5e what would you do?

[Aus_Snow]

These are people who make games for a living.

Yes, but the only prereq for being a maker of such games is to be. . . a gamer. Well, best case scenario, that is. Something I've noted before, but every so often, it seems necessary to do so again.


A streamlined, smooth and easy system to learn and play (and DM) would be key, I think. A more broadly inviting, compelling game. Not just for IT guys, engineers and gearheads in general. IOW, not one that will appear too complex (particularly needlessly so), arbitrarily restrictive, tedious, slow, or just plain confusing/confused.

Speaking of restrictive, I believe it should also - with ease, and without the need for house rules - provide the opportunity "out of the box" to create characters just like those found in popular fantasy fiction, movies, maybe other sorts of games, and so on. Pop culture, of the relevant kind at least, basically. And, indeed, characters that come from new players' minds, that - with many games, including current D&D for instance - might normally have been off limits, or only partly realised, if "lucky".

This is how I would like 5e to be. Accessible, fun, fast-moving, enabling/empowering/supportive. So, you know, rather unlike D&D as it stands.

It would be a fantastic thing for the hobby. Revolutionary, even. Whether anything remotely close will *ever* happen? Yep, your guess is quite possibly as good as mine.

But, I can dream.

 

[jaerdaph]

You may well be right, except for two things:

1) If it becomes an MMO, it really isn't D&D, at least as is currently recognised. In order for it to survive, they would have to kill it off.

Not necessarily if it incorporated features of something like Fantasy Grounds and allowed for a human Dungeon Master, albeit a DM in a slightly modified role. The ability for this DM to create and "upload" his or her own adventures would be key too.

2) If they make it an MMO, they would have to compete directly with WoW. And, just as no other tabletop RPG has ever been close to overcoming the dominance of D&D, so too would D&D fail to overcome the dominance of WoW. Most likely, it would go the way of the Conan MMO.

To compete with WoW, a D&D MMO would have to offer something better - again a role for a human DM and easy adventure/campaign customization to help create a more tabletop feel to the game might make it stand out.

Edit: Also, in edition to just the D&D brand name, WotC owns a *ton* of IP to draw from - not just monsters like the beholder or yaun-ti, but entire campaign worlds. Ideally, you could select to play in any setting from Forgotten Realms to Ravenloft to Dark Sun to Planescape etc.

 

[Canor Morum]

You may well be right, except for two things:

1) If it becomes an MMO, it really isn't D&D, at least as is currently recognised. In order for it to survive, they would have to kill it off.

2) If they make it an MMO, they would have to compete directly with WoW. And, just as no other tabletop RPG has ever been close to overcoming the dominance of D&D, so too would D&D fail to overcome the dominance of WoW. Most likely, it would go the way of the Conan MMO.

I agree with this.

White Wolf is betting that their new MMO will be a big hit. They have a good developer and aren't trying to rush it out. There is definitely an audience for a game set in the modern world with supernatural elements. Their direct competitor is not Blizzard in this regard but Funcom's Secret World. Having a recognized brand will help WW, so it could be a successful game.

Age of Conan is actually a really good MMO despite having a rough start, it will never reach WoW subscriber levels though. The WoD MMO won't either.

WotC had a good idea with Neverwinter, make an MMO where players can make their own adventures. The problem is they went with Cryptic, who from my experience with Star Trek Online was an awful choice. They will rush the game out with hardly any content, turn a big initial profit, and then rely on players to create compelling reasons to keep playing (and paying). Meanwhile vorpal swords are available in the item mall for only $10.

The other big problem is you can't replicate the experience of having a DM without having an actual person fill the role. I think the DDI virtual tabletop was a better way to facilitate this level of interaction and freedom.







*I just had a bizzaro vision of professional DMs getting paid to run online gaming sessions and D&D tournaments being televised.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

How much would you look back editions-wise for a 5e? Or would you take 4e to the next level? So, more blast from the past or more difference from the past editions.

Take it to the limit! More dice, more fun! d14s, d16s and d18s for starters!

...Because a gamer can never have too many dice. Search your heart; you know this to be true.

 

[Lanefan]

Not necessarily if it incorporated features of something like Fantasy Grounds and allowed for a human Dungeon Master, albeit a DM in a slightly modified role. The ability for this DM to create and "upload" his or her own adventures would be key too.

And to think DMing is a time commitment *now*...I can't begin to think how much time this would chew up.

To compete with WoW, a D&D MMO would have to offer something better - again a role for a human DM and easy adventure/campaign customization to help create a more tabletop feel to the game might make it stand out.

It would also have to look absolutely real, with CGI better than Polar Express/Beowulf quality. The processor (both source and user) and bandwidth requirements alone will delay this for years.

If it's going to replace my imagination, it has to look better than what I can imagine.

Otherwise, the tabletop experience still starts with...a table.

Lan-"Ikea is your friend"-efan

 

[Cor_Malek]

You may well be right, except for two things:

Make that three:

3) there already is a DnD MMO - made by Turbine, and Atari, licensed by Hasbro and Wizards.

Not a bad one either.

edit: whooah! I responded to the thread via old open tab, so Delericho post was the most recent I saw then. Is DDO really that unknown?

For those curious to take a peek without downloading 4gb client, Dodger's First Impressions video (so from POV of previous WoW as well as present 4e player (the game implements 3.5 AFAIR)):
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7sBnpGMcGQ[/ame]

 

[Aeolius]

The ability for this DM to create and "upload" his or her own adventures would be key too.

Count me out. I enjoy DMing on-the-fly. Sometimes I don't know who my players will meet, until they meet them. Sometimes I don't know what treasures are buried under the "X", until the digging begins. And I reserve DM's prerogative to invoke Rule Zero and change things at the last minute.

A few sessions ago, I had it in my notes that the PCs were to meet and possibly free a large hermit crab witch from the ruins of a tower. Literally, as I was typing (chat-based game) the phrase "hermit crab witch" I changed it to "hermit crab hivemind". Forget the stats - story comes first.

 

[M.L. Martin]

The first change I'd make for 5E, without hesitation, is to take a cue from HERO 6E and M&M 2E/3E. (Other systems have done this as well, but those are where I saw it done. )

Decouple stats from attack rolls, and possibly defenses.

The centrality of the attack roll to D&D, which 4E has only increased, means that anything that adds to it becomes much better than any other option. The importance of stats to everyone's attack rolls in 4E means that character creation tends to be focused, and arguably distorted, by the all-importance of the attack stat.

Removing stat modifiers from the attack roll means that stats are still valuable for their secondary effects on powers/spells/maneuvers and on character options in general, although Int, Wis and Cha may need some boosting, especially if making the math and the balance work requires that stat modifiers be removed from defenses as well.

 

[Dausuul]

Decouple stats from attack rolls, and possibly defenses.

The centrality of the attack roll to D&D, which 4E has only increased, means that anything that adds to it becomes much better than any other option. The importance of stats to everyone's attack rolls in 4E means that character creation tends to be focused, and arguably distorted, by the all-importance of the attack stat.

I completely agree with this.

It's worth noting that before 3E, stats played a minor role in determining your attack value. In AD&D, you needed a 17 Strength before you got so much as +1 to hit! To get +3, you needed a perfect 18/00; if you were rolling 4d6 drop lowest, the chance of that happening was less than 1 in 1,000. (With six stat rolls, there's a 9.3% chance that one or more comes up 18, and then you have to roll double zeroes on 2d10.) Likewise, you needed a 15 Dexterity before you saw any benefit to your AC and 16 to get a bonus on ranged attacks.

BECMI was more generous, but bonuses still maxed out at +3 and you needed an 18 to get that.

As it stands, stats are one of the remaining bastions of "system mastery." Especially given the way 4E is balanced--a +1 bonus to hit makes an appreciable difference--how you arrange your stats has a big effect on your PC's performance. If defenses and attack bonuses weren't stat-dependent, the system would be greatly simplified, multi-classing would be less of a headache, and new players would have one less chargen trap to fall into.

Another major change I would make would be to get rid of +X items, or at least change how they work. +X items add needless complexity for players and bookkeeping for DMs, while contributing nothing to the game experience that would justify their inclusion. 4E gets a lot of (justified) flak for its bland magic items, but the blandest magic item of all has been around since the beginning: The +1 sword.

+X items are also the driving force behind 4E's crazy economics. The +6 sword is an integral part of the math for epic-level PCs, so it has to be readily available at high levels--it can't be treated as an artifact or near-artifact. But a low-level character with a +6 sword has an overwhelming advantage, so there has to be a way to keep it out of the lowbie's hands. Hence, we end up with epic-level items priced in the millions of gold pieces, and people who trade in such gear yet somehow never have adventurers kill them and take their stuff.

 

[delericho]

I completely agree with this.

It's worth noting that before 3E, stats played a minor role in determining your attack value. In AD&D, you needed a 17 Strength before you got so much as +1 to hit!

BECMI was more generous, but bonuses still maxed out at +3 and you needed an 18 to get that.

I'm not sure I would remove them entirely, but I would definitely reduce the importance of stats. Amongst other things, I would be inclined to reduce the bonuses to at least +1 per 3 points, halve the bonuses for race (or just remove them), and remove pretty much everything that boosts stats (including gaining levels).

Amongst other things, doing so would allow the system to go for 4d6-drop-lowest-in-order as the default method, which would make things much easier on new players. (And, of course, experienced players could replace that with point-buy or standard 4d6-drop-lowest as desired). With the current paradigm, stats are just too important to even consider not having near-total control over how they are assigned.

The other major change I would make would be to get rid of +X items, or at least change how they work. +X items add needless complexity for players and bookkeeping for DMs while contributing nothing to the game experience that would justify their inclusion.

I would go further than this, and silo the things that give "bonuses to the numbers" from things that give "new options to try".

So, your stats, race, class, skills and feats give bonuses to the numbers, while your talents/powers, magic items and other equipment give you access to various actions, which then make use of those numbers.

Under such a system, things like Ritual Caster would become powers, while something like the Cloak of Resistance would keep only the associated power, losing the current bonus.

(Where it falls down, though, is with armour, which by rights should be giving an AC bonus. However, it occurred to me that maybe the character should have an Armour Training defence, inherent to the character, but that they can only apply that bonus when wearing appropriate armour. This in turn allows the addition of various talents/powers that allow a character to apply the bonus when unarmoured - neatly implementing a "swashbuckler" concept.)