D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

[Dungeonosophy]

From Open Gaming to Free Culture: For a Third Golden Age of roleplay

There's a new blog about a Third Golden Age, along with an invitation to EN Worlders to attend a Free Culture event in September:

https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/blog

 

[Tony Vargas]

But Pathfinder had already tied Wizards in Q3 of 2010, just before Essentials was launched.

Hadn't thought to look for a tie. I was wondering, because I thought I remembered something about PF in late 2010.

There was a lull before the Essentials launch, into which Pathfinder launched it's highly-anticipated Advanced Players Guide, so not too terribly surprising.

But, remember, Pathfinder launched it's core books - the traditional biggest sellers - in 2009, and /didn't/ beat sales of D&D, which was already into it's second year of supplements.

IcV2 rankings show a pattern of Pathfinder beating out D&D when D&D didn't roll out much and Pathfinder rolled out something big - or when D&D didn't even show up.


It'll be interesting to see how it stacks up now that D&D is back.

 

[Saplatt]

...
There was a lull before the Essentials launch, into which Pathfinder launched it's highly-anticipated Advanced Players Guide, so not too terribly surprising.
...

In 3Q of 2010 (July-Sept), Wizards produced Vor Rukoth, The Demonomicon, Dark Sun Player's Guide and Dark Sun Campaign Setting, Marauders of the Dune Sea and the Psionic Power Splatbook.

The Rules Compendium and the first Essentials book were released in the very last week of September.

Keep in mind that, by this time, WotC also had plenty of other 4E books on the shelves: 3 PHBs, 3 Monster Manuals, 2 Magic Item Compendiums, a Dragon Magazine Annual, 2 Books devoted to Dragons, Open Grave (an Undead Supplement), Setting Supplements for the Underdark, The Plane Above, The Plane Below, The Manual of the Planes, Splatbooks for Primal, Arcane and Divine Powers and 2 for Martial Powers, Player's Guides and Campaign Settings for both Eberron and Forgotten Realms, a book of Dungeon Delves, Revenge of the Giants, several adventure modules, it's own Starter Set, Splatbooks for both Dragonborn and Tieflings and an entire Player's Strategy Guide.


Compared to Pathfinder, which had the Core Book, a Bestiary, a GMs guide and its adventure paths.


Granted that all these things sell higher on initial release, but the weight of that material should have counted for a lot more ongoing sales than it apparently did.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If it wasn't mainly release timing, why did the top spot bounce between them until D&D went on hiatus?

Surely not because people were switching back and forth in preference between the two systems.

Also, Essentials hit the shelves late in Q3, but there was a run-up to it that was not exactly well-received - starting with a controversial update to the CB in June, that, along with previews, created some negative impressions of the new release.

The way Pathfinder would punch through and beat residual sales of D&D with big releases, only to have D&D 'come back' the next quarter suggests different behavior from their customer bases. For instance, if Pathfinder fans were quick to snap up new books but mostly all did so within a quarter; but the existing D&D books kept getting bought by newbies who hadn't /heard/ of Pathfinder, that would explain the pattern (and the latter would help explain the bad performance post-Essentials, since it was very confusing to have multiple points of entry to D&D). It's also just possible that a lot of the same folks were buying /both/.


In any case, that sad chapter is over, and D&D is back in the market.

 

[RotGrub]

OK, those are some things you don't like. That doesn't tell me what your style is, nor what past edition(s) /did/ work for it (not that you're under any obligation to tell me, but like I said, I am curious). Could you maybe give us a hint of your style in the sense of what it is, not what you don't like? And, maybe explain what things you /need/ for that style (not what things you dislike) - so, again, in a positive sense? Because it just might be that there are ways to approach 5e that could work for you.

So your concern is that new players aren't being taught to play your way?

Such as?

From what we've heard, it would seem options are mostly going to be in the DMG, and will, of course (at the risk of being tautological), be the option of the DM. While very early intimations in L&L did hint at players having more choice about the nature of the game as they played it, it quickly became obvious that all that agency was going to rest with the DM. Even so, that's mainly a concern for those of us participating in organized play, where such 'options,' are, indeed, chosen for us by AG policy. If you're not doing organized play, once the DMG comes out, you should have a shot at finding a DM whose running the kind of option-set you would want.

My playstyle simply does not contain non magical healing. I currently play C&C, 2e, and sometimes 3.5e. I'm not a fan of gamist rules and I generally try to play games that have abstract rules that approximate realistic results.

As for my concerns, I think the PHB should make it very clear to the new player that not every game will use the same set of rules. House ruling and using optional rules (especially for resting and healing) should be the norm.

I guess I'm just reading my PHB and expecting a lot more from it. I just can't understand how optional rules (even those that add more realism) like the variant rules for Encumbrance and Sizes can be more important than optional resting rules. The playtest made it very clear to the designers that resting/healing rules divided the player base.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My playstyle simply does not contain non magical healing. I generally try to play games that have abstract rules that approximate realistic results.

OK, so your style is defined by what you want excluded from the game. Maybe not exactly a style, per se, but you're entitled to your preferences.

To be clear: Is this in the sense of being a DM and wanting to implement your vision of a campaign? Or in the sense of being a player and not wanting to use non-magical healing, yourself?

As for my concerns, I think the PHB should make it very clear to the new player that not every game will use the same set of rules. House ruling and using optional rules (especially for resting and healing) should be the norm.

Mearls seems to harp on those points in everything from the last 2 years of L&L right down to tweets. I'm surprised to hear that the PHB doesn't make the favoring of that philosophy clear.

I guess I'm just reading my PHB and expecting a lot more from it. I just can't understand how optional rules (even those that add more realism) like the variant rules for Encumbrance and Sizes can be more important than optional resting rules. The playtest made it very clear to the designers that resting/healing rules divided the player base.

Just because an option is outlined in brief sidebar in the PH doesn't mean it's more important than one that's held back for the DMG. It could just mean that the DMG options are going to be a lot more elaborate.

As it stands now, the only non-magical healing in the game is Second Wind (easily omitted or converted to temp hps) and HD (also fairly easy to tweak, just have PCs recover fewer HD per long rest - or, my preference, change the definition of long rest).

Eliminating HD might be a little tougher: you'd have to come up with some alternate model for natural healing, and a replacement long-rest-recharge/short-rest-activated healing resource to get parties through the requisite 6-8 encounters the game is apparently balanced around, now. Probably why that's relegated to the DMG.




Edit: [sblock=5e as Compromise] For Perspective, you might want to consider that 5e is meant to be something of a compromise among various styles, and, while your zero-tolerance for non-magical healing may represent one such style, there are opposite extremes - fans of the warlord, or second wind for all characters or healing surges. Consider where the 5e compromise came down relative to your preference vs those. The Warlord was a martial 'leader' capable of adequately providing for the in-combat healing needs of a party. No such class exists in 5e (not even as a sub-class). Healing surges represented dependable, proportionate, healing capacity between 150% and 300% of a character's hps, and provided a consistent central mechanic for healing. HD represent about 1x hps, and are random, with magical healing being entirely over-and-above. Second Wind was open to all and took a 5-minute rest to recharge, functionally available in virtually all combats, now it's a feature of a single class that takes an hour to recharge. I think it's fair to say that the 5e compromise favored your extreme over the opposed extremes.

DMG healing options /might/ exist to make HD more like surges or allow them to be used in combat by anyone like a Second Wind. But a Warlord in the DMG is profoundly unlikely. If you're concerned about being shunted to an 'option ghetto' by waiting for the DMG to explicitly give you the option of purging non-magical healing from your game, how do you think fans on the other side of the table feel?[/sblock]

 

[Sadras]

For me, a key word here is "promoted". A game doesn't become less "hard coded" just because it denies that it is.

True. But since the game (4e) is promoted as a perfect balanced game, any tinkering in the system would
risk unbalancing the game and that is what I was alluding to with its web-like system. This alone discourages versatility or makes it a lot more work on the part of the DM.
Also based on your statement, you would then afford me the right to say that 5e doesn't become a less balanced game just because it denies that it is.

I think 4e is very flexible across a range of campaign assumptions, magic item densities, granularity of resolution, healing expectations, etc. And to date I haven't seen anything in the 5e materials to suggest that it is more flexible.

This is were I would disagree. 4e less flexible because a removal/modification of a mechanic has much greater affect throughout the system than the same in 5e from an overall perspective - it requires more hassle (DM thought).
i.e.

• As 5e DM I don't like HD as a healing mechanic. Result: Gone removed, no hassle. Sure the fighter loses a 1d10 healing mechanic while the wizard loses 1d6 healing mechanic. Has balance been disrupted? No. Everyone has an equal amount of HD.
• As 4e DM I don't like Healing Surges - which is a balancing resource, spell component resource, skill challenge resource, healing resource in and out of combat, power resource, magical item resource...etc. It's clear that the removal of Surges affects a lot more areas which makes it a trickier house-rule to implement, because its removal could affect the games primary quality - balance.

 

[pemerton]

since the game (4e) is promoted as a perfect balanced game, any tinkering in the system would risk unbalancing the game and that is what I was alluding to with its web-like system. This alone discourages versatility or makes it a lot more work on the part of the DM.

<snip>

As 4e DM I don't like Healing Surges - which is a balancing resource, spell component resource, skill challenge resource, healing resource in and out of combat, power resource, magical item resource...etc. It's clear that the removal of Surges affects a lot more areas which makes it a trickier house-rule to implement, because its removal could affect the games primary quality - balance.

I'm not sure why someone who is untroubled by balance issues in 3E or 5e would suddenly become a balance fetishist if playing 4e.

But anyway, the simplest way to make 4e into something more like AD&D or 5e would be: eliminate healing surges and second wind, make all healing that requires surge expenditure work automatically.

Make all magical encounter powers into daily powers.

And drop warlords, or at least drop all their healing features.

I'm not sure how balanced that would be, but I don't see how it would be more wonky than AD&D!

 

[Uchawi]

Any time you add or remove something from a game it effects balance, or the core assumptions that are in place. To me it is more important to understand the impact of the changes, and that is harder to tell with every additional sub-system that is present in the game.

 

[Sadras]

I'm not sure why someone who is untroubled by balance issues in 3E or 5e would suddenly become a balance fetishist if playing 4e.

You assume too much here by placing me behind the 3e banner. All I said was 5e's primary quality is that it is an open system lending to an easier system to manipulate than 4e which one of its main attributes being that it is regarded as a balanced system (at least more so than previous editions).
Playing amateur designer and fiddling with the system risks that status.

But anyway, the simplest way to make 4e into something more like AD&D or 5e would be: eliminate healing surges and second wind, make all healing that requires surge expenditure work automatically.

Make all magical encounter powers into daily powers.

And drop warlords, or at least drop all their healing features.

I'm not sure how balanced that would be, but I don't see how it would be more wonky than AD&D!

Sure, but can you not see how much you have to houserule for something which is so simple in 5e. If feels like one is carving out large masses within the 4e system to get to the same result. My preference is too have easily removable options/ portions without having to affect different aspects of the system.