The Future of D&D

[AbdulAlhazred]

AbdulAlhazred, while I agree that the issues you've raised are "issues", in that they are design choices which can be debated as right or wrong, I don't seem them in any way invalidating 4e such that a 5e is required (either in the short term or the long term).

Well, required... there could be a number of reasons why a version roll could be required, OTOH 4e is obviously a playable game and I am not at all trying to suggest it HAS to be changed (or really even that it should be or will be) just that it COULD be and there are some things to be gained in some sense from doing so.

Indeed, just because a person might disagree with a particular design decision (such as scaling attack bonuses) doesn't mean that such a design decision dooms 4e. Indeed, given that other people actively support that design element, it could as easily be argued that a system which "fixes" these issues is just as doomed.

Right, which is why a discussion of the pros and cons is interesting. I don't think I necessarily would even say I 'disagree' with scaling attack bonus. It is easy enough to see what motivated its inclusion in the game, and it is often very difficult when designing any complex system to see the ramifications of various decisions ahead of time. I'd expect nobody even thought of the possibility of a flat to-hit, it is rather out in left field.

Instead, IMHO, the design elements that might eventually require a new edition are likely NOT those that cause the much debated inelligancies with the rules (feat taxes, etc.), but those which lead to 4e failing as a business endeavor. Because, lets face it, WotC will keep putting out 4e stuff until it either ceases to make a level of profit acceptable to it for 4e material and/or it feels it could make more profit with a new edition. Or it goes out of business/loses the lisence.

So, really, the design elements that I see as possibly dooming 4e are:

1. Options bloat - the more options you have, the less desire one has for more, especially if one cannot "turn off" options one doesn't want to look at - and can lead to not buying new product specifically because one doesn't want more options to sift through;

Less options is the answer to bloat, but where do many of those options originate from? They exist because it is necessary to maintain the sliding scale of attacks, or 'fix the math' in places where the scale didn't work as it should have. Certainly that isn't the only contributor to bloat, but every little bit adds up. You can't loose 50 pounds except one pound at a time, and you only lose by subtracting things. So the obvious strategy is to look for things to subtract. IMHO I found one.

2. Rules complexity - with exception based rules, one can eventually get too many exceptions to the exceptions such as to render play too complicated to be easily enjoyed (a threshold, of course, which differs from person to person - though I personally think that stealth is underutilized due to its rules complexity)

Yes, and again many of the additions and complexifications actually trace themselves back to the scaling to-hit bonus. I know this isn't clear until you really examine the game closely, but it actually is the case (again IMHO). There are all sorts of feats and other 'glue' elements of the game that exist simply to deal with odd corner cases where scaling fails or where people want to build characters that are not quite what the devs envisaged and fall off the scaling bandwagon (like for instance the ranged warlord build which only has to exist because every class can only viably use one stat for to-hit bonuses). The feats needed to make a bow using cleric, special items like Euphonic Bows, weaplements, and quite a lot of other such dross which actually adds very little to the game conceptually but has to exist simply so that you can acquire the right scaling. In fact pretty much every time a new concept comes along it has to be attached to a whole slew of mechanical baggage who's only real purpose is to provide the correct scaling. Thus scaling is responsible for a LARGE amount of the build-side complexity of the game.

3. A view of "core" vs. "non-core". Players/DMs are less likely to options that they see as peripheral to the game unless it matches their particular interest - the phenomenon that causes more PH1s to be sold than PH2s, and PH2s than Psionic Powers. This is also likely why the shift from the "power" books to the Heroes of the Shadow type books.

Now, with DDI, they may be able to reduce the negative effect of some of these, while possibly also increasing it (and indeed, for the same factor - for example, Character Builder makes one more aware of options bloat (as it puts all of the options directly in front of you) but can/could also ease it through how it organises those options.

As I say though, complexity, feature bloat, etc really (again IMHO) is right at the very core of what 'ails' 4e. It is a hugely heavyweight system with masses of 'glue' features who's main purpose is to deal with scaling. Why do primal classes all require special class features so they can wear light armor, AND added feats that (actually fail to) help fix the situation when even the class features didn't cut it?

I will totally agree that jettisoning scaling isn't going to magically cut out all the bloat, by any means, but it would vastly simplify class design, do away with a lot of cruft that has no other basic purpose except to fix something that doesn't need to exist, etc. You have to start somewhere, and without making some tweaks to the engine of 4e my contention is you could scrap every single class, item, pp, ed, feat, power, etc and start over and you'd still inevitably end up pretty much right back where you are now eventually.

Eh, anyway, I've hogged enough of this thread. Maybe I'll put one up somewhere where we can talk about it if people are interested. I'm sure there is plenty more that could be said on the subject.

 

[Redbadge]

FWIW, I removed half-level bonuses from attack, defenses, and all DCs in my latest Dark Sun campaign, and it is awesome. I use my own inherent bonus system, and the possible encounters are much wider (though not as wide as AA has suggested above.)

I also flattened the treasure/cost/wealth progression, and made rituals much, much cheaper, as well as easier and faster to cast.

Some of my work on attacks and defences without the half-level bonus is attached. If anyone has trouble reading the table and is interested, I can explain it. Basically, I want PCs and monsters to hit within a certain range of probability, but against a large range of possible challenges. This allows, for example, gnolls to be a challenge I can use against the PC from level one easily into mid paragon, without using the traditional RPG progression syndrome (this forest has bears, the next forest has dire bears, the forest after that has werebears, then doom bears, all the way up to fell and dread bears).

View attachment 4eMath.pdf

 

[Markn]

It is all just a matter of making damage and hit points scale properly

I just wanted to add that scaling damage has its issues too. It really has led to the HP bloat that 4e monsters have. Conversly, Look at 2e, damage didn't scale much (spells did but martial types were much less so). Monsters were able to have low amounts of HPs which lead to quicker fights and more vairety in fights.

On the whole, I agree with a lot of your ideas though.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Not at all, do you think your first level PC can win a fight against a level 12 dragon that is at least nominally doing DPH 20 vs his DPH of what, 10? That the dragons 500 hit points will run out before he monches the whole party? I doubt it. In any case these values can be adjusted somewhat if they aren't dead on, we are free to make some changes. The INTERESTING part is, that with this setup the low level party CAN do some appreciable damage to the dragon, whereas in the current system they can't even hit it at all.

I see what you are getting at and I could go along with it for heroic and paragon tier play but I think epic should be a step farther out.

Right, it is primarily driven by stat bumps, though as things have progressed other factors have come more to the front. Still, a PC with a skill in a non-bumping stat is going to fall so far behind they can barely even attempt hard tasks at high level. The new DC charts help, but it is still a royal PITA and makes group checks at high level sort of silly. Removing this issue allows for say a Perceptive Rogue without the player constantly needing to 'garden' his skill with feats/items/utilities (or take the unlikely step of boosting an otherwise useless stat). I mean if you made the choice to be good at something at level 1 you shouldn't have to constantly keep making that same choice again through levels, just let it stick.

I can see this as a feature rather than a bug. At high paragon and epic levels doing something at hard DC is not something every one should be doing. There is a reason these things become special characteristics of epic characters. I see what you are saying but there are legimitate reasons for doing otherwise.

... A 'solo' is just a much over leveled monster, which logically actually makes more sense and is just as playable. You can still design monsters to be used in specific types of encounters, so the CONCEPT of a 'solo' can certainly still exist, it just no longer needs special rules. Minions might still be special, but that's OK.

I really do not see this as so. A solo is more than an overleveld monster. An overleved monster can still hammered by the action economy is the pcs have any daze or stun effects. The key feature of solos is that they have sufficient actions to be a threat by matching the action economy of the party and a way of throwing off stunlocking.

....I think a flat to-hit would work fine.

Oh, I thimk it would be an interesting game, I could see myself interested in playing it. However, I also see merits in the route 4e went.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

snip


Yes, and again many of the additions and complexifications actually trace themselves back to the scaling to-hit bonus. I know this isn't clear until you really examine the game closely, but it actually is the case (again IMHO). There are all sorts of feats and other 'glue' elements of the game that exist simply to deal with odd corner cases where scaling fails or where people want to build characters that are not quite what the devs envisaged and fall off the scaling bandwagon (like for instance the ranged warlord build which only has to exist because every class can only viably use one stat for to-hit bonuses). The feats needed to make a bow using cleric, special items like Euphonic Bows, weaplements, and quite a lot of other such dross which actually adds very little to the game conceptually but has to exist simply so that you can acquire the right scaling. In fact pretty much every time a new concept comes along it has to be attached to a whole slew of mechanical baggage who's only real purpose is to provide the correct scaling. Thus scaling is responsible for a LARGE amount of the build-side complexity of the game.

See, I don't really agree with this paragraph. These things exist becasue of player demand allows WoTC to sell books.

Post essentials there were threads here in ENworld where people were bemoaning the fact that WoTC was not offering stuff so that people could spend the money burning a hole in their pocket.

WoTC from 3.0 onwards have made money from D&D by selling high crunch books at a pretty high rate.

There are 3078 feats in the compendium
There are over 8000 powers

This is traditionally how WoTC has made its money. I suspect that the problem is that it is not in the long run sustainable. Each new edition will create greater competition from past editions, unless the edition lifecycles are long but there is not enough revenue in the long tail to sustain long edition cycles.

Hence we have Wizards experimenting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I see what you are getting at and I could go along with it for heroic and paragon tier play but I think epic should be a step farther out.

Yeah, but I think there are a lot of ways to make Epic 'way out there'. I agree, it should be way out there. Honestly I think with vanilla 4e it kinda isn't as much way out there as it probably should be anyway.

I can see this as a feature rather than a bug. At high paragon and epic levels doing something at hard DC is not something every one should be doing. There is a reason these things become special characteristics of epic characters. I see what you are saying but there are legimitate reasons for doing otherwise.

Right. It bears thinking on. A few different possibilities exist I guess. One would be Mike's concept of making highly skilled characters capable of amazing feats with their trained skills ala skill powers or something similar. I'd imagine there would also be SOME degree of progression. You'd be able to become specialized, or there would be a tier based +2 or something to your skill bonus. Something that would not blow the variation too far out of proportion but would bump things just enough that say a lock you'd have no hope of picking at level 1 would be within your capabilities at level 30 or whatever. Anyway, I don't know. I suspect no system is perfect.

I really do not see this as so. A solo is more than an overleveld monster. An overleved monster can still hammered by the action economy is the pcs have any daze or stun effects. The key feature of solos is that they have sufficient actions to be a threat by matching the action economy of the party and a way of throwing off stunlocking.

I don't mean to imply that in terms of how you design a monster to be appropriate in different kinds of situations can't vary. There simply isn't a necessity to have a specific formula of 'soloness' because that primarily exists so you can have lots of hit points and action economy on a monster that is still hittable and doesn't have too high an attack bonus of its own. That aspect is dealt with automatically. Now, you are free to make a dragon that has the needed characteristics to take on 5 PCs by itself, but it doesn't need a special hit point progression etc. Feel free to call it a solo, and the game probably would still do that. I think it would be a bit more flexible in what you could do with it though than current monsters.

Oh, I thimk it would be an interesting game, I could see myself interested in playing it. However, I also see merits in the route 4e went.

I can understand the logic of why 4e did what it did. I just see a lot of issues with it too and wonder if it was really worth it.

See, I don't really agree with this paragraph. These things exist becasue of player demand allows WoTC to sell books.

Post essentials there were threads here in ENworld where people were bemoaning the fact that WoTC was not offering stuff so that people could spend the money burning a hole in their pocket.

WoTC from 3.0 onwards have made money from D&D by selling high crunch books at a pretty high rate.

There are 3078 feats in the compendium
There are over 8000 powers

This is traditionally how WoTC has made its money. I suspect that the problem is that it is not in the long run sustainable. Each new edition will create greater competition from past editions, unless the edition lifecycles are long but there is not enough revenue in the long tail to sustain long edition cycles.

Hence we have Wizards experimenting.

People are always wanting more crunch (and more fluff too for that matter). I don't think any game design is going to remove that desire, but a good generalized one can do away with a lot of redundancies. Things that only exist to make numbers line up, things that exist in 12 different variations simply because of other oddities of the rules, etc. I think careful enough game design could eliminate a lot of that, using 4e as a guide and seeing where the issues cropped up and avoiding them.

One thing I'd note on feats. Powers aren't such a big issue. The fact that there are 8000 of them is a bit silly IMHO but at any one time you only have at worst a few to deal with. During play you have the ones you've picked, and during character leveling/design you have the ones for your class at a given level. Feats on the other hand are nightmarish, you really have to know all of them in order to decide intelligently and for any given character at each even level you are faced with selecting the right one out of probably 2000 of them that are potentially valid. It is a ghastly horrible design which predictably promptly exploded as soon as they loaded 4e up with cruft.

Frankly I am not entirely convinced that the MOAR OPTIONS concept is really actually that good an idea in the long run for the game, neither the players nor the developers/owners. 1e AD&D existed for 12 years with an output of 1 book every 2-3 years and maybe 3-4 modules a year. TSR obviously made decent money off that game for a LONG time.

If it were up to me, that's the way I'd be going, maybe 1 new system book a year, some setting stuff, some adventures, leave the rest of the optional/marginal stuff to Dragon articles and have CB block it all unless you enable it. In any case I think they seriously need to reevaluate the long term playability of a game that is almost unplayable without digital aids. I am all for online tools, but a basic character should be doable in 5 minutes with paper and pencil.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

snip (a whole bunch of stuff I think we has discussed out).....


Frankly I am not entirely convinced that the MOAR OPTIONS concept is really actually that good an idea in the long run for the game, neither the players nor the developers/owners. 1e AD&D existed for 12 years with an output of 1 book every 2-3 years and maybe 3-4 modules a year. TSR obviously made decent money off that game for a LONG time.

AD&D was running of the back of an expanding market. D&D was fad or a mini fad at least. Its expansion was quite dramatic.
2e probably came out after that fad expansion peaked and produced dramatically more books. Aside from "realism" issues the wall of books was another reason I did not buy into D&D at the time.

If it were up to me, that's the way I'd be going, maybe 1 new system book a year, some setting stuff, some adventures, leave the rest of the optional/marginal stuff to Dragon articles and have CB block it all unless you enable it. In any case I think they seriously need to reevaluate the long term playability of a game that is almost unplayable without digital aids. I am all for online tools, but a basic character should be doable in 5 minutes with paper and pencil.

I do nto think this model is viable, unless you are selling something else.
Paizo could probably get away with it for Pathfinder as they were originally relying on subscription sales of AP's initially. So as long as they did not hire too many permenent staffers for Pathfinder development tyey could support Pathfinder on a pretty low (by WoTC standards) book output.

WoTC have traditionally made its money by churning out tons of books.

To support the couple of books a year model they need to be selling an subscription service compelling enough to gain subscribers that does not add a ton of crunch to the game. They are nowhere near that yet.
Even on their online subscription service they are stil ladding tons of crunch. Gleemax may have been an attempt to create such a service but its is not clear that WoTC had a clear strategic vision of what Gleemax was supposed to be.

On the other hand a VTT with a module mart that was expanded to support past editions could do the trick, for instance.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think DDI can, and is moving in the direction of, doing just that. Already it has a pretty decent subscriber base and it is hard to imagine that with 50k subscribers forking out something like $7 a month it isn't already a major source of cashflow. They may be plowing most of that back into developing it further, but with the low risk inherent to digital content and the fact that it represents a constant stream of cash it certainly seems to me that it represents the economic future of the game in some fashion. The thing is, it also simply gets better with time. There's always more content there, more tools, better tools, better integration, and clearly many opportunities to introduce new and compelling features like user content etc.

Once you have that you really don't need, or maybe even want, a large mass of printed books out there. You can continue to sell a series of rules references similar to some of the Essentials stuff, modules, and other support products. People's desires for more crunch can also be channeled into other things like niche products aimed at specific genres and settings which might not be viable physical products but can easily be tossed out on DDI where they need only help attract a small number of extra users to justify their existence. Whatever crunch is in those little gardens need not weigh down the core product, and if a specific element proves to be really successful and relevant to the larger game it is again really easy to rework it to apply to the whole core system.

And yes, AD&D was operating in a different sort of market, but there was still plenty of competition and it also wasn't always a steadily growing thing. There were downturns in the 80's and 90's too. You'll also note that the peaks of AD&D popularity corresponded rather closely with the release of additional material. There was a big bump around the time 2e was released in particular. So I'm not sure the same dynamics weren't at work back then. I think TSR simply didn't release core system books purely for the sake of a few more $s. They certainly DID release core books, but I think they did it when they thought it made the most sense and they were highly focused products for the most part. Oddly it was exactly when they started throwing new crunch out left and right in the later half of 2e where they hit the wall and died hard.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

@AbdubAlhazred, i don't really have anything new to add to the conversation but it was an interesting one, thanks.

 

[Oldtimer]

Maybe I'll put one up somewhere where we can talk about it if people are interested. I'm sure there is plenty more that could be said on the subject.

Yes, please do!