A Possible Way Forward for D&D (And a design pitch for WotC!)

[delericho]

True, true. I'm wondering, though, just how much 5E would splinter 4E. Maybe I'm wrong but I could see 4E becoming a bit of a "lost edition" like 2E; people either tried and moved back to earlier editions or they are willing to move on to the Next Thing. How many people play 2E today? My guess is less than any other major edition. If you want "old school" AD&D play you go for 1E and maybe supplement with 2E materials. If you want "new school" game design you go for 3.x or 4E. If you want a simple version of D&D you go for OD&D or BECMI.

I have a feeling 4E will be similar. The 3.x folks will stay with 3.x or Pathfinder, while the bulk of 4E players will go with the New & Shiny that 5E offers.

I have no comment on your "lost edition" notion - I just don't know.

I do think the majority of 4e players would move on to 5e... in 4-5 years. But I suspect that if it was done now, it would lose a lot of people. (Some would consider it too soon on principle, some would consider it a naked money-grab, some would decide they'd rather just wait a couple more years for 6e. Of course, you also lose some with any edition upgrade. And, of course, there would always be some who prefer 4e to whatever new edition came out.)

Maybe. My guess is that there are diehard Pathfinder folks that won't switch to 5E just about no matter what, and then there are a bunch of moderates who might give 5E a chance if it looked good no matter when it came out.

Again, the vast majority of PF customers have just gone through an edition upgrade. They're probably fairly happy where they are. I suspect many of them (including the moderates) would simply declare any edition update (D&D or PF) as "too soon", and ignore it.

(That said, they'd probably be more likely to look at a PF update than a D&D one if it were done right now, because Paizo currently have a better relationship with their fans. Of course, a large part of that better relationship is built on a (perceived) understanding that the company won't do that sort of thing!)

On the other hand, your post gave me an idea: What if WotC and Paizo time it right so that the 2E of Pathfinder and the 5E of D&D are...the same thing. This is the scenario where Hasbro is sick of D&D and sells it off to...Paizo, who brings the two games back together.

I simply cannot imagine Hasbro ever selling off the D&D IP. They might license out the rights to the RPG. But I also cannot imagine Paizo picking up the license - having gone through the pain of losing the license once before, I cannot see them going down that path again. Better to stand alone and have control, rather than be dependent on a license that could easily go away.

For better or worse, I think D&D and Pathfinder are now separate entities, and ever more shall be.

I completely agree that WotC should focus on what makes D&D unique, but tools like Character Builder and Monster Builder actually can accent traditional tabletop play in the same way that, say, a laptop makes a writer's life so much easier than a typewriter does...

The VTT and similar concepts are one step too far away from "what makes D&D unique."

I think we're in accord on both these points. However, I think the next step in emphasising the DDI is an increased focus on the VTT and the like.

 

[RangerWickett]

I doubt 5e could be launched any time soon. Rather, a good plan would be a gradual transition to a more long-term digital model. WotC's already doing this by pulling back on physical books and putting more content (and hopefully better-balanced content) in the online magazines.

I need to take a look at the board games to see if they're actually useful as an entry-level item, or if they're not compatible enough. But I hope WotC has made them easily compatible.

The next big hurdle, though, is not online play. Forget the Virtual Tabletop. We need apps to help us play this overly complicated game of theirs in person. If WotC can roll out some of those before the end of the year, I think they'll be in a good place.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think we'll ever see something that is branded 5E UNTIL such time as ever single baseline digital tool they want to have made has been created and released for 4E. Right now we're in a prolonged beta phase of the WotC digital initative, and we're only maybe about halfway there. Compendium, CB, Monster Tools, soon the VTT. After that, the Encounter Builder, Trap and Terrain Builder, Character Visualizer, and Campaign Builder all could/should be designed and released as well.

Once these have all been made and released, and the public's had over a year to hammer out these pieces of software, telling them what works, what doesn't work, what's useful, what's useless, what's needed, what's not needed to make them better... then and only then will they release a so-called FIFTH EDITION that includes a cleaned-up and revamped EVERYTHING. The game itself gets fixed, edited and changed... and all the tools for it get released at the exact same time. No more of this "piecemeal" release schedule of tools that we've seen during 4E.

That's the only way you could realistically release a 5th edition of the game and get most 4E players to move over. A fully revamped package of boards, books and programs that could be marketed as the "complete D&D experience". So in that regard, Mercurius, your idea of the three sides of D&D... the "board game", the "roleplaying game", the "computer game", make a lot of sense.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

On the other hand, the D&D community is more fractured than it has ever been, with Pathfinder vying for the top spot in the RPG marketplace, and as many as half (or more) active D&D players playing something other than the current version of the classic game. Even many fans of 4E (such as myself) feel that it has major flaws and would welcome a new edition, even sooner than later.

Let me get something straight.

You can choose from the following options:
OD&D (1974)
AD&D 1e (with or without Unearthed Arcana)
D&D Basic/Expert (Moldvay/Cook)
D&D Rules Cyclopedia / BECMI
AD&D 2e (with or without Options books)
D&D 3.0
D&D 3.5
D&D 4.0
D&D 4Essentials
Pathfinder
Castles & Crusades
(plus God knows how many retro-clones freely available on the internet)

. . . yet in spite of all these options for D&D, you want YET ANOTHER EDITION?

I'm sorry for saying so, but at a certain point this starts to seem really absurd. Pick an edition. Play it. And for God's sake, let's stop with the new editions already.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

So what do you think?

 

[delericho]

Let me get something straight.

You can choose from the following options:
OD&D (1974)
AD&D 1e (with or without Unearthed Arcana)
D&D Basic/Expert (Moldvay/Cook)
D&D Rules Cyclopedia / BECMI
AD&D 2e (with or without Options books)
D&D 3.0
D&D 3.5
D&D 4.0
D&D 4Essentials
Pathfinder
Castles & Crusades
(plus God knows how many retro-clones freely available on the internet)

. . . yet in spite of all these options for D&D, you want YET ANOTHER EDITION?

I'm sorry for saying so, but at a certain point this starts to seem really absurd. Pick an edition. Play it. And for God's sake, let's stop with the new editions already.

Every edition has strengths and weaknesses. Every edition suits some people really well, and others not so much. And there are some people from whom none of the above is really ideal. (I'm one of them.)

So, why shouldn't we have a new edition for those people? After all, if you don't like it, you don't need to play it!

 

[Votan]

Let me get something straight.

You can choose from the following options:
OD&D (1974)
AD&D 1e (with or without Unearthed Arcana)
D&D Basic/Expert (Moldvay/Cook)
D&D Rules Cyclopedia / BECMI
AD&D 2e (with or without Options books)
D&D 3.0
D&D 3.5
D&D 4.0
D&D 4Essentials
Pathfinder
Castles & Crusades
(plus God knows how many retro-clones freely available on the internet)

. . . yet in spite of all these options for D&D, you want YET ANOTHER EDITION?

I'm sorry for saying so, but at a certain point this starts to seem really absurd. Pick an edition. Play it. And for God's sake, let's stop with the new editions already.

It's true that there are a wealth of options out there but that doesn't prevent another edition that has a fresh or interesting take on the game. There are some real improvements in the later editions of the game (although I will always have a soft spot for AD&D 1E). These days I have been enjoying Pathfinder (and will find a way to do C&C one day).

 

[occam]

Yeah, if Pathfinder starts to get topheavy around 2015, and WotC releases a product with Pathfinder aesthetics (it's a PRETTY GAME), Pathfinder feel to the gameplay, but 4e simplification and balance, I think it could be a hit.

ESPECIALLY if WotC does the smart thing and offers to work with Paizo, having them playtest and help design, plus working out a cooperative OGL-style license from the get-go. To think, if WotC had gotten its sh** together on the legal front and made a friendlier GSL in the fall of 2007, Paizo might actually have published 8 adventure paths for 4th edition!

Yup, there is no way that releasing a new edition in the foreseeable future makes sense for WotC. The only way to do that would be to unify efforts with Paizo and get them to come onboard with a new edition, in order to avoid splitting the fanbase even further; WotC would need Paizo's full backing to get a substantial number of Pathfinder fans to come along. Given the effort Paizo has been putting into Pathfinder, the money they're probably making on it, the recent products that Pathfinder players have just bought and are still buying, and the reticence many Paizo fans feel in buying from WotC... that's a longshot, for sure.

WotC's hope has to be in pulling in a lot of new or lapsed players, just as it's been since the beginning of 4e. And they have to do it with 4e; they can't afford to leave behind a bunch of players again. Fortunately, the 4e design is flexible enough that they shouldn't need a new edition for a long while.

 

[Balesir]

You can choose from the following options:
OD&D (1974)
AD&D 1e (with or without Unearthed Arcana)
D&D Basic/Expert (Moldvay/Cook)
D&D Rules Cyclopedia / BECMI
AD&D 2e (with or without Options books)
D&D 3.0
D&D 3.5
D&D 4.0
D&D 4Essentials
Pathfinder
Castles & Crusades
(plus God knows how many retro-clones freely available on the internet)

. . . yet in spite of all these options for D&D, you want YET ANOTHER EDITION?

As others have said, different folks look for different things in their roleplaying. I think that, right up until 4th Edition, D&D suffered because with each successive "revision" the authors tried, in good faith I'm sure, to achieve the "perfect roleplaying game for the whole market". The sad thing is that not only does such a beast not exist, but the very quest for such a thing fatally compromises every attempt to attain it.

In the 35+ years I have been roleplaying frequently, I have played many, many systems. Right now I still play a few. I don't settle on one, because the ones I play all hold something quite distinct and specific in the way of "fun". I think many, if not most or even all, roleplayers are like me in that they could, if they gave it a decent shot, enjoy several different types of game. But many also have things they don't enjoy, too, and that pushes folk away from specific editions.

This leads me to two conclusions:

1) You will never get all roleplayers to 'agree' on a single "best system", because it's like asking for agreement on a "best sport". It just ain't going to happen.

2) Trying to produce a system that appeals to all roleplayers just leads to Cecil B. Demille's description of a young ingenue - "for a dancer, she's not a bad singer, and, for a singer, she's not a bad dancer". Compromise in game design just leads to confused and messy muddles that the GM and/or players just have to modify/rewrite to suit their own tastes.

The answer, it seems to me, would to be to spend a lot more effort trying to identify specific styles of play that are popular and then writing a limited set of uncompromised systems to support those modes of play. In this respect, I think the OP is onto something - maybe the 'formats' issue is a bit of a red herring, but the basic concept of different game foci is sound.

4th Edition, I believe, gets the system very nearly spot-on for one play mode. I'll call it "challenge-based" play, but it focusses on players accepting challenges to use their guile, skills and luck of the dice to overcome in-game challenges through the agency of their characters.

I think there is also a market for a "just explore" style of play, also, where players immerse themselves into their character and the game world and rewards are given for "stretching the envelope" in ways that fit with the game world/setting. For this sort of play I actually think some old saws like xp/level and hit points are not just unnecessary but actively counterproductive; a totally new approach is needed to really, uncompromisingly, suit this type of play.

I think, too, there is a market for games that have players give their characters really emotive, provocative character traits and goals and build a story based around their attempts to achieve those goals - possibly in conflict with each other. Here, again, I think xp and level are, at best, irrelevant distractions and resources to manage, such as hit points and healing surges, have a very similar problem. A completely different system is required to address this sort of game.

Now, you might reasonably ask why all of the above needs to be addressed by "D&D", per se. After all, games that address all of these game focusses exist, somewhere 'out there'. Well, I think the answer is that there are many people happily wedded to the accumulated "mythology" of D&D. The "fluff", the background details and "genre" of the game clearly matter to them - what would be called "tropes" in other media are part and parcel of what they perceive "fantasy roleplaying" to be. I think if a brand were to be built around those 'classic elements' of the D&D world settings, but with systems tailored to the various focusses of play, the brand owner would have a coherent and vibrant property.

Of course, a competent and successful handling of the marketing, customer relations and digital offering side would be needed as well, but that really is a whole 'nother topic...

 

[Greg K]

If the board game is just an option with ties to the brand l(i.e., the old Dungeon board game) and not the new D&D, I can go with it.

If the board game is to be the new D&D, I say let the game die. Then again, I don't like board games (or card games, miniature games).

Personally, I would like to start seeing WOTC start addressing issues that non adopters have. For the people I know it would some things would be:

A. Release Unearthed Arcana books to address mechanical issues that might not fit all groups. For us it, it would start with
1. Skills
a. Skill points instead of the +1/2 level bonus
b. less broad skills
c. skill use difficulties based on the "Common Standard" as per 3e with emphasis on the world.

2. Action Points that work like M&M hero points/True20 Conviction
3. Options for playing the Paragon and Epic Tiers without the Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.
4. Milestones reworked to be story based (see Rel's Story based milestones on the board
5. replacing SSSoD for SoD for things like Medusas.
6. Some of the verisimillitude issues with powers like Come and Get It.
7. The Star Wars Condition track adapted or an option that replaces hit points with an M&M/True20 damage save

B. Stop putting things like the Warpriest's Resurrection ability into the class. Whether or not a Warpriest can ressurect should be a decision for the DM and their campaign rather than a decision dictated by the designers. Give us options rather than prescribe.

C. When it comes to class and race supplements, we prefer a format like Green Ronin's 3e Master Class supplements or the old TSR Complete Handbook (3e and 4e have better mechanics in place to address the shortcomings of the latter).