Hypothetical Direction Shift For 1D&D/6E

[tetrasodium]

Not really the spirit of the thread.

What concrete design directions could they employ to create a distinct new edition that would still feel like D&D?

It's kind of a chained question pair though. "what does that look like" can't be answered without answering or assuming the design goals @Benjamin Olson brought up in #4 because he's right about it seeming random so far & the lack of focus design by committee or worse. That lack of focus is how we get 5e style design for nobody & everybody with the gm left holding the bag to make it work when the system itself fails to be about doing anything well out of fear that somebody might not like that thing.

Personally I kinda hope that 6e is meaningfully different from 5e & felt that way long before the whole OGL debacle. I'm already trying to move away from 5e & eagerly awaiting options on the near horizon before deciding what to do about my current holding pattern. Bare minimum I'll probably give it a glance but what I do from there depends on the goals they aim for.

Different for the sake of being different is just exhausting if I need to convince my players that 6e is designed for xyz goals in order to begin making a case fir why we need a given houserule for the campaign. I've had that for the last several years & not interested in a rehash of that brick wall.

 

[Clint_L]

I think they ar going back to the drawing board and compatibility is out the window. They’ve shown they really really want their IP, so we’ll see a system that is more unique than we’ve seen in the play test I don’t know what exactly that looks like. Major changes in alignment, race (species) and TT mechanics that are going to be rooted from VTT mechanics. VTT is their focus, I believe, so they will design mechanics that a computer can take advantage of.

I very, very strongly doubt this. Why not just put a sign on the window that says, "Please publish Pathfinder 3.0"? They built the most popular version of D&D ever. They aren't giving that up. Hypotheticals are one thing, but don't kid yourself.

 

[Reynard]

I very, very strongly doubt this. Why not just put a sign on the window that says, "Please publish Pathfinder 3.0"? They built the most popular version of D&D ever. They aren't giving that up. Hypotheticals are one thing, but don't kid yourself.

Yeah, for the record I don't think it is happening, I'm just curious what folks might think it looks like.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I very, very strongly doubt this. Why not just put a sign on the window that says, "Please publish Pathfinder 3.0"? They built the most popular version of D&D ever. They aren't giving that up. Hypotheticals are one thing, but don't kid yourself.

They did the same thing with 3e when they moved to 4e. 3e brought back tons of fans and growth from 2e, just 5e did.

I see your point, but I also wouldn’t put any bad decision past them at this point

 

[Parmandur]

I think we'll see a new STL: the OGL was originally meant to work eith a trademark license, which importantly would actually accomplish what WotC was Ted to do with control over their brand. Ot would need to offer more than the d20 STL did to encourage uptake, but that is certainly possible.

I really don't think that there will be a significant change in the rules, as in I don't see anything they could do that would break compatibility without losing money, and I think the ddesign team has the data to back that up at this point.

What we may see is more folding of Magic IP, which WotC has much stronger control over, into D&D. Orcs are not copyrightable or trademarkable, but Eldrazi or Phyrexians are.

 

[Reynard]

This thread isn't really the place to debate what WotC is going to do. It hypothetically presupposes they will make a design shift.

 

[Parmandur]

This thread isn't really the place to debate what WotC is going to do. It hypothetically presupposes they will make a design shift.

I mean, I guess they could resurrect 4E from the grave.

 

[Cadence]

I mean, I guess they could resurrect 4E from the grave.

And make it all digital and GSL 2.0. (That was my thought upthread).

 

[Parmandur]

And make it all digital and GSL 2.0. (That was my thought upthread).

There already is a 4E rules video game on the market, Tomb of Annhilation.

 

[Cadence]

There already is a 4E rules video game on the market, Tomb of Annhilation.

Do the magic missiles fly out visually and explode on their targets in ways that no table top gamer ever manages with miniatures? (That was one of the tests for the VTT, right?)

 

[Parmandur]

Do the magic missiles fly out visually and explode on their targets in ways that no table top gamer ever manages with miniatures? (That was one of the tests for the VTT, right?)

Never played it, but...probably?

 

[tetrasodium]

This thread isn't really the place to debate what WotC is going to do. It hypothetically presupposes they will make a design shift.

If I'm guessing the path you are hoping for I'd look at the fate ecosystem for an example. On the one hand you have fate core & fate accelerated along with things like the fate worlds books from evilhat. From those you have the core rules & give some skeletons for different genres of world (a very loose description on my part). I'm going to limit my examples from there From there you have a tapestry of fate products that spiderweb out to things like morts (fairly straightforward fate core with a themed paintjob kinda sorta adventure analog), the very impressive & nearly heartbreaker level mindjammer, a somewhat middleground but still mostly fate secret of cats, or proto/pre-fate core things like dfrpg/sotc or the various other evil hat games. Wotc would need to find a healthy middle ground between TSR's umpteen rpg's 3.x's avalanche of new books & 5e's near glacial trickle of support for a frozen codebase of a single system.

 

[Reynard]

If I'm guessing the path you are hoping for I'd look at the fate ecosystem for an example. On the one hand you have fate core & fate accelerated along with things like the fate worlds books from evilhat. From those you have the core rules & give some skeletons for different genres of world (a very loose description on my part). I'm going to limit my examples from there From there you have a tapestry of fate products that spiderweb out to things like morts (fairly straightforward fate core with a themed paintjob kinda sorta adventure analog), the very impressive & nearly heartbreaker level mindjammer, a somewhat middleground but still mostly fate secret of cats, or proto/pre-fate core things like dfrpg/sotc or the various other evil hat games. Wotc would need to find a healthy middle ground between TSR's umpteen rpg's 3.x's avalanche of new books & 5e's near glacial trickle of support for a frozen codebase of a single system.

I don't think WotC would create multiple lines. They have seemed to be really resistant to expanding their design team. I think it's a cool idea: win by filling ALL the niches. Maybe actually delivering on the original modular promise?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There already is a 4E rules video game on the market, Tomb of Annhilation.

I did not know that existed? I wonder if it actually used the 4e rules to any significant degree.

 

[Reynard]

I did not know that existed? I wonder if it actually used the 4e rules to any significant degree.

I think it is an adaptation of the board game, which used a lite version of 4E if I recall correctly.

 

[Remathilis]

Consider what has prompted every edition change so far.

2e: A desire to standardize elements of game design. 2E was designed to remove all the weird corner-cases in 1e and replace them with universal design goals. For example, a ranger would no longer have a unique XP progression and a strange HD progression and bonus attacks but would share those elements with the fighter and/or paladin. The illusionist would use the same spells (and spell progression) as a magic-user/mage. Etc.
3e: A desire to unify the sprawling mess of rules 2e became. 3e wanted to create unified systems (three broad saves vs 5 specific ones, 1 XP chart, upwards AC) Skills intergrated properly into the system. A system that was designed to be modular and through.
4e: A desire to even the power-curve. 3.x had proven to be too inconsistent with its power levels. Attack and save scaling resulted in uneven character math. Feat chains and prestige classes required high levels of rules awareness to avoid trap. A desire to have magic and martial power on the same playing field. A desire to bring in lessons from MMOs (tank, healer, dps) design. Emphasis on tactical combat.
5e: A simplification. 4e (and 3e) had both ended up sprawling messes, full of sloggy rules and an overemphasis on describing every last thing as a mechanical rule. 5e wanted DMs to have more control, combat to be quicker and less math intensive, and character choices to be fewer but more impactful. An edition that could emulate elements of all prior editions.

So, what is the problems with 5e that 6e would fix. I guess it's too dependent on DM fiat, characters lack sufficient choices, short rests are too infrequent to balance class mechanics behind, monsters need more interesting things that aren't just spells, and magic items should be figured into the math a little better.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't think WotC would create multiple lines. They have seemed to be really resistant to expanding their design team. I think it's a cool idea: win by filling ALL the niches. Maybe actually delivering on the original modular promise?

Sure they can. On top of everything @Remathilis mentioned in 36 what little we have of 6e is shockingly modular in a way that supports complete drop in replacement toolkit subsystems as opposed to the extensible 3.x style that could still be included. Eberron Darksun FR & ravenloft could have completely different spell lists weapon lists & armor lists to dramatically mix up the gameplay without needing to do much fiddling with edge cases like classes & such.

The FR(or whatever) drop in bits could be 5e style painfully oversimplified & streamlined till they are void of life style some like while the darksun & eberron dropins could sport all the extensible hooks needed for wide magic slippery post/prewar time period or whatever gritty post apocalyptic survival crapsack world. Meanwhile monsters in general could have the bits and bobs needed to be useful for the GM to run fun combats instead of mindnumbing slogs with giant sacks of HP. As long as the math for all of those have the same or similar margins baked in for magic item expectations they don't need to resort to Rifts style mudflation between dropins that would cause the GM to want one set that gives them the most room to run fun campaign & players a different set of maximum munchkin charop even if they functionally have some different yardsticks & expectations.

 

[bedir than]

I think they ar going back to the drawing board and compatibility is out the window. They’ve shown they really really want their IP, so we’ll see a system that is more unique than we’ve seen in the play test I don’t know what exactly that looks like. Major changes in alignment, race (species) and TT mechanics that are going to be rooted from VTT mechanics. VTT is their focus, I believe, so they will design mechanics that a computer can take advantage of.

I think they will maintain continuity and connections to 5e because they want to maximize the sales of 50th anniversary products. A wild change, as we've just seen, wouldn't be able to do that with the now limited time available to design.

 

[Parmandur]

I did not know that existed? I wonder if it actually used the 4e rules to any significant degree.

Well, it uses the D&D Advebture System, so it's 4E adjacent really. Basically just the Romb of Amnhilation board game in digital form.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think WotC would create multiple lines. They have seemed to be really resistant to expanding their design team. I think it's a cool idea: win by filling ALL the niches. Maybe actually delivering on the original modular promise?

I don't think they'd do two lines, either, I'm honestly just struggling with the confines of the hypothetical.

As to modularity, they delivered a system that is itself modular...they just kept to big mainstream modules, not filling niche uses.