A difficult question

[pemerton]

In regards to what a given person wants out of 5E, is it more important that 5E delivers the D&D you want or that it delivers everyone else playing the D&D you want?

If D&Dnext delivers a game I want to play, I might play it. If it doesn't, then I probably won't play it.

It doesn't particularly bother me what sort of D&D it leads to others playing. I play in a fairly tight group of friends, and I don't see that changing for the forseeable future. Also, I have doubts that a new edition can change how people play the game: at most, it can cause those who want to play in a manner that it doesn't support to have a grim time if they insist on persisting with it.

if 5E appeals to you, is it ok if it doesn't appeal to others and a(not necessarily the current) schism in the community continues? How much are you willing to sacrifice, or are you willing to sacrifice at all, getting what you want for the sake of the game appealing to most everybody?

I don't have to sacrifice anything for the game to appeal to others - if it doesn't appeal to me I won't play it, but that's no sacrifice. There are other games I can happily play - once my 4e game finishes I want to GM Burning Wheel if my group agrees, and I could envisage running a 4e DarkSun game too.

As for the "schism" - I think that it is natural that there will be different ways of playing RPGs. The level of hostility associated with dislike of 4e will probably go away in any even, because it seems pretty likely that the default of D&Dnext will be more oriented towards at least a veneer of process-simulation in support of semi-Gygaxia gamism. So those who hated 4e will probably like it.

If this means I don't like it, I certainly don't plan to spend my time on messageboards explaining why it's not really an RPG but a tactical skirmish game/board game/video game/whatever other form of pejorative game!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except for the arbitrary mention of 5e, that's prettymuch the status quo.

You should have no problem with others who enjoy different styles enjoying 4e, as long as you can enjoy Pathfinder (or your other retro-clone of choice) in your way. You probably don't want the 4e people at your table but there are many tables in this world besides it. Right?

I would like for the name Dungeons and Dragons to be on a game that carries forward the tradition it had for three versions.

So, what you're saying is that you're not OK with the status quo, even though it does give you everything you said you wanted, functionally, because 4e carries the name D&D?

I am not in love with 3e so I am hoping 5e is a big improvement.

Surely, the next edition of Pathfinder would have at least as good a chance of delivering that as would 5e (5e running the risk of contamination with 4e'isms).

I don't mind if 5e supports your playstyle in addition to mine. 4e will be cloned if the market is there.

I don't really have a playstyle I'm insistent upon. I rather like balanced games, such as 4e, because they can accommodate (as opposed to 'support,' which I'm beginning to conclude has a very exclusionary meaning for many) a range of styles, making it easier to find or pull together groups.

But, in any case, 4e cannot really be cloned, regardless of how much demand might materialize if such a clone were as promptly available and as aggressively marketed as Pathfinder. Hasbro is a notoriously litigious company, happy to C&D or even sue even those who haven't quite technically infringed on its IP, knowing that they don't have the resources to defend themselves, and the GSL gives them what little excuse they need to do that.

 

[Emerikol]

So, what you're saying is that you're not OK with the status quo, even though it does give you everything you said you wanted, functionally, because 4e carries the name D&D?

I'm saying that 4e whatever it's other merits or flaws was a radical shift from the design philosophy of the older three editions. 3e was a minor shift by comparison. So if we must part ways I would say that the name D&D should adhere to it's traditional playstyle. You have no attachment to the game beyond 4e it would seem the way you talk about older editions. I'm not yet convinced that the group that feels 4e is hands down vastly better is a very big group. Don't assume all purchases and even players of 4e are in that camp. They are vocal on these boards and others but I have my doubts they are more than a sliver of the 4e playing crowd. It is perhaps why they are fighting so hard.

I believe with 4e they achieved their highwater mark market penetration wise. I feel they can do a lot better by returning to traditional D&D and taking into consideration some of the criticisms of those editions without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I really believe that if 4e had been released the same year as 1e under a different name that Gary Gygax would not have sued. 4e would have been viewed as a totally different game. Whereas 3e would have brought a lawsuit. It is different but it's roots are obvious.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm saying that 4e whatever it's other merits or flaws was a radical shift from the design philosophy of the older three editions. 3e was a minor shift by comparison. So if we must part ways I would say that the name D&D should adhere to it's traditional playstyle.

While I can't agree that 4e was that much more of a change from 3e than 3e was from 2e, I don't see why the /name/ should make that huge a difference. If Pathfinder or some other retro-clone strikes you as a better spiritually successor to D&D than the last ed of D&D, by all means, buy and play it, instead, but why campaign to destroy that edition of D&D for those who do like it?

You have no attachment to the game beyond 4e it would seem the way you talk about older editions.

Well 3e was a great improvement at the time, and I still have good things to say about it's multi-classing system (most recently in discussion with Pemerton and Lanefan, oddly enough, in the How much should 5e aim at balance? thread) and the class design of the fighter and sorcerer. And, 1e AD&D will always have that special nostalgia for me - I guess it's just a much less intense nostalgia than that of retro-clone fans.

But, ultimately, I have no special attachment to the /name/ - if 4e and Pathfinder were to swap name-plates & IP, I'd follow the best system, not the most familiar name. Most of the IP of D&D is tied up in settings, which I have never had much interest in.

I'm not yet convinced that the group that feels 4e is hands down vastly better is a very big group.

I don't care if it's huge or tiny. The way things were before the 5e announcement, everyone had what they wanted. The way it's shaping up post-5e, they're the only ones set to lose anything. Fans of all other editions have something to fall back on that's already receiving ongoing support.

 

[GX.Sigma]

is it more important that 5E delivers the D&D you want or that it delivers everyone else playing the D&D you want?

Why would I want anyone else to play the D&D I want? They should play the game they want.

 

[Emerikol]

While I can't agree that 4e was that much more of a change from 3e than 3e was from 2e, I don't see why the /name/ should make that huge a difference. If Pathfinder or some other retro-clone strikes you as a better spiritually successor to D&D than the last ed of D&D, by all means, buy and play it, instead, but why campaign to destroy that edition of D&D for those who do like it?

There is no campaign to destroy 4e. We are talking of a new edition. 5e. I am advocating they include (not eradicate anyone else) the option to play the game called D&D that so many have loved over the years.

But, ultimately, I have no special attachment to the /name/ - if 4e and Pathfinder were to swap name-plates & IP, I'd follow the best system, not the most familiar name. Most of the IP of D&D is tied up in settings, which I have never had much interest in.

While I am attached to those settings, I don't use them. I just feel like they are part of the lore and history of D&D. Especially Greyhawk and the spell names like Tensers this and Mordenkainen's that.

I don't care if it's huge or tiny. The way things were before the 5e announcement, everyone had what they wanted. The way it's shaping up post-5e, they're the only ones set to lose anything. Fans of all other editions have something to fall back on that's already receiving ongoing support.

D&D has been the big dog on the block. If they stick with purely 4e game design then they are going to lose out and no longer be the big dog. They want to broaden their appeal and include some of those people they lost.

I really think that 4e design philosophy is going to resurface. Already 13th Age is on the way. It's not 4e true. But it believes the same way the 4e designers believed philosophically. (Maybe they believe a bit less in the grid but thats it). I also do not for a moment think that 13th Age is the last. If 5e does not cater enough to 4e sensibilities more games are coming. I know you might find this ridiculous but I'm not even sure Monte Cook's new game isn't going to be a lot more "modern" than you think. He didn't like 4e specifically but that doesn't mean he won't use some of the design ideas. (I'm hoping not since I do hope to play his game too ;-) but I have seen a few hints of things I'm worried about).

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is no campaign to destroy 4e.

What do you think the 'Edition War' was? And, even if it wasn't trying to destroy 4e, or wasn't coordinated in the attempt (I would never liken it to a conspiracy, for instance), /it succeeded/. 4e is being destroyed.

D&D has been the big dog on the block. If they stick with purely 4e game design then they are going to lose out and no longer be the big dog. They want to broaden their appeal and include some of those people they lost.

IMHO, 4e /did/ broaden their appeal, and it attracted a lot of new players, who, if they aren't promptly alienated, might well stay with the game for the /next/ 30 years. That's worth the investment - and the 'loss' of some grognards to Paizo.

Though I do get the revenue-motive for trying to drag everyone under the 5e umbrella, I don't see it having much chance of success. Only the current 4e fans can be forcibly dragged (by using legal BS to suppress 4e), and that's more likely to drive them from the hobby than force them to adopt 5e. Everyone else will just stick with the edition they already like. 5e might be enough like one of those eds 'but better' to capture that one segment of the fanbase, but that's a best-case scenario and strikes me as terribly unlikely.

AFICT, here, what's going on is that the industry has long since become niche, but D&D, resting on it's 'first RPG' laurels, can't face up to the fact. The niche of 2e was 'grognards who reject change,' niche of 3.x was 'power-mad system mastery,' and the niche of 4e was probably just 'casual play' (not that there wasn't plenty for serious gamers, but what it did /better/ than competing games was casual play).

I really think that 4e design philosophy is going to resurface. Already 13th Age is on the way. It's not 4e true.

Not even close, and Heinsoo working on it doesn't make it so. It's being marketed as another retro-clone of classic D&D, just more a spiritual than a mechanical clone - a step-child, perhaps.

I know you might find this ridiculous

Something we agree on!

but I'm not even sure Monte Cook's new game isn't going to be a lot more "modern" than you think.

Though I know, intellectually, that he's a talented designer, I just can't bring myself to give anything from the guy who brought us 'rewards for system mastery,' a fair shake. Yes, it means I'm not as good a person as I could be, but I'll continue that struggle on other fronts...

 

[Emerikol]

What do you think the 'Edition War' was? And, even if it wasn't trying to destroy 4e, or wasn't coordinated in the attempt (I would never liken it to a conspiracy, for instance), /it succeeded/. 4e is being destroyed.

It was a lot of fans say "What happened to my D&D?" Thats all. Just like you are talking about 5e right now. There will be a 6e you know. Is it destroying 5e? I guess so technically. But then 1e,2e,and 3e have all been destroyed correct?

IMHO, 4e /did/ broaden their appeal, and it attracted a lot of new players, who, if they aren't promptly alienated, might well stay with the game for the /next/ 30 years. That's worth the investment - and the 'loss' of some grognards to Paizo.

I believe it attracted new players just like any edition of D&D did. I don't think this new number is enormous. The hobby is niche. It's never going to be humongous.

Though I do get the revenue-motive for trying to drag everyone under the 5e umbrella, I don't see it having much chance of success. Only the current 4e fans can be forcibly dragged (by using legal BS to suppress 4e), and that's more likely to drive them from the hobby than force them to adopt 5e. Everyone else will just stick with the edition they already like. 5e might be enough like one of those eds 'but better' to capture that one segment of the fanbase, but that's a best-case scenario and strikes me as terribly unlikely.

I think you are wrong here. Let's say 40% of all D&D players are playing 4e right now. I really think it's not more than that. I believe half that 40% AT LEAST if not more are not wed to 4e style gaming. 4e was next and they played it. They will go on to 5e and then on to 6e. It's kind of why they keep making editions actually.

Not even close, and Heinsoo working on it doesn't make it so. It's being marketed as another retro-clone of classic D&D, just more a spiritual than a mechanical clone - a step-child, perhaps.

I have the playtest and while I agree it's not 4e it is definitely designed with 4e principles in mind. Not saying you should try it but I've rejected it already for this reason.

Though I know, intellectually, that he's a talented designer, I just can't bring myself to give anything from the guy who brought us 'rewards for system mastery,' a fair shake. Yes, it means I'm not as good a person as I could be, but I'll continue that struggle on other fronts...

One of the ill consequences of avoiding the system mastery issue is the loss of a lot of flavor elements. I agree you always want your PCs to maintain a minimal level of combat competence but if you force all choices to be equal then you lose a lot. Perhaps an easier approach and one I'm considering in my own game I'm designing is to make choices add flexibility but not really raw power. Raw power is intrinsic to class and level. A thought anyway.

I personally am as unreasonably biased for Monte as you are against. But not because of 3e. I just think he is the leading game design mind of our generation. I pretty much assume I'll buy every game he designs. Not every module mind you. Not every option book either. But if it's a new game I'll likely get it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It was a lot of fans say "What happened to my D&D?" Thats all. Just like you are talking about 5e right now.

Meh, 5e is in development. If I'm still bashing it 4 years after it's release, then you can say that.

But then 1e,2e,and 3e have all been destroyed correct?

The OGL/SRD makes 3.x indestructible, and retro-clones are doing a fair job for the other two.

I think you are wrong here. Let's say 40% of all...

Since we have absolutely no numbers to go on, lets not.

One of the ill consequences of avoiding the system mastery issue

There is no avoiding system mastery. No game could be so regimented and choiceless as to eliminate system mastery. One that were could hardly be called a game, at all. Intentionally building in rewards for system mastery is just gratuitous: gasoline on a fire.

Perhaps an easier approach and one I'm considering in my own game I'm designing is to make choices add flexibility but not really raw power. Raw power is intrinsic to class and level. A thought anyway.

There's a lot of ways to do that, but versatility also amounts to power in a very real, if 'softer,' way. For instance, in Hero, GMs set 'active point caps' for powers. If you have a 1/day power, it costs only a fraction of an unlimited power, but it can't be any more potent. You could have several such powers for the cost of one, though. You give up availability for versatility. Too much concentration on daily resources would still lead you to the 5mwd, of course, but it's not a bad idea.

I personally am as unreasonably biased for Monte as you are against. But not because of 3e. I just think he is the leading game design mind of our generation. I pretty much assume I'll buy every game he designs.

Wow, OK. I just don't see game-designers in that 'rock star' light, I guess.

 

[Grabuto138]

3e was a minor shift by comparison.

I don't ask this to be confrontational, but how much of 1e/2e did you play? For me 3e was the hugest, most ginormous change in my role playing experience. It was the first time that the game had a more or less unified rule set. In the old days, joining a new campaign was really tricky because, in my experience, each group ignored a large part of the rules that your previous game didn't, and emphasized rules that your previous group ignored. And there were always tons of house rules.

Try firing into melee using 1e rules: "Assign probabilities to each participant" (you've already lost me, Gary.) Half-value for s, 1.5 for L, "Total the values for each group and ratio one over the other." ..."Thus, 4/7=56pc or 60pc chance per missile..." (1e DMG pg63)

Did you know that the first time you listened at a door you may "keen-eared"? Neither did I.

Edit: Even with grognard nostalgia, I have not heard a call to start using "segments." Or, my personal favorite, the randomly generated prostitute table. The distinction among Sly Procuresses, Saucy Tarts, and Haughty Courtesans can be game changing.