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!

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], nice post - I like the way you framed those points. Well done.

As for your last paragraph, I don't see how other games are relevant as they aren't claiming to be part of the "D&D tradition." There's no reason for people to be upset with Dragon Age or Savage Worlds for not being "real D&D" because they aren't claiming to be. D&D before 4E had a long, 34-year tradition, which many viewed it as breaking from. This is why I wonder "what could have been" if WotC had taken the approach that Paizo seems to be taking with Pathfinder Unchained. Imagine if, instead of dropping 3.5 for 4E in 2008, they had instead come out with a separate line called D&D Empowered, or something like that, which was basically 4E. Then they gradually taper 3.5 off for another couple years until them come out with the new edition, which resembles something akin to what 5E is, in 2011 or 2012. I'm not saying this is what I think they should have done, nor what I wish they would have done, just that it is an interesting thought experiment.

As an aside, anyone know why, whenever I post, it includes everything I've multi-quoted in the entire thread?! It is quite irritating.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes. But [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] is trying to draw the contrast by comparing different-level characters to the same challenge.

Which I acknowledged.

He just seemed convinced that any difference means that there are no similarities, while Hussar seems to feel that any similarity means there are no differences.

:sigh:

The ability to auto-kill an enemy is a mechanical difference, but a fairly minor one.

I'm sure it doesn't feel that way if you're the enemy. ;P

"Same target" is a story notion, not a mechanical/mathematical one. I've quoted [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] saying that "the similarity is when comparing same-level characters and challenges".

In 4e, if the L10 wizard re-encounters the "same target" as s/he met when L1, then the target will have been-restatted. If the re-statting is from standard to minion, then the chance to hit with a sword won't have increased - it will have decreased because of stat, feat and item gaps - it will have dropped from around 30% to around 15%.

Now you're just trying to make his head explode.

While it would make sense to re-state a low-level standard vs a high level PC, it could also just be hand-waved, or tediously played through.

Maybe a skill check would be a better example? You encounter a DC 21 'hard' lock at low level, at higher level, DC 21 is 'easy' - same lock, same DC, different difficulty. The higher-level character, with a lot of experience, even if no training or manual dexterity to speak of just might get a bit lucky and open the 'easy' lock, but it's the same lock that he couldn't possibly open way back when. 3.5 you still can't open the lock. 5e, the low-level DC was lower than 21 and you could have opened it then, and have about the same chance now.

Just to illustrate the 'everything's/nothing's a problem' meme that shaping up around this topic, let's look at how 3.5 did this 'right' but 4e and 5e have a problem. Why not? So, if you're a 10 DEX non-lock-picking kinda guy, and you've been hanging out in a party with a rogue for a long time, gaining a lot of levels, you may or may not have picked up a few ideas of how to pick locks. If you're a 4e character, you have. You don't have a choice - you could become trained, but you can't just remain willfully ignorant. If you're a 5e character, you haven't. You can become an expert, or remain a rube, not just pick up a little. But, if you're a 3.5 character you can sink a few cross-class ranks into lock picking and become just a little better - and just /as much/ better as you like, based on that little bit of exposure over the levels. You just have to give up being quite as good at something your class is supposed to be good at...

 

[Hussar]

Don't worry - they're doing fine. It worked.

Oh, I totally agree. I honestly stand in awe of the turnaround here.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
He just seemed convinced that any difference means that there are no similarities, while Hussar seems to feel that any similarity means there are no differences.

:sigh:
/snip

Oh, hey, I acknowledge there are obvious differences. Of course. But, I think you agree, there is a pretty direct line of development from 4e to 5e.

 

[Shasarak]

Of course there is a direct line from 4e to developing 5e. You have the same developers for a start and of course looking at what worked previously like Bab and taking off what did not work like requiring magic items.

Hit Dice is a great example of fixing Healing Surges.

 

[Hussar]

Of course there is a direct line from 4e to developing 5e. You have the same developers for a start and of course looking at what worked previously like Bab and taking off what did not work like requiring magic items.

Hit Dice is a great example of fixing Healing Surges.

Fixing how?

The primary complaint about Healing Surges was that it made HP unbelievable. Characters could go through a fight, get wounded, and then six seconds later be entirely healed. It made HP unbelievable.

So, what is the difference here? You go through your fight, get wounded, spend Hit Dice (which require absolutely no in-game explanation) and you are back to full HP.

Other than you have lower numbers to play with, there's essentially no difference here.

Or, to put it another way, what is happening, in game, when someone spends Hit Dice and how is that different than spending Healing Surges?

 

[Kramodlog]

Because WOTC this time around has spent a HUGE effort getting everyone on board with 5e before doing anything. Two year playtest, constant feedback loops with questionnaires and the like, and MUCH MUCH better writing in the PHB and introducing mechanics.

Exactly. The edition war didn't exist because of the internet existed, but because of faux pas from WotC.

 

[Imaro]

Fixing how?

The primary complaint about Healing Surges was that it made HP unbelievable. Characters could go through a fight, get wounded, and then six seconds later be entirely healed. It made HP unbelievable.

So, what is the difference here? You go through your fight, get wounded, spend Hit Dice (which require absolutely no in-game explanation) and you are back to full HP.

Other than you have lower numbers to play with, there's essentially no difference here.

Or, to put it another way, what is happening, in game, when someone spends Hit Dice and how is that different than spending Healing Surges?

When taking a short rest (which is an hour long in 5e) it says in the book you are assumed to be resting and tending to your wounds... how well do you rest and tend to those wounds? You won't know until you roll your hit dice... though I will say that I can't remember many, if any, times I saw anyone fully heal up this way in 5 levels of play... since it seems the amount of hit points and available hit points through hit dice seems scaled back in 5e vs. 4e and more importantly the amount is generated randomly as opposed to a set number of hit points each and every time. Personally I like this because it still allows for a sense of attrition and of lingering wounds after a battle... as opposed to 4e where in 5 mins you could reliably go from whatever you were at to full as long as you have X or more number of healing surges...

 

[Hussar]

Exactly. The edition war didn't exist because of the internet existed, but because of faux pas from WotC.

Oh, no disagreement from me. WOTC's handling of 4e, from front to back, was a bloody embarrassment.

 

[Iosue]

Because WOTC this time around has spent a HUGE effort getting everyone on board with 5e before doing anything. Two year playtest, constant feedback loops with questionnaires and the like, and MUCH MUCH better writing in the PHB and introducing mechanics.

Heck, beyond that, there has been edition warring. Both EN World and RPG.net have left a trail of banned posters through the playtest who couldn't discuss things civilly and politely. You can go to other forums, which I shall forbear naming, where any 5e thread is filled with invective. A lot of other forums, such as this one here, went through a baptism of fire when 4e came out, and they have been very proactive about nipping that stuff in the bud.

Personally, I do think 5e owes a lot to 4e. They're both exception-based d20 systems with a strong math underlay. The difference is that 5e is presented much differently than 4e. 4e was finely tuned for a particular kind of play, and it was presented to encourage people to play that style. 5e, OTOH, loosens the tuning a bit, and encourages people to play whatever kind of style they want.