Lurks-no-More
First Post
Too early to say, I think. Getting rid of the flesh-and-blood DM won't be happening, though; it's the thing no MMO or single-play game can't match.
Predict the Future: How will what we have today EVOLVE INTO 5th Edition?
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Things I'd do:
1) Look at all editions of D&D. What did they do, how did they do it, why? What where the complaints? Who complained? What can I learn from that?
2) Figure out where the market is heading to.
3) While still using the ideas of previous D&D editions, create a system that still differs enough from it so it doesn't just look like a knock off.
A few goals I personally would have
1) Ensure that the game stays manageable for beginners.
2) Present the rules in a way that benefits from minis, without requiring them as much. This is a tricky thing to do. I don't want to lose tactical depth in combats for the sake of mini-less combat, but I think that minis are a barrier to entry both for cost and the fact that some people just don't want to use them.
3) Use the power structures established in 4E, but see how they can be modified, possibly loosened up, without breaking the game.
4) Ensure that I "silo" stuff correctly. Don't make people do choices that they don't want to make. Don't force a player to choose between Craft (Basketweaving) and "Hit Enemies even Harder". Make him choose between Craft (Basketweaving) and Profession (Baker) and "Hit Enemies Harder" and "Enemies hit me less" instead.
5) Add more "elitist role-player" things (I am thinking of people like those Vampire fans that don't play D&D because it's not a real role-playing game). Stuff like "conviction" should augment rules for quests and skill challenges.
6) I like roles. I would keep them, but expand the concept for non-combat roles.
I see (thanks to discussions on EN World) two general approaches:
a) Transfer the combat roles to non-combat roles per "encounter type". This requires identifying the potential challenges and understanding what a "Striker" means in a wilderness travel challenge, in a social challenge and so on. One thing should be clear: Your combat role is not your non-combat role. A Rogue might be a Striker in combat, but he wouldn't have to be one during a wilderness travel (he might be a leader)
b) Just identify "adventure" roles. Everyone might be able to contribute to combat, but not everyone has to be able to contribute in a social challenge or in a mystery challenge. You would have roles like "Face", "Sage" and "Guide", perhaps also "Techie" (if that isn't the same as a Sage _and_ we can find a good fantasy name for it
)
I fear that a) might lead to creating a system for non-combat that looks to artificial and make non-combat scenarios too similar to combat. I am not sure this appeals to enough. b) Has the disadvantage of making certain activities not "party-"friendly, and this might make them less engaging and interesting as a whole, just again leading to the perceived focus on combat.
7) Monsters. I still find the idea of monster/PC transparency compelling, but if it can't be done with making them to complicated, I wouldn't try that.
I like Elites, Solos and Minions, and would try to get the problematic aspects out. Maybe ensure that Solos have more ways to stay interesting. Ensure that combat overall never gets "boring" thanks to reactive monster abilities.
8) "Lateral" advancement. Retraining can also be done without leveling, representing you focusing your training on something else. Maybe even allow learning more powers then you can use per encounter or day (similar to Wizards). Within a combat, you can still only use one level x power, even if you know three. This also makes it easier to implement something like "E6" - if you feel comfortable at level 10, don't add more XP and levels, just stop advancement and go sideways!
9) Definitely experiment with ways to remove to the pure "slot" concept of powers. Can we implement a "stunt"-like system without getting overcomplicated if trying to use this as a default way to activate powers? Can an approach like the Iron Heroes token system or generally a "power-up" method be made to work without breaking things? (I like the idea of casters spending actions to gather mana, for example, or martial types spending actions to maneuver themselves into a superior position. Can this work while still keeping the game simply _and_ still promoting teamplay?)
1) Look at all editions of D&D. What did they do, how did they do it, why? What where the complaints? Who complained? What can I learn from that?
2) Figure out where the market is heading to.
3) While still using the ideas of previous D&D editions, create a system that still differs enough from it so it doesn't just look like a knock off.
A few goals I personally would have
1) Ensure that the game stays manageable for beginners.
2) Present the rules in a way that benefits from minis, without requiring them as much. This is a tricky thing to do. I don't want to lose tactical depth in combats for the sake of mini-less combat, but I think that minis are a barrier to entry both for cost and the fact that some people just don't want to use them.
3) Use the power structures established in 4E, but see how they can be modified, possibly loosened up, without breaking the game.
4) Ensure that I "silo" stuff correctly. Don't make people do choices that they don't want to make. Don't force a player to choose between Craft (Basketweaving) and "Hit Enemies even Harder". Make him choose between Craft (Basketweaving) and Profession (Baker) and "Hit Enemies Harder" and "Enemies hit me less" instead.
5) Add more "elitist role-player" things (I am thinking of people like those Vampire fans that don't play D&D because it's not a real role-playing game). Stuff like "conviction" should augment rules for quests and skill challenges.
6) I like roles. I would keep them, but expand the concept for non-combat roles.
I see (thanks to discussions on EN World) two general approaches:
a) Transfer the combat roles to non-combat roles per "encounter type". This requires identifying the potential challenges and understanding what a "Striker" means in a wilderness travel challenge, in a social challenge and so on. One thing should be clear: Your combat role is not your non-combat role. A Rogue might be a Striker in combat, but he wouldn't have to be one during a wilderness travel (he might be a leader)
b) Just identify "adventure" roles. Everyone might be able to contribute to combat, but not everyone has to be able to contribute in a social challenge or in a mystery challenge. You would have roles like "Face", "Sage" and "Guide", perhaps also "Techie" (if that isn't the same as a Sage _and_ we can find a good fantasy name for it
)I fear that a) might lead to creating a system for non-combat that looks to artificial and make non-combat scenarios too similar to combat. I am not sure this appeals to enough. b) Has the disadvantage of making certain activities not "party-"friendly, and this might make them less engaging and interesting as a whole, just again leading to the perceived focus on combat.
7) Monsters. I still find the idea of monster/PC transparency compelling, but if it can't be done with making them to complicated, I wouldn't try that.
I like Elites, Solos and Minions, and would try to get the problematic aspects out. Maybe ensure that Solos have more ways to stay interesting. Ensure that combat overall never gets "boring" thanks to reactive monster abilities.
8) "Lateral" advancement. Retraining can also be done without leveling, representing you focusing your training on something else. Maybe even allow learning more powers then you can use per encounter or day (similar to Wizards). Within a combat, you can still only use one level x power, even if you know three. This also makes it easier to implement something like "E6" - if you feel comfortable at level 10, don't add more XP and levels, just stop advancement and go sideways!
9) Definitely experiment with ways to remove to the pure "slot" concept of powers. Can we implement a "stunt"-like system without getting overcomplicated if trying to use this as a default way to activate powers? Can an approach like the Iron Heroes token system or generally a "power-up" method be made to work without breaking things? (I like the idea of casters spending actions to gather mana, for example, or martial types spending actions to maneuver themselves into a superior position. Can this work while still keeping the game simply _and_ still promoting teamplay?)
Calico_Jack73
First Post
I don't know but frankly I think that 4E will be the last edition that I am going to keep up with. Besides, December 21st 2012 will be the end of the world according to the Mayan Calendar and I don't see 5E coming out before then. 
On a serious note I'd like to see a separation of feats. Have a pool of non-combat feats and a pool of combat feats. Every other level you get a non-combat feat that must be purchased from a list of non-combat oriented feats and the same for the combat feats. This removes the "need" to use EVERY feat to gear your character toward combat.
On a serious note I'd like to see a separation of feats. Have a pool of non-combat feats and a pool of combat feats. Every other level you get a non-combat feat that must be purchased from a list of non-combat oriented feats and the same for the combat feats. This removes the "need" to use EVERY feat to gear your character toward combat.
DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
With the "delve" format, though, I don't think DM-free D&D would really be that far off, should they choose to go in that direction. Of course, it might only work with published adventures - probably not as a base game tenet.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I find it interesting that there is so much speculation going on about a future edition this soon after a new edition release. I don't remember a lot of this going around immediately following the release of 2nd or 3rd editions. What does all this speculative interest mean anyway?
Calico_Jack73
First Post
I think people miss the sepeculation and discussion itself.
Example: I was a little depressed after the recent elections not because of the result but because my favorite watercooler topic wasn't really relevant anymore.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I don't know. Maybe it means that many people believe they can do better? Or that they think, after 3.0, 3.5. and 4E (and OGL projects like Pathfinder, Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, or D20 projects like d20 Modern) that a 5E is inevitable and they wonder how it could look like? Maybe the difference between 4E and 3E release in regards to EN World does show now, because this site was created for the 3E release and visited mostly by people interested in 3E, while now this site was a 3E dominated site and now turns into a 4E dominated one, with a lot of people in flux between both games and examining their options (go forward, go backward, go sidewards, stay where you are, try out everything)?
What do you think it means?
ExploderWizard
Hero
I think it means that gamers are slowly becoming more accustomed to shorter product/system life cycles. Computer games have thier resolution mechanics patched frequently, so perhaps PnP gamers might be more accepting of the principle now. Constant updates and errata are indications that a company cares about its system and wants it to be as good as they are able to make it. When a machine handles the resolution this works great. People constantly adjusting rules in order to be up to latest can be a bit more annoying.
The promise of the next build of mechanics brings new hope that the game might achieve that perfect balance that the previous edition almost had, but not quite. When precise balance becomes the Holy Grail of game design this is not unexpected.
This is good thing for game companies and gamers who are always questing for that grail. Players looking simply for some stability and longevity in a system, even if it means that some of balance must come from the players, can be left behind.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
That's an interesting thought. But I think that game balance is not the only motivator for change and "updates". If we would be more focused on "realism" or "simulation", we would also try to re-evaluate aspects. "Wait, being able to trip an Ooze, that's unrealistic, let's change the rules to cover for that, too".
I think it's more a general strive for perfection that leads to this.
I think trying to achieve it isn't wrong, but we have to accept that we "sometimes" (in fact always) have to settle for less and just ensure that we get the stuff that is really important for us (game balance, verisimilitude, character variety and what else we can come up with) well done and accept a few short-comings in other areas.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Yes. Add the fact that one person's perfection is another's complete horror and that there many degrees in-between and you have real good mess.
Similar Threads
