Is it time for 5E?

[shadzar]

The extent to which that matters is the extent to which My Precious Encounter (TM) is the focus of the game. In a campaign where combat is incidental to getting on with the campaign arc and exploring the dungeon or wilderness, the fact that Joe and Bob only differ in dual wielding versus use of a shield may not matter, just roll the d20s and get on with the campaign. I think quirks and flaws do a better job of defining character than kewl manoovers anyways.

Not to mention you don't need every posible tactic movement spelled out and a short list to pick from, as D&D isnt about grocery shopping from a list, but the realism of it comes form the characters ability to move, and those movement are decided by the player. So you can move in all 3 dimensions so Bob and whomever can be distinguished in how each of them chooses to move around during the combat rather than clash swords.

If it is time that people are wanting to just pick special moves, like picking a Street Fighter game character, then the direction of D&D has changed and an entirely new system is needed as even 4th doesnt let people pick special moves as each player could make the same or different classes and basically have the same mechanical effects. The only way to make sure one, using a list of "maneuvers", is different from another is to make sure they have things others cannot do. But it wont serve anything when several people are of the same list.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If it is time that people are wanting to just pick special moves, like picking a Street Fighter game character, then the direction of D&D has changed and an entirely new system is needed as even 4th doesnt let people pick special moves as each player could make the same or different classes and basically have the same mechanical effects. The only way to make sure one, using a list of "maneuvers", is different from another is to make sure they have things others cannot do. But it wont serve anything when several people are of the same list.

You could do that if the "maneuvers" were on collectable cards, and each character could only play so many cards within a given combat. You purchase more cards to gain more "maneuvers" (increasing sales to WotC) while your class and level determine how many cards of each "type" you can use.

It would be a different game than D&D has been in the past, but the Gamma World experiment demonstrates that it might be a fun game nonetheless.


RC

 

[shadzar]

You could do that if the "maneuvers" were on collectable cards, and each character could only play so many cards within a given combat. You purchase more cards to gain more "maneuvers" (increasing sales to WotC) while your class and level determine how many cards of each "type" you can use.

It would be a different game than D&D has been in the past, but the Gamma World experiment demonstrates that it might be a fun game nonetheless.


RC

I could easily be done like that or many other ways, but again it would be a change in the game, and just adding things doesnt mean it is the same game. MtG changed with the inclusion of equipment artifact things, so it became a new game, some liked it others didnt. Like D&D, you could play without those new things, but sadly not in any "organized events" as they are forced into them.

Which is another problem with "organized play" all together, not connected to any one edition.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I posted my thoughts on Wizard's actions on my blog.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, but if the goal is simply to make money, ideally you would have a low barrier to entry, some reason to keep spending, and something that allows money to become a form (but not the only, or even necessarily the best form) of mastery.

So, a game where you get a starter deck, but the best cards appear randomly in boosters, and where play is focused on those areas (such as combat) where the cards could best be used, might actually sell well, and might turn a tidy profit. With a recognizable brand name behind it, such a game might do very well indeed.

If WotC's duty is to make money for its shareholders, that might be the route to go. RPGs are a messy business, after all, and I feel certain that such a game could still allow for role-playing for those who want it. Simply narrate and negotiate the parts around the combats, possibly using dice, and possibly randomly removing cards from a player's deck as a consequence for failure.

I feel quite certain that there would still be a large enough number of people on the InterWeb who would champion the new game as essentially the same as the old, and put any differences in play experience down to rose-coloured glasses and the like.

Heck, the more I consider it, the better a business move it seems to be. I am begining to believe that it would surprise me if it fails to occur.


RC

 

[Odhanan]

A fight breaks out! Joe and Bob in 1e are...well, they act the same.

They don't. Because the game is not the rules, and the rules are not the game.

This is the major shift that happened, this notion now that the game is just the sum of its rules, and the rules encompass the whole gammut of game play. This is a weird, nonsensical idea for anyone playing First Edition consistently.

Hence the fundamental misunderstandings.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I was sure this thread was about the need or not for 5E, not an edition comparison LOL all edition threads end up the same.

In answer to the OP I think it is time for 5E just because WotC have made such a hash of 4E recently (not the rules but they way they are running it). As the OP has said the understanding that WotC have of the way the rules work has massively increased. Basically there IS a need for 4.5, but since the fall out from that would be worse than the rubbish they are doing now the only way would be to rename it 5E. Basically a tidy up and organise of the said rules. However I don't know if there will ever be a 5E, either the game will die (if WotC stuff up this new way of going digital with bugger all books) or it will just go totally digital and evolve continuously.

 

[Nagol]

Yeah, but if the goal is simply to make money, ideally you would have a low barrier to entry, some reason to keep spending, and something that allows money to become a form (but not the only, or even necessarily the best form) of mastery.

So, a game where you get a starter deck, but the best cards appear randomly in boosters, and where play is focused on those areas (such as combat) where the cards could best be used, might actually sell well, and might turn a tidy profit. With a recognizable brand name behind it, such a game might do very well indeed.

If WotC's duty is to make money for its shareholders, that might be the route to go. RPGs are a messy business, after all, and I feel certain that such a game could still allow for role-playing for those who want it. Simply narrate and negotiate the parts around the combats, possibly using dice, and possibly randomly removing cards from a player's deck as a consequence for failure.

I feel quite certain that there would still be a large enough number of people on the InterWeb who would champion the new game as essentially the same as the old, and put any differences in play experience down to rose-coloured glasses and the like.

Heck, the more I consider it, the better a business move it seems to be. I am begining to believe that it would surprise me if it fails to occur.


RC

SOrt of like the WoW card game as played by Penny Arcade?

Penny Arcade! - Cloaked In Twilight

Penny Arcade! - Hot Dogs

Penny Arcade! - The Obliterator

Penny Arcade! - He Who Fights With Nerds

 

[fumetti]

1e didn't let you make a viking or a pirate or a knight or a good ol' farm boy. It let you make a fighting man who had high hit die and a better to hit table. That's it. That's all the game gave you. Nothing more. Now, you could still make a viking or a pirate or a knight or a farm boy, but it was entirely on what you brought to the game. 4e doesn't kill that. You can still make a viking or a pirate or a good ol' farm boy. The only difference is, now you can actually make it in the game on top of acting like one.

The difference in early D&D between Joe the viking and Bob the knight is that Joe called himself a viking and bob called himself a knight. In 4e, Bob stands before the foe and delivers his challenge valiantly, while Joe throws himself uncaringly at the enemy to rip off some heads, and it's represented.

Hmmm.... maybe Gygax was right about keeping the rules light. I never think of 1E/BECMI characters as being the same and I kept playing Fighters over and over and over again.

But when I'm making a 4E character on the website, I feel like I'm just plugging in info on a generic character--no personality at all--as if all Fighters are the same. Something oddly psychological is occurring.

Maybe the lack of rules actually does lead to more creativity in the mind, even when it comes to simply one's perception of one's character.

 

[fumetti]

It's a good thing 4e has skills and feats and backgrounds and rituals and utility powers then!

You know, like older editions had...

Had...

Um.

Huh.

Well, they had skills. They were called non-weapons proficiencies.

They had backgrounds. Under "non-professional skills," labeled "secondary skills" which specified what PCs did before adventuring (but the benefits were more general in nature)--in the 1E DMG.

They had rituals. They were called "spells" back then.

And BECMI had the first powers. Anyone remember the "Smash"? (Companion set)

Ya got me on utilities. Don't recall any feature regarding small, temporary bonuses, etc. other than potions and spells.