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!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Actually now that I think about it, it is a 7 season deal and CP just finished the plot arc outline.

 

[BryonD]

"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".

How does this have any relevance to the point that they feel different at the table, thus disliking things within the context of 4E and liking different but "derived" things in the highly different context of 5E is completely reasonable?

That is the root point that seems needs obfuscating.

To me it is absolutely a mechanical issue. But I truly don't care if you see it differently or not. At the table all of the notions are present together and they are either the same or they are different.
Despite Hussar's claim, they are universally different.

 

[BryonD]

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.

No. You have completely failed to understand.

This is ok.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How does this have any relevance to the point that they feel different at the table, thus disliking things within the context of 4E and liking different but "derived" things in the highly different context of 5E is completely reasonable?

'Feel' is very subjective, so when explaining 'why' one mechanic is greeted with horror in one ed, but a similar one is embraced in another isn't really answered by invoking feel - it's just begging the question.

The context does make a big difference. The 4e treadmill, in the context of AEDU class structure, class roles, monsters roles, encounter design guidelines, and so forth was an element that helped maintain the balance of the game. 5e bounded accuracy, while mechanically similar to a treadmill stripped of 'numbers porn,' is in a different context, entirely, and doesn't inflict any particular balance, either on classes or encounters - indeed, it helps keep encounter guidelines fuzzy and their results less than consistent.

So, yes, context does make a big difference.

By the same token, that's why things like HD or the Battlemaster fail to elicit praise and enthusiasm from fans of surges or warlords. Not just subjective feel or mechanical differences weighted against mechanical similiarities, but the context of what they mean and how they're used in the game as a whole.

 

[BryonD]

'Feel' is very subjective, so when explaining 'why' one mechanic is greeted with horror in one ed, but a similar one is embraced in another isn't really answered by invoking feel - it's just begging the question.

OK, there is a very easy answer to the question and it has been provided.
It may be that on very casual inspection they seem related, but the devil in the details is everything here.

Night and day

The context does make a big difference. The 4e treadmill, in the context of AEDU class structure, class roles, monsters roles, encounter design guidelines, and so forth was an element that helped maintain the balance of the game. 5e bounded accuracy, while mechanically similar to a treadmill stripped of 'numbers porn,' is in a different context, entirely, and doesn't inflict any particular balance, either on classes or encounters - indeed, it helps keep encounter guidelines fuzzy and their results less than consistent.

So, yes, context does make a big difference.

By the same token, that's why things like HD or the Battlemaster fail to elicit praise and enthusiasm from fans of surges or warlords. Not just subjective feel or mechanical differences weighted against mechanical similiarities, but the context of what they mean and how they're used in the game as a whole.

OK, it seems we agree that Hussar is wrong.

I respect your preference.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

I think the key difference between the Book of Nine Swords and the 4e Fighter is that one was an option that you could opt in and the other was the default.

Obviously with feedback to the 5e playtest we ended up with the ability to run a non-feat ability boosting only Fighter at the same table with a Battle Master using all the options.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, it seems we agree that Hussar is wrong.

I've been arguing against both of you the whole time. I'm glad you've come around. ;P

Seriously, though, he's not wrong in pointing out the inconsistency in claiming to dislike one system solely for some intolerable mechanical detail, even though a similar detail present in another system that you do like, where it's a non-issue.
It's not the detail that's disliked, but the broader context, or what the detail accomplishes in that context that's the issue. Inconsistency explained. Not gone, not never real, just explained.

 

[pemerton]

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)

I don't see how this changes the fact that whether or not this increases verisimilitude, or goes beyond mere metagame/gameplay considerations.

Encounter powers in 4e are regained only through resting for five minutes or more. So they can also be rendered in the fiction as related to stamina and the like, by those who want to. (And the 4e PHB says stuff along these lines.)

Some people, though - as expressed in various posts over the years - think it is weird that my stamina to do Sweeping Blows is all used up, but my stamina to do (say) Passing Attacks is still all there. Hence they find the stamina idea, as an in-fiction explanation, implausible.

My point was that the same sort of concern applies to superiority dice. I can have all my superiority dice used up - so my stamina for combat manoeuvres is gone - but still have an action surge left, be at full hit points, be suffering no exhaustion effects, etc. Just like 4e, someone might see it as very "silo-ed" stamina, perhaps implausibly so.

This is why, in both systems, I'm inclined to see the mechanics as gameplay devices, and to not put very much weight on the stamina idea.

A lot of mechanics are pretty obviously metagame, and yet simultaneously induce verisimilitude (for many, this occurs upon reading of the rule, or at the very least during gameplay). The choice of a pool of uses vs a pool of one-use-each abilties may reflect the designer's intent to account for both goals for the mindset of the target consumer.

Sure. Presumably there are some people who find a pool of superiority stamina that is silo-ed off from the pool of hit point stamina, the pool of action surge stamina, the pool of exhaustion stamina, etc, more verisimilitudinous than silo-ing a pool of Disarm stamina from a pool of Feint stamina from a pool of Trip stamina.

Personally I'm not such a person, but that's why I said it's a matter of degree. Different people draw the line in different places.

 

[Imaro]

I've been arguing against both of you the whole time. I'm glad you've come around. ;P

Seriously, though, he's not wrong in pointing out the inconsistency in claiming to dislike one system solely for some intolerable mechanical detail, even though a similar detail present in another system that you do like, where it's a non-issue.
It's not the detail that's disliked, but the broader context, or what the detail accomplishes in that context that's the issue. Inconsistency explained. Not gone, not never real, just explained.

Sooo... it's the implementation of the detail...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the key difference between the Book of Nine Swords and the 4e Fighter is that one was an option that you could opt in and the other was the default.

And Essentials neatly reversed that, making the Slayer and Knight - very similar to the Champion and Battlemaster - the default and relegating the six existing fighter builds to optional status.
Not that it was enough to get even an edition war cease fire going.

Obviously with feedback to the 5e playtest we ended up with the ability to run a non-feat ability boosting only Fighter at the same table with a Battle Master using all the options.

True. But if you think the Battlemaster compares to the 4e fighter at all favorably, you're sadly mistaken. The Battlemaster is a multi-attacking 'striker' with with a dozen or so minor tricks - 'maneuvers' - to choose from, the 4e Fighter was a 'defender' with hundreds of maneuvers - 'exploits' - to choose from.

And, as ByronD and I were just discussing, context is an issue. The 4e fighter was only one of four martial classes representing 8 of the 18 builds in the PH1, and covering 3 of the 4 roles (while the arcane and divine classes in the PH1, at 2 each, represented 10 builds and each covered 2 roles - all 4 between the two of them). All those classes were reasonably balanced with eachother. The Battlemaster, OTOH, is one of 5 archetypes out of 38 that are arguably martial - and no class is entirely martial, all have at least one magic-using archetype or build - all 5 of those arguably-martial archetypes are essentially strikers, and it's up to the DM to find some sort pacing & challenge mix that might precariously balance them with the other 33.