Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Maybe D&D Should Branch?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 6012354" data-attributes="member: 882"><p>I was just reading through the thread about interpretation of rules, which wandered into a discussion of the marketing and reception of different editions. [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] provided an interesting description of D&D history in which he posited that Pathfinder was a branching point in the game that has now become a complete parallel species (as opposed to older editions which make up a smaller section of the market). Many people have been suggesting that it will be impossible to please all players (or more specifically, both the fans of 3E/PF and 4E).</p><p></p><p>So maybe this is the moment for the game to diverge, deliberately. Perhaps this chance was missed when 4E was developed, but if WotC want to regain control of the hobby (which 5E is most definitely an attempt to do) then maybe they need to face that one game can no longer do this. Obviously, this would require the greatest feat of PR and marketing the industry has ever seen, but it might just be worth a try.</p><p></p><p>Historically, there have been a couple of precedents, I would say, for branching (or parallel games), though not on the same terms as the one I propose here. World of Darkness deliberately offers three different games (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage plus minor editions) within the same fictional construct, which have the same mechanical principles, but (I think) cater to different tastes. I would also cite the recent Trail of Cthulhu as a branching from Call of Cthulhu, though it was not published by the same company. These both take place in the same world, rely on the same material but play very differently mechanically (and I think play side-by-side, I am happy to run/play both).</p><p></p><p>So what would our two branches look like? I'm not going to say just 3E and 4E, revised, that's too easy. Instead I would suggest that they consider what each side of the argument enjoy about their games.</p><p></p><p>For the 4E-fan, I would suggest that precise tactical combat is a must, and I think it would be further appreciated if there were more detailed rules for handling non-combat situations. So, make skill challenges work, offer mechanics for resolving social situations, both with the same dynamic and precise approach 4E combat offers. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the 4E crowd is also younger and prefers more elaborate, as opposed to traditional, fantasy, so this branch would offer more dragonmen and lasers.</p><p></p><p>For the older-school branch I would focus the core game on more traditional concepts. I would relegate gridded combat to an option, perhaps developing some more rules of thumb and advice for theatre of the mind combat. I wouldn't support the dozens of classes and races that have existed over the years, instead focusing on tradition. This doesn't mean it has to be a retroclone, but to me, right now, 5E is headed more in this direction, whilst it has only recently tried to cover the other branch with the sorcerer/warlock drafts. This branch would not try to govern exploration or social interactions mechanically, though it could offer skill/proficiency support, and combat needn't be boring, but would certainly be more focused on getting the job done rather than round-by-round tactical decisions.</p><p></p><p>Does this sound like a good idea? Is it possible to clearly branch the game into two versions, offering different experiences? Would this just make everyone even angrier? What would you even call the two games (Dungeons.. and.. Dragons..)?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chris_Nightwing, post: 6012354, member: 882"] I was just reading through the thread about interpretation of rules, which wandered into a discussion of the marketing and reception of different editions. [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] provided an interesting description of D&D history in which he posited that Pathfinder was a branching point in the game that has now become a complete parallel species (as opposed to older editions which make up a smaller section of the market). Many people have been suggesting that it will be impossible to please all players (or more specifically, both the fans of 3E/PF and 4E). So maybe this is the moment for the game to diverge, deliberately. Perhaps this chance was missed when 4E was developed, but if WotC want to regain control of the hobby (which 5E is most definitely an attempt to do) then maybe they need to face that one game can no longer do this. Obviously, this would require the greatest feat of PR and marketing the industry has ever seen, but it might just be worth a try. Historically, there have been a couple of precedents, I would say, for branching (or parallel games), though not on the same terms as the one I propose here. World of Darkness deliberately offers three different games (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage plus minor editions) within the same fictional construct, which have the same mechanical principles, but (I think) cater to different tastes. I would also cite the recent Trail of Cthulhu as a branching from Call of Cthulhu, though it was not published by the same company. These both take place in the same world, rely on the same material but play very differently mechanically (and I think play side-by-side, I am happy to run/play both). So what would our two branches look like? I'm not going to say just 3E and 4E, revised, that's too easy. Instead I would suggest that they consider what each side of the argument enjoy about their games. For the 4E-fan, I would suggest that precise tactical combat is a must, and I think it would be further appreciated if there were more detailed rules for handling non-combat situations. So, make skill challenges work, offer mechanics for resolving social situations, both with the same dynamic and precise approach 4E combat offers. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the 4E crowd is also younger and prefers more elaborate, as opposed to traditional, fantasy, so this branch would offer more dragonmen and lasers. For the older-school branch I would focus the core game on more traditional concepts. I would relegate gridded combat to an option, perhaps developing some more rules of thumb and advice for theatre of the mind combat. I wouldn't support the dozens of classes and races that have existed over the years, instead focusing on tradition. This doesn't mean it has to be a retroclone, but to me, right now, 5E is headed more in this direction, whilst it has only recently tried to cover the other branch with the sorcerer/warlock drafts. This branch would not try to govern exploration or social interactions mechanically, though it could offer skill/proficiency support, and combat needn't be boring, but would certainly be more focused on getting the job done rather than round-by-round tactical decisions. Does this sound like a good idea? Is it possible to clearly branch the game into two versions, offering different experiences? Would this just make everyone even angrier? What would you even call the two games (Dungeons.. and.. Dragons..)? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Maybe D&D Should Branch?
Top