What direction will D&D head in?

[ProfessorCirno]

Combat in 4e is fun, there's no question of that. But I think that's less because of the Powers system and more to do with more abilities that do more things. It's the same way combat was more fun in my groups after Tome of Battle came out.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Combat in 4e is fun, there's no question of that. But I think that's less because of the Powers system and more to do with more abilities that do more things. It's the same way combat was more fun in my groups after Tome of Battle came out.

But Tome of Battle _did_ introduce a power system, and it's not that different from 4E ones - 4E just added at-wills and dailies. At-Will help to keep things interesting even if the encounter powers are expended, and dailies exist to allow a wider range of challenges and retain some limitations on how long characters go. (Though the latter was already achieved with Healing Surges...)

 

[xechnao]

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.

Well I disagree. IMO it is very much possible to make combat at least equally interesting than 4e AND at the same time cover roleplaying outside of combat in an interesting way mechanics wise.

 

[Tervin]

Well I disagree. IMO it is very much possible to make combat at least equally interesting than 4e AND at the same time cover roleplaying outside of combat in an interesting way mechanics wise.

Hmmm... I wasn't implying that what you suggest is impossible, rather that a good combat game would mean that people would feel less need to roleplay in order to have fun. So, logically, a bad combat game would help the roleplay.

In other words, I was joking. (I always feel bad when I have to point that out.)

 

[ProfessorCirno]

But Tome of Battle _did_ introduce a power system, and it's not that different from 4E ones - 4E just added at-wills and dailies. At-Will help to keep things interesting even if the encounter powers are expended, and dailies exist to allow a wider range of challenges and retain some limitations on how long characters go. (Though the latter was already achieved with Healing Surges...)

Thing is, each of the three classes in Tome of Battle had a different number of maneuvers they could learn, and different ways of calling them up. COMPLETELY different.

4e doesn't.

Combat is fun because it has more options, not because those options are tied to the Powers system. And if they hadn't built the game around the Powers system and allowed other types of move systems into the game, I think 4e combat would be even more fun.

 

[RFisher]

Where does this "4e has no roleplaying" come from? I've played a few 4e sessions and my group has had tons of roleplaying.

The rules for D&D have always seemed "combat focused" to me, mainly because that's the part of the game that needs mechanics to handle it, whereas roleplaying is almost entirely up to the players to control.

Yeah. I agree. Role-playing doesn’t need mechanics.

But here’s the thing for me: When my group has more rules for something, we like to use those rules. So, if there are more combat rules, the game will tend to be more combat focused.

3e and 4e have a lot of combat rules. Now, I’m not saying that’s a bad thing.

If we want less combat focus in a campaign, then it makes sense for us to choose a game with a simpler combat system. If we want more focus on combat in a campaign, then 3e and 4e become a more attractive choice.

People don't seem to understand that tactically interesting combat system and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive.

<shrug> People also don’t seem to understand that a tactically interesting combat system can only be 10 pages or less.

 

[Hussar]

For those who claim that 4e rewards roleplaying less than any other edition, can you please explain what rewards any earlier edition gave you for roleplaying?

As far as I can see:

1e - training rules punished you if you stepped outside of your role. The examples in the DMG, however, were almost exclusively combat related - a fighter who doesn't fight, a wizard who gets into melee.

2e - gave bonus xp based on class as an optional rule. The bonus xp was almost exclusively tied to combat - ex. Fighters gained bonus xp for killing stuff and that was the only bonus xp they could get.

3e - contained very vague rules for giving xp for roleplay encounters and then told you to remove that xp from combat encounters to balance things out. In other words, you had no net gain for roleplaying.

So, what how did the earlier editions reward roleplay?

4e has a number of mechanics that directly reward role play - skill challenges, quest rewards, just as two examples.

I'm really boggled by the idea that 4e is somehow less rewarding for roleplay considering it's the first time we've actually had mechanics that REWARD roleplay.

 

[Doug McCrae]

3e and 4e (4e to a greater extent) make it possible to play D&D with a very high percentage of session time devoted to combat - 60%, 70%, 80%. You couldn't do that in 1e and 2e, at least not with non-casters, because for non-casters combat was so uninteresting.

So d20 makes a new style of gameplay possible. Ofc you could still play it with much less combat, but you're no longer forced to by the system. In that sense one could say 4e encourages combat.

 

[haakon1]

My guess is that it can only become worse, where my tastes are concerned. My belief is that edition has been mostly driven by the marketing department, everything done in the hope it would sell more product to more people. Maybe they will achieve that goal, seeing all the people who like it.

It depends on profitability over the long haul.

It's been running about 55/45 in favor v. against around here.

In the short term, exciting 55% of the fan base into re-buying the same books will spike WOTC's revenue, leading to calls internally for "more like that".

In the long term, it remains to be seen whether the 45% who don't like the product will buy it in sufficient quantities or be replaced by sufficient new players to make 4th edition a success for more than the initial releases, or not. If not, D&D will likely either be under new management/new ownership (Paizo?) for the next edition, or drastically scaled-back/converted to other media (e.g., online only) to correct the bottom line.

And I for one welcome our new insect overlords . . .

 

[Cat Moon]

T steal a bit form Alternity & The Matrix I'd like to see a future version of DnD to be played through a Neural Interface (aka a Virtualnet).