New Legends & Lore

[Mercurius]

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.

I agree with you that these elements don't have to be the focus of D&D, whether in the form of 4E or not, let alone all RPGs. However, I think D&D should at least be able to accommodate multiple styles and foci. The d20 engine is certainly flexible enough to handle just about anything one can imagine.

Another view is that the approach that I'm advocating--which theoretically produces an experience of greater immersion and connection to the imagination space environment--leads to a more satisfactory experience that one would want to come back to, versus one that is less immersing, more focused on "being fun," because it offers something (immersion within a shared imagination space) that no other related activity can quite manage, certainly no competing activities such MMOs and board games.

Ideally we can have our cake and eat it too, right? We can have a game that appeals to as many people as possible yet also is able to focus in on specific styles and different play experiences, all while capitalizing on the strengths and unique qualities of the medium. I would love for D&D to accommodate, for example, "off the farm" and gonzo fantasy; quick-and-deadly combat, but also intricately detailed tactical maneuvering; hundreds of spell options but also spontaneous casting. And so on. And of course the caveat should be, imo, that the primary "game table" is the imagination space, never something tangible with the senses. As soon as the sensory becomes the primary game space, it stops being an RPG in the traditional sense.

Now one could argue that most cutting edge RPGs have a rather tight focus; that the most aesthetically pleasing and sophisticated RPGs tend to be either tightly designed mechanically (with the common word being "elegant") and/or fused to a particular theme or setting. But D&D is meant to be played, not read, appreciated, and maybe tried out a few times before one moves onto the next Forge-born creation.

D&D is, and probably always will be, the most played RPG in the world. It should be (imo) both very simple at its core and capable of handling a substantial degree of complexity. And it should, as I said, retain the focus on the imagination space over the battlemap or any kind of virtual simulation.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I am aware they are not currently making D&D miniatures... just like I'm also aware they've said that that doesn't mean they won't go back to making more miniatures in the future if the cost to make them drops.

And yes, they do not currently sell monster tokens separately... but then again, the monster tokens are one of the main reasons why they are now packaging their monster books in boxes, rather just by themselves on the shelf. And in order to get people to buy the monster book in addition to waiting for the monsters to appear in DDI (as many people probably did)... they package the book with the representative tokens.

You eliminate tokens and miniatures from the next version of the game... you eliminate the main excuse for selling your monster book in a box... and you then lose more sales of your monster book.

And of course the final reason is that Dungeon Tiles are probably some of the cheapest product to make with the highest profit margin for their sales. So again... eliminating the grid and miniature aspect of the game in its next iteration seems unlikely to me.

 

[Mercurius]

You eliminate tokens and miniatures from the next version of the game... you eliminate the main excuse for selling your monster book in a box... and you then lose more sales of your monster book.

And of course the final reason is that Dungeon Tiles are probably some of the cheapest product to make with the highest profit margin for their sales. So again... eliminating the grid and miniature aspect of the game in its next iteration seems unlikely to me.

Why does it have to be either/or? Why couldn't the grid/miniature aspect of the game be optional?

One could say, "Because miniatures, tokens, and dungeon tiles are further sales for WotC." I'm not convinced that they would lose that many sales if they made a game less dependent upon the battlemap, especially if they had other offerings that people could use differently (DDI) or created a game that appealed to a broader fanbase.

This is, again, why I'm advocating a "telescopic" edition of D&D that could be played with a set of simple, core rules that would allow for quick combat (10-20 minutes) or more tactical, 4E-esque battles (an hour+).

An aside about "quick and deadly" combats: There was this video game that I would occasionally play called World Empire that was very similar to Risk. When one country attacked another, you would normally attack one army at a time - so if you win the enemy's army is reduced by one. There was also the option to "Blitz," which was an entire battle resolved in one or two presses of the button. It was a risk but it was quick. I'm wondering if D&D could incorporate some kind of "Blitz" combat? Just a thought.

 

[Incenjucar]

A 10 minute combat would be almost impossible unless it was basically roll d20 to kill a thing. It's not unusual for a player to spend 1 minute remembering which mini belongs to them.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

Having worked in market research, it is frequently an attempt by those requesting the polling (not necessarily those conducting the poll) to introduce a certain bias into the results. Mearls may not be guilty of such a thing so take it for what it is worth. He could be passing along a poll from higher up, or if he created the poll, the middle ground didn't occur to him.

Polls missing options (middle ground), or slanted toward an outcome always irk me no matter what they are about.

There is a request to email them if you think an option was missed (which I did think, and did respond).

 

[Dausuul]

I am aware they are not currently making D&D miniatures... just like I'm also aware they've said that that doesn't mean they won't go back to making more miniatures in the future if the cost to make them drops.

Of course they reserve the right to bring back the line if it becomes profitable again. But that doesn't come close to justifying a decision to build 5E around requiring minis. It's insane to lock yourself into heavy dependence on a business line that might maybe become profitable again, someday.

You eliminate tokens and miniatures from the next version of the game... you eliminate the main excuse for selling your monster book in a box... and you then lose more sales of your monster book.

If people buy more monster books when said books are in boxes, I fail to see why WotC needs any more justification than that to box 'em up. I rather doubt this is in fact the case.

And of course the final reason is that Dungeon Tiles are probably some of the cheapest product to make with the highest profit margin for their sales. So again... eliminating the grid and miniature aspect of the game in its next iteration seems unlikely to me.

Eliminating? Who said anything about eliminating? People have been playing D&D with minis since before it was D&D. The question is how much the game depends on minis. AD&D could be played with minis and often was, but lots of groups played without, including most of the ones I was in. I've never seen anyone play 4E without minis and battlemat.

As I said in a different thread: When miniatures are a big seller, miniatures dependence is a feature. When there's limited profit to be made on minis, that dependence is a bug. Right now, there's limited profit in minis and no particular reason to believe this is going to change any time soon.

A 10 minute combat would be almost impossible unless it was basically roll d20 to kill a thing. It's not unusual for a player to spend 1 minute remembering which mini belongs to them.

10-minute combats are quite easy in older editions if you're not using minis (if you are, the setup time puts a lower limit on how fast a fight can go). Of course, in many cases "roll d20 to kill a thing" is pretty close to what happens. When the magic-user got fireball, you could be rolling 5d6 to kill several things--no need to bother with a saving throw when the monster took twice its hit points in damage anyway.

You can achieve a similar effect in 4E by pitting the party against an equal number of minions. The problem is, 5 minions against 5 PCs is utterly pathetic and doesn't come close to justifying the time required to set up minis and battlemat. If the minions were able to drain some resources before they died, and if the game ran smoothly without minis, I think it could be made to work.

 

[Incenjucar]

The only reasons 3E and past editions had resource drain from those save-or-die combats was because everything that mattered was daily powers. I would love for combat to be faster, but not at the cost of combat no longer being complex and interesting.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Right now, there's limited profit in minis and no particular reason to believe this is going to change any time soon.

Hey, if you want to believe the next edition of the game does away with gridded combat, more power to you. I just think it's probably not going to happen.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Hey, if you want to believe the next edition of the game does away with gridded combat, more power to you. I just think it's probably not going to happen.

I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. I think he is suggesting that if things continue the way they have been, the designers would be wise to make the game less reliant on minis, not do away with them completely.

 

[delericho]

It's not unusual for a player to spend 1 minute remembering which mini belongs to them.

I've never heard a more damning indictment of the battlemat-centric mode of combat.