D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

[Imaro]

There's no sign Hasbro has inflated expectations this time around. The little we've heard from that quarter suggests that the policies that led to the unrealistic goals that 4e failed to meet are gone, and that WotC is now treated as a single business unit - one that, with the ongoing success of CCGs, has nothing to prove. 5e has a free ride on the business side. It doesn't have to try to better the performance of past eds by being innovative or 'better,' so it can safely rest on the D&D name and just not rock the boat. Which it's doing pretty well, really.

There was no sign during 4e until an insider decided to disclose the information... years after it was released. So please enlighten us, what insider do you know that has assured you it's a lower set of expectations this time around? Or is this all make-believe that you're stating with something bordering on authority?

 

[Haffrung]

I'm always curious when I see a post like this... what should it be fixated on being like? It's the number one brand (for the most part) of the market... the number two (and/or other number one at times) in the market is just a different version of D&D so what exactly should it be trying to be similar too? People like D&D... if they wanted something else they'd play one of the numerous alternatives out there now?

Makes sense to me. But there's an RPG forum meme out there that people don't really play D&D because they like it, but because they don't know any better, or they're hidebound, or they have no choice because it's so popular. I feel bad for people who have always disliked D&D but felt they had no option but to keep playing it. But they're deluding themselves if they think they're representative of the hundreds of thousands - even millions - of people who have played and enjoyed the game for decades. People play D&D because they actually like it.

IMO, if anything D&D should be trying to re-establish, refine, streamline and perfect the winning formula it's had for years... not go for something totally different. They tried that with 4e and while it may not have been a failure in the literal sense, I don't think they would have branched the newest edition off in such a different direction if they felt a 4e base could have been the base for success this time around (and if it's as small as @Tony Vargas seems to think it is that says alot about the popularity of 4e) until another game can usurp D&D (and is not itself D&D) I'm failing to see an actual reason for massive change except for the sake of change... options, tweaks, refinements sure... drastic change, why again??

RPG forums also attract a lot of people who love discussing game design and theory. It's kind of a sub-hobby of playing RPGs. Most of the people in the RPG design sub-hobby think D&D is objectively a poorly designed game. It frustrates them that the flagship game in the hobby is, in their opinion, incoherent and mathematically unsound. It seems obvious to them that a mechanically re-designed D&D would be an improvement, and thus more popular.

Personally, I disagree with the theorists because I don't share the belief in objectively superiour RPG design. Furthermore, I don't believe most players engage with the system anywhere near as intently and analytically as RPG theorists like to believe. These 'objectively superiour' design principles are largely irrelevant to many gamers - especially casual gamers. WotC focused on 'feel' in the 5E playtests because they're quite correct that feel is the foremost experience of the game for most D&D players, not mechanical structure and numerical balance. 4E was a system-up game design. WotC clearly believes that was a mistake, in hindsight. 5E is something of a throwback, because WotC believes that - contrary to what RPG forum theorists have been saying for years - gamers quite like D&D already, and don't feel it needs a substantial redesign.

 

[Morty]

Yes, but what would said "new direction" be? Also... how can it go in a "new direction" and accomplish "what it's always been known for"... not saying it's impossible just looking for an example, perhaps an rpg that has done this in the past?? Now I agree you can do what you've always been known for with more efficient and familiar mechanics... but then I'm not seeing how 5e didn't do this?

You know, I looked at my post, thought about it and decided not to edit, because hey, it's not like people are going to pick apart my word choice. Ever the optimist. To address your actual argument, 5e introduces one mechanic that is actually more efficient - advantage and disadvantage. And it doesn't even use them to their full potential. Their other good idea, expertise dice, were gutted due to being "too complicated".

Well if they weren't "fussing" about feel and making sure re-establishing the iconic things in D&D... the game wouldn't be accomplishing what it always has... would it? It'd be a different game...right?

Maybe, maybe not. Names, trappings and iconic elements aren't unimportant, but there's so much more you can do while still keeping them, more or less, even if you decide not to discard them. Like I said - form and function.

Exactly what willingly repeated "mistakes" are you speaking too? I'm assuming you mean the same problems in 3.x (thought I don't want to assume)... if so could you give some examples of the ones in 5e?

Well, the class structure, for one. 3e made the mistake of making fighters a separate class alongside much more specific classes which are also of the warrior archetype, like rangers and barbarians, not to mention all the non-core ones like knight or swashbucklers. Fighter, as a concept, only really works if the other classes are Thieves, Clerics and Magic-Users. I don't really blame the 3e designers for this decision - they were trailblazers and the other big name in RPGs at the time was the Old World of Darkness, which makes 3e look balanced and stable.

Classes are also generally rigid and inconsistent - we have extremely broad ones like fighters and rogues, but we also have specific ones like paladins and barbarians. And then there are sub-classes, which beg the question as to why the eldritch knight is a sub-class but the paladin is a separate class. Or, for that matter, what separates a hybrid sub-class from a multi-class character.

So that's one thing. Another is the HP and AC system, which is far less efficient than it could be and is one of the reasons non-magical combat is so dull. It's not like anyone is asking them to switch to a Riddle of Steel-like robust combat simulation - but re-examining the old model so it's deeper, easier to narrate (avoiding the 'are HP meat or luck' debates is a nice perk too) and allows for more interesting interaction isn't too much to ask for, now is it?

Then there's the assumption that bigger numbers and frequent attacks of the non-magical classes equal the sheer breadth of options magic-users get, which has hounded D&D and the entire gaming industry since then.

Wait are you claiming 5e is the exact same game as 3.x? Funny I don't remember bounded accuracy, advantage/disadvantage, limited magic items, etc. being a part of 3.x. If anything it seems that exactly what they are doing is taking the familiar and refining and streamlining it... to claim that 5e is 3.x with "a new coat of paint" is... well wrong. As for the pot shots aginst Pathfinder... not sure how they even tie into what I asked about since I was talking about WotC and D&D but it does help to establish your bias in this matter.

Because all those things are minor. Borderline houserule category. And in case of bounded accuracy, the benefit they give to the game is dubious. I'm of the opinion that bounded accuracy can be good, if done right - but you need to make sure competence and difficulty expand horizontally instead, not just cut the numbers down to size and leave it at that. Advantage/Disadvantage, like I said, are one of their few actually decent ideas, if underused - but it's hardly revolutionary, is it?

Let me guess, 4e fan... right?

Nope. 4e is a decent game for what it does, especially with errata and later material, but not really my RPG of choice. Sorry for not falling neatly into edition war categories.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There was no sign during 4e until an insider decided to disclose the information... years after it was released.

Very true. It's not impossible that such a shocking revelation could eventually come out about 5e. It doesn't seem likely, though. 5e is a business-as-usual return to the way D&D was at it's most complacent. If they were shooting for the moon again, they'd presumably be trying a lot harder.

Apparently, though, what little public information there is from Hasbro does indicate that WotC is being treated as a single business unit, not separated into the D&D and CCG sides of the house, and, thanks to the success of the latter, it's a business unit that's doing well.

Not a lot, but it all points to D&D having an easy go on the business side. Really, what evidence we have all looks pretty optimistic.

 

[Siberys]

EDIT: I'm slow. [MENTION=6776259]Haffrung[/MENTION]

As one of those "theorists," I'd like to point out that whether casual players care about a design is irrelevant. They won't notice, because they don't care, while someone that does care is still getting what they want. Being mechanically coherent and mathematically sound doesn't /need/ to damage a casual player's experience, and it can massively improve the experience for someone that does care. This is a case where it's possible to have your cake and eat it too, so why be forced to choose?

A lot of the people like me take particular issue with mechanical choices that have been shown in the past to cause issues. Mistakes have been made in the past, and I want designers to learn from them. Sure, not everyone ran into LFQW, for example. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try to fix it so it's never a problem, instead of just sometime not a problem.

Also, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that actually believes in an "objectively superior" mechanic, I think. One of the first things you have to learn for game design is that mechanics are tools used to engineer a particular experience - for a particular desired result, there may be an objectively superior mechanic, but that doesn't make that mechanic better all the time.

 

[Mistwell]

Far, far more people were at least aware of the name "Iron Man" than have ever heard of Drizzt, even before the movies.

But far, far more people are aware of the name "Dungeons and Dragons" than were aware of the name "Iron Man" before the Iron Man movie came out. And when the Iron Man movie came out, it was not about the Marvel Universe brand name of movies (there were none really) it was about Iron Man. But for a new Dungeons and Dragons movie, it's about the Dungeons and Dragons brand name.

 

[Morty]

EDIT: I'm slow. @Haffrung

As one of those "theorists," I'd like to point out that whether casual players care about a design is irrelevant. They won't notice, because they don't care, while someone that does care is still getting what they want. Being mechanically coherent and mathematically sound doesn't /need/ to damage a casual player's experience, and it can massively improve the experience for someone that does care. This is a case where it's possible to have your cake and eat it too, so why be forced to choose?

A lot of the people like me take particular issue with mechanical choices that have been shown in the past to cause issues. Mistakes have been made in the past, and I want designers to learn from them. Sure, not everyone ran into LFQW, for example. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try to fix it so it's never a problem, instead of just sometime not a problem.

Also, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that actually believes in an "objectively superior" mechanic, I think. One of the first things you have to learn for game design is that mechanics are tools used to engineer a particular experience - for a particular desired result, there may be an objectively superior mechanic, but that doesn't make that mechanic better all the time.

I'm just going to second this.

 

[Imaro]

Very true. It's not impossible that such a shocking revelation could eventually come out about 5e. It doesn't seem likely, though. 5e is a business-as-usual return to the way D&D was at it's most complacent. If they were shooting for the moon again, they'd presumably be trying a lot harder.

Do you work at WotC? I mean you make alot of claims about what the inner workings are and I'm wondering where do you get your information? Now if it's just "I make it up whole cloth" then cool (of course then maybe you should quit refeering to what is obvious or apparent since it isn't and it wasn't before)... but you keep dancing around this very basic question... where are you getting all of this insider information from?

Apparently, though, what little public information there is from Hasbro does indicate that WotC is being treated as a single business unit, not separated into the D&D and CCG sides of the house, and, thanks to the success of the latter, it's a business unit that's doing well.

And that information would be??

Not a lot, but it all points to D&D having an easy go on the business side. Really, what evidence we have all looks pretty optimistic.

Not a lot? You haven't provided any actual information that points to anything, just conjecture dressed up as fact...

 

[Imaro]

You know, I looked at my post, thought about it and decided not to edit, because hey, it's not like people are going to pick apart my word choice. Ever the optimist. To address your actual argument, 5e introduces one mechanic that is actually more efficient - advantage and disadvantage. And it doesn't even use them to their full potential. Their other good idea, expertise dice, were gutted due to being "too complicated".



Maybe, maybe not. Names, trappings and iconic elements aren't unimportant, but there's so much more you can do while still keeping them, more or less, even if you decide not to discard them. Like I said - form and function.



Well, the class structure, for one. 3e made the mistake of making fighters a separate class alongside much more specific classes which are also of the warrior archetype, like rangers and barbarians, not to mention all the non-core ones like knight or swashbucklers. Fighter, as a concept, only really works if the other classes are Thieves, Clerics and Magic-Users. I don't really blame the 3e designers for this decision - they were trailblazers and the other big name in RPGs at the time was the Old World of Darkness, which makes 3e look balanced and stable.

Classes are also generally rigid and inconsistent - we have extremely broad ones like fighters and rogues, but we also have specific ones like paladins and barbarians. And then there are sub-classes, which beg the question as to why the eldritch knight is a sub-class but the paladin is a separate class. Or, for that matter, what separates a hybrid sub-class from a multi-class character.

So that's one thing. Another is the HP and AC system, which is far less efficient than it could be and is one of the reasons non-magical combat is so dull. It's not like anyone is asking them to switch to a Riddle of Steel-like robust combat simulation - but re-examining the old model so it's deeper, easier to narrate (avoiding the 'are HP meat or luck' debates is a nice perk too) and allows for more interesting interaction isn't too much to ask for, now is it?

Then there's the assumption that bigger numbers and frequent attacks of the non-magical classes equal the sheer breadth of options magic-users get, which has hounded D&D and the entire gaming industry since then.



Because all those things are minor. Borderline houserule category. And in case of bounded accuracy, the benefit they give to the game is dubious. I'm of the opinion that bounded accuracy can be good, if done right - but you need to make sure competence and difficulty expand horizontally instead, not just cut the numbers down to size and leave it at that. Advantage/Disadvantage, like I said, are one of their few actually decent ideas, if underused - but it's hardly revolutionary, is it?



Nope. 4e is a decent game for what it does, especially with errata and later material, but not really my RPG of choice. Sorry for not falling neatly into edition war categories.

SO you just don't like D&D... like seriously, even the problems you list as 3.x problems have been a part of D&D since BECMI and AD&D were published... this is exactly what I am talking about, you don't want D&D you want a different game and there are tons out there for you to choose from... so what would D&D derive from becoming like the numerous niche within a niche rpg's out there? except for maybe reduced sales??

 

[Umbran]

And the outrage that someone might have a definition of D&D that's not "whatever the current trademark owner considers D&D" and might not consider D&D 4e D&D under that definition strikes me as a little silly.

Well, yes and no. You see, there's a difference between having a definition of what is, or is not, D&D, and having an opinion of what the key bits of D&D are for yourself.

If you try to define D&D, and impose that definition on others, yes, you're going to see a lot of folks telling you to take a long walk off a short pier, and rightfully so. Nobody around here has the authority to set such a definition. Try to assert such authority, and folks will challenge you not just because you're wrong, but because you're being pretty arrogant.

If you say you like certain things, and that a particular edition doesn't give you those things, and most folks won't even bat an eye at you. A few real diehard partisans will be annoying, but they'd probably be annoying about something else if the edition difference wasn't present.

A lot of folks, on both sides, tried to do the former, when they should have been doing the latter.