How do you feel about the future of D&D after the official announcements?

Ahnehnois said:

I hesitate to ask what you're defining as "modern". Between Arcana Evolved and the Book of Experimental Might, I'd say Monte's name is on some of the most significant (and significantly advanced) d20 books released after 3e. I think they hired him because he understands the 3.X architecture and may have some ideas on how to improve it. Although I admittedly haven't read FantasyCraft or some of the other 3.X derivatives, I don't think I've ever seen a more "modern" rpg than 3.5 D&D.

I would loosely define "modern" as a game with a unified ruleset, equal emphasis on combat and noncombat activity, a strongly reality-based design, and highly modular design (the "toolkit" mentality). I would define "classic" as being focused on the Chainmail-esque tactical miniatures combat in a dungeon setting, using many discrete subsystems and esoteric rules, and without making many explicit attempts within the rules to model reality or to encourage activities other than combat. By these definitions (the ones that I just made up which no one else is bound to), the announced 5e plans (and Monte Cook's work) are pretty modern.

Click to expand...

Just goes to show how exposure to different games changes what you think of as modern. 3.5 isn't really modern at all, compare it to BRP or ShadowRun 2nd Ed, and there isn't anything really new about it at all. D20 itself was just catching up to what other systems had been doing in the 80s.

I'd also suggest that the unified mechanic drives things towards combat more than less, particularly when you have rules for combat and rules for everything else. When mechanically bluffing someone is the same as crafting a breastplate (and is just a single roll of a die, with minimal modification or interaction with other rolls, something skill challenges tried to address but didn't do well enough), there isn't all that much interest in doing any of it, because it's all the same.

Contrast that with BECMI/RC D&D, which as you advanced had rules for settling down and running a kingdom and even becoming a god. Tons of stuff that really isn't combat at all, and there was the convention of just figuring out how to resolve an action or conflict that didn't have specific rules instead of feeling stonewalled by the lack of support in the rulebook (an attitude that has become rather more prevalent since d20). You can be certain that playing an RC game over a period of time will leave you with a much more diverse play experience than playing 3.5 would.

The result of the unified mechanic in a classical system (which 3.5 definitely is, and 4e still fits in a lot of ways) results in more of a combat focus, not less of one. 4e at least forces everyone out of combat a bit with skill challenges, but in a clunky way, 3e and 3.5 didn't even offer that.

If you want to see a real modern system, look at one of the FATE based systems. I suggest Legend of Anglerre if you're interested in sticking to fantasy, Diaspora if you want to look at some interesting hard-ish sci-fi. ORE systems also really open things up, and are far more modern, with Monsters and Other Childish Things and A Dirty World being excellent examples of taking the focus away from combat (while not stripping combat out entirely). They both do use a unified mechanic, but BRP did that 30 years ago, so while 3.5 does share that characteristic with the FATE and ORE games, it has existed for so long that I wouldn't accept it as one for a modern game any more than use of dice makes a game modern.

Banshee16 said:

Not to start an edition war, but I'd contest that whether or not they were doing the right things with 4E depends on whether or not you *liked* 4E.

Click to expand...

Good point. I should have put a "for me" condition on what I said (or something similar). I was really referring to their decision to break the game down and rebuild, which I applauded - though I didn't care for the result.

Now, either Hasbro is putting on pressure for them to have shorter lifespans to the editions OR they recognize that something went wrong with the way they went about 4E, and they allegedly lost a number of customers, and cut the edition short. They gained new customers, but there sure seemed to be a heck of a lot of acrimony.....for years.

Click to expand...

According to Ryan Dancey in the long thread on his "Escapist Bonus Article", 4e was labouring under an impossible-to-meet $50M target. If that is a bar for success, no wonder it "failed"! (For any other RPG company, it would have been a runaway success, hence the quotation marks.)

There's since been a change in management at WotC (and for D&D itself), which frees them from the expectations of the past, and allows them to try something new - hence 5e. I'm just hoping they're not still labouring under that same absurd $50M requirement, because I don't see how they can possible meet it.

delericho said:

I'm just hoping they're not still labouring under that same absurd $50M requirement,

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they be? Hasbro still owns them.

Kzach said:

The thing that puzzles me beyond measure is why they felt the need to announce it NOW. It's not like this will boost 4e sales. There just seems like every reason NOT to announce it now and no reason to announce it, at all.

Click to expand...

On the timing thing: Only a guess, but Erik Mona stated recently that Paizo are selling more PF core rulebooks now than they did at launch (I think this is in the Chronicles Podcast).

My assumption would be that a v large proportion of these sales are to 3.5 players who are switching over.

Surely the 5E announcement will drastically slow this switchover process. They may be hoping that a lot of 3.5ers will stick with what they have in anticipation of a 5E that will be (from early marketing chatter) closer to their preferences?

3E came out when?
3.5 came out when?
4E came out when?
5E is do when?

is there a "production vs sales" trend here? I realize its a business and they have to continue to produce product for its customers, otherwise they will shrivel and die. But, that being said, it would be like Ford selling only trucks one year, and then do to the lagging sales/complaints switching to selling only econo cars the next, followed by only selling small SUV's the 3rd year.

I dont know the answer the "creators" or at least the current decision makers, are looking for, perhaps if we knew the question? Apparently they are now going to listen to gamers advice? Having not before?

I tried to write out exactly WHY I feel "neutral" with a list of positives and negatives, but each time I try, I realize it will take a much longer reply for me to explain it all.

So here's the briefest, shortest, gut-check reason why I feel neutral:

Negative: I feel that 4e was a good system that had a terrible launch and a premature revision, and I feel that WotC over "promised" the DDI which still hasn't met it's original goals and shows no sign of leaving a beta state before 5e -- more likely, it will just enter a "new" beta state.

Positive: However, if 5e could actually become a rosetta stone edition which somehow supports, re-uses (and most importantly, coherently "compiles") all the material from the past 30 years -- while somehow finding a non-collectible way to remain viable without another "reboot" for the next 10 years, it would be the most awesome thing EVER.

Negative: I see quotes from the new team that seem to be promising the moon and will later be retconned / retroactively contextualized

Positive: I have confidence in the great team that has been assembled, and if they are allowed to design 5e for long-term health, it could be amazing.

Negative: Online-only access to DDI material

Positive: It is a way for the D&D brand to justify the release of more esoteric articles, .pdfs, etc

Negative: The omni-present threat of adding randomized collectible "character power" elements to D&D

Positive: Hopefully, WotC has learned that forcing Magic/Pokemon/World of Warcraft paradigms onto D&D is not the best business strategy

Neutral: If making D&D WOW-lite or Magic-RPG doesn't work, I have no idea what the big money option could be for D&D, and it desperately needs one.

bouncyhead said:

On the timing thing: Only a guess, but Erik Mona stated recently that Paizo are selling more PF core rulebooks now than they did at launch (I think this is in the Chronicles Podcast).

Click to expand...

P.T. Barnum would be proud.

migo said:

If you want to see a real modern system, look at one of the FATE based systems. I suggest Legend of Anglerre if you're interested in sticking to fantasy, Diaspora if you want to look at some interesting hard-ish sci-fi. ORE systems also really open things up, and are far more modern, with Monsters and Other Childish Things and A Dirty World being excellent examples of taking the focus away from combat (while not stripping combat out entirely). They both do use a unified mechanic, but BRP did that 30 years ago, so while 3.5 does share that characteristic with the FATE and ORE games, it has existed for so long that I wouldn't accept it as one for a modern game any more than use of dice makes a game modern.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing. D&D created the genre and comes from a focus on combat firstly. that's the style of game. Later editions are still based on the same core as the original because that is the STYLE of game.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being 'modern'.

SlyDoubt said:

Here's the thing. D&D created the genre and comes from a focus on combat firstly. that's the style of game. Later editions are still based on the same core as the original because that is the STYLE of game.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being 'modern'.

Click to expand...

Yes it does, which you could see if you followed what I was quoting.

Positive.

With the release of 4e Essentials, I realized that what I really want is a BECMI/1e/4e hybrid: the fast play and flavor of the old editions, paired with standardized actions, conditions, and balanced math from the latest iteration.

Until information comes along to dash my hopes, I can imagine that this is exactly what 5e will have as a core.