D&D 5E Speculating about the future of the D&D industry/community in a post-5E world

[Starfox]

In regards to intolerance, I've been banned for a few days on a tolerance issue. so that is not unioque to the Paizo boards.

 

[jadrax]

At this point it dawned on me that C&C was not Call of Cthulhu.

And that revelation cost you 2d6 SAN.

 

[77IM]

I love the idea of "table competition." The real battle isn't which RPG will win in the market, but which will win the answer to, "hey, what do you like playing?"

From its inception, 5e was designed to be broad and inclusive (and I think they succeeded as much as could be expected -- it's kind of an impossible goal). This is good because it increases product compatibility. Wizards can publish an adventure one time, and it can be played by both rules-light Theater-of-the-Mind groups and by groups using a crunch-heavy Tactical Combat Module. It's also good because players can move between those two groups with minimal effort: you might have to learn (or unlearn) a few rules, and maybe it's not exactly your play style, but it's at least doable.

Pathfinder was born from a fragmented, polarized community. A lot of people left 3.5 because they didn't like it and don't want to go back, but a lot of other people hated 4e and refused to play it or even acknowledge it as D&D. Paizo picked a side in the edition war -- PF rules are more elaborate and detailed than 3.5, with more CharOp options (especially post-APG), and the huge monster stat blocks in APs aren't well suited to fast, improv-style play.

I'm fascinated by the idea of a real "Pathfinder Lite" with simplified rules, much fewer character options, and better caster balance. If Paizo did it right, converting monster stats would be a clear mechanical process, so they could publish 2 versions of each AP without much effort. This would be a recognition that PF isn't for everyone, but without abandoning the hardcore 3e/PF fans (the way Wizards did with the switch to 4e).

It's the only move I can see Paizo making to retain "table share" -- broadening the appeal of PF to reach players who got burnt out on 3.5 but still want APs. Of course Wizard could still drop the ball on 5e, and the lack of a product road map is not encouraging. But if they keep nailing it like they have been, I think it will soon be easier to find 5e DMs than PF GMs.

 

[Nikmal]

However, the product release rate of D&D the RPG will likely be significantly less than the pace of Pathfinder. So, the question will be, how much support do you want for your game? If you want a lot, Pathfinder will be the way to go. If you don't want/need a lot, D&D will be the way to go, or, D&D players will *still* buy Pathfinder stuff to convert so as to scratch that "new product" itch.

WotC has never been one to release products slowly and think that is part of the problem is that they release products TO fast. I am hoping that they will start and slow down.
But another problem they have is customer service. I am truly hoping that this improves on the forums dramatically. I am not just talking about the occasional posting by a WotC employee but a full blown media blitz by the entire WotC company on the forums and being seen and heard by us the fans. Instead of the speculation and guess work that seems to happen on what WotC is thinking and doing. They need to be a LOT more transparent in to what the future holds for D&D. Even the so called beta was not transparent... being it was enclosed with an NDA.

 

[Umbran]

Well, none of this really has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

Quite.

Folks, we aren't here to critique Paizo's community. Let's get back to talking about games, shall we? Thanks!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm fascinated by the idea of a real "Pathfinder Lite" with simplified rules, much fewer character options, and better caster balance. If Paizo did it right, converting monster stats would be a clear mechanical process, so they could publish 2 versions of each AP without much effort. This would be a recognition that PF isn't for everyone, but without abandoning the hardcore 3e/PF fans (the way Wizards did with the switch to 4e).

It's the only move I can see Paizo making to retain "table share" -- broadening the appeal of PF to reach players who got burnt out on 3.5 but still want APs. Of course Wizard could still drop the ball on 5e, and the lack of a product road map is not encouraging. But if they keep nailing it like they have been, I think it will soon be easier to find 5e DMs than PF GMs.

If Pathfinder Unchained isn't the fore-runner of a modernised, streamlined Pathfinder-lite, I really will be pretty surprised, so I suspect this is the way they're going. You wouldn't necessarily even need two version of each AP - because the rules are DM-side, if there was basic numeric compatibility, you could just publish the PF Lite version and use normal PF characters with it.

I heard of my first full-on 5E group forming, today - a group where no-one knew how to play D&D, even (two of them had apparently played before, no-one had ever DM'd!), but they tried to use the starter set to get going. I am told they initially were doing attacks entirely wrong - rolling against their OWN AC rather than the enemy's one, but they soon worked that out and had a good time! So hey, good on WotC there, got six new/lapsed people and they want to play again. I do think they could really have done with rules handouts from what my friend was saying, though.

Of course I should no doubt dismiss this entirely because I am so horribly unrepresentative!

 

[Jake Johnson]

Having played through AD&D and 2nd Edition, I am aware of some of the problems those systems presented that I remember thinking 3rd Edition would solve (and it did, to a point). Mainly, arguments between players and the DM on rules adjudication. If a player wanted to try to trip or push a giant in AD&D, the DM had to decide how likely that was to happen, and unpopular rulings could lead to grumpy players.

One thing 3rd Edition seemed to do right (at first) was set up more or less clear rules on many aspects of the game that had previously been left a bit vague (and therefore open to wheedling, cajoling, or even subtle intimidation). I can remember this being a pain in the ass when I was running AD&D and 2nd Edition game ("Whaddya MEAN I need a nat 20 to trip the ogre?!? I rolled 16, that should be enough!"), but not so much in my 3rd Edition games -- although it seems to have been replaced with "optimization" and min/maxing (once the players know the mechanics behind the rules they can easily min/max with full knowledge that on at least some level the DM is "bound by the rules"), which in retrospect probably could have been predicted.

5th Edition is appealing to me, but I hope there is some balance that can be struck between having (potentially exploitable) rules for everything and relying on "the DM can decide how this works" (which is open to players essentially wearing the DM down to get what they want, whether they might see it that way or not).

Just pointing out, I think, that the old systems weren't perfect either -- although to be fair, back when I was playing AD&D and 2nd Edition I and my players were at another stage of life. Moving from our teens and 20s to our 40s has no doubt changed us in ways that might affect how we would deal with a rules set that encouraged the DM to call more of the shots.

I do remember those unpopular DM rulings, as well as the ensuing wheedling. I agree that those situations were no more fun than the rules lawyering. I had a friend back in the AD&D days, who was reluctant to DM for fear of too much questioning of his rulings, which were usually quite reasonable and logical. He would insist we agree to abide by his decisions without "too much bitching" as a condition for play. Your point here is well taken. It seems like there's an effort to find a middle ground in 5E. For example, we have a fair amount of latitude for applying advantage and disadvantage, as well as determining ability checks that are reasonable. The rules clearly and plainly support rules-based decision-making that should make sense to most players. Of course, one might argue that the rules seem too loose. I'm sure we'll get a better sense when the books come out, but so far, our game session results have been encouraging.

 

[Werebat]

At this point it dawned on me that C&C was not Call of Cthulhu.

Of COURSE not, silly! Everyone knows it's a music factory!

"EVERYBODY DANCE NOW!"

 

[DEFCON 1]

It has already changed. it is no longer the face of RPG's that it is used to be. Just because a show features it once in a while (it is something I appreciate too) does not make D&D number one any longer.

To anyone outside the gaming industry... it absolutely is still Number 1. You ask any person who doesn't play games "Do you know what a roleplaying game is?"... their first and pretty much only response is going to be something like "You mean like Dungeons & Dragons?" They won't mention Vampire: The Masquerade, they won't mention Shadowrun, they won't mention Champions, they won't mention Pathfinder, Numenera, Fate, Savage Worlds, or anything like that. It's 'D&D'. It's always been 'D&D' and for the foreseeable future always will be 'D&D'.

We might like to think that as other nerd properties gain traction in the mainstream and the general public (IE the 99% who aren't up on the specific industry) begins learning and conceptualizing second and third tier properties of those industries (like Ant-Man, to take a comic book example), that the same holds true in the RPG industry. But that's not even close to happening yet. RPGs are still exceedingly niche, and non-D&D games are the niche of the niche. Those who don't like what D&D became or what WotC has done might not want to believe that's the case, but it absolutely is. 'D&D' is synonymous with 'RPG', just like 'World of Warcraft' is synonymous with 'MMO'. And until RPGs as an industry break through into the knowledge base of the mainstream, that won't be changing any time soon.

Your grandmother has no idea what 'Mutants & Masterminds' is. And you'd be lucky if she's actually heard of 'D&D'.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To anyone outside the gaming industry... it absolutely is still Number 1. You ask any person who doesn't play games "Do you know what a roleplaying game is?"... their first and pretty much only response is going to be something like "You mean like Dungeons & Dragons?" They won't mention Vampire: The Masquerade, they won't mention Shadowrun, they won't mention Champions, they won't mention Pathfinder, Numenera, Fate, Savage Worlds, or anything like that. It's 'D&D'. It's always been 'D&D' and for the foreseeable future always will be 'D&D'.

Er, not to be a wet blanket, but, historically, I've specifically heard non-gamers respond to that question with things like "You mean like that Vampire thing?". That was in the late '90s early '00s, though.

More likely they will say "You mean like [insert major computer MMORPG or JRPG here]". So there's that.

Interestingly, a lot more people seem to know what D&D is now than fifteen years ago, though (at least in the UK). It being mentioned in various US TV shows (and even UK ones), authors/TV show writers referring to it in interviews and the like seems to have raised it's profile a fair bit.