D&D 5E Is 5e going to be a fantasy heartbreaker?

[Dragonblade]

4e would have been considered a fantasy heartbreaker if it had any other name or publisher on the cover. Whether or not 5e finds itself in the same boat remains to be seen. (And yes, technically, Pathfinder might be considered a heartbreaker too, but the OGL throws a monkey wrench into that equation.)

Tom
Who loves fantasy heartbreakers

Well if a broad definition of a fantasy heartbreaker is a game that is essentially a house ruled D&D, that tries to "fix" D&D, but falls short, and/or is doomed to irrelevance, then I would say neither 4e or PF would qualify. But for slightly different reasons.

For one thing, while PF does fit the notion of a house-ruled D&D, it does actually "fix" a lot of 3e, so much so that it is considered the new standard for 3e style D&D by most who play the game, superseding 3e itself. So can you actually call it a "heartbreaker" when it actually succeeded in becoming a better D&D? At least a better 3e D&D, anyway? I don't think so.

4e IS D&D, but aside from that its such a radically different game design from D&D of before, that even if it wasn't published by WotC, I think its highly debatable about whether it fits the stereotype of "house-ruled D&D clone" that heartbreakers fall under. It also enjoys a devoted fan following, enough that it would be considered a huge success by any other game company. Perhaps a heartbreaker to some D&D fans who wanted something more traditional, but to a significant amount 4e fans, its all heart, baby.

 

[Tallifer]

Ron Edwards describes the type of game I want to play. When he analyzes it, it explains for me why I came back to D&D after 20 years away.

I have played very different games like Werewolf, Mage the Ascension, Jorune, Aces & Eights, Traveler and Hunter. I was amazed at how much of my table time was spent twiddling my thumbs and looking for things to amuse me while someone else did something really boring. However when I played Fourth Edition, I was on the edge of my seat the whole time, interested in everything that was happening. The same goes for playing similar systems like Rolemaster, Powers & Perils and Warhammer Fantasy.

The only unique systems which I enjoyed were Pendragon which evoked Arthurian legend perfectly in its first less politically correct edition, and Call of Cthulhu which had an hilarious atmosphere of doomed and futile investigation and occasional heroism. I think that both of these games share with D&D a strong incentive for party play.

This is where I find it sad that many cannot accept the Fourth Edition or conversely Pathfinder as good D&D. All editions of D&D share the same fun outlook toward playing. I also have no real fear for the Fifth Edition, because I sincerely doubt that the Wizards will make it into a boring game.

 

[pemerton]

4e would have been considered a fantasy heartbreaker if it had any other name or publisher on the cover.

Well if a broad definition of a fantasy heartbreaker is a game that is essentially a house ruled D&D, that tries to "fix" D&D, but falls short, and/or is doomed to irrelevance, then I would say neither 4e or PF would qualify. But for slightly different reasons.

I can't comment on PF, but agree for 4e. 4e assumes that the player will be introducing story elements into the game through choices of race, class, paragon path, epic destiny, theme, some feats, etc.

Pemerton, the reason we're hearing about Lost Caverns and Keep on the Borderlands is because these game evoke very favorable (and dare I say nostalgic) reactions in a lot of long-time hobbyists, me included. If I have a hard time playing these classic exploration and adventure modules in any system of D&D, then it's not D&D to me.

But they're not the be all and end all. Dragonlance is over 25 years - can the system run that sort of game (and can it do it without railroading/fudging? AD&D couldn't, really)? Can it handle Planescape (I'm not a big fan, but plenty are)? Ravenloft (ditto)? Oriental Adventures? There's a lot of stuff that's been part of D&D for a long time that isn't just Gygax's greatest hits.

Ron Edwards describes the type of game I want to play. When he analyzes it, it explains for me why I came back to D&D after 20 years away.

<snip>

However when I played Fourth Edition, I was on the edge of my seat the whole time, interested in everything that was happening. The same goes for playing similar systems like Rolemaster, Powers & Perils and Warhammer Fantasy.

Edwards clarified for me what I love about Rolemaster (and why it sometimes frustrates me) and also brought me back to D&D (4e), by showing me what I could do with it that I hadn't been able to do with AD&D.

(And I wanted to XP you for some Rolemaster love, but can't at this time.)