D&D 5E Why (and how) 5E can succeed

Mercurius

Legend
[MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION], nice post. It makes me wonder What If scenarios if how WotC had done things with 4E had been different. In other words, if they hadn't flummoxed the PR and other aspects around the game itself. As McLuhan said, the medium is the message.

This kind of dismissive (and speculative) editorializing makes it hard to take your posts seriously. Not only is it inaccurate (Dragonborn were a 3e invention and popular there and continue to be popular in 5e according to WOTC, and Tieflings were not the product of rape, but a race of humans who, in the distant past, made a pact with Devils and were thus corrupted). There may be some truth to the notions expressed, but expressing it in this manner just makes for sour grapes edition war fodder.

I reserve the right to speculate and editorialize, just as you reserve the right to make groundless accusations of dismissiveness and sour grapes.

Tieflings have been part of D&D as a PC race since 2e.

I know, but they weren't in the PHB--and thus core--until 4E. That's a big difference.

While I'm not much of a fan of Tieflings (or Dragonborn) I think there's a place for them - just not in the Player's Handbook. In Player's Handbook 2: Advanced Races and Class Options? Certainly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shemeska

Adventurer
Not quite accurate, as 4e tieflings aren't the result of a sexual union between mortals and fiends of some sort, but rather they're the (cursed) descendants of a human kingdom whose nobility struck a deal with an undefined group of "dark powers".

Not that this detracts from your argument or anything. Just making it a bit more complete.

I'm aware of the non-sexual descent in 4e. I probably should have said 'devil tainted', but given the 2e/3e/PF usage of physical descent in most cases for tiefling blood, the phrasing wasn't quite accurate for the 4e version.
 

Sage Genesis

First Post
I'm aware of the non-sexual descent in 4e. I probably should have said 'devil tainted', but given the 2e/3e/PF usage of physical descent in most cases for tiefling blood, the phrasing wasn't quite accurate for the 4e version.

Apologies, since you mentioned being "descended" from human "stock" I took it that you thought that 4e had retained the whole breeding thing. You are, however, still inaccurate when claiming that 4e tieflings descended from "devils instead of any kind of fiend". As it happens the dark powers are kept a mystery and up to the individual DM to decide.

But we're really down to splitting hairs with an electron microscope now. At the end of the day, you are correct when you say that 4e tieflings are different from 2e/3e tieflings.
 

Rygar

Explorer
5th edition could succeed in a number of different ways.

The ability to emulate editions is critical. If they can come up with something that approximates previous editions well, they have a pretty good chance of success. That said, if the last playtest packet is representative of the "Default" 5th edition and their target for future development, I think they're in trouble. Like others in this thread, I really don't think that playtest packet as a retail product is going to do anything more than fuel Pathfinder's sales.

Now assuming that you can approximate previous editions, they have a ace-in-the-hole that no other RPG can compete with. The Settings. As I'm sure everyone here knows, they've aligned the game to support pretty much every setting they produced, and hinted that many or all will be printed. Pathfinder cannot compete with that, assuming even ground on how well the rules systems are liked, even with their very excellent adventures they lack the allure of the Settings. That can easily regain them market leadership.

Then comes the real "Wildcard". The video game industry is teetering on the brink of an 80's style collapse, many in the Industry are predicting a collapse, some an apocalyptic one. The Publishers need games to sell millions of copies in order to be sustainable, games for the last generation have been dropping in large percentages for years, and the installed base for the next generation is comparitively tiny. If the next generation doesn't take off like a rocket, if it follows a normal long-tail sales trend, the Publishers don't have enough revenue streams to sustain tens of millions of dollars in expenses for a single game. If even a single remaining Publisher folds, it's likely going to be catastrophic. Games sell consoles, less games means slower sales, slow sales means more bankruptcy.

If that happens, and we won't know for about 6 months whether or not we're going to see a collapse, then we may very well see the "Digital generation" as someone earlier put it return to "analogue" games. Assuming D&D is doing well, a video game market collapse could easily lead to a huge boom for Pen and Paper RPG's.

There's alot of ways this could go, and I don't think we have a clear enough picture to predict it yet. We need to know if they're sticking with their originally stated "Basic, Standard, Advanced" or if the last playtest packet is 5th edition. We need to know what their plans are for the Settings and Adventures. That will tell us if they can succeed by current market standards. We need more sales trends for the PS4 and X-box One, that will tell us if the video game market is going to tank.

Right now, I'd say they have a chance. But much like a football fan hoping his team will make the playoffs, I'm basing that on "If this happens, and that happens, and the other thing happens, then YES!".
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
Tieflings have been part of D&D as a PC race since 2e.

Due respect, Shemeska, but was that simply a splat or a Planescape book? Neither makes them a "PC race" to most tables in the 2e era.

And they are indeed one of the most awesome things ever IMO.

My HO differs. But that's the beauty of D&D, is it not?

Except that the 4e "tieflings" while a core PC race had only a passing resemblance to the classic D&D tieflings of 2e and 3.x, since the 4e ones were homogenous in appearance and only descended from devils, rather than any type of fiends, and exclusively of human mortal stock, which wasn't the case in 2e/3e. It's just a staggering disconnect between the 2e/3e tieflings and the 4e version.

So they were the greatest thing...except what 4e did to them....hmmm. But it's still supposed to be accepted as D&D canon?

I think not. I think they were a great addition for many tables. Not mine. But I won't hold it against other tables that liked [or still like] them.

This is the challenge of the designers...where's the line? What is "ok" in 5e and what is previous edition "shlock"? Can they actually tell the difference? What is being carried forward simply based on ego or desire..."cuz we got these polls that said...exactly what we wanted them to say!...and what I [meaning the 4e designers] did 5 years ago MATTERS DAMMIT! I made it BETUR!"
 

Yora

Legend
Well, 4th Edition completely bastardized all of Planescape in General. Tieflings, Genasi, Tanar'ri, Baatezu, Yugoloths, Archons, Eladrin, and, oh yes, ... the Planes!

I don't see a problem with dropping Planescape from the core books, but reusing the names for entirely different things was kind of a dick move. Rather like an attempt to actually take something away from people so they couldn't use them anymore.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I'd love to, but given that anything I could point him toward would result in a google/wikipedia search makes this unlikely. ;)

LOL, no doubt. Your boyfriend sounds like one of my high school students (ha ha).

Seriously though, I love Google and Wikipedia but not as The Source of All Knowledge. I tell my students that they can (and even should) use Wikipedia, but think of it more as a gateway to other sources, not as the final destination. But Wikipedia is actually a rather legit encyclopedia these days, but like a book encyclopedia from my era, it only skims the surface.

I didn't say "it" was. I was saying there is a distinct difference in cultural "now" and expectation than there was when we started.

No doubt, I hear you.


Oh, absolutely! you want to get started on the the whole "I'm OCD! I'm ADHD!" nonsense. Guess what? The entire world existed for centuries and centuries, millenia even, without you losing focus...and you didn't 30 years ago! SWACK! "PAY ATTENTION!" No medication needed. I doubt I could write much more without jeopardizing the whole "no talking about modern world/events" thing.

Yeah, I hear that - but its actually very relevant to the discussion at hand, because we're talking about the way technology and media impacts imagination, which is the primary apparatus in D&D.

At the school I work at we're at a bit of a loss with how to navigate this domain. Some of the old guard would be happy with making it a technology-free campus (its a very small private school), while "moderates" such as myself would like to utilize the technology to augment learning and imagination, not replace it.

The key, in my opinion, is balance. What we see now is "too much of a good thing" and, like you say later on, its only going to get more extreme.

Tell the designers that think computer games are the "kewlest thing evar!" They don't want to believe us.

Yeah, I know. I really see computer games and tabletop RPGs as being opposite poles on a spectrum, so it irks me when designers want to "computerize" the tabletop experience. Again, I'm not opposed to augmentation - like monster builder or MasterPlan, that sort of thing. But when it starts veering into everyone having a tablet in front of them with a virtual battlegrid...

My point exactly. 5e can not win! It can't satisfy the "us" of 30 years ago and the "them" of the late 90's+ . WotC must pick ONE and aim for that. THEN, maybe then, it can succeed.

And my view is that it should look to satisfy "us" first and foremost, and build from that. Its like trying to serve too many masters. Or trying to pretend you're something that you're not. It doesn't work. Be what you are - and for D&D, that means a game of imagination, of theater-of-mind.

I'm not opposed to "D&D: the MMORG" or "Warmaster: the D&D battle game." All that could be lots of fun. But I'd like to keep tabletop D&D "untainted," so to speak, at least at its core.

Ayup! Again, no argument here. but, I suppose, part of my point is, does the generation who grew up on video games HAVE the capacity to notice or appreciate that anymore? I certainly HOPE so. But I cannot say.


In my experience with my students, yes - definitely so. I'd even say that they're hungry for it, in a way that you or I might be hungry for a good fantasy novel after weeks of just watching movies. There's something about going inward, about generating imagination, that is so much more deeply satisfying.

But it is more difficult to get there. It is so much easier to turn on the tube, fire up the laptop, or grab the iPhone instead of facing the empty spaciousness of now...but the thing is, that is where true creativity comes from.

I think the great Louis CK said it really well here.

I certainly share this hope, but I am afraid that worldly concerns will win out.

I agree, at least for the foreseeable future and/or the majority. But I also think that more and more people will want to "wake up" from the virtual dream and re-embrace the real. The movie Logan's Run comes to mind.

It will be, Mercurius. It will be until "we" all die off. "We" will create new OSR games. "We" will instruct others in the "way it was." "We" will be on forums stating the "yay" or "naye" of D&D 17.5 After that...gods help D&D and the rpg industry. But rest assured, it shall outlive us both.

Yeah, I think so. My feeling is that the form of RPGs has so much potential that has been untapped, and that it could actually be a positive cultural and educational force. For instance, I incorporate world building into classes - even have had an elective course on it, which the students love.

My apologies to you [and everyone reading this] if I rambled at all. The vino is kicking in. It's practically Spain where I live...there's no such thing as an empty glass. lol. I hope I've been equally eloquent and not at all offensive to anyone. ;P

Its been fun! Nice saying, by the way. I saw you're in Andorra. Are you Andorran? You "sound" American. If so, why Andorra?
 

Sage Genesis

First Post
Well, 4th Edition completely bastardized all of Planescape in General. Tieflings, Genasi, Tanar'ri, Baatezu, Yugoloths, Archons, Eladrin, and, oh yes, ... the Planes!

Funny, I remember back in the day grognards complaining on mailing lists that TSR had ruined the planes with this Planescape setting and their silly new politically correct names for daemons and devils and the like. I vividly remember one snarky email asking "if T$R is going to rename cows to Bovi'ine in the future".

Yora, it helps to know that much of the extraplanar stuff was around in D&D long before Planescape was published. It is true that 4e (mostly) did away with the Planescape setting, but that doesn't mean all those extraplanar things ever belonged to Planescape to begin with. If anything, it was Planescape that twisted the original extraplanar stuff in the first place!

(Mind you, I quite like the Planescape setting. I'm just aware of its place in D&D history.)
 

Shemeska

Adventurer
Apologies, since you mentioned being "descended" from human "stock" I took it that you thought that 4e had retained the whole breeding thing. You are, however, still inaccurate when claiming that 4e tieflings descended from "devils instead of any kind of fiend". As it happens the dark powers are kept a mystery and up to the individual DM to decide.

In FR at least since the setting had tieflings since 2e, the 4e tieflings are referred to specifically as 'Asmodean' tieflings to differentiate them from. I don't recall off the top of my head for other settings, or references in core materials. But I'm pretty certain they were pointed out as devil-blooded.
 

Sage Genesis

First Post
In FR at least since the setting had tieflings since 2e, the 4e tieflings are referred to specifically as 'Asmodean' tieflings to differentiate them from. I don't recall off the top of my head for other settings, or references in core materials. But I'm pretty certain they were pointed out as devil-blooded.

I assure you that this background is exclusive to 4e-FR.

In basic 4e/Nentir Vale it's left undefined. Same for 4e Dark Sun. In 4e Eberron they have some dealings with devils but Asmodeus does not exist (and it's not entirely clear if "devils" refers to the D&D category or just fiendish beings in general).
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top