Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[TheUltramark]

if 5E came out tomorrow I would buy it....but we wouldnt quit playing our current campaign to start 5e.

At the end of the day, all I can speak for is myself, will they make most people happy? Nobody knows.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My perception of 4E fans is that they don't hate 3E/PF, but prefer 4E. If 4E didn't come along they would still be playing 3E. I just never remember people saying passionately that 3E sucked. More grumblings and complaints about it being broken at high levels, lost of prep time, etc. Stuff that affected 3E gameplay, but nothing to quit playing DnD over.

I was ready to call it quits with 3E for a few months before 4E was announced. I was trying multiple avenues over the year before that to reduce what I thought was DM burnout and none of those worked. I had finally decided to tell my group that I was going to quit running anything. No one else wanted to run a 3E campaign. And at the time I couldn't find another game system that interested me and provided the adventure support I needed. It meant the end of our weekly Friday night game. For all I knew, forever. Then 4E was announced and struck a chord.

I did love 3E when it came out. I was near the front of the line in the dealers' hall at GenCon. And I enjoyed the game for 8 years. But, over time, I found 1 fundamental flaw in the system that affected the playability for my tastes. I like supplements. I like playing and allowing new races, classes, feats, etc. But the 3E multiclassing rules allowed the system masters in my group to create characters that were leaps and bounds away from those who did not have system mastery. The gap had become too wide for me to provide challenging encounters. I wasn't having fun anymore trying to find proper challenges. And either the system masters were bored because challenges were too easy or the others were frustrated because they were too hard. I know this wasn't an issue for all groups, but it was a huge issue for mine. There is still a gap now that we play 4E, but it is much smaller than before and I find myself still enjoying the game and bringing to it all the aspects that people claim are lacking from it.

 

[technoextreme]

Dragon Age II (for example) and 4e are very similar in that while they both made controversial rules changes, they were both error-riddled products that lacked production value. In the D&D world, this is a significant reason that people left D&D for Pathfinder. PF has better-looking books with better-written text (though I don't like their art style much either).

I've never actually found Pathfinder all that well written. It seems needlessly wordy though I think that is just a symptom of copying an existing rule set without improving readability.

Similarly, if WotC had put out a completely different set of rules with the same artistic design on their books (and the same amount of errata) I wouldn't have bought them on that basis alone. The further away you get from realistic art design, the more you've lost me.

Since when has fantasy art ever been realistic?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've never actually found Pathfinder all that well written. It seems needlessly wordy though I think that is just a symptom of copying an existing rule set without improving readability.

I find they've (PF) created very readable rules text; explaining novel class abilities and covering a wide variety of applications without excess words. I'm not particularly familiar with the flavor text for either game, but reading some of the 4e preview books was a pretty bad experience for me. That said, it's a very subjective judgment I'm making. I feel safe in saying that my opinion is strongly represented in the rpg community, but feel free to start a discussion on writing style or art if you like (it would interest me obviously).

4e errata is a pretty well-discussed topic.

Since when has fantasy art ever been realistic?

Never. That's the problem.

That said, there's been a gradual style shift over time towards less realistic body shape, more use of fantasy hair gel, and a more cartoonish/anime style in general. There's also the ongoing issues with overly sexualized depictions of female characters, which is (and has been many times) a thread unto itself. On the whole, I think this artistic style poorly represents the game and alienates many potential players. This is true of 4e and PF, as relative to 3.5, let alone earlier versions of the game or some other art that's out there. I would prefer game book art to move in the opposite direction: more real. Obviously, this is another opinion that may or may not be shared by the community at large.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Even worse, there's no way for 4E fans to go, as no one can really adopt the 4E rules as they could with 3E (due to the OGL).

You could build a near-4E game using the OGL pretty easily, IMO. You start with D20 math and build upwards from there. There are plenty of OGL games with different multiclassing rules, for instance, or different systems of powers for characters.

 

[broghammerj]

I can only speak to my own opinion, but I think there is something you have missed, here.

It's quite true that I played some 3.X and had nothing against the system at that time (although D&D constituted only a small proportion of my RPG playing from around 1980 to 2008). I am on record at the Hârn Forum "defending" 3.5 D&D as being a servicable Gamist system, which is to say the best of a fairly mediocre field, but not a system I would use for simulationist "dreaming play" or thematic "boot it into a story" play.

When 4E arrived, however, the situation changed. 4E is, for me, simply the best Gamist engine available. In that respect, it blew 3.X out of the water in the one region where 3.5 had advantages that I couldn't find bettered in other systems. Now, there is simply no water left for 3.5 to sail in, for me. It has nothing that it does well enough to warrant my selecting it to play. It's not that it is any worse than it was before, it's just that, for every style or "mode" of play, there is a system that I feel is superior enough to D&D 3.5 to make the choice a no-brainer.

A consequence of all this is that, if 5E turned out to be a really fine Simulationist engine, I might well consider it alongside 4E (as a Gamist engine). If it is a superior Gamist engine to 4E (which is old enough that I can see several possible improvements), I might switch to it. In neither of these cases, however, do I think the "one system to please them all" aim will have been met in the slightest. Nor, in fact, do I think it's possible for it to be met - but that's just an opinion.

You've done a wonderful job explaining the difference in 3E vs 4E in terms of gamist versus simulationist. It turns out that I generally hate gamist RPGs and it took 4E for me to identify that. In my opinion, the extreme of being gamist begins to transition more to board games and less of an RPG (again this is in severe hyperbole)

I always viewed 3E as a balanced system with a lean towards simulationism that wasn't seen as stongly in earlier editions. I think a 5E could bring more balance to the force. The best new edition would allow the DM to do either or both. Now designing that system to be effective would be an extreme challenge.

This just makes me wonder if people who like 4E are more gamist in their thinking and as such the game appeals to them more (note that's not a negative thing, just different than me). If there truly is a gamist vs. simulationist rift with 3E vs 4E then I am not sure it could be mended.

 

[heretic888]

You've done a wonderful job explaining the difference in 3E vs 4E in terms of gamist versus simulationist. It turns out that I generally hate gamist RPGs and it took 4E for me to identify that. In my opinion, the extreme of being gamist begins to transition more to board games and less of an RPG (again this is in severe hyperbole)

I always viewed 3E as a balanced system with a lean towards simulationism that wasn't seen as stongly in earlier editions. I think a 5E could bring more balance to the force. The best new edition would allow the DM to do either or both. Now designing that system to be effective would be an extreme challenge.

This just makes me wonder if people who like 4E are more gamist in their thinking and as such the game appeals to them more (note that's not a negative thing, just different than me). If there truly is a gamist vs. simulationist rift with 3E vs 4E then I am not sure it could be mended.

Personally, I think they're both primarily gamist systems.

3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.

4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).

I would consider classic (pre-3E) D&D to be more straight-up gamism, although I'm not terribly familiar with those systems.

 

[Yesway Jose]

3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.

4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).

Is anybody, like me, waiting and hoping for Mearls to address this issue in his articles? He's discussed game balance, simplicity vs complexity, modularity, etc. but AFAIR, he's never touched upon this core concept of design intent.

I think that's like asking "Should we put a stop sign or yield sign here, how many municipal by-laws shall there be, etc." before we've pondered the ultimate goal of all these signs and by-laws.

 

[Imaro]

Personally, I think they're both primarily gamist systems.

3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.

4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).

I would consider classic (pre-3E) D&D to be more straight-up gamism, although I'm not terribly familiar with those systems.

I am going to go ahead and disagree here...

Simulationist, as defined in the GNS Theory seems to fit 3.5/Pathfinder much better than Gamist, If anything I would say 3.5/PF is a mainly Simulationist system with leanings towards Gamist... but also easily moded by a DM to run narativist games as well.

On the other hand I would say 4e is a Gamist system which can be moded by the DM to be slightly narativist or slightly simulationist but doesn't through it's mechanics favor one or the other... all IMO of course.

 

[Balesir]

You've done a wonderful job explaining the difference in 3E vs 4E in terms of gamist versus simulationist. It turns out that I generally hate gamist RPGs and it took 4E for me to identify that. In my opinion, the extreme of being gamist begins to transition more to board games and less of an RPG (again this is in severe hyperbole)

Nothing wrong with figuring out what your tastes are. I would say you should give all the 'agendas' a try, though; I find them all enjoyable, if you accept them for what they are (even though Nar is the one I really 'grok' the least). "Roleplaying" is an appallingly slackly defined word; it's worth analysing just what it means to you, I think. I see the word bandied about a lot with, quite evidently, a whole raft of diverse meanings.

I always viewed 3E as a balanced system with a lean towards simulationism that wasn't seen as stongly in earlier editions. I think a 5E could bring more balance to the force. The best new edition would allow the DM to do either or both. Now designing that system to be effective would be an extreme challenge.

I now find 3E, like the versions before it, a rather confused and "dilute" experience. For a Simulationist-supporting system it supports Gamism moderately well; for a Gamist-supporting system it gives a reasonable nod towards Simulationism. It's sort of neither one thing nor the other; if I want Sim play I'll choose HârnMaster, RQ3, Traveller or the old DragonQuest systems before 3E, but if I want Gamist play 4E is just so much better.

This just makes me wonder if people who like 4E are more gamist in their thinking and as such the game appeals to them more (note that's not a negative thing, just different than me). If there truly is a gamist vs. simulationist rift with 3E vs 4E then I am not sure it could be mended.

Yes, I think a lot of the rift is exactly this. 3.x is, perhaps, the only in-print (as PF) system that supports Simulationism at all in the "sub-genre" created by D&D worlds. I find DragonQuest does it better, frankly, but that game is long OOP; such a shame.

Personally, I think they're both primarily gamist systems.

Yep, I agree with you.

3E is a gamist system with leanings toward simulationism.

4E is a gamist system with leanings toward narrativism (especially when you incorporate the advice given in the DMG2).

I hadn't thought specifically of the Nar link (despite some threads hereabouts), but I think that is a pretty insightful summary, actually. 4E is most obviously suited to Gamist play, but Ican see that you could drift it to Nar pretty readily.

I would consider classic (pre-3E) D&D to be more straight-up gamism, although I'm not terribly familiar with those systems.

No - 2E was pretty heavily Sim leaning - especially with the focus on world publications - and all the earlier systems were fairly incoherent about play agenda. Even more so than 3E. To be fair, they were made before anyone really had thought about such stuff.