D&D 5E Why (and how) 5E can succeed

[Sage Genesis]

6. To many 4Eisms. Damage on a miss, hit dice based healing, game mode being easy by default, scaling at wills etc.

It should be noted that others, such as myself, dislike hit dice based healing because it isn't like 4e. I don't mean the randomness aspect of a die, I mean first that all healing in 4e is built with the healing surge framework in mind. Healing scales primarily as a percentage of the recipient, whereas hit dice don't. You do get more hit dice, but that's not the same thing because a Cure Light Wounds doesn't scale up based on who you cast it on. Which takes me to my second objection, namely that 4e healing surges are a limit on how much you can be healed per day. In contrast, a Next character could (in theory) drink healing potions all day long and keep recovering health every time. But a 4e character could simply not do that because most magical healing is just an advance on your natural recovery, with "true" and surge-less healing being relatively uncommon. At some point he'd catch an arrow, reach for a potion, drink it... and find nothing happens. Even magic has its limits.

 

[DEFCON 1]

5E will succeed because in a few months it will be released to the public, a whole heap of books will be sold, WotC will make money off the game and be able to keep their lights on in the D&D department... then in a few years time they'll start working on another edition. And the sequence will repeat ad nauseum. Which is why 4E succeeded... which is why 3.5 succeeded... and which is why 3E succeeded. So on and so forth.

If the game is still being produced, then the edition has succeeded. The only time we'll be able to say the game has irrevocably failed is when it's done so horribly that the RPG line itself is shut down completely, rather than WotC spend the time and cash to produce another edition.

Any other talk is nothing more than opinions on whether the person liked the game or not.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

My 1st D&D was BECMI but the 1st books I owned were 1st ed OA, UA,DMG, FF and the MM. No PHB so I learnt the D&D fluff 1st 20+ years ago. And Eye of the Beholder 1&2 on the Amiga.

D&DN fails at being D&D for me for the following reasons though.

1. No real vancian spell casting. We have refluffed 4E daily powers.

While I don't agree, I can see why. Casters get fewer spells per day in D&DN than in previous editions (except 4e) and they get at-wills as well. I don't see this as a negative, and I'm someone critical of D&DN.

2. All classes have the same proficiency bonus. From BECMI-3rd ed the classes had different THACOs/BAB etc.

True. This doesn't bother me because fighters are still the best at melee fighting. (Although the messed up druid rules cause me to wonder if druids are the best fighter.)

3. Saving throws being ability based. Last I looked 3 saves were less complicated than 6. Saves being weak in general and back to 3rd eds +6 difference between a good and bad save, OSR it is generally 1-3 points between a good and bad save.

I agree with all of that. Generally only Fort/Ref/Will comes up, but I can't imagine why a game designer thinks an Int saving throw is a good idea when mooks include things like owlbears.

4. BA and weak monsters. OSR monsters are kind of weak as well but they have AC 0 to -10 or 20-30 ACs at least.

I'm more worried about monster attack bonuses. AC doesn't scale when you're a fighter but does when you're a rogue. Good luck getting a monster who can challenge one but not the other.

5. To much complexity, see the fighter class. I want a nice and basic fighter that is effective. Think ACKs or the 2nd ed fighter with some splat material for examples.

D&DN was supposed to start with an "easy mode" fighter and have a module for a more complex one. That didn't last. I'm not sure why, but it could be that "easy mode" fighters are much less popular than WotC thought.

6. To many 4Eisms. Damage on a miss, hit dice based healing, game mode being easy by default, scaling at wills etc.

Most of those aren't 4eisms. Hit Dice have very little in common with healing surges, and especially at low level they return the playstyle of "huddle in town for three days to heal up" at low-level... which IMO is a negative. Game mode being "easy" by default is something many fans are looking for. At-wills hardly scale in 4e.

7. Game was really only fun at level 1-3, math started falling apart at level 5+. Game runs even worse than AD&D at level 15, players asked to stop playing it.

I'm not surprised. They didn't build the base properly, so when you add stuff to it it becomes unstable and then falls apart.

Those are the main problems I have ATM. To many dead sacred cows IMHO. Also I can't find local players as my playtest group has rejected it i favor of PF/clone/homebrew and the local RPG club has dismissed it as 4.5.

I think it has more sacred cows than 4e. I'm not surprised you can't find players; my group quit after one session.

Is this actually true? I still haven't played Next and only given the rules a cursory glance, but plan on playing in about a month so will go more deeply into them soon.

If Vancian + at-wills means not Vancian, then yes. Casters don't have to rely on throwing darts or crossbows when they've used their good spells.

I'm assuming that there's still differentiation so that fighters are still better at weapons, etc. So isn't the the end result the same as having different BAB?

Yes, I think that was a complaint about terminology rather than the game itself.

I actually really like the three saves and was a bit miffed about losing Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. In other words, I prefer the stylistically, although find that they aren't really necessary mechanically and just add an extra layer (e.g. Will = Wisdom save). So it isn't so simple as 3 saves being less complicated than 6; in actuality, its 6 scores (abilities) are less complicated than 9 (abilities + saves).

I'm a bit confused by what you mean here. I had to wake up early and my brain cells are going on strike

I'm still unclear on bounded accuracy. As for monsters, I think we won't know until we get the actual rules.

The mathematical foundation is incomplete and WotC cannot predict PC attacks and defenses... so there's no way to balance monsters. Sure DMs can modify monsters to taste, but that's more work for the DM.

This is the first I've heard of any aspect of Next being too complex. My guess is that they opened a bag with 3E and especially 4E that can't (or shouldn't) be entirely closed: non-spellcasters having more options. If Next can, for non-spellcasters, keep the baby (options) while throwing out the bathwater (gamey powers) I'll be happy.

They started off with very simple one-dimensional fighters, and after playtester anger they added a dollop of 4e to the fighter. 4e fighters are popular because they're not simple. 4e fighters are unpopular for exactly the same reason. I don't ever want to play a fighter whose only mechanically-supported option is "hit to attack with higher numbers".

For me these are good things. Why? Because I liked a lot about 4E - including healing surge, and especially easy DM set-up. Damage on a miss makes sense for things like fireball, which you'd have to really miss to not do any damage with. if "miss" means mis-cast, that's another thing, but I think that would be a critical miss. I can't remember how it worked in 4E, but I could easily see damage on a miss on a natural 1 being negated. Hmm...maybe my first Next house rule?

There were complaints about the fighter ability to do damage on a miss a while back. Very angry and strenuous complaints. That was after I was done testing 5e so I couldn't talk about it in practice. Also the thread's temperature was too high to really engage in. However, unlike Fireballs, fighters can do damage on a miss at-will, so at least for flavor reasons there's a valid complaint.

Hit Dice aren't much like Healing Surges. They're smaller, you get far fewer, leaving you very dependent on magical out-of-combat healing (from the cleric's limited pool, so the cleric is one again spending their resources rather than the wounded PC), and in-combat healing is either minimal (Healing Word) or takes your whole action (Cure Light Wounds; it's touch, so unless you're right next to the wounded ally you need to spend a move to get to them).

Due to slow out-of-combat healing, every single cleric should take the potion making specialty. Not good. Also, every party needs a divine spellcaster again, because out-of-combat healing is so slow.

Again, you're talking about the playtest. Let's see how it actually plays when the finished rules come out.

WotC said the ruleset is largely complete, and of course they're not asking us for advice anymore. I've done playtesting before, and IME the rules will not significantly change by this point. Stuff that was written after playtesting stopped and appearing in the final product are often unbalanced (in an "easy-to-solve" way too). So worries about core weaknesses in the rules are appropriate. At minimum expect lots of errata.

I honestly don't see a slaughter yard of sacred cows.

Neither do I. I think a few of 4e's dead cattle were resurrected, but some of 2e's dead cattle were left in the ground.

 

[Li Shenron]

That is looking into the past, not future.

I meant, ignoring the OP's (long) part about the faults of previous editions.

 

[Li Shenron]

If the game is still being produced, then the edition has succeeded. The only time we'll be able to say the game has irrevocably failed is when it's done so horribly that the RPG line itself is shut down completely, rather than WotC spend the time and cash to produce another edition.

Or, it might (theoretically) one day be done so flawlessy that it would need no updates ever. It would never happen, but if it did (purposefully or accidentally) would that be a success or a failure?

There are obviously different concepts of success, even financially.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or, it might (theoretically) one day be done so flawlessy that it would need no updates ever. It would never happen, but if it did (purposefully or accidentally) would that be a success or a failure?

As you state, it would never happen. Thus categorizing this mythical event as "success" or "failure" is not possible nor necessary.

 

[Mercurius]

5E will succeed because in a few months it will be released to the public, a whole heap of books will be sold, WotC will make money off the game and be able to keep their lights on in the D&D department... then in a few years time they'll start working on another edition. And the sequence will repeat ad nauseum. Which is why 4E succeeded... which is why 3.5 succeeded... and which is why 3E succeeded. So on and so forth.

If the game is still being produced, then the edition has succeeded. The only time we'll be able to say the game has irrevocably failed is when it's done so horribly that the RPG line itself is shut down completely, rather than WotC spend the time and cash to produce another edition.

Any other talk is nothing more than opinions on whether the person liked the game or not.

Gotta disagree with you here, especially the last sentence which is simply wrong, at least based upon my opinion of my own thought process and motivations, although you could, I suppose, be more privy to the truth of my internal mindspace than I

Furthermore, there's a spectrum of how successful an edition is. I think we can safely say that 4E was not as successful as previous editions in that the edition cycle was only four years, and less really if you think about the period of active support. Success has to be more than just initial sales or how much some people like it; it should be reflected in sustainability and the overall health of the community.

By your logic we could say that there's no difference in success in retail as long as the product is sold. But what about long-term sustainability and getting customers to return? Sure, 4E sold a ton of books in the first year or two, but it didn't last.

Now of course all editions will run their course. I don't think its possible that there will ever be "one edition to rule them all" - at least I hope there won't be! I personally like the evolution of the game; I started with 1E and happily converted to 2E, 3E, 3.5, and 4E - and am looking forward to 5E. But I think there's a sweetspot in an edition cycle, and it is certainly more than 4 years. Maybe, in this era, it is not as long as 1E was - 12 years. How about 8 years? That's about what 3.X was and it seemed people were split - some wanted to move on, some didn't. But if 8 is questionable 4 years is just...well, not good. It means "something went wrong" and that statement isn't about whether I personally liked the game, but to what degree the community embraced it.

 

[steeldragons]

There are several...and divergent...elements to take into account here. Some are temporal...some are generational...some are something else entirely. D&D...or any other element of culture, does not live in a vacuum.

I have a story similar to yours, @Mercurius and many others here in EN World. But, we are not 8-14 any more. What created that automatic sense of wonder, that "this is what D&D is to me" feel, is not the same now as when I was 10, picking up the Basic set for the first time. Just as watching the Hobbit movies does not inspire the same feeling as reading the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings for the first time when I was 10-12ish.

I like them both...still...but in a sense of different ways that simply come from being at a different place in one's life. I do not know that 5e can really, truly, account for that feeling of 30 years ago or, for that matter, the feeling I get/have now. All they can do, with marketing research and a goal/aimed demographic, is appeal to whatever age they are shooting for. Which brings us to my next, larger point...

The other thing, that is completely a different account than when we [you and I and many others here] were first introduced to D&D and rpg's, is that...the generation coming up now (assuming they want a 10-14 age entry), indeed an entire generation BEFORE now, have grown up with computers...with the internet...with video games...and indeed, with anime as an aesthetic influence. With Pokegatchadigimon and Mighty Mor-choke*gag*-phin Power Rangers and Harry Potter.

I mean, my exposure to anime back in the day was entitled "Battle of the Planets." Something about "G-Force" and a team of 5 in bird outfits and various vehicles...and then Voltron, of course. There was no understanding, on the coast of Lake Erie in northern Ohio, that it was something called "anime." But there are two generations of "kids", some of whom are now adults, who thrive on "anime."

There are generations of people who grew up with, know, and aesthetically "love" video games and MMOs. That is what they think, like and expect from a "Fantasy RPG." I'm not saying it's "right" or "wrong." But it, undeniably, "is."

Where are WotC crosshairs focused? We don't, objectively, really know. They might have an aim to get the current [3e and later] rpg fandom interested in the "how it used to be feel." I think this is a great objective. But I can not say it will be "good" in general for the hobby or, automatically, make 5e a success. Furthermore, for those that WANT that, young and old, new and experienced gamers alike, there is now the heavily pollinated "OSR."

Or their aim might be focused on the "getting the 30's+, they lost, BACK" since they have the disposable income and in today's computer age have [in theory] MORE free time than ever before, and are willing to spend that kids and [most] teens don't have to spend on themselves.

My boyfriend is 14 years younger than I am...and other than the LotR movies, he didn't know from the books. The Conan movies? "That's what Arnold Shwarzenaeger was in, right?" Not any concept of Howard. Not any knowledge of something called "pulp fantasy." Ask some people, who like "fantasy stuff" (like LotR or Harry Potter movies or even *gag*choke* Twilight) about the movies "Excaliber" or "The Princess Bride" or David Eddings.

[EDIT] Ok, the Princess Bride, maaaaybe, but ask them about "Time Bandits" or "Legend" or Monty Python's Holy Grail...[/EDIT]

My point? There is a distinct and unavoidable difference in the sensibilities and aesthetic preferences of those of a certain age, multiple generations now, from what D&D was originally and the glory and power and inspirational "wow" that was 30+ years ago. It's all at the touch of a "google" and a click now.

We have no choice but to acknowledge and accept it.

Why and how 5e be a success? That completely depends on where WotC sets their sites. What is it they are shooting for? Where do they think they will get the best return?

Maybe they'll "hit". Maybe they'll get a bullseye. Maybe they'll completely miss the mark. It is doubtful they will achieve the ultimate "fad" they had in the 80s because that sort of "wow" simply doesn't exist anymore. The "wow" is .5 seconds on Facebook and twitter before the next "wow" thing gets posted. That, for better or worse, is the culture in which they have to operate and [attempt to] make decisions.

I don't really have any answers. I am simply acknowledging the culture, in the broad sense, will have an impact for greater than any supposition or [unfortunately] "hopes" we here possess.

Happy 2014 all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Gotta disagree with you here, especially the last sentence which is simply wrong, at least based upon my opinion of my own thought process and motivations, although you could, I suppose, be more privy to the truth of my internal mindspace than I

Furthermore, there's a spectrum of how successful an edition is. I think we can safely say that 4E was not as successful as previous editions in that the edition cycle was only four years, and less really if you think about the period of active support. Success has to be more than just initial sales or how much some people like it; it should be reflected in sustainability and the overall health of the community.

By your logic we could say that there's no difference in success in retail as long as the product is sold. But what about long-term sustainability and getting customers to return? Sure, 4E sold a ton of books in the first year or two, but it didn't last.

Now of course all editions will run their course. I don't think its possible that there will ever be "one edition to rule them all" - at least I hope there won't be! I personally like the evolution of the game; I started with 1E and happily converted to 2E, 3E, 3.5, and 4E - and am looking forward to 5E. But I think there's a sweetspot in an edition cycle, and it is certainly more than 4 years. Maybe, in this era, it is not as long as 1E was - 12 years. How about 8 years? That's about what 3.X was and it seemed people were split - some wanted to move on, some didn't. But if 8 is questionable 4 years is just...well, not good. It means "something went wrong" and that statement isn't about whether I personally liked the game, but to what degree the community embraced it.

You said in your original post:

"The full title was going to be "Why (and how) 5E can succeed in ways that 4E failed" but I didn't want this to be construed as an edition war thread. I am not meaning to criticize the quality of any specific edition except insofar as the health and vitality of the community that is built around it. The fact that 5E was announced three and a half years after 4E was published speaks volumes to this failure."

You were suggesting 4E failed. You weren't talking "degrees of success"... you out-and-out was saying you thought 4E FAILED as an edition. To which I say HOGWASH.

Had you originally said (as you mentioned above in your reply to me) "I think we can safely say that 4E was not as successful as previous editions in that the edition cycle was only four years, and less really if you think about the period of active support." I wouldn't have said anything. Because your statement could possibly be true based on just outsider perspective... but which there's no way to confirm or deny that as we have no numbers to tell us how much the edition actually made.

But you did not say that. To which my reply still stands: Anything you produce that makes you money, keeps your business open, and allows you to continue to do business is a success. That which does not can be considered a failure.

 

[steeldragons]

You were suggesting 4E failed. You weren't talking "degrees of success"... you out-and-out was saying you thought 4E FAILED as an edition. To which I say HOGWASH.

Fine. "Hogwash" has been said.

Had you originally said (as you mentioned above in your reply to me) "I think we can safely say that 4E was not as successful as previous editions in that the edition cycle was only four years, and less really if you think about the period of active support." I wouldn't have said anything.

But really, Defcon1, is this not splitting hairs twice? Finding fault where there isn't any intended?

Because your statement could possibly be true based on just outsider perspective... but which there's no way to confirm or deny that as we have no numbers to tell us how much the edition actually made.

Right. But, didn't he basically say the same thing? Is there really a need to argue about this level of semantics?

But you did not say that. To which my reply still stands: Anything you produce that makes you money, keeps your business open, and allows you to continue to do business is a success. That which does not can be considered a failure.

This is true. And I agree. But I think, mayhaps, nits are being picked where they aren't or needn't be. But that is just one Steel Dragon's outside/onlooker's opinion.