7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?

When asked what he was working on, WotC's Chris Perkins revealed a couple of juicy tidbits. They're not much, but they're certainly tantalizing. Initially, he said that "Our marketing team has a big reveal in the works", and followed that up separately with "Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories". What all that might mean is anybody's guess, but it sounds like there are plans for D&D stretching into the foreseeable future! Thanks to Barantor for the scoop!

 

[BryonD]

So, I think I can reiterate - the social and communication structures that were required for the Edition Wars to happen didn't exist in 1999.

OK, I thought you were saying that the edition wars didn't exist because of differences in how forums have advanced communication.
It appears I simply misunderstood your point.

 

[pemerton]

a 30%-80% chance isn't the same as 55-65%

And 4e produces bigger spreads than 55-65. The invoker/wizard in my game has a +23 to hit with OAs using his Rod of 6 (of the 7) Parts. The default AC for a 28th level opponent is 42. Hence he needs to roll a 19 to hit. Of course, it doesn't come up all that often.

But I think 4e aimed at keeping the typical spread, in play, a little tighter than 5e does, particularly at the lowest levels.

My point is that they both cluster around bettter-than-50% chances of success. This is very different from AD&D.

 

[BryonD]

But the overall spreads are not radically different.

This is not my experience and not what I have encountered over and over from 4e defenders.

See Tony's comments above for the slightest taste (which isn't to say that begins to capture the many pages long debates form back when it mattered).

Again, it feels vastly different to me.

The routine expectation of chances well outside the norm is commonplace, even at lower levels.
Frankly, it is better than 3E in this regard and much better than 4E.
I have long held the idea that wizards should get NO BAB advancement but instead get a bonus when it applies to spells. 5E has backed into this.
If the wizard happens to be proficient with a sword, the advancement is there. But for non-proficient weapons, no progress is made.
I like it.

Can you say that in 4E you L10 wizard in no better than your level 1 wizard when attacking with a sword?

 

[pemerton]

How does the dragon crap cartoon fit into this analysis?

It's a piece of marketing material - in the same class as an advertisement.

I'm not saying that companies don't try to manipulate the emotions of potential customers - of course they do! That's a major technique for selling luxury goods (and not just those).

My view is people who internalise marketing material are setting themselves up for disappointment, however - they are mistaking commercial practices for sincere human communication.

 

[BryonD]

a +11 difference is wildly different from a +11-13 difference? Really? Both were trained/proficient vs untrained/non-proficient, both were heavily invested in a stat vs no investment in the stat. Both were high level. Nothing in the least misleading about the example.

I don't think you are even paying attention to what has actually been said.

There's a clear difference among 3.5, 4e, and 5e in how they model lack of interest in a skill at high level.

I'll take that.

By claiming that 5e 'solved the 4e problem,' that is exactly what you presumed.

Except it was obviously tongue in cheek. In the very same sentence I agreed with you about "solving 3E's problem", which I clearly don't agree exists.

Again you have agreed they are different

That works for me.

 

[BryonD]

It's a piece of marketing material - in the same class as an advertisement.

I'm not saying that companies don't try to manipulate the emotions of potential customers - of course they do! That's a major technique for selling luxury goods (and not just those).

My view is people who internalise marketing material are setting themselves up for disappointment, however - they are mistaking commercial practices for sincere human communication.

But you have not answered the question.
You said that WotC didn't treat its fans arrogantly.

 

[pemerton]

This is not my experience and not what I have encountered over and over from 4e defenders.

See Tony's comments above for the slightest taste (which isn't to say that begins to capture the many pages long debates form back when it mattered).

Again, it feels vastly different to me.

<snip>

Can you say that in 4E you L10 wizard in no better than your level 1 wizard when attacking with a sword?

This is all about the fiction. It is consistent with what I have said upthread about different story structures.

In 4e a L10 wizard is mechanically not better than a level 1 wizard when attacking a level-typical enemy with a sword. If anything, s/he is probably worse (see my example not far upthread of the invoker/wizard with his Rod, in which he is proficient!) because of the level-driven spread arising from stat, feat and item bonuses.

But you are not asking (I don't think) about the mathematical/mechanical play of the game. You are asking about the fiction of the game.

And yes, the fiction is different. In 5e a 20th level wizard who stat-dumps CHA cannot easily intimidate a Greyhawk street thug - although s/he can auto-kill him or her with a fireball! In 4e a 20th level wizard who stat-dumps CHA can relatively easily intimidate a Greyhawk street thug, but cannot auto-kill him or her with a fireball (because a minion never takes damage on a miss).

These are differences of story, not of basic mechanical structure. Some prefer one version, some the other.

When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] talks about "bounded accuracy" having its origins in 4e, they are pointing to the basic mechanical structure, not the fictional overlay.

 

[BryonD]

This is all about the fiction. It is consistent with what I have said upthread about different story structures.

In 4e a L10 wizard is mechanically not better than a level 1 wizard when attacking a level-typical enemy with a sword. If anything, s/he is probably worse (see my example not far upthread of the invoker/wizard with his Rod, in which he is proficient!) because of the level-driven spread arising from stat, feat and item bonuses.

But you are not asking (I don't think) about the mathematical/mechanical play of the game. You are asking about the fiction of the game.

Who said that? I never said that.

But either way, I disagree with you.

If both the L1 and the L10 wizard attack the same target, then the L10 wizard has a better chance to hit.

When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] talks about "bounded accuracy" having its origins in 4e, they are pointing to the basic mechanical structure, not the fictional overlay.

I don't care. They are different.

 

[Kramodlog]

So, if the internet is responsable for the edition war that came with 4e, why are there no edition war with 5e?

The internet is now much better than it was in 2008. We now have phones, tablets and phablets to practice combat. There should be like at least 100% more war. Maybe it could reach the level of edition jihad.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the very same sentence I agreed with you about "solving 3E's problem", which I clearly don't agree exists.

Ah. So 5e 'solving' that problem is of no value to you, because you want everyone to be able to participate when a difficult skill use is called for at low level, but only specialists to do so at high level. Therefore the secondary effects of how they addressed the problem looks like the only relevant point.

Bounded accuracy is pretty much a big 0 for you then, since all it does is sorta-level a playing field you'd rather see very steeply tilted? Fair enough.

I have long held the idea that wizards should get NO BAB advancement but instead get a bonus when it applies to spells.

That's consistent with the above.

5E has backed into this.

How so? The wizard is proficient in some weapons and gets his proficiency bonus with those weapons - the same bonus as the fighter. That's more like full BAB than no BAB. And, more like the 4e treadmill than 3.5 varied BAB or AD&D attack matrixes.

And yes, the fiction is different. In 5e a 20th level wizard who stat-dumps CHA cannot easily intimidate a Greyhawk street thug - although s/he can auto-kill him or her with a fireball! In 4e a 20th level wizard who stat-dumps CHA can relatively easily intimidate a Greyhawk street thug, but cannot auto-kill him or her with a fireball (because a minion never takes damage on a miss).

These are differences of story, not of basic mechanical structure.

Seem like mechanical differences to me. But, yes, I can see the 'story' difference, too.

When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] talks about "bounded accuracy" having its origins in 4e, they are pointing to the basic mechanical structure, not the fictional overlay.

The similarity is when comparing same-level characters & challenges. That there are also differences (when comparing very different level characters, or the same character at low vs high level), does not negate that similarity.