D&D 5th Edition!!! (WITH POLL!!!)

[Raven Crowking]

Given the number of threads I've seen over the last several years regarding combat grind and what to do about it I think there's evidence enough to support someone saying it needs fixing at the design level.

More importantly, the designers pegged long combat time early on as a problem with 3e (i.e., something maladaptive) and made eliminating it a stated objective.

However, as the design process went on, they changed their mind in order to accomodate other design goals.

Now, there is nothing wrong with trying to accomodate other design goals, but in specific the design goal accomodated is the ability to use your cool (fun!) powers in each combat, and to have the monsters use theirs. Why? Well, I'd hazard a guess it's because D&D is about cool combats, and is not about traipsing off to Faerieland to talk to fey creatures.

There is also the factor of making the outcome less swingy (i.e., more predictable), which may be important for the type of balance WotC-D&D uses, but which also makes things a lot more predictable (i.e., boring, IMHO at least) while also taking a lot longer to resolve.

If you are happy with the 4e design, that's great. As always, play what you like.

But I stand by that original statement: If, 25 years from now, 4e has the kind of healthy community that 1e does right now, I'll happily say that I am wrong. Heck, if 4e has anything like the market share in 10 years that 3e/Pathfinder has right now, I'll happily say that I am wrong. But I don't think either of those things will occur. Not by a long shot. And I very much doubt that the lead developer of 7e will still play 4e avidly.

And, frankly, it doesn't matter if "4e is in print and supported in 10 years". 1e wasn't in print and supported, and neither was 3e. The fans made it so, because there was a demand. I don't see the same happening with 4e....and if some individuals thought there would be such a fan base in 10 years, I doubt they'd be equivocating about "the market share of an out-of-print game" now.

I'll go further. I'll hazard that 1e will have a stronger community in 2021 than 4e does. Whether 3e/Pathfinder does at that point is an open question (to me), but I would be far less surprised to find an active and healthy Pathfinder community than a healthy and active 4e community.

If anything, hacks like LostSoul's, the Jester's, and the RC/4e hacks currently appearing in the EN World forums (i.e., hacks meant to use some 4e mechanics but not the 4e philosophy) might flourish. But I expect that 5e will swing back to cover that ground, and in so doing, recover some lost market share.

Of course, I could be wrong. It happens all the time.





RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not at all sure about that. It seems some pretty maladaptive ideas, that the designers knew were maladaptive at the beginning of the process, have flourished (long combat time, I'm looking at you).

Long combat time hasn't been around since OD&D. It's a recent development. The fact that it's such an outlier speaks to one of two things: that it's adapted for a new problem in the environment (a customer base that wants hour long slogfests), or that it's a consequence of new evolutions (such as increased combat balance).

It would be cool (for some) if that evolutionary metaphor really worked -- then you could say that what you liked was objectively better (if newer).

No, that's not it at all. That's not how evolution works. It's not an objective improvement, it's an adaptation to a new environment. Crocodiles haven't had to evolve because they're already superbly adapted. They do what they do better than almost anything else could do it. 1e hasn't had to change for those who play it because it's already perfect for those who play it. 4e has changed a lot -- it's the most recent evolution. Some elements will work, some will not.

Just because 4e has more changes doesn't mean it's objectively better, but it DOES mean that some good new adaptations have come along that have been preserved (say, ditching attack matrices for a flat bonus to hit, or using one XP chart) that the original model doesn't have.

That's what I'm interested in preserving when I say "use 4e as the baseline to move forward, not backward." I don't want to give up the good things that have lasted through 2 or 3 editions just because some things don't work so well.

Both 3e and 4e have some interesting ideas. 4e did away with some of 3e's interesting ideas. 3e did away with some of 2e's interesting ideas. And so it goes. Not better. Not an evolution. Just a change. And, like speciality bred dogs, a change that is less likely to survive if cut off from its' master's loving hand.

Evolution is just a change. It is only better in a particular time and place (4e probably is better than any other editions in the particular time and place of some players' current tables). The benefit is that really bad ideas get weeded out over time, and really good ideas are kept.

If, 25 years from now, 4e has the kind of healthy community that 1e does right now, I'll happily say that I am wrong. Heck, if 4e has anything like the market share in 10 years that 3e/Pathfinder has right now, I'll happily say that I am wrong. But I don't think either of those things will occur. Not by a long shot. And I very much doubt that the lead developer of 7e will still play 4e avidly.

If she doesn't, she's gonna have a lot of angry 4e grognards talking about how it was awesome back in the day of afternoon-long combats and shardmind battleminds, because for a particular time and place, 4e will be as perfect as any other edition.

I'm not arguing that recent = better, I'm arguing that recent = "more developed," which means more chaos, more ideas, more mutations, more chances for interesting new things to come along and be preserved, less chance for bad old things to continue to be a problem.

Crocodiles don't need to be warmblooded. 1e doesn't need a skill system. But that doesn't mean it's not a good evolution, just because the skill system also came with...I dunno...rampant half-templates.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Long combat time hasn't been around since OD&D. It's a recent development. The fact that it's such an outlier speaks to one of two things: that it's adapted for a new problem in the environment (a customer base that wants hour long slogfests), or that it's a consequence of new evolutions (such as increased combat balance).

It's not a consequence of new evolutions: The WotC marketing survey while designing 3e indicated that people who use minis spend a lot more on rpg materials than those who do not. As a consequence, it isn't difficult to understand why 3.5 was more mini-centric than 3e, or why 4e is much more mini-centric than 3.5. And, try as hard as they did, WotC was unable to force enough people to buy prepainted minis to make that division viable. (Personally, I think that this was largely because they didn't switch from random minis to boxed sets.)

It is not an adaptation to the "environment" (at least, not in the sense of "what gamers want" is the "environment") -- it is an adaptation to a business model.

In this way, it is very much like the seedless watermelon or the commercial strawberry. First, one determines what the impediments to sales are. Then, one tries to remove those impediments. Finally, one tries to convince the people who were already buying that the new product is better....or more evolved....or more developed.

Meh.

If she doesn't, she's gonna have a lot of angry 4e grognards talking about how it was awesome back in the day of afternoon-long combats and shardmind battleminds, because for a particular time and place, 4e will be as perfect as any other edition.

Nah.

You'll have some 4e grognards, but I disagree that "for a particular time and place, 4e will be as perfect as any other edition". Indeed, 4e heralded the fracturing of the fan base simply because that is not true. It may be true for a diminished player base; it is not true for the time and place.

But that doesn't mean it's not a good evolution, just because the skill system also came with...I dunno...rampant half-templates.

I'm not arguing that WotC-D&D, in all of its incarnations (3e, 3.5, 4e, 4e Essentials) hasn't added interesting ideas or useful mechanics -- I am arguing that it is an experiment, akin to genetic experimentation, rather than an evolution. You want to see evolution at work? Then you have to allow the environment to play into change. The OGL did that, and we saw many evolutions from 3.x games.

I would argue that the aforementioned hacks (LostSoul's, the Jesters, the RC/4e hack) are evolutions of the game. WotC's closed house? Not evolution. OTOH, when the e-tools are gone with the next edition, you might see something almost akin to extinction.


RC

 

[havard]

I'd like to see the next edition take a step back. Use 3E as a starting point, and then simplify that so that combat can be speedy without the heavy emphasis on tactical gaming which exists in 4E (and to some extent in 3E).

Mike Mearls taked about unity among the fans. I would like to see WotC make the first step here. Make an edition that could appeal to long time D&D fans as well as the kids.

Most importantly, give us the old campaign worlds back and treat them with respect.

-Havard

 

[Zaran]

I want an improvement to 4e. That improvement is the addition of the pack mule!

 

[Guest 85555]

4E didn't come out all that long ago. Seems a little early for new edition time.

 

[Redbadge]

I've played every edition of Dungeons and Dragons and many other RPGs besides. D&D 4e has provided me better experiences and more fun, both as player and GM, than any other system by far. If preferring the 4e design makes me a "kid", as described in the post above, I'll wear that title proudly.

I'd be extremely happy if 5th edition continued the design started by 4th edition, perhaps with better communication in intent and design from WotC and more ingrained flavor to draw in parts of the fractured player base. Raven Crowking has previously mentioned a possible "pendulum swing" back towards the design of earlier editions, and while I enjoy Essentials, anything more than that in 5th edition would greatly disappoint me. A fractured player base doesn't mean a lot to me, either now or going forward, because I can easily find people that love 4th edition as much as I do. In that case, I would obviously like WotC to take their resources and make an even better version of the game me and my friends enjoy now, regardless of whether or not everyone else would like it. As long as WotC sells enough of this system to keep trying and keep developing new support, hey, works for me.

However, even if 5th edition is nothing like 4th edition, and goes backwards in ways I dislike, well, my greatest system ever has already been invented, with plenty of support. I can easily play 4th edition for the next 25 years (despite the assertions of RCK). At most, I lose the online character builder and compendium, but oh well. If 5th edition, and 6th edition, and 7th edition don't match up with the greatness of 4e, I'll be staying with 4e. It's the same reason I switched from 3.5 to 4e; I naturally play the system I find better. I'd expect most supporters of early editions to feel the same.

Given this, I suppose it's selfish to expect more awesome stuff from WotC, just to please me and others like me. Though I would be disappointed that I couldn't look forward to new stuff every month if 5th edition significantly changed for the worse, I wouldn't begrudge Raven Crowking and other like him from getting their wish for a couple of editions. (After all, I find the editions wars and hearty design discussion fun, as long as no one insults the debaters themselves, badwrongfun and all that). Edited to add: Who knows, I may even end up liking such as direction (I would still buy the core books).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I want an improvement to 4e. That improvement is the addition of the pack mule!

Don't you mean "stuffedpack donkeyhorse"?

4E didn't come out all that long ago. Seems a little early for new edition time.

Agree.

I've played every edition of Dungeons and Dragons and many other RPGs besides. D&D 4e has provided me better experiences and more fun, both as player and GM, than any other system by far. If preferring the 4e design makes me a "kid", as described in the post above, I'll wear that title proudly.

Nope. Doesn't make you a "kid"; just makes you a member of the target audience!

Raven Crowking has previously mentioned a possible "pendulum swing" back towards the design of earlier editions, and while I enjoy Essentials, anything more than that in 5th edition would greatly disappoint me.

I suspect you're going to be disappointed. A fractured player base may not mean a lot to you, but it probably does mean a lot to a business model. All signs I've seen point to a pendulum swing back towards 1e.

The big question, IMHO, is not "Will the pendulum swing", but rather "How far?" and/or "When?"



RC

 

[Redbadge]

I suspect you're going to be disappointed. A fractured player base may not mean a lot to you, but it probably does mean a lot to a business model. All signs I've seen point to a pendulum swing back towards 1e.

The big question, IMHO, is not "Will the pendulum swing", but rather "How far?" and/or "When?"

So be it. If the fracture truly is so bad that WotC has to adapt to survive (and I'm not convinced it is) I fully understand. I'll buy the core, because I like supporting my hobby, I like exploring new systems, and I don't mind helping support WotC's ventures, even when their goals differ from my own. But if 5e is not at least marginally better than 4e, like I said before, I already have a great system, and hey at least you will have gotten what you wanted, at little expense to me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So be it. If the fracture truly is so bad that WotC has to adapt to survive (and I'm not convinced it is) I fully understand. I'll buy the core, because I like supporting my hobby, I like exploring new systems, and I don't mind helping support WotC's ventures, even when their goals differ from my own. But if 5e is not at least marginally better than 4e, like I said before, I already have a great system, and hey at least you will have gotten what you wanted, at little expense to me.

I'll have gotten what I wanted?



I very much doubt that I'll get what I want from WotC! I'm actually working on a "perfect system" for my own DMing style. And, while it is taking me far longer than I thought it would, I imagine that it will be in a final form long before 5e is announced, let alone before 5e hits the shelves. I've divorced meeting my desires from the business needs of anyone else.

No, I'm only engaged in prognostication here based upon the trends and blogs I am seeing. If you look right below my user name, you'll see good reason why I might be wrong. But, in all honesty, I do think that things are moving that way. And I do think it will be good for the hobby as a whole if things do.....mostly because I don't think TTRPGs can compete with computer games in what computer games do well. Far better, IMHO, to focus on what TTRPGs do well.

(YMMV as to what each does well, of course!)


RC