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

[Upper_Krust]

I voted no.

Frankly, people have been worried about the approacing doom of DnD/RPGs for a while, and it hasn't happened.

In 1999, people were predicting the end of RPGs over the next decade as the Internet and computer games were going to take over.

This hasn't come about.

I think there are peaks and troughs. I think the next few years will be one of those troughs (like the early 90s) unless something dramatic is done.

WotC can certain damage it's product, though. I think if they drop the OGL, that will do more damage to their product's saleability than any number of WoW subscriptions.

See above, my idea retains the OGL and 3rd parties can even license the Dungeons & prefix.

My vision for 4.0:

1 - Better capability-for-capability balancing of the classes.

2 - Bad/unclear 3.5 rules (all areas) cleaned up in their wordings by more exacting use of known and defined game terminology.

3 - Broken 3.5 material disposed of en masse. (Bye, bye wraithstrike, duskblade, etc.)

4 - Known problems handled. (I recall an EnWorld topic I viewed years ago, long before I joined. It was a list of spells from 3.0 with known difficulties that had not been changed in the move to 3.5, leaving them with their existing problems.)

5 - The abandonment of thin hardback books. That is just ridiculous.

That's it. Nothing fancy. No major changes. Just clean it up so we don't have to mess up our books with errata or argue over FAQ interpretations.

There is an interesting parallel to note here.

Now, when Wizards of the Coast brought out Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 - how many books did they resell? Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, Monster Manual, Psionics Handbook (I think)...that was about it.

Now admittedly one or two others contained other updated material, but basically that was it.

Lets say a pen & paper 4th edition is as big a difference to 3.5 as 3.5 was to 3rd Ed. Where is the great incentive to buy all those books again.

Now you can argue well is Krusty saying that if you had 1st/2nd Ed. there was no incentive to buy 3rd Edition. But thats not true. 3rd Edition was a move into full colour, glossy pages which took advantage of modern publishing methods. As a product when placed beside 1st/2nd edition peers it looks far more professional.

Secondly 3rd Edition was an update of 20+ year old rules (remember that 2nd Edition was barely little more than D&D 1.25 - if even that). So it had 20 years worth of playtesting and feedback.

I just don't see a purely pen & paper route working this time around.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Mark!

I don't foresee there ever being a "Dungeons & Pirates", "Dungeons & etc etc" ad infinitum, simply because it dilutes the brand name.

Sure, there could be a "Dungeons & Dragons: Pirate Edition", but not a brand that calls itself "D&P".

I was thinking about that, I just wonder if the brand is seen as too limiting. Also as a name Dungeons & Pirates is far more catch than Dungeons & Dragons: Pirate Edition.

For example, d20 Modern is not called Dungeons & Dragons: d20 Modern is it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey BlackMoria!

As a concept, I am interested in it.

If it is a possible future of D&D, then I am not interested. Making D&D a quasi board/card game is going too far for me to follow.

Why is it too far for you to follow?

Make something like you suggest and call it something else, then I am so there - just don't call it D&D 4th edition, because the changes are too large in magnitude to be a new revision, it a very different new game now and it should be named as such.

I wouldn't call it 4th Edition. But at the same time there will be no 4th Edition purely pen & paper D&D (under my auspices). So technically what I am proposing would be '4th Edition'.

As far as I can see the difference is semantics.

 

[Imaro]

Just wanted to chime in with my two cents. I like this idea and agree with alot of UK's points.

1.) If 4th edition isn't significantly different from 3.x I think all that will happen is the market will fragment even more than it has now. We have people who still play earlier editions, we have people who play simpler variants(true20,castles and crusades), we have people that stayed with 3.0 and we have those who play 3.5. Personally for me 3.5 has reached a point where running it is not fun for me anymore, in a simple word too much minutae. Now I know people will say just take out what you don't want. And to that I respond with this. Why pay $90 to strip a system down when I can buy a simpler system C&C($40 total) or True20(&34.95 total). In my mind WotC needs to start with a simpler system and allow all those who love the complexity to buy "advanced rulebooks" or something to add it in. Games are suppose to be fun, and I'm sorry but for most non(hardcore) gamers the type of memorization, reading, etc. that 3.x requires in its current form isn't fun. So yes I agree with simpler rules.

2.) As far as a board, minis and cards...I think that it's cool. Visuals are what D&D lacks. This will make it easier to advertise and explain, plus people like fiddly bits, right? So why does this theory relate to feats, class abilities, races etc. but not to physical components. I think the fact that the D&D minis sell as well as they do says something. Even now Mini's are strongly suggested in the rulebooks, to the point that alot of new players and DM's assume they are necessary, so how would this be any different. Some would confine their games to the board, others will use their imagination to branch out.

4.) This is just something I wonder. If D&D isn't significantly different from 3.x how many people will even consider purchasing it. I will say this I bought a nice bit of books when 3.0 came out and, reluctantly, jumped on the 3.5 bandwagon. I have over twenty something books for 3.5 now and purchase irregularly if at all now. Why? because I feel I have nearly everything I need for a complete game, and anything else I want can wait until 4.0 is released or announced and 3.5 starts selling for cheap. My point is I will probably be bowing out of purchasing anything for 4.0 since I don't think it likely to do anything my d20 variants or D&D rulebooks don't already do. This is the first idea I've seen thats original and might be good enough to pull in new blood. I think this will definitely become an important factor when 3.x finally does end, as I think alot of players will be content with what they've purchased and new players will be needed.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Mark!

Looks like a fun boardgame. As an RPG with the scope I demand from D&D? No.

But what if the boxed set format I propose has the same 'scope' as 3.5 D&D? Then what?

 

[Nifft]

Dungeons & Dragons: Pirate Edition

Actually I rather like "D&D: Pirate Edition".
D&D: Ninja Edition would quickly follow.
D&D: Zombie Dino-Robot Rider Edition can't be far behind.

-- N

 

[Mark Hope]

Hey Mark!

Why, hello there .

But what if the boxed set format I propose has the same 'scope' as 3.5 D&D? Then what?

Then you need to explain how that is the case, and you need a different poll - because as you describe it, it doesn't have the same scope. I don't want "vastly simplified rules". And if you have an "Advanced Rulebook" that just gives me the same options as 3.5, why should I move from 3.5 at all? I don't want "character boards". I like reams of dog-eared character sheets and binders stuffed full of yellowing notes. I don't want a game based around minis and maps. I want those to be options, not inherent components. I want to be able to play on the sofa, or on a train, should the whim take me. And if I choose to use those components, I'll just use my Battlebox, Counter Collection, minis, Dungeon Tiles, home-made battlemats, Fantasy Path tiles, GW Dungeon Floor Plans or any one of a number of similar things that I already have. Your model doesn't offer me anything that I don't already have. And if I adopted it, I'd have less options than I already do. Which is a no-brainer. Still, as I said, it's nice as a boardgame and I'm sure my kids would love it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Ranger REG!

Sorry, we cannot dumb down the rules because the majority of the D&D fan community are not dumb.

Occam's Razor says otherwise.

We need to elevate the text and vocabulary complexity to Pre-Law college-grade, since their 2000 demographic market research shows that many of their customers are of college-educating adults.

So you would actually seek to target and pursue a smaller demographic than the game currently does?

I'd love to see the two of us go head to head on the Apprentice and see who racks up the most sales...bottom line is, at least you would get to meet Ivanka Trump.

That's why we need Jonathan Tweet to write the next edition. His level of understanding RPG is so complex that we should embrace his mensa-like insight. It's called Tweetism.

I already have mensa-like insight...its overrated.

Anyone suggesting the game should become more complex (which it indirectly seems you are) doesn't have a good grasp on the state of the market as far as I can see.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Nifft!

As an add-on or simplified mini-game to exist alongside D&D, this sounds cool.

D&D Minis fulfils the same role -- it exists alongside D&D, rather than replacing it entirely.

The alternative is another purely pen & paper version of D&D, and I just don't see that working to any great degree.

3.5 failed to re-sell anything outside the core rulebooks. Therefore logically, neither will 4th Edition.

So after the 4th Ed. core rulebooks what do you do for an encore - theres nothing you can do! They have already explored all the main areas of the game....several times over in fact. So Wizards of the Coast may as well close up shop!

 

[Numion]

Thats your prerogative.

Of course.

So to you, all those people who already use miniatures and battlemats in their game are not playing 'true' D&D?

Nah, but you're suggesting severe modifications to the D&D game, which would make it cease being D&D. I'm talking about the more integral nature of 'game pieces' and the more limited nature (inherent to board games). Minis don't make it cease being D&D - it's the dumbing down, the themed boardgame boxes, more limited nature - all those things.