along those lines. My point is that I don't think WotC included dragonborn and tieflings for essentially creative reasons. I think they included them to round out the pantheon of playable races to make it more closely resemble a present-day MMORPG's roster. Does that make sense? Not so much about essentializing races to a given medium so much as about imitating what's hot right now.
Agreed, it's nothing up front and blatant. Now that I have to write this it is hard to put into the words, but D&D, at least to me (I was around for the end of 2E but really cut my teeth on 3E. 4E never interested me at all for reasons I've said) has this certain feel to it, the Gygaxian-Tolkien vibe I suppose. Up to 4E, all the races seemed to form a perfect circle, nothing seemed strangely out of place, nothing was too exotic, everything was on the same wavelength. The same goes for classes too.*
To me 4E seemed like it wanted to make D&D "cool and edgy", and anytime anyone tries to make anything "cool and edgy", it will fail 100% of the time.
*I realize that there are about 2,000 races and classes for 3E alone through supplements and add-ons. But that's where options should come from. The core game should be generic and balanced, both in crunch and fluff.
EDIT: Back to the dragonborn and tiefling, I think the problem with them is that the core rules assume that your campaign will have both dragons (I know its in the name, but humor me) and demons and that they both got down with the humans of the setting. The other core races make no such assumptions at all about your campaign world besides the most basic crunch and fluff. I suppose the same argument could be put towards half-orcs as well, which were not, IIRC, a core part of 2E, but 3E.
The funny thing is that neither Tieflings nor Dragonborn are half-human in 4E's setting. Tieflings were humans that were corrupted by diabolical powers, and Dragonborn were born of Io's blood during the Primordial Wars. All races have assumptions about your campaign world, and us world designers are more within our rights to change those assumptions.
Elves and Eladrin assume you have the feywild. Dwarves assume you have mines. Halflings assume ... you get my picture.
Also, every time you say something will happen 100% of the time, you're asking to be proven wrong. Both Dragonborn and Tieflings existed in one way or another in 3rd Edition.
I agree that Tieflings and Dragonborn were jarring, and that seeing the removal of Gnomes from the first PHB was shocking to D&D veterans. Perhaps that was the first nail in 4E's coffin, trying to be different. It's sad, really. We're all grognards a little bit, apparently. I do appreciate that they tried to round out the races. We could have had Half-Orcs instead of Dragonborn so we still had a strong monstrous race. We could have had Gnomes instead of Tieflings. We could have had Sorcerers instead of Warlocks, and Bards instead of Warlords. We could have just kept 3rd Edition ... see?
Quote from: Xeviat
All races have assumptions about your campaign world, and us world designers are more within our rights to change those assumptions.
Elves and Eladrin assume you have the feywild. Dwarves assume you have mines. Halflings assume ... you get my picture.
Oh it's absolutely within our rights as world-builders, but that the fact they place assumptions on the game world in general just seems strange. It also means work for those of us who want them out, to some extent or another. I think one of the core D&D strengths is that it is a rules set, not a campaign setting.
Quote from: Xeviat
Also, every time you say something will happen 100% of the time, you're asking to be proven wrong. Both Dragonborn and Tieflings existed in one way or another in 3rd Edition.
Haha, well yes there is an exception to every rule, but you have to agree that when something tries to be too cool, it inherently becomes un-cool. Old (3E and earlier) D&D was not cool, but in a way that's what made it cool. It's a bit of a run around argument, but I think you get what I'm saying. 4E just seems like it's trying too hard.
PS: Grognard is a great word.
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
There is definitely a risk, but I think it will take more than what he is alluding to there.
And I don't think they are making more than one set of rules, is what I'm saying. You can just look at the rules at different "scales" if you will. Players will be most comfortable with different degrees of control, and 5e simply tries to acknowledge this. I think.
It's an ambitious goal, but not completely implausible. It might help renew D&D while keeping it true to its origins with the added bonus of adding something unique, something no other system can do.
right.
I am not a big fan, But it is the biggest name and the biggest draw. It needs something more than just a basic, like-it-or-leave-it ruleset. It is not certain they can pull off the modularity; but to attract different market segments, it is their only hope of success.
If they did it right, it would be a very cool way for a GM to take the advanced rules that apply to the type of game they want to play or setting they want to design, while leaving the parts of the game that are less important as the basic rules.
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
There is definitely a risk, but I think it will take more than what he is alluding to there.
And I don't think they are making more than one set of rules, is what I'm saying. You can just look at the rules at different "scales" if you will. Players will be most comfortable with different degrees of control, and 5e simply tries to acknowledge this. I think.
It's an ambitious goal, but not completely implausible. It might help renew D&D while keeping it true to its origins with the added bonus of adding something unique, something no other system can do.
It reminds me of how they handled leveling in Neverwinter Nights 1, where you could just have everything auto-selected according to a certain archetype you wanted to follow - archer, thief, enchanter, etc - or you could choose where every skill point, feat, spell, and ability went. I think it's a good idea.
Quote from: Señor LeetzIt reminds me of how they handled leveling in Neverwinter Nights 1, where you could just have everything auto-selected according to a certain archetype you wanted to follow - archer, thief, enchanter, etc - or you could choose where every skill point, feat, spell, and ability went. I think it's a good idea.
If the rules complexity modularity was like this, I doubt many would have an issue with it. But that doesn't sound like modularity, that sounds like packages.
The thing is, if people who want simpler rules are just using a "default" or whatever, those rules are still in the game-- they're just default values for people who don't want to bother with them. It is more like a codified-in-the-rules way of a helpful DM and other players helping a new player get into the game, which can be handy, but it's not the same thing.
It's a nice thought, but it's actually significantly different than modular rules where those things aren't in the game at all.
Perhaps. By having skills be modular, we could play like 1st edition where there were little to no skills, or we could play like 3rd edition where there's a skill for basket weaving, or 4th where there's only skills for adventuring. The rules then guide the game; if you're playing without skills, you don't deal with them, or you maybe use straight up ability rolls when success needs determination.
Other things are harder to make modular. Feats would be very difficult, as they directly make your character more powerful. That's where I'd like to see things like alternate class features and other variants to expand the options, but I'm not sure I'd call that modularity.
Tieflings were very popular in 3.X. I'm not really surprised. I mean they did get their own 3rd party splatbook. Gnomes never seemed all that popular, at least with any group I played with.
But even some of the classes we think of as core were not core in 1st ed. Core changes. And that's good, too. I'm not sure what I think of the original classes: "Fighting-man", "magic-user," and "cleric." 2nd Ed added classes that were once basically the equivalent of prestige classes, like bard and ranger, and they feel like an important part of the core now. And when 3e made Monks and Sorcerers and Barbarians core, some people objected, at first, but some people really like those classes.
I think the real reason Dragonborn feel out of place (to me also) has nothing to do with WoW. It's that they have no significant counterpart in any of the original inspirations for D&D. They're not mythological, they're not in Tolkien or Moorcock. And while Tieflings aren't either, the idea of a race corrupted by by dark magic is hardly new to fantasy. D&D certainly has made stuff up without direct inspiration, such as mindflayers and beholders. But such things are usually fringe elements, not playable races.
Quote from: sparkletwist
What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.
Not sure if this has been spoken to, as I haven't read through the whole thread, but I think this could be solved without TOO much difficulty, if splatbooks actually gave different versions of ideas for use in different levels of play. Or just include some material for each level of play, so that it gives something for everyone. Or at least, everyone interested in the flavor of the splatbook.
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
Quote from: sparkletwist
What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.
Not sure if this has been spoken to, as I haven't read through the whole thread, but I think this could be solved without TOO much difficulty, if splatbooks actually gave different versions of ideas for use in different levels of play. Or just include some material for each level of play, so that it gives something for everyone. Or at least, everyone interested in the flavor of the splatbook.
You could look at that as "Something for everyone!" or you could look at it as "I'm paying 30 bucks for 1/3rd of a book!?"
WotC seems to be having a few votes on what elements to include in or exclude from D&D Next on their community webpage and I think that it is interesting to note that instead of people throwing crazy house rules around as was feared, most take the traditionalist approach and vote for the option that essentially changes... nothing.
The question is, do they really prefer this option or are they just afraid of change?
I mostly play D20, D&D, and Pathfinder myself, but I am pretty conscious about other game systems and what they offer (and I have a desire to play around with most systems even if never get around to it). I have always had this fear that only playing one system (in this case D20) would lead to a stagnant view of what roleplaying can offer. Is this already happening to the D&D community or is it as much of a stepping stone to more exotic roleplaying experiences as it was before?
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
Quote from: sparkletwist
What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.
Not sure if this has been spoken to, as I haven't read through the whole thread, but I think this could be solved without TOO much difficulty, if splatbooks actually gave different versions of ideas for use in different levels of play. Or just include some material for each level of play, so that it gives something for everyone. Or at least, everyone interested in the flavor of the splatbook.
You could look at that as "Something for everyone!" or you could look at it as "I'm paying 30 bucks for 1/3rd of a book!?"
Well, technically if everything in the basic version worked in the more advanced versions, then it would be 1/3 of a book for people who play basic, 2/3 of a book for some people, and a whole book for those who play the advanced version. So I suppose it does somewhat favor those playing advanced rules, since they could use everything. But it
would still have something for everyone.
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium
Quote from: sparkletwist
What if they release a new splatbook? Which "level" should it speak to? If it includes lots of level 3 stuff, people who only play the basic game will fill cheated because they have a whole book filled with crunchy bits talking about stuff they don't want to be bothered with. If, on the other hand, it only talks about level 1, then people who are playing at level 3 will feel like their play style is being pushed aside by the company, and, worse yet, if the book's mechanics have only been tested using level 1 mechanics, then some of the stuff in the book might just plain be broken in a level 3 game.
Not sure if this has been spoken to, as I haven't read through the whole thread, but I think this could be solved without TOO much difficulty, if splatbooks actually gave different versions of ideas for use in different levels of play. Or just include some material for each level of play, so that it gives something for everyone. Or at least, everyone interested in the flavor of the splatbook.
You could look at that as "Something for everyone!" or you could look at it as "I'm paying 30 bucks for 1/3rd of a book!?"
Well, technically if everything in the basic version worked in the more advanced versions, then it would be 1/3 of a book for people who play basic, 2/3 of a book for some people, and a whole book for those who play the advanced version. So I suppose it does somewhat favor those playing advanced rules, since they could use everything. But it would still have something for everyone.
More later, but this is still mono-dimensional. One of the problems WotC has had in their last editions.
I seriously hope all this voting they're doing is just a "See! You're involved!" publicity stunt like the Pathfinder playtest and isn't actually, you know, letting random people on the internet actually dictate design direction for the game.
Sparkle, if I were them I'd use it as a "see, what we're doing is what a fair portion of people want". I'm pleased to see all of my responses have been in the top 2.
Being in the planning and playtesting stages, I'd hope the purpose is usability studies. Not that the items that get the most votes will be locked in, but that they will inform the eventual decisions.
I hope the polls influence them to some degree but... Most people who go to the site are people who like 4E, so its hard to say if the opinions expressed represent the totality of gamers they hope to target 5E towards.
Yeah, I don't think anything the players say will be definite. After all, WotC have to take their entire demography into account so they will have to have the final say.
As to 4E lovers being the only people visiting Wizards' website, that's not the impression I got the few times I visited the page post-announcement. There are these really long blog posts/feeds where different community members go into exacting detail on what they want from 5E and most of them flat-out announce they stopped playing when 4E was released.
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
As to 4E lovers being the only people visiting Wizards' website, that's not the impression I got the few times I visited the page post-announcement. There are these really long blog posts/feeds where different community members go into exacting detail on what they want from 5E and most of them flat-out announce they stopped playing when 4E was released.
From the looks of things, my impression is that there's a fairly large contingent of old-school players, compared to the number of 4ED obsessives. It seems from the comments that a lot of the 1st ED and AD&D mob are making a return to put their five cents in and talk about 'what D&D is really about'.
Quote from: HippopotamusDundee
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
As to 4E lovers being the only people visiting Wizards' website, that's not the impression I got the few times I visited the page post-announcement. There are these really long blog posts/feeds where different community members go into exacting detail on what they want from 5E and most of them flat-out announce they stopped playing when 4E was released.
From the looks of things, my impression is that there's a fairly large contingent of old-school players, compared to the number of 4ED obsessives. It seems from the comments that a lot of the 1st ED and AD&D mob are making a return to put their five cents in and talk about 'what D&D is really about'.
I concur. Many absent grognards have 'returned to the fold' to put in their opinions.
You know, I maintain that AD&D was poorly conceived, as a system. Nevertheless, I oddly find myself in the camp of wanting the return (in the base core) of returning to some of its design decisions. (Not all by far--down with THAC0!)
But 3.X and 4e kind of lose themselves in the rules, for me, sometimes. They were both fun, in their way, but it's too easy for everyone to slip into board game (or video game) mindset, and lose the flavor and story and tension. When the insane dragon encounter appears old school, it's "holy shit, run!" In 4e, it often seems more like, "this DM doesn't play fair/doesn't know how to run."
Quote from: Phoenix
You know, I maintain that AD&D was poorly conceived, as a system. Nevertheless, I oddly find myself in the camp of wanting the return (in the base core) of returning to some of its design decisions. (Not all by far--down with THAC0!)
But 3.X and 4e kind of lose themselves in the rules, for me, sometimes. They were both fun, in their way, but it's too easy for everyone to slip into board game (or video game) mindset, and lose the flavor and story and tension. When the insane dragon encounter appears old school, it's "holy shit, run!" In 4e, it often seems more like, "this DM doesn't play fair/doesn't know how to run."
There was an apendix in the back of the AD&D DMG that talked about how to match up power levels, but really, it was very, very ad-hoc.
(and in my own Accis d20 rules...no THACO. I agree.)
The comments are no different than they were before the announcement.
One group of rabid 4E lovers and one group of angry 4E haters.
If you visited the WotC forums over the last four years, its been a constant flame war between these two groups. The two constantly posted wishlists about how they would improve 4E and how they wish WotC would either adapt their ideas for 4E or make 5E better. If the post was anti-4E, then the 4E guys would parachute in and post in droves about how the OP is dumb, stupid and idiotic as well as how all his ideas were unnecessary, torpid and oafish. If the OP loved 4E and wrote a post about how 4E was the best edition ever, then the 3.5phils would come out of the wood works posting about how the OP is dumb, stupid and idiotic as well as how all his ideas were unnecessary, torpid and oafish.
This constant flame war was one of the reasons I avoided the WotC forums - nothing new was ever said - it was just the same argument re-hashed by new people over and over again.
What I meant in my previous post was the silent majority of gamers who do not go on forums, who do not buy all the books and who are surprised by new releases at the FLGS. Those casual players are ones who probably have some very interesting opinions on the game but who will probably never have a say in the design of the new game.
I have largely avoided the WotC forums for the same reason; that and the whole idea stealing thing.
I'd like to see WotC do some playtests at the stores. It would be tough, needing NDAs and all that, but it could get some good opinions. Then again, I guess they assume that if the diehard online players are satisfied, then the casuals will be as well.
Quote from: Xeviat
I'd like to see WotC do some playtests at the stores. It would be tough, needing NDAs and all that, but it could get some good opinions. Then again, I guess they assume that if the diehard online players are satisfied, then the casuals will be as well.
You have a point. The squeaky wheel gets the grease after all. If you aren't motivated to go onto forums and discuss/complain/berate then you will probably be happy with what ever comes down the pike.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Quote from: Xeviat
I'd like to see WotC do some playtests at the stores. It would be tough, needing NDAs and all that, but it could get some good opinions. Then again, I guess they assume that if the diehard online players are satisfied, then the casuals will be as well.
You have a point. The squeaky wheel gets the grease after all. If you aren't motivated to go onto forums and discuss/complain/berate then you will probably be happy with what ever comes down the pike.
And if not, there's not much WotC can really do about it. If someone isn't into the game enough to hear about the ongoing votes on the future of the game, WotC doesn't really have an option to reach them. And if they do hear about it, but choose not to vote, again, it's kind of on them.
That's the trouble of self selected polls.
Either way, I liked 4E; it took me a while to see its flaws, and I only saw them because of a few vocal players of mine and a mathematical "error" they corrected poorly (if they hadn't corrected it, I would have considered it a feature). I loved 3E, and I'm excited to see what comes down the road.
I just want a current edition video game ala Baldur's Gate. I miss the 90's/early 00's.
I feel like edition matters very little with D&D. People
will use whatever they're comfortable with; it doesn't
really change the experience that much, since the players
are the ones really creating the game anyway.
Bottomline: Tabletop RPGing is not a good buisness to be in,
because fans of your game make their own material.
Quote from: Xeviat
I just want a current edition video game ala Baldur's Gate. I miss the 90's/early 00's.
Yes. Co/op hack and slash needs to make a comeback. D&D: Daggerfall was godawful.
Quote from: Survivorman
Quote from: Xeviat
I just want a current edition video game ala Baldur's Gate. I miss the 90's/early 00's.
Yes. Co/op hack and slash needs to make a comeback. D&D: Daggerfall was godawful.
What is D&D Daggerfall? Some kind of combination of D&D and Elder Scrolls?
I hardly pay attention to the current D&D games; they're all made by Atari or people they license out and they've been bad in my opinion. Daggerfall is a hack and slash, with no roleplaying and only the tiniest of nods to the actual way D&D plays.
Quote from: Survivorman
Quote from: Xeviat
What is D&D Daggerfall? Some kind of combination of D&D and Elder Scrolls?
My bad, it's DaggerDALE. Apparently some place in the Forgotten Realms.