D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, and I absolutely agree. You want that sense of narration, and the table can set their own judgement on what is, or not, believable/appropriate for their tastes. I just think that this type of narrative works better when the results are quantifiable instead of nebulous. They don't work as well when the results are based on some abstract "threshold of believability" that is only defined by the DM.

I want DM adjudication of weird rules. I want the DM to have the freedom to rule out using a maneuver like that for his game. However, I don't want the maneuver completely removed from the game because one DM or one designer did not think it was believable. I also don't want "DM freedom of adjudication" to turn into "only if the DM believes it." That's were freedom becomes fiat, and "rules adjudication" becomes "DM may I".

Right. I find the basic freedom from the need to be the sole arbiter in 4e to be a good thing too as a DM. I see my role as more being in charge of how the environment interacts with things like powers. So maybe now and then I'll say "Whoa, this other cool thing happens instead of what you expected!" or something like that. I don't think I have ever said "you can't do that", though I guess it is POSSIBLE that could happen. If it was likely I'd telegraph it anyway and it would be some very specific "now figure out how to deal with THIS" kind of thing. I mean swarms and such are already basically doing the same thing even in 4e. I imagine we'd have no problems with play style in practice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with you. People already know what it is like to have a game that fits their taste perfectly, so getting folks to drop that for something more in the middle is a tough goal to reach. I do think the way they are doing it is possibly the one way that will work (it appears they are trying to set it up so we will be able to pick a variation of D&D or use optional rules to tailor it to our liking). But I can honestly say after over four years of pretty much not playing D&D (with the exception of the occassional 2E or 3E mini-campaign), I am pretty set with other systems. It would be nice to have a current version of D&D I could feel comfortable popping into for a steady game, but I don't need that. It used to be we played all kinds of other games on the side but D&D was our meat and potatoes. Now the focus among the people I play with has shifted to playing other systems.

Yeah, I think we'll just stick with 4e for the duration around here. I'll look at DDN when it comes out, but my sporadic playtesting doesn't show much promise. The flaw is that what REALLY made 4e interesting to me was the overall top-to-bottom willingness of the devs to create a good GAME that works as a game, and then leave the story and narrative side of things to us with plenty of resources and frameworks but few rules. CONSISTENCY of rules is a big part of that. I can't really swallow the hodge-podge of class mechanics in DDN, it is just a big mess to me. It doesn't add anything to my game experience and it removes a whole host of nice traits that exist in 4e. No amount of modularity is likely to make DDN recreate what I like about 4e unless they're willing to effectively provide a variation of the game that is entirely stripped back to its core and re-implements all the classes and such in 4e style practically from the ground up. I very seriously doubt they will do that, and unless they go back to OGL, which is possible of course but not at all assured, nobody else is likely to do it well either. Nor is such a thing likely to have 1st class online support like the 4e CB and Compendium.

Honestly, I want 4.5. I have numerous issues with the way 4e ACTUALLY works in practice, but I think they're perfectly correctable with some modest work. It was a rather new game design and it could use another iteration based on current experience. So to put it bluntly to me DDN is just some unwanted project that is getting in the way of that. So, yeah, I think DDN is destined to be just another D&D variant among many. I think WotC is trying to go chase Paizo's tail lights TBH and its pretty much a horrible way to do business. I'd wish them well, but at this point IMHO they're already around the bend. Its just not even worth engaging them on it anymore they are so far from what I want. OTOH maybe they'll produce something that is more interesting for you and your compatriots.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It seemed like the discussion got rapidly tainted, yes. Its pointless to point fingers and say it was any particular group of people's fault.

I blame WotC, both for being the originators of most of the divisive rhetoric, but also for failing to moderate their own forums effectively.

I expect DDN will attract a fair following, but I'd be very surprised if there is ever again one dominant form of the game.

For better or for worse, I think you are right.
For a while there was just the dominant 3e/OGL group and the old schoolers. Now there's a new 4e group, and the 3e group is subdivided into PF and other. I doubt that 5e will absorb any of those divisions.

Honestly, I want 4.5. I have numerous issues with the way 4e ACTUALLY works in practice, but I think they're perfectly correctable with some modest work. It was a rather new game design and it could use another iteration based on current experience.

I think that given the divisions, it would have been best if WotC had simply acknowledged those to begin with and had released a game in 2008 called "Chainmail: The RPG" or something of that nature, that completely ignored the legacy elements and played to what is now the 4e crowd. That way, the game could have been designed for a different purpose, but well, the existing track could have continued, product quality would be higher, sales better, and everyone would be happy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I blame WotC, both for being the originators of most of the divisive rhetoric, but also for failing to moderate their own forums effectively.

Yeah, I think they got carried away with their marketing running up to 4e. I don't think they INTENDED to deride anyone, but in effect the message was easily interpreted as 4e is better. I think whoever was in charge of the marketing was clueless. For a car or some widget or even a board game or toy it makes sense to push the new one as "new and improved" but that wasn't really a good tack to take with D&D, and the tone was all wrong. I don't know about moderation. I think the problem there was that those forums have HUGE message volume. They do have ORCs, and most of them are fairly good, but they really can't patrol the whole board in anything like real time. If people weren't willing to be restrained or at least flag questionable posts then there was no way they were going to reign it in. It seemed like both sides were raring to fight and had little regard for civility. It sure got ugly pretty fast. Maybe WotC could have nipped it in the bud, but I think they'd have had to virtually lobotomize the boards to do it. Might still have been the best choice. OTOH I guess maybe they just figured the flames would burn elsewhere? I dunno. I've given up trying to understand WotC's logic for anything, lol.

For better or for worse, I think you are right.
For a while there was just the dominant 3e/OGL group and the old schoolers. Now there's a new 4e group, and the 3e group is subdivided into PF and other. I doubt that 5e will absorb any of those divisions.

Well, I think PF won't even notice the debut of DDN. It MIGHT put a small dent in them for a couple months as surely plenty of people will buy the core book(s), but IMHO WotC has shown little or no ability to provide high quality supporting material, while Paizo has oodles of talent in that department. Given that the 2 games won't be radically different in overall terms its hard to see why tons of people would switch back to DDN. People that are still playing 3.x MIGHT go on to DDN, but they're equally likely to pick up PF. 4e people are just as likely to play PF as DDN too I would think, or just stick with 4e and whatever 3PP/community support it continues to have. I can see DDN being 2nd to PF, but it will probably be even lower in sales than 4e was. Unless they bring in a whole new stable of content people to write adventures and such, and jettison the whole 4e approach, it is not going to get far.

I think that given the divisions, it would have been best if WotC had simply acknowledged those to begin with and had released a game in 2008 called "Chainmail: The RPG" or something of that nature, that completely ignored the legacy elements and played to what is now the 4e crowd. That way, the game could have been designed for a different purpose, but well, the existing track could have continued, product quality would be higher, sales better, and everyone would be happy.

Meh, I can see how that seems like a desirable approach, and it would have been OK with me, but I only got back into D&D after 3.5 left me cold because it was a new ed of D&D. I'd probably not have bothered with some newfangled FRPG from WotC at all, and I suspect that's pretty typical. I'm not married to the D&D name, but nothing else has the high enough profile to show up on my radar. LOTS of us that picked up 4e were like that, lapsed D&Ders from all different versions of the game. As a non-D&D the game surely could have had more leeway to do different new things, but I doubt it would have had the budget or sales to amount to much.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yeah, I think we'll just stick with 4e for the duration around here. I'll look at DDN when it comes out, but my sporadic playtesting doesn't show much promise. The flaw is that what REALLY made 4e interesting to me was the overall top-to-bottom willingness of the devs to create a good GAME that works as a game, and then leave the story and narrative side of things to us with plenty of resources and frameworks but few rules. CONSISTENCY of rules is a big part of that. I can't really swallow the hodge-podge of class mechanics in DDN, it is just a big mess to me. It doesn't add anything to my game experience and it removes a whole host of nice traits that exist in 4e. No amount of modularity is likely to make DDN recreate what I like about 4e unless they're willing to effectively provide a variation of the game that is entirely stripped back to its core and re-implements all the classes and such in 4e style practically from the ground up. I very seriously doubt they will do that, and unless they go back to OGL, which is possible of course but not at all assured, nobody else is likely to do it well either. Nor is such a thing likely to have 1st class online support like the 4e CB and Compendium.

well i think we all need to remember we are seeing slivers of the final product. I believe it looks hodgepod because it isnt alwyas clear what they are testing (i could be wrong of course). So my guess is you will see a basic version of the game, a 3E version of the game, a 4E version of the game and an AD&D version of the game (they could even go real nuts and just keep releasing endless variations around genres and playstyles (i.e. historical campaign book, storygame campaign book, horror campaign book, etc). What you will likely be missing is the dedicated support to your prefered version and the complete online support. Though this is just my guess.

Honestly, I want 4.5. I have numerous issues with the way 4e ACTUALLY works in practice, but I think they're perfectly correctable with some modest work. It was a rather new game design and it could use another iteration based on current experience. So to put it bluntly to me DDN is just some unwanted project that is getting in the way of that. So, yeah, I think DDN is destined to be just another D&D variant among many. I think WotC is trying to go chase Paizo's tail lights TBH and its pretty much a horrible way to do business. I'd wish them well, but at this point IMHO they're already around the bend. Its just not even worth engaging them on it anymore they are so far from what I want. OTOH maybe they'll produce something that is more interesting for you and your compatriots.

i understand. But they have basically made the decision that focus on 4.5 isnt viable (i imagine we will see it in some form becuase clearly the demand is there). They may be chasing paizo's tail, but I also think they are really just trying to restore their fractured player base. It really feels a lot like the 90s again to me when vampire challenged tsr's dominance (as did magic) and for a while TSR was having trouble finding its true north (but then wotc released 3E and it exploded, bringing alot of us back together again). Not sure if they can manage it again though, because now the divide really seems personal and around playstyle.

I have seen a lot of talk of peope using the ogl as a base to essentially rebuild a new version of 4E. I think that has a lot of promise and if I were wizards that would be my biggest concern. It seems 4E players are on the same page enough that getting them to rally around a company that basically did what paizo did, wouldnt be too hard. Obviously it would have to be presented differently and IP laws would need to be followed, but I dont think there is much wotc could do to stop anyone from basically copying the 4E structure (they would have to use different names for things, avoid trademarked elements, and have 100% original text).

 

[Ahnehnois]

It sure got ugly pretty fast. Maybe WotC could have nipped it in the bud, but I think they'd have had to virtually lobotomize the boards to do it. Might still have been the best choice. OTOH I guess maybe they just figured the flames would burn elsewhere? I dunno. I've given up trying to understand WotC's logic for anything, lol.

You and me both.

Meh, I can see how that seems like a desirable approach, and it would have been OK with me, but I only got back into D&D after 3.5 left me cold because it was a new ed of D&D. I'd probably not have bothered with some newfangled FRPG from WotC at all, and I suspect that's pretty typical. I'm not married to the D&D name, but nothing else has the high enough profile to show up on my radar. LOTS of us that picked up 4e were like that, lapsed D&Ders from all different versions of the game. As a non-D&D the game surely could have had more leeway to do different new things, but I doubt it would have had the budget or sales to amount to much.

Well that's true, but I have to think that there's some way that they could have leveraged the D&D name and its budget to create a new game without taking a dump on the old one and without losing its customer base.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

well i think we all need to remember we are seeing slivers of the final product. I believe it looks hodgepod because it isnt alwyas clear what they are testing (i could be wrong of course). So my guess is you will see a basic version of the game, a 3E version of the game, a 4E version of the game and an AD&D version of the game (they could even go real nuts and just keep releasing endless variations around genres and playstyles (i.e. historical campaign book, storygame campaign book, horror campaign book, etc). What you will likely be missing is the dedicated support to your prefered version and the complete online support. Though this is just my guess.

Well, clearly the game isn't finished, and I won't write off something I haven't tried, but I don't agree that this is just a matter of not seeing the final design. The final design would have to be RADICALLY different from what they're doing now, and Mike has stated flat out that the basic design is pretty much done and that most changes from now on are going to be in the details, not in the core. The CORE (and various details) however are where the objections are. It simply is at variance with the type of design I would want to see. No amount of tweaks is going to change that. I want to see a universal system like AEDU, not 5 different subsystems, which for instance the DDN cleric now uses FOUR different 'power' systems in one character! THAT is hodge-podge to me. There was a time early on that I thought there was hope, and I liked a bunch of the things they did in the first iteration we saw where they had streamlined some aspects of play and etc. It wasn't 100% where I'd ideally have wanted it, but it was early days. Since then it has simply gone in a totally different direction to the point where clearly within the remaining window for design there's no way they're going to come substantially back in the direction of 4e.

Of course IN THEORY they could release "DDN 4e", "DDN Classic", and "DDN 3.5" or whatever. I don't think they will do this for one huge reason. It is just not viable to support so many systems. Even if it was 2 variants inevitably with each release of a product they have to ask themselves which thing to spend effort on, '4e', 'Classic', or '3.5'. Inevitably whichever one gets the most support will rapidly become the default and most people will generally be playing that, the others will wither because why put dev time into a niche product when you can do a less niche product? Even if the version that most suited me was the most supported one it would only be good for me and people with my tastes, and there would STILL be some stuff not useful to us. IMHO they're better off making basically one version with only fairly minor variations that can all be supported with one set of adventures and settings and whatnot. Again, given how far DDN now is from what I'd care to play there's really little chance that's going to be the game I want to buy.

i understand. But they have basically made the decision that focus on 4.5 isnt viable (i imagine we will see it in some form becuase clearly the demand is there). They may be chasing paizo's tail, but I also think they are really just trying to restore their fractured player base. It really feels a lot like the 90s again to me when vampire challenged tsr's dominance (as did magic) and for a while TSR was having trouble finding its true north (but then wotc released 3E and it exploded, bringing alot of us back together again). Not sure if they can manage it again though, because now the divide really seems personal and around playstyle.

Exactly, and that's a loser position to be in. I don't know if 4.5 is viable or not, it is beyond my expertise to say. I can say that chasing after someone else's customers that already walked from your product line is a sucktastic business strategy, having been down that road before. They're obviously NOT going to restore anything though, that's the problem. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but that's how I see it. Paizo is NOT White Wolf, nor do they have in PF a rather different and ultimately fairly niche game and system. They're square in D&D's grill and they're not going away. ALL that WotC can hope is that their product's name recognition will win, and they failed with that strategy once, so who's betting on round 2? I'll buy Paizo stock any time its offered, that's all I can say. They're damned good business people.

I have seen a lot of talk of peope using the ogl as a base to essentially rebuild a new version of 4E. I think that has a lot of promise and if I were wizards that would be my biggest concern. It seems 4E players are on the same page enough that getting them to rally around a company that basically did what paizo did, wouldnt be too hard. Obviously it would have to be presented differently and IP laws would need to be followed, but I dont think there is much wotc could do to stop anyone from basically copying the 4E structure (they would have to use different names for things, avoid trademarked elements, and have 100% original text).

Sure, there are a whole slew of 4e Heartbreakers over at RPGNet. No doubt one or two of them will get some degree of attention (Radiance RPG seems to be one that people like). I have no expectation they will ever be even close to 4e in terms of sheer quantity and quality of material or that they will have the sort of digital online support that DDI provides. They may be good enough games that I'll give one of them a try, but 4.5 is going to be ENOUGH different from 4e that it won't be directly compatible in all likelihood (even if the IP problems don't basically forbid that). As with speculations on DDN anything is possible. ATM I anticipate continuing with 4e for quite some time and just dealing with those aspects of it I'm less fond of. I've had a lot of fun with it so far and there's a LOT left to do. I think I'd buy a WotC produced 4.5, but I'm pretty equivocal about an indie press one. I think I'll look there more for a whole different experience at this point.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well that's true, but I have to think that there's some way that they could have leveraged the D&D name and its budget to create a new game without taking a dump on the old one and without losing its customer base.

Eh, maybe they should have A) written 4e with a presentation that was more in line with earlier editions. I think this was POSSIBLE. For instance why aren't there powers/rituals with the same names as EVERY single classic D&D spell? Sure, a few might work quite differently, but MOST of them would be pretty close, and I think of the ones they did have they could have worked a little harder to keep the flavor similar. The same with races and classes, why wasn't the initial PHB a reprise of the 1e PHB for instance in that respect? Sure, they had some quite nice new stuff to present, but it could have gone in PHB2. B) Provided some options for more easy access to a classic play style, like having a quick combat system and a bunch of tables and charts for doing dungeon crawls (wandering monsters, etc). It wouldn't really have bothered ME that much, I know what of that stuff I want or would ignore, but I think the whole game could have been packaged in a lot more familiar way without any real reduction in its innovative features. There are always people that will be bugged by any change etc, but it could have been a LOT less. C) obviously not mock players of the current edition of the game.

They could of course also stated that 3.5 wasn't 'dead' and perhaps put out some guides and material for it that for instance gave you a 3.5 version of PoL and stuff like that. The problem with 3.5 as a continuing product though IMHO was just that it had reached a point of anomie. The game was so festooned with options and layers of class and PRC cruft and weird variations on things that it is hard to see how they could have released much new for it beyond "here's some 4e-esque transition material" or something.

 

[Ahnehnois]

They could of course also stated that 3.5 wasn't 'dead' and perhaps put out some guides and material for it that for instance gave you a 3.5 version of PoL and stuff like that. The problem with 3.5 as a continuing product though IMHO was just that it had reached a point of anomie. The game was so festooned with options and layers of class and PRC cruft and weird variations on things that it is hard to see how they could have released much new for it beyond "here's some 4e-esque transition material" or something.

While 3.5 had pretty much played out, there's every reason to believe that a new revision based on 3e would have worked, given the status of PF right now. WotC would have had far more license to change things than Paizo did with PF, and could have maintained the basic feel of the game while rewriting the mechanics from scratch.

And to this point, that's my frustration with WotC and in general. While I and some arbitrarily large number of others are "3.X" players who have homebrewed the system and incorporated new non-WotC rules, no one has really tried to create a new edition based on 3e for people who actually liked it. PF isn't really a new edition, and 4e is catering to people who don't like previous editions of D&D and want something completely different from an rpg (which is fine for them). Trailblazer is the closest thing I've seen to an attempt to substantively analyze and revise the game, but that's not on a satisfying scale. If I had an infinite amount of time, I'd write a new D&D myself.

 

[Garthanos]

PF isn't really a new edition, and 4e is catering to people who don't like previous editions of D&D and want something completely different from an rpg

Hocky pucks... and you are obviously aware that is a ridiculous ignorant insult and added a qualifier... I removed your insincerity.