Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5663700" data-attributes="member: 54877">There is certainly an element of &quot;continuing to improve quality&quot; that is the only good way forward, but I think there is also recognition of what I would call a &quot;design spiral&quot; at work here.&nbsp; &nbsp;So to answer the question, I don't think they can do a new edition without compromising parts of 4E, because I think 4E--while a very good game and currently my favorite version--is not the pinnacle of possible D&amp;D development.&nbsp; But I do think there can be a new edition that does not compromise certain parts of 4E.&nbsp;I can't do a corkscrew image that would make sense, and anyway I suck at drawing.&nbsp; So let me try to paint this in words.&nbsp; Roughly:&nbsp;Basic and 1E - caters to the &quot;treasure as XP&quot; idea of operational adventuring.&nbsp;2E - caters to &quot;storytelling&quot; mode.&nbsp;3E - caters to &quot;world and character exploration&quot; mode.&nbsp;4E - caters to indy &quot;narrativism&quot; mode, or if you prefer, explict and unashamed metagaming.&nbsp;Those are the differences--albeit very roughly.&nbsp; And certainly every game has had levers from which a sufficiently interested DM could mold it into one of the others.&nbsp; (You've had, for example, people basically playing &quot;storytelling&quot; mode with all versions.)&nbsp; And some of the outlying differences have bridged some of these modes (e.g. Birthright, late 3.5 crunch, etc.)&nbsp;However, the differences don't tell the whole story.&nbsp; There has always been a &quot;gamist&quot; mode to D&amp;D.&nbsp; Different versions sometimes expressed it in different ways, but it was always there.&nbsp; And there has also been beating up monsters, stealing their treasure, and the whole patina of &quot;D&amp;D as its own genre&quot; that really isn't sufficiently described by &quot;kill the monster, take its treasure&quot; in that minimalist sense.&nbsp; And then there are the classic classes, races, and so on, with all that means for expectations.&nbsp; &nbsp;So designers of D&amp;D have spiraled around those similarities while exploring other aspects.&nbsp; Compromises are naturally going to occur among the differences in the spiral.&nbsp; There is nothing inherently superior about emphasis on operational adventuring, storytelling, world exploration, or metagaming-driven narrative.&nbsp; (Naturally, some people prefer certain ones.)&nbsp; But at the same time, there is design room to cater to more than one--especially with optional rules.&nbsp;Meanwhile, there has also been a parallel but largely separate straight-line improvement in mechanics.&nbsp; Having a new edition makes some of this possible, but there was nothing inherent in the old edition itself that made it impossible there.&nbsp; If the 2E guys had thought of and wanted to use Base Attack instead of Thac0, they could have, and left the rest of 2E mostly alone. Once 2E was out, even if you had the idea, it was practically nullified as an easy retrofit.&nbsp; As this part of the design improves, the possibilities increase to accomodate multiple, competing play styles without too much complexity.&nbsp;So, yeah.&nbsp; I do think it is possible to do a 5E design centered on the gamist assumptions as bedrock.&nbsp; Then have improved mechanical underpinnings that make it possible for each group to move the game towards those other, different aspects as they prefer.&nbsp; It is ambitious and risky, but possible. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5663700, member: 54877"] There is certainly an element of "continuing to improve quality" that is the only good way forward, but I think there is also recognition of what I would call a "design spiral" at work here. So to answer the question, I don't think they can do a new edition without compromising parts of 4E, because I think 4E--while a very good game and currently my favorite version--is not the pinnacle of possible D&D development. But I do think there can be a new edition that does not compromise certain parts of 4E. I can't do a corkscrew image that would make sense, and anyway I suck at drawing. So let me try to paint this in words. Roughly: Basic and 1E - caters to the "treasure as XP" idea of operational adventuring. 2E - caters to "storytelling" mode. 3E - caters to "world and character exploration" mode. 4E - caters to indy "narrativism" mode, or if you prefer, explict and unashamed metagaming. Those are the differences--albeit very roughly. And certainly every game has had levers from which a sufficiently interested DM could mold it into one of the others. (You've had, for example, people basically playing "storytelling" mode with all versions.) And some of the outlying differences have bridged some of these modes (e.g. Birthright, late 3.5 crunch, etc.) However, the differences don't tell the whole story. There has always been a "gamist" mode to D&D. Different versions sometimes expressed it in different ways, but it was always there. And there has also been beating up monsters, stealing their treasure, and the whole patina of "D&D as its own genre" that really isn't sufficiently described by "kill the monster, take its treasure" in that minimalist sense. And then there are the classic classes, races, and so on, with all that means for expectations. So designers of D&D have spiraled around those similarities while exploring other aspects. Compromises are naturally going to occur among the differences in the spiral. There is nothing inherently superior about emphasis on operational adventuring, storytelling, world exploration, or metagaming-driven narrative. (Naturally, some people prefer certain ones.) But at the same time, there is design room to cater to more than one--especially with optional rules. Meanwhile, there has also been a parallel but largely separate straight-line improvement in mechanics. [B]Having[/B] a new edition makes some of this possible, but there was nothing inherent in the old edition itself that made it impossible there. If the 2E guys had thought of and wanted to use Base Attack instead of Thac0, they could have, and left the rest of 2E mostly alone. Once 2E was out, even if you had the idea, it was practically nullified as an easy retrofit. [B]As this part of the design improves, the possibilities increase to accomodate multiple, competing play styles without too much complexity.[/B] So, yeah. I do think it is possible to do a 5E design centered on the gamist assumptions as bedrock. Then have improved mechanical underpinnings that make it possible for each group to move the game towards those other, different aspects as they prefer. It is ambitious and risky, but possible. :cool: [/QUOTE]

Verification