Could this be the future format of 4th Edition D&D?

[Upper_Krust]

Hey The Iron Mark!

This pretty much sums it up for me. I have yet to see a reason for me to go to this proposed system of yours, there's nothing concrete that makes it inherently better than 3.5 (like say combat is more streamlined).

Combat is more streamlined! Attack and Damage is one roll - you can't get more streamlined than that!

Seems to me you're just looking at how WotC should package D&D to get it to a new audience, not a new rules set.

I AM talking about a totally new rules set - thats why I suggest using the D&D Boardgame as the basis for comparison (even though I have a large number of improvements in mind).

Plus, I don't want to pay for miniatures because I haven't played a single game with them.

Just because you haven't used them in the past doesn't mean you can't for the future.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Numion!

3E didn't do this and became a huge success, so I guess there's only one option from your POV. What's the problem, then?

When 3E came along a lot of people had stopped buying/playing 2E. It reinvigorated the market. Also remember the difference was 15 years (between 2E and 3E), so those old books may have seemed a bit stale, especially up against full colour glossy pages and all the rules changes people had been clamouring for for the past 25 years.

What major rule changes is 4th Ed going to bring that have not already been seen at some point in d20, either as standard or optional rules?

What are the major flaws and shortcomings of 3.5!? As far as I can tell, none really (other than reducing the overall complexity).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Flexor mate!

What do you base this on? Why do you think the large majority of the D&D players won't buy a new edition? What lead to you thinking that a new edition would not sell? People here complain and say they have enough RPG stuff forever, well they could have said that with any edition.

I just don't see what the incentive of a pen & paper 4th Edition is!? We are six pages into this thread and NO ONE has raised a single reason why we even need a 4th Edition at all! That has to be worrying for WotC because they need to release something.

If they bring out a sort of 3.75 core rulebooks then I will probably bite. But there is no forseeable incentive for me to buy another Savage Species, another Psionics Handbook, another Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. So basically this means the entire product life of 3.75 will be 3 books.

And your idea alienates a lot of the gamers not because it is a new edition idea, but because it is taking THE classic pen and paper RPG and making it a board game instead.

I have outlined my reasons why I am doing this though - its the best alternative for WotC.

 

[Cam Banks]

I think critical to this problem, and something you've not really addressed, is that your assumption is that WOTC needs to make 4e so radically different that people will flock to it because it is prettier and serves their needs better. If their needs are served well enough by the current model, then a sustained cycle of revisions and new editions based on this current model will be successful. I think Ryan Dancey even implied this. Bringing in new and innovative ideas to the game, and adding utility to it, keeps it fresh enough that the player base doesn't abandon the game altogether. Keeping it backwards compatible will go a long way to doing that as well.

I think you're also predicating your desire to toss the pen and paper out the window in place of a component-based game on the notion that people won't buy the same books over and over. I think they will. They did with 3.5, and I sure as hell will for 4, especially since support for the product will carry over and it will still feel like D&D to me if it's still a P&P. Radical changes are going to turn me off, as we've seen here. The differences between 2e and 3e are nowhere near as radical as the ones you're suggesting.

Faster, easier, more appealing, etc can all be accomplished in a P&P game. As others have already pointed out, tossing out character sheets because they're too clunky is missing the point of character sheets. A card with stats printed on it a la DDM or D&D Boardgame is a playing piece. A D&D3.5 character sheet is a work in progress and a sign to the DM that the player has certain play goals, interests, and ideas that he or she prefers. A good DM looks at his players' character sheets and keeps note of where they're investing all of their advancement, which items they keep, what class and race they're playing, all of the things that the player spends time and energy working on. Then he takes that and tailors his game to suit.

You've admitted to a totally new rules set being your goal. I think that's likely to crash and burn if the game isn't marketed as a totally new game, rather than being D&D.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Numion!

I don't understand why someone would want to get rid of, or marginalize, the character sheet. It's an important part of personalizing your character - not just because it stores the information on your character (for which there could be different methods), but because it's written by the player.

I think you could still have character sheets in the game I propose, but I don't think they need to be a standard fundamental of the game.

Then there's the problem that in RPGs several things can affect, for example, how well you can strike a blow with a sword. In D&D your characters abilities, equipment, level, feats etc.. are factored in. This is a richness for the system. Any feat cards or ability cards would be useless because they wouldn't store the combinatory effect on whatever they apply to. In a character sheet all those are neatly stored in the 'modifiers' line. Much more useful than adding it all up while browsing thru your stack of cards. Besides, cards aren't that useful in storing information - you'd need a stack of them to cover the information that can be gained at a glance from a character sheet.

The way to get round this is by having much simpler rules. Instead of a 10th-level character having 90 hit points they might only have 15, instead of a 15th-level character having 50 spells per day they might have 10 (one problem of 3.5 is the obsoletion of lower level spells the higher you progress), instead of a 20th-level character having 40 magic items they may only have 10.

And here's a pre-rebuttal to UK coming in shouting about simplification: yep, it could be simplified so that cards would be useful, but that would mean minimizing interaction between cards, i.e. that only one or few cards can affect for example to-hit (otherwise there would be deck browsing, and that would be counterintuitive to the reason why you would want to use cards in the first place), but that would limit the game severely. All the fighters would be pretty similar, and adding new abilities would be difficult.

I disagree. I think you can still have a massive scope for customization, but I'd rather have 50 great spells than 500 spells which are variants of others, I'd rather have 10 weapon cards that do something completely different than 100 cards for a +1 version of every weapon on the PHB weapon table, then another 100 for +2, +3 etc.

Intelligent and imaginative variety trumps any amount of lazy design.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Cam!

I think critical to this problem, and something you've not really addressed, is that your assumption is that WOTC needs to make 4e so radically different that people will flock to it because it is prettier and serves their needs better. If their needs are served well enough by the current model, then a sustained cycle of revisions and new editions based on this current model will be successful. I think Ryan Dancey even implied this. Bringing in new and innovative ideas to the game, and adding utility to it, keeps it fresh enough that the player base doesn't abandon the game altogether. Keeping it backwards compatible will go a long way to doing that as well.

You could do that (I think this is the Marketing Release Ryan Dancey spoke of) but I don't think even Ryan is convinced its a plausible long term business model for WotC.

Every time you bring out a new edition you are going to fracture the market.

Now you can say well 3.5 didn't damage the market, and I would agree with that. But as MerricB posted earlier in this thread - there were only about a dozen books by WotC prior to 3.5, so they didn't have a lot to alienate - and it should be pointed out that only one book was reprinted (Psionics) and a few other black and white books were absorbed into newer releases. So the bulk of 3.5 releases have not been re-releases of 3E products. Thats not going to be the case with 4E. How many books have WotC alone brought out since then - probably 100 or so, covering about 95%+ of all the topics they expect to be popular.

Therefore its virtually guaranteed that a 4E will try and repackage and re-release existing 3.5 books.

I think you're also predicating your desire to toss the pen and paper out the window in place of a component-based game on the notion that people won't buy the same books over and over. I think they will. They did with 3.5, and I sure as hell will for 4, especially since support for the product will carry over and it will still feel like D&D to me if it's still a P&P.

They didn't do it with 3.5. They rereleased 1 (non core) book and absorbed some other stuff into different products.

You don't have that luxury with 4E because 3.5 already covers so much ground you are going to struggle to come up with new topics - all the main, general topics have been covered. Which means 4E either has to do them all again or get ultra specific (The Complete 15th-level Dwarf Druid, Tarrasqonomicon).

Radical changes are going to turn me off, as we've seen here. The differences between 2e and 3e are nowhere near as radical as the ones you're suggesting.

Its a catch 22. Radical changes might turn off existing gamers, but keeping it too familiar won't merit new purchases.

Faster, easier, more appealing, etc can all be accomplished in a P&P game. As others have already pointed out, tossing out character sheets because they're too clunky is missing the point of character sheets. A card with stats printed on it a la DDM or D&D Boardgame is a playing piece. A D&D3.5 character sheet is a work in progress and a sign to the DM that the player has certain play goals, interests, and ideas that he or she prefers. A good DM looks at his players' character sheets and keeps note of where they're investing all of their advancement, which items they keep, what class and race they're playing, all of the things that the player spends time and energy working on. Then he takes that and tailors his game to suit.

You've admitted to a totally new rules set being your goal. I think that's likely to crash and burn if the game isn't marketed as a totally new game, rather than being D&D.

So then market it as a wholly new game - as long as you don't market it in a secondary capacity or as an introduction to 'something else' I don't have a problem.

But marketing this idea as something differnt doesn't solve the problems inherant in a potential 4E pen & paper D&D.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

The fundamental problem with your concern though is that its assuming we are copying the feats from the existing Players Handbook and other books. Since what I am proposing is simpler rules, all those feats don't apply.

But based on this connversation even you implied in your response that there WERE going to be feats right?

I mean this statment:

You see! Thats the sort of stuff I am talking about being in the game as standard! Item, spell and feat cards. Throw in the collectible nature of cards and have the marketing ploy of common, uncommon and rare feats/items/spells and it adds up to more revenue for WotC.

...implies that feats are still going to be in the game in some form, right. So when I talk about feats thats what I'm talking about.

So when you say you want 'all' the feats in one set where are you getting this 'all' from?

The feats that you'd be including in your basic set, that's what I'm talking about.

Likewise you are assuming a central core ruleset, when I am proposing all sets work independently (and in conjunction with one another).

So everytime I'd want to buy a Dungeons & .... game I'll be buying the rules all over again for each box? And that wouldnt suck how again? As opposed to just selling it as an expansion to a core set?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Shin!

But based on this connversation even you implied in your response that there WERE going to be feats right?

I mean this statment:

...implies that feats are still going to be in the game in some form, right. So when I talk about feats thats what I'm talking about.

Yes but you can have feats without copying those in the PHB. Remember we are changing the rules to a simpler format, so something that applies to one might not apply to another.

Fore instance, if we merge attacks and damage into one roll, Weapon Focus and/or Weapon Specialization become obsolete.

The D&D Boardgame has magic item cards and few, if any, are drawn from the Dungeon Masters Guide.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/70690

The feats that you'd be including in your basic set, that's what I'm talking about.

So everytime I'd want to buy a Dungeons & .... game I'll be buying the rules all over again for each box? And that wouldnt suck how again? As opposed to just selling it as an expansion to a core set?

Well the rulebooks are not something thats going to take up much space or cost. So you are not really paying for them twice.

I think you could have a balance between new sets and expansion sets. Otherwise you put all your eggs in one basket with the starting set...which may or may not be the one people want. But I would definately have multiple standalone sets.

 

[MerricB]

That could work I suppose, although I really like the base simplicity of the D&D Boardgame combat where the attack and damage is all one roll.

That's Descent.

Actually, the DDM combat is roll d20 + modifier vs. AC, and does a set amount of damage (5,10, 15, etc.) So it's just as simple.

Cheers!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Hey UK, could you post some of the evidence that has provided the basis for your various conclusions [as implied via your claims]?

Thanks.