log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 6E 6E When?

Hussar

Legend
Nah, that got dragged into it, somehow.

I was wondering why they hadn't updated the related boardgames to readily segway into 5e. Or rather, I was finding the story as to why they didn't odd and even a tad contradictory.

It's not any kind of simple, and need have nothing to do with the relative success the game is currently enjoying.

I answered this pages ago but I think it got lost in the scrum. Well, no, you brushed off my point by saying that 5e looks like 1e. :erm:

They haven't updated the board games' mechanics to 5e because, at low level, the 4e and 5e mechanics are virtually identical. There's really very, very little difference. Particularly coming from a board game where you don't have the chargen options that you would in 4e. So, you have your low level character with a handful of powers and off you go.

Mechanically, at these levels? 4e and 5e are so close they might as well be the same game. So, why bother changing the board games' mechanics? They work just as well as an on ramp to 5e as they did for 4e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The rules for the board game were quite simplified from 4E from what I remember (we played a few games at a friend's house).
I'm not recalling a whole bunch of it. But it was fairly recognizable, and had served as an on-ramp (we called it a 'gateway drug') to D&D.

I don't find a company selling a game that only costs them manufacturing costs as particularly "odd".
Sure, if it were the same three games, just keep 'em in print untill they stop selling.

They did go ahead and develop more of them, though, after 5e dropped & was successful, without bothering to update it. Why not update it, so that players going from the boardgame to TTRPG find the same sense of familiarity? For that matter, so that you get more crossover sales the other way, too?
 

They haven't updated the board games' mechanics to 5e because, at low level, the 4e and 5e mechanics are virtually identical.
I know that's one of your pet theories.
OK, facts.
On a basic mechanical level, before you get into, say, classes, advancement (BA), and the like, they are a bit more similar to eachother than any other two d20 games picked out of a hat at random, say.

There's really very, very little difference. Particularly coming from a board game where you don't have the chargen options that you would in 4e. So, you have your low level character with a handful of powers and off you go.
Except in 5e you don't have a character with a handful of powers starting out. If you've a caster, you have a handful of cantrips, and handful of spells, and a handful of slots to cast them with. If not, you have a weapon or two, and rage or action surge or SA.
(Heck, now that I'm down this rabbit hole, anyway: why didn't they update with Legend of Drizzt to reference Essentials-style characters?) ;)

Mechanically, at these levels? 4e and 5e are so close they might as well be the same game. So, why bother changing the board games' mechanics? They work just as well as an on ramp to 5e as they did for 4e.
I may be mis-remembering how much the characters in Castle Ravenloft resembled D&D characters. I'm going to have to at least glance at it again, before I come back to the discussion...
 
Last edited:

Parmandur

Legend
They did go ahead and develop more of them, though, after 5e dropped & was successful, without bothering to update it. Why not update it, so that players going from the boardgame to TTRPG find the same sense of familiarity? For that matter, so that you get more crossover sales the other way, too?

Because the original boardgames continue to sell, and they want to keep those fans happy. Meanwhile, nobody who moves to the TTRPG is confused by the differences.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Because the original boardgames continue to sell, and they want to keep those fans happy. Meanwhile, nobody who moves to the TTRPG is confused by the differences.
Betrayal at Baldur's Gate is also labeled as a D&D game but only bears a passing resemblance to 5E. It's more or less a FR version of Betrayal on House on the Hill.

There's no reason to rewrite the rules for old board games if they work.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
I buy them used for the miniatures, I do like the board game but I never really get it to the table. I know it’s played a lot by other folks I know.

Just curious, did you buy Vault of Dragons? It's got something like 40 minis in it for $30, but the minis seem a little too small for use in a D&D game.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
This is one of my favorite things to speculate about.

D&D is doing so well now, with mainstream popularity, book sales, celebrity endorsements, and number of players at all-time highs. A new edition probably isn't even in the works at the moment. They seem to be putting all of their resources into more 5E content, like the new Eberron campaign setting, the Tyranny of Dragons modules, and the Baldur's Gate adventure path. Whatever they are doing, it's clearly working.

If they are talking about a "Sixth Edition" at all (and I doubt they are), it's probably in the context of a different game. It would be something that would let them test out new things without tampering with their highly-successful flagship product, and without risking its horde of consumers, like maybe a new edition of D20 Modern. (Again, I don't think they are. I don't even know why they would be. But as long as we are speculating, this is my unfounded prediction.)
 


Mistwell

Legend
It's not any kind of simple, and need have nothing to do with the relative success the game is currently enjoying.

The entire theme of this editions rules presentation, from the very beginning to now, is that story is the most important thing surrounding D&D. That evoking imagination with the rules presentation, and getting people to explore the rules rather than approach them like assembly instructions, is important to capturing people's interest and maintaining that interest.

Now they could be wrong. It could be all of that was incidental to the success of the edition. But given we don't have any data showing it's been harming the edition popularity, and it was the idea from the beginning to make it popular, and it is popular, it sure seems like continuing with that theme is wiser than not continuing with it. You would need some pretty good evidence showing it's both incidental to success and holding back success to make a major change in that theme at this point.

So what's the evidence showing it's incidental, and the evidence showing it has held back success, sufficient to overcome the burden of "it's working so don't mess with success" that is the 1000 ton locomotive driving this edition right now?
 

The entire theme of this editions rules presentation, from the very beginning to now, is that story is the most important thing surrounding D&D.
Is it?

Because all through the playtest it was "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D" … it's the 'big tent' ... it's gonna support all yer playstyles... I don't recall any story-first or shared-experience positioning at the time. (Once AL got rolling, I started hearing those sound bites. And, I mean, AL did provide a shared experience, much like Encounters had, and the living campaigns before that, so it wasn't exactly outta left field, just an organized play thang. But, trying to make it retroactively the whole point of the kumbaya something-for-everyone edition of the playtest kinda is.)

It could be all of that was incidental to the success of the edition.
Yep. It could be. There's no hard proof what's responsible for D&D's commercial success this time around. There's myriad factors that could reasonably contribute. Holding up commercial success to assert the importance/perfection/whatever of any one of them is simply not proof, and not even relevant.

Taking it as such is basically just a STFU to any sort of discussion. Oh, the games doing so well, everything must continue to be done exactly as it is right now or it'll all crash & burn, don't even talk about anything that might not be perfect, it's all perfect, don't change a thing! great job WotC!

C'mon. What fun is that?
 
Last edited:

Mistwell

Legend
Is it?

Because all through the playtest it was "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D"

Ah, the lie trotted out again, and spun in a new and even more inventive way.

It's baloney Tony. That was never what they said, but more importantly (and don't cherry pick the first part of this sentence out of context please) IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE OF THE RULES PRESENTATION NEEDS TO BE STORY THEMED, they never ever even vaguely implied there was some conflicting interest with "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D" in terms of that kind of rules PRESENTATION.

Yep. It could be.

But you cut the rest of my post which already responds to what you had to say after that period.

Let's do that again. What is your response to this?

"But given we don't have any data showing it's been harming the edition popularity, and it was the idea from the beginning to make it popular, and it is popular, it sure seems like continuing with that theme is wiser than not continuing with it. You would need some pretty good evidence showing it's both incidental to success and holding back success to make a major change in that theme at this point.

So what's the evidence showing it's incidental, and the evidence showing it has held back success, sufficient to overcome the burden of "it's working so don't mess with success" that is the 1000 ton locomotive driving this edition right now?"
 
Last edited:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Ah, the lie trotted out again, and spun in a new and even more inventive way.

Mod Note:

I think you need to be rather more careful about calling things lies.

There are many differences of opinion on these boards. Even if you think a thing is well established fact, and someone does not agree with it... calling what they say a lie is not gong to take the discussion in a constructive direction - it makes the discussion about speaker honesty, not about whether what they say is correct.

So really, take more care next time, please. Thanks.
 


Parmandur

Legend
Taking it as such is basically just a STFU to any sort of discussion. Oh, the games doing so well, everything must continue to be done exactly as it is right now or it'll all crash & burn, don't even talk about anything that might not be perfect, it's all perfect, don't change a thing! great job WotC!

Nobody is saying anything is "perfect," but in the specific case of enumerated Core books, WotC conducted an experiment, found it failed after a handful of years, and has provided plausible explanations of the failure that ring true to human psychology. There really needs to be a plausible conspiracy theory to entertain an alternative possibility.

Similarly with the D&D Adventure System boardgames, which are running on a simplified 4E variant, they have also provided well grounded explanations of why they aren't rocking the boat with a working product.
 

ssvegeta555

Explorer
3.5 PHBII was amazing. Had a lot of good content like the duskblade, spaheshift druid variant, fun spells for all classes and great high level feats. I find it an essential release. But content aside, I can see how the name can confuse some. Some might think it's a sequel, or an updated PHB obsoleting the first one, rather than an expanded book of options. At least it's not as confusing as Overwatch 2 and Path of Exile 2.
 

happyhermit

Adventurer
I can think of one boardgame that named an expansion "The Expansion" (after they botched the name the first time), surely this is the way of the future. Before long all expansions released will be "Expansion 2" "Expansion 3" etc. it's just a really great strategy in every way, leave it to Wotc to throw away such an inspiring idea and replace it with something less formulaic.
 

Hussar

Legend
Let's not forget, it wasn't just PHB II. There was the PHB II and III DMG II, MM II and III, AND a Martial Power II as well.

All in a span of what, 3 years? They were flooding the shelves with books and the titles weren't exactly clear were they? What is a DMG II? What is a Monster Manual III? Because, really, the sequel books aren't all equal. PHB I, II and III had all fairly similar content - class stuff. But, DMG II had largely completely different content from DMG I and you really needed DMG I to DM the game. But, you could quite easily play with a PHB II and a Monster Manual II.

@Tony Vargas is ignoring the context of the situation when Mearl's talked about the numbering being confusing. It wasn't JUST a PHB II. There were EIGHT books in the core line (PHB/DMG/MM) and which ones you needed to play was certainly not clear just by looking at the covers.
 

5th Edition was published in 2014. Maybe we will see in 2027 something like a Advanced Dungeon & Dragons 50th Anniversary Edition.

3.5 was fabulous, but too complex for newcomers.

Now players want to buy the remake of classic titles, or updated crunch, and new classes. A new edition isn't necessary because nothing has to be fixed yet.

A board game for +7y children would need really simple rules, and for +12 something more complex is possible.

The right strategy should be a d20 system game but set in the modern age, or an updated of d20 Future (Star*Drive, Dark-Matters, Star Frontiers or Gamma World). This would be a lower risk to introduce some new ideas.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top