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

[Dannager]

And, in an astonishingly up-to-the-minute example of the very technology I'm talking about becoming consumerized, it was just confirmed that Nintendo's next console will feature individual 6-inch touchscreen tablet-like controllers. It's not hard to see this sort of control scheme revisited for a D&D game on a digital table.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION]

Not 4 core. 3 Warrior, Wizard and Priest. 3 Hybrid Druid, Gish (for lack of a better term) and Cleric. Rogue had to go. Anyone can be a thief. Two fairly short flavorful spell lists.

In your D&D who killed the rogue and took his stuff? Take about comeuppance!

 

[Wiseblood]

The warrior did it. He'd been eyeing those skills since 1e.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't believe that any edition is "forward" or "backward". They are experiements, IMHO, each of which has good points and bad.

Chronologically, more good ideas stick around than bad ideas, as the game goes through cycles of development. It works a bit like evolution: things that are clearly maladaptive get weeded out in a generation, new things that may or may not work are introduced, and old things that work may or may not be retrained.

I'd like to learn my lessons from the crocodile, but apply that learning to a human, because while the former might have a great design that hasn't changed for millions of years, the latter represents new discoveries that the former hasn't bothered to think of.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Chronologically, more good ideas stick around than bad ideas, as the game goes through cycles of development.

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).

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). I, however, think a genetics lab metaphor might be far, far more appropriate. Yes, you can create corn that won't reproduce itself.....but you need to control the environment, and you need to create new seeds constantly, for it will not become self-germinating.

As wild strawberries are better than commercial ones, and as normal watermelons are sweeter than seedless, the goals behind a commercial venture are not always to produce the best product, but rather the product that will generate the most revenue.

That's not evolution of quality for the gamer. That's an experiment in logistics for the gaming company.

Moreover, each game is created with a particular philosophy of what is best in gaming in mind. The creators of 4e, for example, were more than happy to tell us what fun is, and what unfun in. The problem is, not everyone agrees with their ideas of fun and unfun.

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.

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.




RC

 

[Dannager]

Moreover, each game is created with a particular philosophy of what is best in gaming in mind.

That doesn't mean that consensus isn't built over time as to what is best in gaming, and it doesn't mean that the field of game design doesn't improve with time.

The creators of 4e, for example, were more than happy to tell us what fun is, and what unfun in. The problem is, not everyone agrees with their ideas of fun and unfun.

Not everyone agrees that lengthy combat is maladaptive either, but that didn't prevent you from making a declarative statement, did it?

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.

The 1e community isn't exactly what I'd call healthy. It is a community, and some people are in it.

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.

If 4e is in print and supported in 10 years, yeah, we can make that comparison. If 4e isn't in print and supported 10 years from now, though, what makes you think that comparing the market share of a supported game (Pathfinder in 2011) to the market share of an out-of-print game (4e in 2021) is in any way valid whatsoever?

 

[Lanefan]

That doesn't mean that consensus isn't built over time as to what is best in gaming, and it doesn't mean that the field of game design doesn't improve with time.

The field of game design changes over time. Some of those changes are for the better, some not.

Not everyone agrees that lengthy combat is maladaptive either, but that didn't prevent you from making a declarative statement, did it?

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.

The 1e community isn't exactly what I'd call healthy. It is a community, and some people are in it.

It's healthy enough to survive and prosper, which is all it needs.

If 4e is in print and supported in 10 years, yeah, we can make that comparison. If 4e isn't in print and supported 10 years from now, though, what makes you think that comparing the market share of a supported game (Pathfinder in 2011) to the market share of an out-of-print game (4e in 2021) is in any way valid whatsoever?

Remove PF from the statement and think about where out-of-print 4e will be 10 years after release as opposed to where out-of-print 3.x is now. It's an interesting comparison; even more so when extended back further: 2e was a dying duck 10 years after release; 1e was chugging along reasonably well at its 10-year point, and 0e in its updated form of BECMI was doing just fine in 1984. Note however that all three of those were still in print after 10 years, where 3e is not and 4e 99.9% likely won't be.

Lan-"still wondering what's going to be announced at GenCon"-efan

 

[Dannager]

The field of game design changes over time. Some of those changes are for the better, some not.

Which, of course, depends on who you talk to. But it averages out to net progress.

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.

Similarly, I could have said exactly the same thing about some of the topics WotC agreed needed fixing, and said weren't as fun as they could be. Which was my point. You can't whine about WotC calling your preferred style of play less fun than it could be, and then turn right around in the next paragraph and call someone else's preferred style of play "maladaptive".

Unless, of course, it is your firm belief that the biggest company in the industry with professionals who do this for a living has less authority to make observations regarding the game they made than a guy on the internet.

It's healthy enough to survive and prosper, which is all it needs.

I think it needs fewer bitter older gamers whose idea of supporting their hobby is supporting the industry behind it as little as possible. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Remove PF from the statement and think about where out-of-print 4e will be 10 years after release as opposed to where out-of-print 3.x is now.

Sure, let's do that. 3.0 was released in 2000. Do you think 3.0 has a more extensive market share now than 4e will in 2018? Or should we go with the most recent version of the core books published for each? 3.5 was released in 2003. Do you think that 3.5 will have a more extensive market share in 2013 than 4e Essentials will in 2020?

I sure don't think so. Remove support from a game, and its player base shrinks rapidly.

And, of course, all of this ignores the fact that, by definition, an out-of-print, unsupported game has zero market share.

See, heh, hilariously, the reality is that, come 10 years from now, I'm pretty sure that WotC will have some sort of market share as regards the tabletop roleplaying game market. I'm also pretty sure that, right now, TSR has nothing.

 

[Raith5]

I dont want 5th ed to look like any of the previous editions because I have already played them all and I know where they are if I want them.

That said I believe each edition has been an improvement (overall) on the previous iteration.

I would like to see math and modularity of 4th edition built upon but I would like to see it being distinctive by better treatment of rituals (including potentially dangerous things happening), the use of PC themes and backgrounds, race being more important and more non combat options.

Consideration should also be given to maker fights as fun as 4th edition but shorter in duration.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I dont want 5th ed to look like any of the previous editions because I have already played them all and I know where they are if I want them.

That said I believe each edition has been an improvement (overall) on the previous iteration.

I would like to see math and modularity of 4th edition built upon but I would like to see it being distinctive by better treatment of rituals (including potentially dangerous things happening), the use of PC themes and backgrounds, race being more important and more non combat options.

Consideration should also be given to maker fights as fun as 4th edition but shorter in duration.

I would agree with nost of the above but on the subject of shorter fights, I think that lack of swingingness in the damage output is a contributor to the grind and the sameness of the fights.
Yeah it makes it more predictible to the players, which in turn may make the players more likely to fight and not negociate or use other roleplay options.