What direction will D&D head in?

[Delta]

Question is, what will replace it? D&D Miniatures? D&DO2? DDI:Table Top? The Armageddon ? Nothing?

Me, I'm only interested in the P&P game. I'm sure the trademark will be applied to all sorts of other products in the future.

 

[ThirdWizard]

4e's design is not incompatible with roleplaying but it does not provide either something to promote it. I could very well be wrong but I think there are no substantial rules in the mechanics that tell you to and how to take into consideration aims, goals and actions of various organisms such as guilds, contacts, various groups of people (even the PC classes as NPCs) or even creatures. Same about environment, cultures or whatever.

Hey, it gives you more advice than 3e. But, if that's not enough, stealing liberally from other RPGs in this regard isn't too hard.

For example, I stole Shadowrun's Contact rules for my 3e game. Give them a certain number of points and they can have lots of low-loyalty contacts or a few high-loyalty ones. Then every level give them a certain number of points to work toward contacts. It's a great addition to any roleplaying game, and it can be used in any RPG without fuss.

There are a plethora of things like that out there. D&D has never been heavy on it, but one of the great things about roleplaying stuff like this is that it can be easily taken and moved around in a modular fashion from one RPG to another with no fuss.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Question is, what will replace it? D&D Miniatures? D&DO2? DDI:Table Top? The Armageddon ? Nothing?

Unknown Armies shall reign supreme! They all mocked me, yes, but I'll show them! I'll show them all! Ahahahhah! Ahaha! Ah hahaha haha!

 

[doctorhook]

Oh. I'm sure there will be a 4.5. They just won't call it that. You'll see the changes (rules override the previous rules, for example) in the subsequent PH, DMG, etc. that come out once per year (if they follow their original plan). As for seeing books that say 4.5? Nope. Not likely. But there will be a 4.5 for sure.

I think you're right, but then, what's wrong with revision? There was never a "2.5E AD&D" but there certainly was a "Revised 2nd Edition AD&D".

I've said this before: Personally, I'd rather have four or five years of quality publications capped by a "Revised 4E" than suffer ten years of poorly balanced, poorly written, and poorly edited splat.

(OK, maybe 2nd Edition isn't the best example of "avoiding ten years of poorly balanced splat". )

At any rate, if D&D continues on the road it [appears to be] on, that's just fine with me. DDM paint/sculpt quality, OTOH....

 

[CountPopeula]

I don't think D&D has ever been about roleplaying the way Vampire is supposed to be. It's true that everyone plays the game how they want, but D&D has always essentially been about "kill the orc, take his pie." All that's really changed is the method in which you use to take said pie. It's an action-adventure game at its core.

That said, I don't think it's fair to say move BACK to a "more roleplaying, less combat focused" system. Any such move would be the first such move in said direction.

 

[Najo]

I like to second the comments about 4e being more roleplaying focused than previous versions of D&D. Yes, the game is a bit more abstract with gamist elements. But as a whole many of these elements lend to a faster playing, more cinematic game that works better with roleplaying than the simulationist approach.

Skill challenges
Minions
Quests
Monster streamlining and special rules
More feats
DMG Dm advice
More tactical group combat
Exception based game mechanics
Rituals
Skill Streamlining

I can go on and on...

All of these 4e elements make for a great game, that encourages roleplaying.

I took the rules compendium the other day, and compared it piece by piece with the 4e rules for each piece and hands down 4e was better and easier to use with nearly the same depth of results, and sometimes even more.

The few things 4e doesn't do, can easily be added with a feat or class utility power. All in all, the naysayers who attack 4e and haven't played it are really missing out on easily the best edition of D&D yet.

I would like anyone knocking 4e to at least give it a fair shot before they speak with authority on the matter of whether or not D&D 4e is a good game.

 

[Najo]

My group seems a bit reluctant to try 4e, and have suggested waiting for 4.5 or 5e to see if it heads back in a "more roleplaying, less combat focused" direction. Personally, I don't think it will... I think it will continue on the path it's on, with a heavy focus on combat powers and relatively few utility powers and rituals in future editions, though inevitably supplements will expand the number of rituals (and possibly introduce some classes with more Utility powers than Attack powers).

What do you guys think? Where do you think it's headed? Any experience in using 4e with a group heavily focused on roleplaying and social encounters, with maybe 1 combat every 3-4 game sessions, and how well did it work?

I think you and your group should actually play D&D 4e before you judge it as not roleplaying enough. I personally amy a huge roleplayer, who avoids hack and slay/ dungeon crawl styles of play and am loving 4e and will never go back to a previous edition of the game.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I would like anyone knocking 4e to at least give it a fair shot before they speak with authority on the matter of whether or not D&D 4e is a good game.

Ok. I played 4e. I don't think it's as good for roleplaying due to it's "don't ask don't tell" approach to anything involving simulationism.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I have almost no love for 4Ed, I really don't see how its mechanics could affect roleplay to the point of elimination unless the DM is running a combat-happy campaign that doesn't lend itself to roleplay.

After all, roleplay is a state of mind.

My guess is that...(b)y 8e, the Tarasque will be completely unrecognizeable from a dire bunny of similar hyper-level, dragons will poop marshmallows...

I have my vat of hot chocolate ready for the marshmallow fewmets!

In all seriousness, I can see a continued trend towards video-game type mechanics- by which I mean not just things like WoW, but also things like Tekken- which will ultimately be seen as something of a dead end since video games will simply do it better. Probably even cheaper and faster, as well.

This will lead either to the death of the P&P version of D&D as a viable commercial product or a design overhaul that emphasizes things that computer games don't (and probably never will) do well.

 

[Tervin]

I could just chime in with people saying that for my style of roleplay, this new edition is no way worse than old editions. The way it feels right now though (with limited experience), I have something to add.

Combats in 4E are more fun to me than they used to be. It could just be the novelty thing, or it could be that the system is built for the kind of dynamic combat that I love.

If combats are more fun in 4E, then people might put more emphasis on them. Also, people with little experience of character role play have an easier time having fun in 4E than in earlier editions, since the combat is more varied and exciting. These kinds of things can lead to D&D being more about combat and less about the personalities of the heroes.

The only solution I see is to go scrap the combat system, and replace it with something boring, or even better something so ambiguous and poorly written that people will have to freeform part of their fighting. So lets go play Chivalry & Sorcery!*

*To be replaced by your choice of old game system that you wish you could forget that it existed.