New Legends & Lore

[Mercurius]

I checked my Gem of Nerdprophecy and I came up with the following percentages for the arrival of 5E:

2011: <1%
2012: 10%
2013: 30%
2014: 50%
2015: 70%
2016+: 90%

Seriously though, I see a few possible scenarios:

1. "4.x 4ever!!!" Something similar to RangerWickett--that there might not be an official "5E" in that the game could be evolved primarily through DDI. However, even then we'll see print versions that update the rules in new formats. It might not be called "5E" but it could be a revised set of core rule books that would effectively be micro-editions. So if Essentials was "4.2" then we might see "4.4" in 2012 in the form of revised core rulebooks. They might say "4E Revised" but they will not say "4.5." This might eventually lead to a 5E, but it could be put off for another 5-10 years.
2. "5E or bust!" WotC could be in secret panic mode right now and might think that their only way to not downsize D&D and/or to reunite the community is to come out with a 5E, sooner than later. But this still wouldn't be until 2013 at the earliest, imo. Maybe 2012 in the form of a kind of "we're-big-tent-guys-here's-a-beta-test-edition."
3. "Dancey Death Spiral...sorta." We might not see any future "editions" of D&D. The core could be thoroughly and totally moved to DDI. This is similar to the first scenario, but we wouldn't see revised versions. This would be a "doomsday" variant where Hasbro decides that D&D isn't profitable enough to support at its current level and downsizes so that only DDI is supported and maybe board games.

 

[delericho]

I'm guessing WotC won't release a 5e.

Economic realities pretty much guarantee that there will be a 5e at some point. Unless, of course, D&D does so poorly that WotC simply cancel it instead.

I mean, at its core, the basic rules work fine. The math is balanced. All that I see as frustrating is that some of the older options are too fiddly, and not as fun to play with as some of the newer stuff.

There are other reasons than "fixing the math" for a new edition. Frankly, 4e just isn't to my taste, so I would welcome a (good) revision... in the fullness of time, of course.

Maybe somewhere along the way they'll put out an article revising Athletics, to address concerns like yours about superhuman leaps. Something like:

The problem is that that was just one example. They'd probably need to do an overhaul of skill difficulties across the board, or else some other example would just crop up (a "proud nail", as they used to be called). There's a limit to how much you can revise before people really need new and updated rulebooks, just to gather everything together.

 

[Balesir]

I'm not crazy about the minion idea because it just seems a bit silly, not to mention immersion-threatening, when you kill a death knight minion with one blow. I'd rather have a death knight be surrounded by a bunch of weakling skeleton warriors, some of whom might have higher attack bonuses.

This sort of thing would be easy to make up and could be central to the character building collaboration between the DM and player. The player comes up with a concept based upon the campaign world, and the DM puts it into game terms. Or a player could just choose from a pre-determined list.

On the other hand, if we want to make D&D more realistic than advancement should be quicker and first and then slower later on, in the same sense that if you are mastering any craft or art then you advance quickly and make slower and slower increments.

Perhaps a more realistic approach would have been to use a d10 and have a natural 10 give another roll and add (etc), and a natural one be a -10 and roll again.

I grouped these comments together, because they all, for me, demonstrate the same phenomenon. They all assume a focus - a raison d'être - for D&D that I think is a valid possible focus, but not the one 4E uses. I'll return to the "one 4E uses" bit below, but, Mercurius, you are assuming that "immersion", character building based on concept derived from the campaign world and the system being "more realistic" are "Good Things" (TM). While there is nothing terribly wrong with any of them, I don't think they are either necessary, nor the best focus for a game that has character levels and hit points.

Personally - and I know that not everyone feels this way - I find 4e combat too complicated to begin with. Too many choices, too many fiddly bits, too much bookkeeping.

I believe that a more abstract system, which didn't require minis or a grid, and didn't rely so much on push/pull/slide/shift/run/difficult terrain effects, would cut down on a LOT of it.

Movement and positioning eats up a pretty massive amount of brainspace.

On the other hand, for me, these are kind of the point about D&D 4E combat. If you haven't got a good, crunchy manoeuvre system, how are you to make good tactical choices that the other players can admire? How are you to feel that your use of your brain (which is delightfully full of movement and positioning ponderings - yay!) is what has won through, not just your powerful character, your flattery of the DM or your luck at the dice?

There are other reasons than "fixing the math" for a new edition. Frankly, 4e just isn't to my taste, so I would welcome a (good) revision... in the fullness of time, of course.

And this, while starting with a very fair comment, draws a flawed conclusion, IMO.

4E is not to your taste - OK. This is fine and dandy; I mentioned above that we (roleplayers) tend to make assumptions about what is a "Good Thing" (TM) in a roleplaying game, and there is, objectively, no reason at all why the stuff I find fun needs to be fun for others, too. But therein lies the rub; the same applies in reverse. D&D 4E is, from what I can see, thought to be fantastic fun by quite a number of people. Your answer to your own disaffection with the way 4E does things, to "get a new ("better") edition" (that suits your own preferences, presumably), just perpetuates a bad situation - are we to flip-flop eternally between meeting the needs of one group of roleplayers and doing the same for another? Where's the point in that?

Much better, in my mind, would be for us to recognise that different folks like different styles - let's call them focusses - of play. These foci are not really compatible - those that are focussing on "getting to the meat" of facing up to encounters and beating them and those who like to explore a character concept based on a layered texture of a detailed campaign milieu are always going to clash, both at the table and in terms of what rules they like*. So why not have two games? Or more? You could even call both "D&D" - and use the same setting elements, background, genre details and tropes for both. "D&D: Alterniverse" and "D&D: Ascendant", maybe. Choose a (better) name to suit each one

* I should note that the two sides may be the same person; I like both styles, but have come to realise that I can only (satisfactorily) play one at a time.

 

[delericho]

but, Mercurius, you are assuming that "immersion", character building based on concept derived from the campaign world and the system being "more realistic" are "Good Things" (TM).

I tend to side with Mercurius on this one: a necessary component for me to get involved in (or care about) the game is that it "feels right". It doesn't need to be 'realistic', but it does need to conform to "Hollywood logic" - sure, everything can be bigger, brighter and more exciting, but if it goes too far it becomes a cartoon. And I'm just not interested in a cartoon. Give me "Lord of the Rings", not "Bugs Bunny".

This is, of course, a matter of opinion.

While there is nothing terribly wrong with any of them, I don't think they are either necessary, nor the best focus for a game that has character levels and hit points.

Actually, hit points work really well with "Hollywood logic".

As for levels, the beauty of a level system is that it allows the game to handle different styles (or, dare I say, tiers) of play. There's no reason the game couldn't playing within the bounds of real-world possibility in the Heroic tier (to handle the Black Company and the like), provide a hyper-reality mode at the Paragon tier (Lord of the Rings, Batman), and then a more unreal mode in the Epic tier (Clash of the Titans, 300).

In fact, I can't help but think that a great many groups already play this way, by willfully ignoring the actual math in the system. I suspect many of them think about their characters as being "a cut above", not considering that every Fighter is the World's Strongest Man, every Wizard is an Einstein, every Bard is an Elvis, and every Warlord a Julius Caesar (and all this at 1st level, before they've actually done anything). But that's what the 4e rules support as written.

(I further suspect that WotC could do a better job of providing adventures at all the various tiers if they adopted this model as a clear stance on what each tier means. At the moment, they don't seem to have a clear definition of Epic, and so can't seem to produce adventures for those levels.)

A question for you: what level do you think Aragorn should be?

And this, while starting with a very fair comment, draws a flawed conclusion, IMO.

Not really. The only conclusion I drew from my distaste of 4e is that I would welcome a (good) 5e.

Your answer to your own disaffection with the way 4E does things, to "get a new ("better") edition" (that suits your own preferences, presumably),

I didn't call for 5e. Indeed, I believe any 5e in the next few years would be a mistake. However, I believe the nature of their business means that WotC will one day produce 5e. When that day comes, I would prefer 5e move (back) more towards my preferences. Of course I would!

Much better, in my mind, would be for us to recognise that different folks like different styles - let's call them focusses - of play. These foci are not really compatible - those that are focussing on "getting to the meat" of facing up to encounters and beating them and those who like to explore a character concept based on a layered texture of a detailed campaign milieu are always going to clash, both at the table and in terms of what rules they like.

I don't see why these should be mutually exclusive. Calibrate the advancement system and DCs appropriately, and then leave them in the background. The people who want to "get to the meat" can then just get on with it, while the people who like "layered textures" can scratch the surface and find that, yes, it does make sense (at least on a cursory level).

So why not have two games? Or more? You could even call both "D&D" - and use the same setting elements, background, genre details and tropes for both. "D&D: Alterniverse" and "D&D: Ascendant", maybe. Choose a (better) name to suit each one

Because WotC won't produce two games - splitting their market that way would be a disaster. And if there's going to be one D&D, and I'm going to face an uphill battle finding players for any game that is not D&D, then of course I'm going to fight as hard as I can for D&D to take the form that best suits me!

 

[Dausuul]

Because WotC won't produce two games - splitting their market that way would be a disaster. And if there's going to be one D&D, and I'm going to face an uphill battle finding players for any game that is not D&D, then of course I'm going to fight as hard as I can for D&D to take the form that best suits me!

Agreed.

It seems unfair of 4E fans to say that the game shouldn't move away from their preferences, when 4E itself veered sharply away from the preferences of many other fans. (And I say this as a 4E player and DM, albeit an ambivalent one.) In the end, WotC is going to go where the most players are to be had--as it should. And if what most players want is not what the game is delivering, then there will be changes. Why should 4E enthusiasts be the only ones who never get to hear the chorus of "Your books won't disappear, you can keep playing your out-of-print edition as long as you want?"

My hope is that 5E, when it comes, will keep 4E's careful balance, transparent math, durable characters, ability to create engaging and exciting "boss fights," and high level of support for the DM*; while focusing on concept-driven crunch rather than crunch for its own sake, streamlining chargen, reducing the number of fiddly little modifiers flying around in combat, making it easier to play without minis, supporting fast-paced "skirmish fights" that play out in 5-10 minutes rather than 30-60, and avoiding hyperinflation as you level up. (Hint to WotC: If you have to invent a new currency for Epic tier, the game economy needs an overhaul.)

Admittedly, that's a fairly challenging wish list and I may not get it all. But hey, I can always hope.

[size=-2]*This last item is the single biggest reason I run 4E.[/size]

 

[delericho]

My hope is that 5E, when it comes, will keep 4E's careful balance, transparent math, durable characters, ability to create engaging and exciting boss fights, and high level of support for the DM*

Absolutely. There's a lot of really good stuff in 4e. When I call for changes, it's more a case of recalibration, rather than revolution.

while focusing on concept-driven crunch rather than crunch for its own sake, streamlining chargen, reducing the number of fiddly little modifiers flying around in combat, making it easier to play without minis, supporting fast-paced "skirmish fights" that play out <quickly>

Agreed on pretty much all counts.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I believe that a more abstract system, which didn't require minis or a grid, and didn't rely so much on push/pull/slide/shift/run/difficult terrain effects, would cut down on a LOT of it.

I wouldn't get your hopes up on this score... because D&D Miniatures, Dungeon Tiles, and monster boxed sets that include Monster Tokens all appear to be good sellers for them. And they're especially useful to help fill out their publishing schedule. So they aren't going to produce a game that eliminates that need.

 

[Balesir]

I tend to side with Mercurius on this one: a necessary component for me to get involved in (or care about) the game is that it "feels right". It doesn't need to be 'realistic', but it does need to conform to "Hollywood logic" - sure, everything can be bigger, brighter and more exciting, but if it goes too far it becomes a cartoon. And I'm just not interested in a cartoon. Give me "Lord of the Rings", not "Bugs Bunny".

So, it is your opinion that this is a necessary requirement and that all roleplaying systems must be this way? You will brook no exceptions?? Really?? And yet...

This is, of course, a matter of opinion.

Ah - of course it is. That was my point. Those things are a necessity for roleplaying games that people with the same opinions as you will actually play. That's reasonable.

Actually, hit points work really well with "Hollywood logic".

As a complete aside, I think pretty much everything in 4E does "Hollywood logic" pretty darned well. But that's opinion, too

As for levels, the beauty of a level system is that it allows the game to handle different styles (or, dare I say, tiers) of play. There's no reason the game couldn't playing within the bounds of real-world possibility in the Heroic tier (to handle the Black Company and the like), provide a hyper-reality mode at the Paragon tier (Lord of the Rings, Batman), and then a more unreal mode in the Epic tier (Clash of the Titans, 300).

OK, but (a) none of those options keeps the same characters through each of several levels and (b) I don't think the key differences between them have anything to do with "level of realism".

A question for you: what level do you think Aragorn should be?

Aragorn shouldn't have a level. It's that simple. If he had, he would be stuck at it permanently - which would make it a "not really a level" (because he's obviously a player character, not a monster ). D&D is not well suited to roleplaying the Lord of the Rings, in my opinion - I would simply use a different system. Possibly HarnMaster.

Not really. The only conclusion I drew from my distaste of 4e is that I would welcome a (good) 5e.

OK, this goes back to the earlier thought that a more realistic (etc.) system is necessary for a roleplaying game that people with your opinion would play. So you assume that system is D&D 5E. Why? You have already effectively said that the condition is required only for a subset of gamers - so each system will fit only a subset of gamers - so why assume that the system that fits your subset has to be 5E?

I didn't call for 5e. Indeed, I believe any 5e in the next few years would be a mistake. However, I believe the nature of their business means that WotC will one day produce 5e. When that day comes, I would prefer 5e move (back) more towards my preferences. Of course I would!

If your preferences are "back" (i.e. previous editions of D&D), why not look for a development of an earlier edition, not a development of 4E (which suits a different subset of gamers?)

Because WotC won't produce two games - splitting their market that way would be a disaster.

The market is already split. It was split around 1980, I think it was, when a significant subset of gamers realised that AD&D did not do what they wanted an RPG to do. It has been split ever since, and the current splits are merely a continuation/development of that. When subsets of gamers want different games, nothing you do to try to shoehorn them all into one will work, in the longer term.

And if there's going to be one D&D, and I'm going to face an uphill battle finding players for any game that is not D&D, then of course I'm going to fight as hard as I can for D&D to take the form that best suits me!

And here lies the nub. So many gamers have become so convinced that "D&D is teh only FRPG!!" and thus see a need to fight like hell to bend it to their own preferences. If the split in the market is a perfectly natural result of different people wanting different things out of a game, the almost religious belief that "there is only D&D" and thus we must fight to (re)claim it as our own!" is the reason for the (current, past and doubtless future) hostility.

And yet this is a purely illusionary scarcity. Wars over scarce resources happen, but when there is an unlimited abundance of the resource to be had with a little imagination and a little work, suddenly the war looks pointless. Take a look around and you'll see the resource pile. It's immense.

 

[Dausuul]

I wouldn't get your hopes up on this score... because D&D Miniatures, Dungeon Tiles, and monster boxed sets that include Monster Tokens all appear to be good sellers for them. And they're especially useful to help fill out their publishing schedule. So they aren't going to produce a game that eliminates that need.

Um, you are aware that they canceled the entire D&D Miniatures line, right? And as far as I know, WotC is not selling monster tokens separately, so I doubt they're a big money-maker.

The way I read it (and I will add a disclaimer now that I have no insider knowledge here), 4E was designed when DDM was going like gangbusters; so they planned it as a miniatures-heavy edition, to help fuel DDM sales. But then oil prices went up, the economy went down, the skirmish game died, and hardcore gamers discovered they had every miniature they could possibly need. DDM was no longer a profit center... but the consequence of this was that WotC found itself supporting a game that demanded minis, when it no longer had minis to sell, which made attracting new players a challenge.

So, they started packaging tokens with the monster books--not as a profit center but as a stopgap. Maybe things will change by the time 5E is actually released, but as of now I think the incentives are in place for WotC to scale back its dependence on miniatures.

And here lies the nub. So many gamers have become so convinced that "D&D is teh only FRPG!!" and thus see a need to fight like hell to bend it to their own preferences. If the split in the market is a perfectly natural result of different people wanting different things out of a game, the almost religious belief that "there is only D&D" and thus we must fight to (re)claim it as our own!" is the reason for the (current, past and doubtless future) hostility.

Then I'll turn that around on you: Why must D&D remain as it is, at this present moment? After all, if you are perfectly happy with 4E, you can keep playing forever, just like the folks who are perfectly happy with 3E or 2E or 1E or BECMI or OD&D.

But WotC can't sell 4E forever; sooner or later, for their own corporate survival*, they have to release a new edition. So, I suggest that edition ought to be aimed at those of us who see much to like in 4E but are not fully happy with it, or those who stayed with 3E/Pathfinder but see things worthy of admiration in 4E, or even those who have been playing AD&D lo these many years and think maybe it's finally time to give a new edition a whirl.

Of course, as I said above, the reality is that WotC will design 5E to appeal to the largest possible segment of the player base. Thus, it behooves us all to speak out about what we want, so WotC will know what that is.

[size=-2]*Well, the survival of their RPG division. The company as a whole is doing just fine selling cardboard crack. D&D was always a bit of a sideline for them.[/size]

 

[Balesir]

Then I'll turn that around on you: Why must D&D remain as it is, at this present moment? After all, if you are perfectly happy with 4E, you can keep playing forever, just like the folks who are perfectly happy with 3E or 2E or 1E or BECMI or OD&D.

Yep, that's a very fair turnaround, but I think it misses slightly. I really don't actually want a new edition, and I'm not convinced one is needed if future progress is handled right (no sign, yet, but I live in hope). But, if a new edition is produced, I don't think forever escalating edition numbers is the way to go. Simply put, having D&D morph into different games that suit different styles of play and calling them simply "4th Edition" and "5th Edition" will just be confusing and obscurantic. Even "Fourth Edition" was arguably a mistake, given the degree of break with the previous "Editions". Much better to (try to) make the names descriptive of what focus of play they support (and, no, that's not "everything").

Ideal city would be some continuing support for "previous" versions - maybe they will finally have learned that from the current bruhaha...