D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[Ichneumon]

Maybe a new tree with many roots?

Maybe a banyan, with several "trunks" holding up different parts of the gaming canopy.

If nothing else, it should be interesting to look at.

 

[Kelvor Ravenstar]

I thought you could download bundled DDI stuff like compiled Dragon/Dungeon mags and others. Certainly you can copy/paste material you pay for to other formats, print screens, etc. That material, though not the newer programs, remains your own for as long as you wish.

This was the case until last year, but Dragon and Dungeon no longer offer compiled pdfs of the recent issues. Each article must be downloaded as an individual pdf.

 

[Mark CMG]

This was the case until last year, but Dragon and Dungeon no longer offer compiled pdfs of the recent issues. Each article must be downloaded as an individual pdf.

Thanks for the details, Kelvor. I suppose that helps with bandwidth costs, thousands of folks downloading whole mags when they might really not want all of it. Still, that is a change of which I was unaware. Do you copy/paste much content beyond that for safe keeping on your own computer? Do you feel that you are only renting the material as well or that it is all available, even if not conveniently?

 

[timASW]

I would like to see 2 or more games officially supported and dont find it to be some unreasonable, unattainable goal either.

Ultimately D&D is a game. Hasbro has lots of games, they dont tell people "sorry no RISK for you... We're only supporting Monopoly now. Play monopoly or your out of luck".

I dont see any reason at all they couldnt have more then one RPG going at once. One for more tactical, powers based gaming and one more old school. Hell add on a full on wargame line too while your at it. Games workshop has some of the worst all around marketing of any company in history (possibly excepting WoTC). Take them on at their own game with a more widely recognized name and get a piece of that market.

If anything trading off between lines could help delay splat bloat. Rather then just adding onto one edition each month with a new book they could do it every 2 months or 3 months because they have more then one line.

It wouldnt solve the problem entirely but it could definitely slow down the worst of the effects of splat bloat.

Oh and this time, PUT OUT A DAMN RPG VIDEO GAME TO GO WITH IT. Thats got to be one of the worst mistakes they made with the 4e launch. A big, well made, video game tying into the edition could do wonders for initial launch numbers and theres plenty of big name companies that make good products and would love to have that name to play with.

 

[Emerikol]

Well we have ....

1. 4e / 13th Age
2. 3.5e / Pathfinder
3. 1e/2e/Osric/Swords & Wizardry/CoC/Ack

Then there is Hackmaster, DCC RPG


All of those games are at least loosely related to D&D or are D&D. So an awful lot of D&D playstyles are supported.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well we have ....

1. 4e / 13th Age
2. 3.5e / Pathfinder
3. 1e/2e/Osric/Swords & Wizardry/CoC/Ack

Then there is Hackmaster, DCC RPG


All of those games are at least loosely related to D&D or are D&D. So an awful lot of D&D playstyles are supported.

Have to say I really disagree with that categorization. From what I've seen 13th age has very little in common with 4e. PF is also a completely different crowd than 3.5. I'm guessing those old school games aren't all the same either.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Oh and this time, PUT OUT A DAMN RPG VIDEO GAME TO GO WITH IT. Thats got to be one of the worst mistakes they made with the 4e launch.

That wasn't a mistake. So far as I can remember... it just wasn't POSSIBLE. Hasbro/Wizards I do not believe owned the video game rights to the D&D brand at the time. Atari still owned them, which is why a 4E game was never produced.

That being said... I *think* the brand is back in-house for video games now... so the possibility does exist that they could release one. Although actually let's be honest... there's no way in hell they'd be able to release a 5E video game at the same time they release the 5E roleplaying game... simply because the RPG will get changed and edited right up until the time of release. And a video game would have needed it's engine built and designed way, way, way before then. Heck... for proof of that, we just need to see how much 4E changed just from when the Keep On The Shadowfell module and fast-start rules got locked in for printing up until the release of the hardcover books.

Making small changes to the printed game is much less difficult and can occur much closer to release than they EVER could with a video game. So putting out a video game to coincide with the RPG would most likely not end up being what they wanted, as the video game's DDN rules would probably not be all that close to the RPG's DDN rules upon release.

 

[timASW]

That wasn't a mistake. So far as I can remember... it just wasn't POSSIBLE. Hasbro/Wizards I do not believe owned the video game rights to the D&D brand at the time. Atari still owned them, which is why a 4E game was never produced.

That being said... I *think* the brand is back in-house for video games now... so the possibility does exist that they could release one. Although actually let's be honest... there's no way in hell they'd be able to release a 5E video game at the same time they release the 5E roleplaying game... simply because the RPG will get changed and edited right up until the time of release. And a video game would have needed it's engine built and designed way, way, way before then. Heck... for proof of that, we just need to see how much 4E changed just from when the Keep On The Shadowfell module and fast-start rules got locked in for printing up until the release of the hardcover books.

Making small changes to the printed game is much less difficult and can occur much closer to release than they EVER could with a video game. So putting out a video game to coincide with the RPG would most likely not end up being what they wanted, as the video game's DDN rules would probably not be all that close to the RPG's DDN rules upon release.

Meh, they could have gotten the rights from Atari. They would have had to pay for it, but oh well. They should have pony'd up the dough.

I'm not too worried about specific rules for a new game for the most part. Whatever they do will have most non-combat rules done behind the scenes by a computer anyway as usual with RPG's so it wont be a huge deal and the combat rules just need to be reasonably close.

What matters is that theres a good RPG with the words DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS 5TH EDITION (or next i guess, stupid name...) on the cover and excellent reviews.

Hell look at dragon age. It spawned a moderately successful PnP RPG just on the strength of one game and a totally unknown name because it was a good, popular RPG.

Give a recognized brand name like D&D that same sort of mass exposure and not only do you get revenue from the game but your guaranteed to get at least SOME additional buys out of it and maybe a whole lot of them.

In fact the module system is perfect for that. Give the game company a contract where they can release downloadable modules of a game version of whatever adventures they come out with and you've got yet another additional revenue stream.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

So, even if the idea of launching two RPGs, side-by-side, aimed at different players, playstyles, whatever, doesn't wash, then consider the recent boardgame activity at WotC. The skirmish game they have created has a lot of potential, and I wonder if people would play a 'D&D Tactics' type game, doing the same sort of thing as Final Fantasy Tactics, in which the focus is entirely on combat. I'm sure lots of people have played Descent, which has.. issues.. but is a really fun game. WotC could surely offer a similar game, in which the DM's role truly becomes that of an antagonist, with the party trying to complete a quest in a fixed map dungeon. The DM would place monsters and traps according to a points system, whilst the players do their best to focus on the task in hand and not get distracted by such things.

I can't help but think this would be awesome, and wouldn't tread on RPG territory at all (especially with fixed characters and advancement).

 

[Emerikol]

Have to say I really disagree with that categorization. From what I've seen 13th age has very little in common with 4e. PF is also a completely different crowd than 3.5. I'm guessing those old school games aren't all the same either.

Generally I agree with you on a lot of things but these are broad categories. And if you think Pathfinder is all that different than 3.5 I think you are being too fine grained in your analysis. I'm not saying they are identical. And of course all those retroclones are different in some way. That is how they find their niche.

While 13th age does have many things different than 4e, I do believe it is philosophically of the same family tree. The only divergence I can see philosophy wise is the grid. I don't consider AEDU as a philosophy. I consider AEDU as a mechanism to deliver a philosophy. There are others.

Here is some things they have in common...
1. Outcome based design (what I call plot coupons etc...)
2. Encounter focus (the expectation you'll be fully healed even at low levels between battles)
3. PC's being directors in addition to authors and actors. Albeit rarely.

And hey in spite of all that I did preorder the game just to use as source material.