What if 5e is a board game?

[TheWriterFantastic™]

I could easily see D&D reverting to a Basic/Advanced split, but done effectively. Using the core of the system to set up a boardgame system similar to HeroQuest and the current D&D Adventure game as the Basic set to pull in new/casual players and board gamers, with expansions for those that want to play higher level characters with boardgame simple dungeon crawls. The Adventure Game system is selling well, warranting three sequel/expansion sets, so if done well, the "Basic" game can sell alongside the "Advanced" game, and hopefully encourage the players that want to play the more complex tactical and roleplaying "Advanced" version of the game, which would be an evolution of the current system.

 

[wingsandsword]

There will still be people online defending it as the "true" D&D, telling everyone else that they're not embracing progress or the future, that only a small vocal minority doesn't play boardgame D&D, and that no previous edition embraced D&D like the new boardgame D&D.

Heh.

Pretty much this.

No matter how much they change D&D, there will always be a group of fans who will wholeheartedly embrace it and claim this is the best ever, everything else wasn't fun, that everybody else isn't embracing progress, and that this new edition is incredibly popular and only a tiny noisy minority ever plays any old edition.

Horse hockey. People still play OD&D and Basic D&D. Lots of people still play 1e. Probably some people still playing 2e AD&D. Definitely lots playing 3e and it's derivaties. When 5e comes out some people will be playing 4e. All a completely new, incompatible edition ever does is split the base even more. It can hope to grow the player base enough that what was split off is not a huge loss, but that's a big gamble.

Personally, D&D as of 4e is dangerously close to being a "board game" as is, with all the forced-movement and short-duration incapacitation powers being a lot like board game rules of "move ahead 3 spaces" or "lose a turn", especially with the emphasis on pure rules and game mechanics over flavor and style (like classes being defined by "role" of "striker" "controller" ect. instead of what they do and what the actual in-setting concept it).

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think they should release Dungeons & Dragons: The Role-Paying Game and the board game Dungeons & Dragons: Fancy Sub-Title at the same time.

The RPG should be pen and paper based and the board game should have minis and counters. Both game types should have exactly the same game mechanics, but the style of writing could be differing. Also the RPGs could cover rules the board game needn't bother with.

The games could be used separately or in concert based on the customer's tastes.

Recently board games have become more complex and RPGs have become less complicated. Somewhere in the middle there is common ground.

Even thought there are miniatures and counters in the board game there is nothing stopping players from jotting down the same type of information on slips of paper. Naturally the RPG could feature hundreds of magic items and the board game can only sport a few there is nothing that says they can't use the same basic mechanics.

I got into the adventure game Caste Ravenloft and created some stuff for it. It was great fun. Somehow the adventure game didn't spawn the same kind of unbridled creativity as the RPG does. Yet, there was some demand for fan-based material. Now things seem to have died down. The "career" of CR was somewhat like a swan's laborous attempts to take flight and eventually it became clear that this particular swan would remain on the lake's surface. If only thera had been an RPG with the same mechanics to give the swan that final push.

And they need to get away from those children's books graphics.

 

[Pentius]

Pretty much this.

No matter how much they change D&D, there will always be a group of fans who will wholeheartedly embrace it and claim this is the best ever, everything else wasn't fun, that everybody else isn't embracing progress, and that this new edition is incredibly popular and only a tiny noisy minority ever plays any old edition.

Horse hockey. People still play OD&D and Basic D&D. Lots of people still play 1e. Probably some people still playing 2e AD&D. Definitely lots playing 3e and it's derivaties. When 5e comes out some people will be playing 4e. All a completely new, incompatible edition ever does is split the base even more. It can hope to grow the player base enough that what was split off is not a huge loss, but that's a big gamble.

Personally, D&D as of 4e is dangerously close to being a "board game" as is, with all the forced-movement and short-duration incapacitation powers being a lot like board game rules of "move ahead 3 spaces" or "lose a turn", especially with the emphasis on pure rules and game mechanics over flavor and style (like classes being defined by "role" of "striker" "controller" ect. instead of what they do and what the actual in-setting concept it).

Yeah, but again, this is the internet. For every possible viewpoint, there will be someone espousing it. Even if 5e is created because Gygax and Arneson are given to us on loan from Up High, and they combined all their wisdom and years of knowledge with a new muse of inspiration to give us a game system that was somehow objectively better than anything before, if opening the book resulted in a glowing nimbus of white light that healed all wounds and this miracle book was delivered to the door of any interested party in a timely manner and free of charge, then still there would be outraged blogs and forum posts claiming that Gygax and Arneson has lost their way, that they didn't want their lost leg restored, and that the wrapping for the book was in the wrong color, as well as the delivery person being somehow unsavory.

Again, this is the internet. No viewpoint, no claim is so terrible and irrational that it can't be found somewhere here.

 

[VacuumJockey]

There's an expansion for BattleLore called Heroes that essentially adds experience rules to what is at heart a boardgameified wargame. It's oriented towards giving cool powers and niblicks to the generals - if they survive their battles. Conceptually it's a lot like proto-D&D, when the Old Guys played it like a houseruled wargame. I could easily see a set of roleplaying rules added to that base (I don't think FFG intends to turn it into an RPG, though. They have Warhammer 3E for that).

Which is just to say that while I don't think that's the way WotC are going with D&D, the idea is not without merit. Original Traveller kinda went that way too with High Guard.

If a hypothetical future D&D was built like a face-to-face RPG (books, dice, sheets, no battlemap) and could be expanded with a fully compatible tactical wargame supplement (skirmish rules, minis, battlemaps) that could ideally also played as a stand-alone minis game... well, that would be a bit like AD&D 2E with the Skills and Powers book, wouldn't it?

I dunno if it would be good business sense, and I'm pretty sure it would backfire horribly and split the fanbase right down the middle, but that's what I would like to happen.

 

[Haltherrion]

Interesting thought although a big NO for me. If they do 5e, I want them to take the good from 4e and early systems. I like the direction but think the implementation leaves something to be desired (full disclosure: I ref a 4e game and like it well enough).

Part of my"NO" is that there are already some decent fantasy board games (Talisman, Prophecy, Smallworld, Runebound, etc.), I'd rather have WOTC focus on table top RPG and not another board game.