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!

 

[Iosue]

I've never heard this interpretation before.

The table on PHB p 19 is headed "Armour and Weapons Permitted", and p 25 says "Magic-users . . . can wear no armour and have few weapons they can use'.

Page 36, under headings "Weapons" and "Weapon Proficiency", says "The choice of weapons used by your character might be circumscribed by the class of your character . . . At the start, you character will be able to employ but a limited number of weapons. . . . If proficiency with any given weapon is not held by the character, it is used at a penalty as shown on the table which follows." (For minutiae completists, the wizard non-proficiency penalty is -5.)

There is a degree of confusion (or at least uncertainty) on p 36, because "employ" (which is a synonym of "use") is used to mean "use with proficiency", whereas six lines later there is reference to "using at a penalty for non-proficiency". I see how that first occurence could be read back into the table heading on p 19 (ie "permitted" meaning "permitted for proficiency" rather than "permitted to use at all"). I think it would be more of a stretch to read it into p 25 - the non-use of weapons is in the same breath as the non-wearing of armour, which suggests to me that it can't be done, not just that it can be done but with a penalty.

The 2nd ed AD&D PHB (p 30) says that "wizards are severely restricted in the weapons they can use." Given that weapon proficiencies are optional in this edition, I don't think that the restriction on wizard weapon use is most naturally read as an aspect of the proficiency rules, although that would be a reasonable way to develop the system.

Was this ever settled one way or the other back in the day, or was it just a matter of table variations?

The Sage may have commented on it in some issue of Dragon waaay back when, but I'm not sure of any official ruling. I think, however, what we have here is an artifact of entry via Basic. OD&D treats PCs as barely a step up from a wargame piece. It's not interested in modeling a world through game mechanics. Particularly in the sense of combat, this is simply resolved, using either Chainmail or the alternate system. All attacks do the same damage: 1d6, so it doesn't really matter whether your magic-user has a dagger or a sword. His (melee) effectiveness is dependent on his Level and to-hit roll matrix, not what weapon he's using. Of course, over time the rules start to get more and more detailed. Once you introduce weapon distinctiveness with variant damage and speed factors, you have to start looking at what kind of penalties you impose for someone using weapons outside those allowed for their class. One of Gygax's tablemates has phrased the attitude of the time as, "Whatever isn't explicitly forbidden is permitted." It's explicitly forbidden for magic-users to become proficient with a sword. However, a magic-user picking up a dropped sword and swinging it at encroaching enemies is something that might be considered a not-uncommon outcome in the course of the game. What happens when a PC does that? In AD&D's case, I believe the -5 penalty was made available. AD&D was about a mechanical system for every eventuality.

But D&D (as oppposed to AD&D) didn't go that route. For one thing, it retained the universal d6 damage. It had variant damage as an optional rule (that I think 99% of tables opted into), but it simply remained silent on the subject of non-class weapons. And I think most people simply went along with it. And if a magic-user PC happened to pick up a dropped sword and swing it at encroaching enemies, the DM was expected to just make a ruling about how that worked. But those who came into AD&D through D&D, primed with the idea that "magic-users simply can't use swords", interpreted the AD&D rules that same way.

I'm mostly curious about the fourth option that you didn't quite describe there - the spending of the inspiration is pure metagame (so no diligence in describing it in the game fiction), but the earning is handled in the sort of way you see in a game like Burning Wheel or Fate - earn Inspiration for playing your personality traits in a way that drives the game forward, generates complications, etc.

But that's really part of the large second group, isn't it? The conventions might be subtly different -- generating complications vs. making the DM's Mountain Dew come out of his nose, but ultimately it's the DM deciding to put the benny into play, with player free to redistribute it as they see fit.

Despite these various exceptions, I find that default trajectory - the fiction of the tiers reinforced by the way monsters, treasures, traps etc are written up in the various source books - is a huge strength of 4e. For me, it's really been the payoff, in play, of what Worlds & Monsters promised.

I was wondering if 5e has any sort of comparable take on "the story of D&D". I'm pretty sure it will be different, because of bounded accuracy in combination with the monster-spread-by-CR that you described.

Ah, I see what you mean. On the whole, I would say in terms of "story progression", 5e is to 4e as AD&D is to BECMI. It's there, if you're familiar with the latter you can play it up in the former, but it's definitely not as foregrounded. And my sense with the Monsters, is that instead of a progression of different kinds of monsters (kobolds to orcs to giants to demons, for example), you progress through different kinds of captains. The lower level monsters are viable for longer, so you start seeing more of them, led by more powerful bosses.

These are competing views of the tradition.

You are, in effect, asking me whether I - as a fan of 4e - agree that 4e breaks with the tradition of D&D to an unprecedented extent relative to earlier variants of the game. As I have said in other threads, I don't agree with that. I think it does some things that are new for D&D, and I mentioned some of them upthread: the downplaying of exploration of a GM's pre-built world, and the corresponding emphasis on a particular style of player-driven play (the "indie-fication" of D&D) are the most obvious ones.

My question here would be -- were those changes (downplaying of exploration of DM's pre-built world and corresponding emphasis on player-driven play) driven by the market, or were they the result of WotC forecasting? I think the move from OD&D being a highly open, freeform game to AD&D being "mechanical systems for everything!" was a result of demand from players (customers). I think the move from 1e's highly game-oriented play to 2e's highly story-oriented play was likewise driven by the market at the time. The reformat of 2e's diverse, abstract system into 3e's d20 system, greater character customization, and rules interlinked as a gameworld simulator reflected demands in the market. 5e's move to a simpler, faster game, but with optional complexity is certainly reflective of demands in the market.

With 4e, I think better balance, and more things for martials to do were definitely demanded by the market. But my sense -- which may indeed be wrong -- is that much of 4e comes from the designers pushing the envelope, looking around at indie games, Euro boardgames, CCGs and MMORPGs to place 4e on the vanguard of what was to come. So, those things you mentioned, plus a greater emphasis on tactical combat as an element of play (of course already present in the game, but taken to a whole new level of integration in the game) create a fundamentally different experience than someone might be expecting from D&D --and most importantly, no matter how much other parts of the game might hearken back to and reinforce traditional elements of the game, it's the changes that are the most salient.

For me and many others, those changes were actually along the lines of how we were already playing D&D, be that with more player-driven development, or a stronger combat focus, so naturally we didn't have a strong averse reaction.

I think Mercurius's point (though he can correct me if I'm wrong), is not that we must substitute others experiences and conceptions for our own, but that in the course of reviewing the series of events covering 2007-2014, it behooves us to be aware of others' experiences and conceptions. I see nothing lost from being empathetic.

 

[Shasarak]

With 4e, I think better balance, and more things for martials to do were definitely demanded by the market.

Do you think that was actually the case?

I am sure there is a part of the market that demanded martials have powers but everything from Essentials on indicates that it must have been a small part of the market.

 

[Iosue]

Do you think that was actually the case?

I am sure there is a part of the market that demanded martials have powers but everything from Essentials on indicates that it must have been a small part of the market.

I absolutely think that was the case. The degree to which it mattered varied from table to table, but LFQW was a thing. E6 came out in 2007 before 4e. The Book of Nine Swords was an early draft version of 4e that they abandoned and reworked for 3e. The demand was there. However, the key is, "demand for more balance and more things for martials" doesn't equal "demand for powers". 4e powers were WotC's implementation of a response. One that obviously not everyone embraced.

Incidentally, I don't know if you followed the 5e playtest. The wizard and the "neo-vancian" spellcasting system was established very early on, and accepted from early on. It didn't really change that much after the first few playtest package. But Fighters and Rogues...they had to be torn down and rebuilt several times. The first versions of the classes were very simple, very much like their 2e and 3e versions: good attack-roll progression, mostly distinguished by their access to feats/themes. But almost immediately demand for more interesting fighters and thieves emerged, and a good deal of the playtest revolved around getting those accepted by a significant majority of the audience. To the point that some things that were meant to be in the playtest where taken out because they had to redo the fighter and rogue so many times. I think that demand was there in the mid-2000s. I think 4e's implementation pleased some of the demand, and failed to please the rest.

 

[pemerton]

I think, however, what we have here is an artifact of entry via Basic.

<snip>

those who came into AD&D through D&D, primed with the idea that "magic-users simply can't use swords", interpreted the AD&D rules that same way.

Maybe. It's certainly true that I entered AD&D via Basic.

I can still honestly report that I've never encountered this interpretation before! I don't know if I like it or not.

But that's really part of the large second group, isn't it?

Again, maybe. I see a big difference between 2nd-ed style "be rewarded for playing in character" and "indie"-style "be rewarded for playing to or against character so as to generate drama/complications", but others might not.

I see what you mean.

<snip>

my sense with the Monsters, is that instead of a progression of different kinds of monsters (kobolds to orcs to giants to demons, for example), you progress through different kinds of captains.

Thanks, interesting. That seems a little bit LotR-ish.

My question here would be -- were those changes (downplaying of exploration of DM's pre-built world and corresponding emphasis on player-driven play) driven by the market, or were they the result of WotC forecasting?

<snip>

my sense -- which may indeed be wrong -- is that much of 4e comes from the designers pushing the envelope, looking around at indie games, Euro boardgames, CCGs and MMORPGs to place 4e on the vanguard of what was to come. So, those things you mentioned, plus a greater emphasis on tactical combat as an element of play (of course already present in the game, but taken to a whole new level of integration in the game) create a fundamentally different experience than someone might be expecting from D&D

<snip>

For me and many others, those changes were actually along the lines of how we were already playing D&D, be that with more player-driven development, or a stronger combat focus, so naturally we didn't have a strong averse reaction.

I think I still stand by my comment of four years ago, that I reposted upthread:

When 4e game out, I posted on these forums that WotC apparently agreed with Ron Edwards that a narrativist-oriented RPG focusing on situation and character-driven play would be more popular than a simulationist RPG focused on the players exploring the world and/or stories that the GM creates for them. Such a belief seems the only way to explain the presence, in 4e, of all the features I've mentioned above.

At the time I tended to assume that WotC weren't just speculating but actually knew- unlike Ron Edwards, for example, they have marketers and market researchers on their payroll. But it seems they may have got it wrong.

For someone like me, who wanted a game like the one they produced, it's turned out to be a lucky error. The tone of Essentials, though, plus the release of Nentir Vale, suggests that WotC might be pulling back, and trying to turn 4e into a more traditional RPG.

But the question of whether or not there is market demand isn't a normative question. It's not about (for instance) "being true to" or "turning one's back on" the tradition of D&D. It seems pretty clear to me that there are OSR players and authors who believe that what they're doing is truer to the tradition of D&D than what WotC is doing. They're not obliged to change that view just because WotC's market is 100 or 1000 times bigger than the market for their games.

Anticipating and supplying markets for these sorts of luxury leisure goods requires commercial cleverness. The goal of that commercial cleverness is profit (and at a reasonable rate of return relative to other opportunities that were available - given that RPG design is not all that capital intensive, I would think that most of the relevant investment is going to be in salaries). If someone wants to argue that WotC would have been financially better off not going down the 4e path then I'm very interested to hear the argument - personally I'm a little doubtful, but I'm not sure that anyone posting here has got sufficient data (including reliable projections for what money WotC might have made or lost had it stuck to 3E, how much money the 4e-inspired boardgames have made, what the profit was on DDI and what alternative income stream would take its place under the 3E scenario,etc).

My feeling is that if 4e really was a net financial disaster for the group, they wouldn't have been given two years to develop 5e. But that's just untutored intuition.

I think Mercurius's point (though he can correct me if I'm wrong), is not that we must substitute others experiences and conceptions for our own, but that in the course of reviewing the series of events covering 2007-2014, it behooves us to be aware of others' experiences and conceptions. I see nothing lost from being empathetic.

I'm aware of (some) others' experiences and conceptions. In some cases, more so than I would care to be if I ruled the world!

In some cases, I think the presentation of those experiences and conceptions suffered from confusing (i) the failure of a commercial producer of goods, from whom was accustomed to buying goods, to continue to supply goods that one wanted to purchase, with (ii) betrayal of some important value by someone who owed a duty to uphold it.

When TSR published 1st ed AD&D I was a customer - I own all the hardbacks up to Greyhawk Adventures, and used to buy Dragon magazines from time-to-time, plus a few modules. When TSR published 2nd ed AD&D, my consumption reduced (the only thing I can think of that I didn't buy 2nd hand is the City of Greyhawk boxed set and, in the late 90s, the Slavers and Scarlet Brotherhood supplements). When WotC published 3E I bought a reasonable amount (core books, plus probably 5 or 6 supplements) because I had robust cash flow at the time and some of it seemed interesting. When WotC published 4e I bought 40-odd products, so somewhere between $1200 and $1500 worth, between 2008 and 2012. It seems unlikely that I'll be purchasing any D&D products from WotC in the immediate future, as I'm not likely to use them and not as cashed up as I was in the 3E era.

These are my personal consumption decisions. I can explain them in more detail if anyone's interested (though I don't really see why they would be). They're not a normative judgment on TSR/WotC, nor on anyone else whose consumption preferences are different from mine!

 

[Imaro]

I think that demand was there in the mid-2000s. I think 4e's implementation pleased some of the demand, and failed to please the rest.

This... I think what often gets overlooked in the rush to blame presentation for some/many people's dislike of 4e is that the implementation is often overlooked as a contributing factor. I know for me, it wasn't that I didn't want fighters to have cool maneuvers or pre-fab abilities... what rubbed me the wrong way was the limiting of certain abiltites at the meta-game level... in other words the structure of AEDU in conjunction with martial "powers". I find the Battlemaster much more palpable because a specific maneuver is not limited to an exact usage of once per encounter or per day but instead he has a well of stamina which he draws from and can perform any maneuver he knows as long as that well hasn't been drained.

EDIT: In other words I think martial powers in 4e would have been better received by some/many if they had instead said you get X uses of an encounter power per encounter... and it could be any encounter power you knew... ditto for daily powers. That's not presentation, that's implementation.

 

[Halivar]

This... I think what often gets overlooked in the rush to blame presentation for some/many people's dislike of 4e is that the implementation is often overlooked as a contributing factor. I know for me, it wasn't that I didn't want fighters to have cool maneuvers or pre-fabbed abilities... what rubbed me the wrong way was the limiting of certain abiltites at the meta-game level... in other words the structure of AEDU in conjunction with martial "powers". I find the Battlemaster much more palpable because a specific maneuver is not limited to an exact usage of one per encounter or per day but instead he has a well of stamina which he draws from and can perform any maneuver he knows as long as that well hasn't been drained.

What's most unfortunate is that there is no reason the 4E structure could not have been couched in those terms; it just wasn't. By using the dry language of a M:tG rules booklet, they left the construction of a mental mapping of AEDU to coherent game physics to (often over-zealous) forum fans, and that was a huge mistake. I look at the 5E battlemaster and see the 4E fighter I really enjoyed, but with vastly different presentation.

 

[Imaro]

What's most unfortunate is that there is no reason the 4E structure could not have been couched in those terms; it just wasn't. By using the dry language of a M:tG rules booklet, they left the construction of a mental mapping of AEDU to coherent game physics to (often over-zealous) forum fans, and that was a huge mistake. I look at the 5E battlemaster and see the 4E fighter I really enjoyed, but with vastly different presentation.

Lol... the funny thing was that as I finished typing that I was wondering if there actually would be any balance problems or ill-effects to the ghame if I houseruled it to work like that... of course then I aske myself if not, why did they choose such a limiting way to implement them...

EDIT: Also as I read your last sentence I wonder if that's part of the problem... you see that as presentation where as for me it's an implementation and mechanics difference. Sure I can houserule it but the game is implemented around that AEDU structure and nothing about it is presented as optional in 4e (speaking to core of course)

 

[pemerton]

I was wondering if there actually would be any balance problems or ill-effects to the ghame if I houseruled it to work like that... of course then I aske myself if not, why did they choose such a limiting way to implement them

Yes, there is a balance issue. It may not be fatal; it may not even be very serious (at your table, or at many tables). But it is an issue.

In the 4e structure as published, it is enough to roughly balance all the encounter powers for a given class. Even if one is clearly stronger than many others (eg Come and Get It, Compel Action) there is not a balance issue, as it will only be used once per encounter.

If you allow X encounter powers per short rest from a list known, you get the issue of spamming the best ones. This was a fairly standard objection to 4e psionics, which works in just this way.

In Essentials, for many classes they solved the issue in the opposite way, by granting just one encounter power (eg Power Strike) but allowing X per short rest uses.

The 5e Battlemaster's abilities are noticeably less dramatic than many of the 4e ones (especially the strong AoEs like CaGI), so the issue probably doesn't arise so strongly in relation to them. But it would be interesting to know if anyone has seen spamming issues with Battlemasters.

I find the Battlemaster much more palpable because a specific maneuver is not limited to an exact usage of once per encounter or per day but instead he has a well of stamina which he draws from and can perform any maneuver he knows as long as that well hasn't been drained.

This seems to be one of those "matter of degree" things. Because this well of stamina is not connected to any other aspects of the game that seem to model stamina (eg hp, fatigue rules, STR checks, Athletics skill, etc), it seems to me pretty obviously metagame. At which point the choice between a pool of uses, and a pool of one-use-each abilities, looks like a gameplay issue rather than a verisimilitude issue.

 

[Imaro]

This seems to be one of those "matter of degree" things. Because this well of stamina is not connected to any other aspects of the game that seem to model stamina (eg hp, fatigue rules, STR checks, Athletics skill, etc), it seems to me pretty obviously metagame. At which point the choice between a pool of uses, and a pool of one-use-each abilities, looks like a gameplay issue rather than a verisimilitude issue.

Well yes I guess all of that could be true if you ignore the fact that you only regain superiority dice back through resting for an hour or more(which in and of itself is enough to connect the maneuvers to some type of stamina expenditure)... You may not like that it's not connected directly to the traits you list, but it is a reserve created by the Battlemaster's specific training that is above and beyond mundane stamina/hp's/etc. but which must still be replenished through rest at a certain point. So I disagree that it is purely meta-game or that it is a "purely" gameplay issue as opposed to a verisimilitude one...

 

[SkidAce]

Any "Reveal" in any of these pages of debate?