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!

 

[bogmad]

I'm confused about how the discussion here relates to the thread topic.
I'm seeing a lot "gotcha!" responses about mechanics, that actually don't seem to be "getting" anything. Or anywhere.
Just because you think you're being logical and your opinion makes sense to you, doesn't mean it does to me, or that your logic is air-tight.

Have I missed anything in the past 70 pages about a big reveal coming?

 

[Imaro]

Upthread, you seemed to be saying that an important, and distinguishing, feature of Battlemaster manoeuvres is that they are replenished only after resting. I pointed out that this is also true of 4e encounter powers, and so it didn't seem to me to be a distinctive feature of the 5e manoeuvres.

It has since become clear (I think) that you don't regard the recovery conditions for manoeuvres as distinctive, and rather that what is distinctive about them, in comparison to encounter powers, is that they come from a common pool, which you regard as model or proxy for a certain sort of trained reservoir of stamina.

I've explained why, for me, the notion of that sort of stamina reservoir is very implausible (having, in my view, no real-world analogue - your comparisons of jogging and sparring do not work for me, because disarming is just a form of sword-fighting, which the fighter can do all day long), and hence why I regard the rationing ofthe 5e abilities as a metagame device, just as in 4e.

Yeah there was some misunderstandings in that exchange... but I'm also not trying to convince you or anyone else that they are wrong for their own preferences, it honestly isn't worth it to me... this started as me stating my own reasons for my preference of maneuvers over martial powers, nothing more and nothing less. I will say that at least (I believe) we see eye to eye on the fact that there are mechanical differences between the two...

 

[pemerton]

we see eye to eye on the fact that there are mechanical differences between the two

There are definitely differences. The main one, in the context of our conversation, seems to be the "pool" vs "silo" for the rationing of manoeuvres.

 

[pemerton]

I'm confused about how the discussion here relates to the thread topic.

While I see your point (!), it is a nearly 800-post thread that's been running for nearly a fortnight (so over 50 posts per day). A degree of drift is to be expected.

I think the broad trajectory of the thread makes sense: it starts with the news of WotC's activities and plans, which leads into a more general discussion of the WotC publishing model, which leads to a comparison of approaches over time. This then leads to a consideration of successful vs unsuccessful models, which unsurprisingly produces edition-comparisons. Those comparisons then become a topic of conversation in their own right - what is it about different editions that pertains to their market success or failure, how (if at all) is this connected to the "tradition" or "history" of D&D, and how do various design minutiae (mechanical details, formatting etc) relate to bigger issues of "feel" or "play experience"? And how does this, in turn, feed into the market success of published books that use one or another system design?

As far as I know, the big reveal remain unrevealed.

 

[Eric V]

There is no such training. That's why I've said, in my first post on this issue, and have repeated in at least one post since, that I see all these rationing mechanics as metagame devices. Their function is to stop spamming.

What events happen in the fiction to make the spamming non-feasible is up to the game participants' narration and imaginations. A bit like the AD&D 1 minute round - we use our imaginations, supplemented by narration from the player or GM, to fill in the details.

Not at all to be insulting, but...hasn't he (Imaro) admitted he doesn't really know 4e? He didn't know the difference between a short and extended rest in another thread...while you perfectly explain how it's up to the participants to explain the metagame nature of maneuvers, because he hasn't played, it's going to be very difficult to be understood, no?

 

[Eric V]

I didn't. I saw columns of powers that read like math problems: "Ability A vs Defense B, Hit: do XdY + A damage and add condition Z" I saw fancy names, but I had no idea what a "steel serpent strike" was (or why I could do it only once in an encounter) nor did I get what exactly was happening when the wizard cast "darkening flame" (save for that strip of italic text). While there were some details you could suss out with practice (like attacks that hit reflex vs AC) unfortunately everything (swinging a sword, casting a spell, or summoning angels) all fell into that same format, which made them all look like similar actions.

Come essentials, they put a little blurb above most powers that "described" the power in action (better than the often concise italics did). That was better, but it was a return to whole language (with a power-block summary below).

4e's greatest failing, imho, isn't powers or such, but the fact that they allowed stat blocks to stand in for description. Be it powers, monsters, or magic items, WotC produced dozens of books that read like catalogs of color-coded jargon that only showed numbers and forced the reader to make them fiction. Rather than balance the two, they let one stand in for the other, and it created an illusion that the numbers were the only important thing about them.

I really enjoyed 4e and even I have to say the above is all true (at least for me). In play, it was great and the narrative was fine, but reading the books full of stat blocks did not really inspire that much, to tell you the truth. 5e MM has lots more lore and is a much more enjoyable read (though the pendulum swung too far and the stat blocks could use some work.)

 

[Remathilis]

I really enjoyed 4e and even I have to say the above is all true (at least for me). In play, it was great and the narrative was fine, but reading the books full of stat blocks did not really inspire that much, to tell you the truth. 5e MM has lots more lore and is a much more enjoyable read (though the pendulum swung too far and the stat blocks could use some work.)

Which was ultimately my point. Much of 4e's presentation left me with the ever-pressing need to "fill in the gaps" needed to make these things work. I constantly needed to explain how "1d10 radiant damage and push 2" equated to Turning Undead, or how "all enemies must resist a Will attack or be pulled toward the target" was actually a clever fient and not mind control. Worlds and Monsters was chock full of great fluff that never appeared in the Core Books, leaving me scrambling to figure out how to use a swordwing for example. In short, it didn't inspire me enough to make me WANT to put the effort in to spackle up the cracks.

I was very happy when flipping through Heroes of the Fallen Lands, I saw actual text explaining powers, races, monsters, magic items, etc. Wow! Real fluff to inspire my use or for me to ignore if something else came up. Too bad it all came so late in 4e's cycle. (Which is why my statement remains: If Essentials-level design was in the PHB, I wager more people would have played it.)

 

[Imaro]

Not at all to be insulting, but...hasn't he (Imaro) admitted he doesn't really know 4e? He didn't know the difference between a short and extended rest in another thread...while you perfectly explain how it's up to the participants to explain the metagame nature of maneuvers, because he hasn't played, it's going to be very difficult to be understood, no?

I actually did play 4e for awhile... one mistake out of how many threads about a game I stopped playing years ago is hardly proof I don't know it... but nice try...

As to your question... I didn't ask [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] about the metagame nature of 4e... I was asking him about an assertion I thought he was making when he referred to the rest recharge factor of 4e powers... but yeah, you keep on assuming...

 

[Eric V]

Maybe, yeah.

I did appreciate the common terminology and space-considerations. I wish it had straddled both worlds, with more normal language in the main section, and then the PHB Power format as a sort of "cheat sheet."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I really enjoyed 4e and even I have to say the above is all true (at least for me). In play, it was great and the narrative was fine, but reading the books full of stat blocks did not really inspire that much, to tell you the truth.

No doubt about it, the 4e rule books were much better references than reads. Storyteller - which I was very into for a while - was the polar opposite, it's books were positively engrossing and very atmospheric, even had an over-arching 'meta-plot,' but trying to find a rule or set of stats you needed was a nightmare, and, even once you found them, they could be pretty worthless. 5e, at least, didn't pendulum-swing /that/ far in pure reaction.