# Is it time for 5E?



## CleverNickName (Jan 4, 2011)

(Preface: this thread is meant to be optimistic.)

The game is changing.  I mean, sure, it is always changing.  But this time it feels like it's more than just the ebb and flow of popular opinion and personal preferences.  Maybe it's all in my head, but it feels a lot like the days before 4E was announced.  So I wonder...is the time ripe for 5E?

Understand, this has nothing to do with liking/not liking 4E.  Trek with me for a minute.

Back in 2003-2006, 3E/3.5E had been out for a few years and the hobby was enjoying a new surge in popularity.  New books were being released at a healthy rate, and the rules began to change with them.  Psionics Handbook.  Epic Level Handbook.  Savage Species.  The Book of Nine Swords.  Games played with these "optional" books were completely different from "core only" games, and not just in the Look & Feel category.  It was only a matter of time until all of these new rules split off from their parent game, and became something new.

And split they did.  The best elements of all of the "optional" books were collected and compiled, and a lot of customer feedback was gathered and shaped.  The 4th Edition of the rules was announced, then released.  And whether you love it, hate it, or have never even played it, you cannot deny that it has been a success.

Well, it is beginning to feel like 2006 again, at least from my point of view.  Each new book released by WotC seems to include new rules and different approaches to game mechanics, just like in the later days of 3.5E.  Not just simple add-ons like new equipment and powers...the rules themselves are changing, evolving.  I think the time might be ripe for these rules to follow 4E's fine example, and split off into a new edition.  If not now, certainly soon.

Thoughts?


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2011)

Let's pull out the "magic 8 ball".


----------



## Maggan (Jan 4, 2011)

CleverNickName said:


> So I wonder...is the time ripe for 5E?




No. WotC still needs to see how the combination of DDI and D&D Essentials plays out commercially. DDI would be such an integral part of 5E (at least that's what I would do) that they need to hammer that down before even thinking of changing to 5E.

I think we might see splinters of D&D4, like the Ravenloft RPG, that does experimentaion with mechanics, but no outright new 5e edition.



CleverNickName said:


> The 4th Edition of the rules was announced, then released.  And whether you love it or hate it, you cannot deny that it has been a success.




Heh, you crack me up! 

Cheers

/M


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 4, 2011)

ggroy said:


> Let's pull out the "magic 8 ball".



An excellent idea...







Interesting...


----------



## delericho (Jan 4, 2011)

It's way too early for 5e.

And I say that despite also saying that nothing short of 5e can bring me back as a WotC customer. (I enjoy 4e... as a player. I won't run it. And I don't spend money on a game unless I intend on running it. And so, WotC lost the last of my custom when they ended SWSE.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 4, 2011)

delericho said:


> it's way too early for 5e.
> 
> And i say that despite also saying that nothing short of 5e can bring me back as a wotc customer.




+1.

They might have gotten away with 5e pre-Essentials, but they sure as heck should stay out of that water now.  And, very likely, they wouldn't have done well with 5e pre-Essentials either.

IMHO, 5e is another 2-3 years away.


RC


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 4, 2011)

delericho said:


> It's way too early for 5e.



But why?  It doesn't seem terribly unrealistic to think that WotC is already developing a 5th Edition, given the amount of time that 4E has been on the market and the recent developments in game materials.  It all feels familiar...and not in a bad way.



Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, 5e is another 2-3 years away.



If it comes at all.  :-/  Still, I wouldn't be too surprised if it were announced later this year.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 4, 2011)

CleverNickName said:


> But why?




Consumer confidence.

If 5e came out soon, it would make too many folks imagine that 6e would come out soon as well, and simply wait for that edition.

IMHO, anyway.  For what little that opinion is worth!!!  


RC


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2011)

CleverNickName said:


> But why?  It doesn't seem terribly unrealistic to think that WotC is already developing a 5th Edition, given the amount of time that 4E has been on the market and the recent developments in game materials.  It all feels familiar...and not in a bad way.




It took them around 3 years to produce 4E from inception to the release date of the 4E PHB1.  (This is documented in the book "[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Presents-Classes-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786948019"]Wizards Presents:  Races and Classes[/ame]" on pages 8 and 9).

In the case of 4E Essentials, it took them around a year from inception to the release date.  (This is mentioned in the WotC D&D July podcast, at around 50 seconds into the podcast).


Based on these precedents, if 5E D&D turns out to be a drastically different design than any previous D&D editions, then most likely it would take around 3 years from inception to release date.  If they're releasing such a 5E D&D next year (2012), then the design work would have started sometime in 2009.

If 5E D&D turns out to be a "rush job" and/or a small change from 4E or 4E Essentials (or any other previous edition), in principle they could possibly crank out a 5E D&D in a year's time, to be ready for release in latter half of 2011 or early 2012 (if they started right now, or a few months ago).


----------



## delericho (Jan 4, 2011)

CleverNickName said:


> But why?




There needs to be a certain length of time between editions to allow the designers to see what works and what doesn't, what needs revised, and what new elements gain traction with the gamer public. Also, new editions really need to be 'different enough' to justify forcing people to buy the same stuff over again, and that also requires time and thought.

IMO, 8 years feels about right between editions (I would prefer 10, but 8's okay). There's room for a 'half edition' in between, whether that's Unearthed Arcana, Skills & Powers, 3.5e, or Essentials, but there does need to be time as well.



> It doesn't seem terribly unrealistic to think that WotC is already developing a 5th Edition.




I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Andy Collins, Mike Mearls, and others on the WotC staff of the time had folders of ideas for 5e even before 4e was released. Stuff that they thought would be cool, but didn't have time to flesh out, or stuff they wanted to try, but the team lead didn't go for.

As for whether serious work is being done in that direction... I don't know. I doubt it, at this time at least.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 4, 2011)

I don't think its quite time yet.

During the last years of 3e, the developers tried a number of revolutionary game concepts that they hadn't introduced before (reserve powers, B09S just to name a few).

It was both to sell new books and to try out some 4eish game concepts for later use.

I think 4e has a lot of room to grow as far as new game concepts. Right now we are seeing a new feats, powers, classes, etc....but I haven't seen them really push the design boundary yet.


----------



## cmrscorpio (Jan 4, 2011)

Based on the 3.x cycle, and the cycle of previous editions:


Are there people at WotC making mental notes (consciously or unconsciously) about what 5e should have?  Most definitively.

Has anyone been picked to start working on it as a secret project (like what Orcus was)?  somewhat likely

Would said secret project be anything more than a collection of ideas taking up space in a word document?  somewhat unlikely



Personally, I'm betting that 5e comes out around 2015.  I'm also willing to bet that the announcement of 5e will happen around fall of 2014.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 4, 2011)

5E?  No way.

Edition fatigue is already an issue.  5E would likely make it worse.

OSR fans aren't likely interested. 3.x fans have Pathfinder, 4E fans have, well, 4E!

I don't think there's very much demand for 5E at this time.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 4, 2011)

In light of recent events, one wonders what is going to happen to the content of the possibly canceled (or omitted) 4E 2011 titles.  In particular, the following titles advertised at Gencon 2010 but which are conspicuously absent from amazon.com or WotC's own online catalog:

(removed or omitted from amazon.com)
- Champions of the Heroic Tier
- Hero Builder's Handbook

(rumored to be removed or absent from WotC's own online catalog)
- Class Compendium:  Heroes of Sword and Spell
- Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium

The above titles appear to be crunch heavy rules stuff, both from the DM and players' side.


From a conspiratorial perspective, one could suggest that the content of these shelved/cancelled 2011 4E books, could be rewritten as rules for a 5E D&D.


----------



## Ulrick (Jan 4, 2011)

No. It's time for 7e. Let's just skip a couple of editions and get to lucky number 7.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 4, 2011)

Personally, I thought it was too early for 4E.  

Although, the thread about the annual WotC layoffs got me thinking that *possibly* one reason for no December layoffs could be they are bulking up for a 5e some 2-3 years from now.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 4, 2011)

Stalker0 said:


> I think 4e has a lot of room to grow as far as new game concepts. Right now we are seeing a new feats, powers, classes, etc....but I haven't seen them really push the design boundary yet.




I think the OP is comparing those to Essentials. I do somewhat get his point, but... I really don't see it, myself. Recent content has mostly felt like refinement of the core rules of the system, not experimentation with entirely new concepts. And while we have seen innovations, it has more been with presentation - book formats, boxed sets, tokens, etc. We've seen a lack of the more familiar material, but less because there isn't room for the content, and more because WotC is trying out other avenues of release and has had a focus on new gamers during this period. 

In the end, while I see where he is coming from, I pretty much disagree with the original post on every level. I think there is plenty more room for 4E to grow. I don't see any signs that we are in the same 'desperate for content' stage as we had at the end of 3.5. I don't feel any indications that 5E is nigh, or that it is under development by WotC. I don't think the fanbase would be eager or interested in a 5E that shows up in the next year or two, unless it literally lets you ride dragons. 

In short, no, it isn't time for 5E.

I expect we'll see development of it starting in a couple years, and it will show up sometime around 2015. As cmrscorpio says, they might already be thinking about what will go into it, but probably as nothing more than basic notes and scraps of ideas, and it will be years before those turn into genuinely active product design.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 4, 2011)

I'm playing 5e... it's pronounced "Pathfinder."


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jan 4, 2011)

Its not even close to time for 5E yet. Wizards is going to run with 4.5 (Essentials) for a total of 3-5 years before announcing 5E. 

Mind you, Wizards is smart to split off part of the team to develop board games and such with Wizards IP. That will actually help increase the life of 4E. By having that IP generate money in other ways, they won't have to publish books as fast => slowing down rules bloat => increases the time before it becomes really difficult to keep making material. 

And like others have said, Wizards really needs to nail down all of its online tools to be completely working and not merely in development before announcing 5E. For that tablet PCs need to be the popular standard. Android is already dominating the market much more than iPad is, but android still doesn't have that "if you want to make a program you make it for android" feel of it yet. Right now it still has the feel of, "I want an iPhone, but I don't want AT&T, so I guess I'll get Android," feel. Android is going to win, but it doesn't have the "go-to"-ness about it yet, much like Windows didn't have that go-to-ness about it until Win95 came along. 

Truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised if 5E didn't have printed books. It makes total sense to go completely online and drop the cost of printing book completely (which is not insignificant). We're not at the point in our culture where ebooks are as readily accepted yet, but we will be. In about 3-5 years. 

The sense I am getting from Wizards right now (and frankly, most of the industry) is we're in the later days of the print => electronic transition. Print is shrinking, but it ain't dead yet. The majority of the major company's profits are from print. But if everyone had a TabletPC, that would probably flip overnight. Wizards is probably planning to hold off on 5E until that becomes true. And frankly they should. It would be the perfect time to launch a new edition and if they have their electronic tools ready to go, they can reclaim their place as a major industry juggernaut. All it takes is timing, planning, coordination, and money. 

We know Wizards has the money. I don't know enough about Wizards' internal working enough to even guess if they have the timing, planning or coordination thing down. I hope they do. It really would be nice to see Wizards lead the gaming industry charge into the electronic market in ways we have yet to see.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jan 4, 2011)

You are in denial if you think WotC isn't actively developing 5th Edition as we speak.

3rd  
Development: 1997
Released:  2000

3.5
Development: ????*
Released: 2003

4th
Development: 2005
Released: 2008

*Monte Cook has said when 3.5 development started, I just couldn't locate it.

So, it WotC's history is anything to go by, development of a full system takes about 3 years.  If a 2013 release data was targeted, development on a new edition would have begun last year.  

By the way, didn't we have rumblings about the DnD group being split into two... (sorry, can't provide a link to that, but I'm sure I read it).


----------



## Treebore (Jan 4, 2011)

I feel no need for another edition of D&D ever again. I am finally perfectly happy where I am, and that is where I will be staying.

Business wise WOTC is going to HAVE to do 5E sooner or later, and only they have the sales data, etc... to say when that will be.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 4, 2011)

5E in 2011 would be a 400-page, $50 hardcover corporate suicide note.


----------



## samursus (Jan 4, 2011)

A few quick thoughts on the topic.

I agree, with the conspicuous silence from wotc, this seems to indicate change.  Whether this is due to a shake-up of company direction is unknowable. Only Wizards knows how profitable their current situation is.

Also, I would suggest that if things aren't going well enough with the D&D property, Wizards will be wanting to figure out how to maximize their customer base.  This may mean figuring out how to bring back in more of the ex-patriots (which has had some success with Essentials) or metamorphisizing the brand even more so into something more mainstream.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Jan 4, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> ...begin snip...
> Truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised if 5E didn't have printed books. It makes total sense to go completely online and drop the cost of printing book completely (which is not insignificant). We're not at the point in our culture where ebooks are as readily accepted yet, but we will be. In about 3-5 years.
> ...end snip...




Good lord no.
What grognards they didn't lose with 4E, they would surely lose with a complete digital, subscribe to see your stuff method.

If and when 5E comes, I'll look at it, if I like it, I'll buy it, if not, I won't.  Simple as that.  It's the same thing as with I did with 4E.

Far as a timeline goes, I would wager late 2012 - 2013 being the year of 5E announcements and releases.

But back to the electronic thing, I'm a huge fan of having electronic tools.  But if you require them to play the game itself, I most likely won't take part in that edition.

Personally I rather see them turn out some serious fluff pieces vice crunch of rules.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 4, 2011)

dmccoy1693 said:


> And like others have said, Wizards really needs to nail down all of its online tools to be completely working and not merely in development before announcing 5E. For that tablet PCs need to be the popular standard. Android is already dominating the market much more than iPad is, but android still doesn't have that "if you want to make a program you make it for android" feel of it yet. Right now it still has the feel of, "I want an iPhone, but I don't want AT&T, so I guess I'll get Android," feel. Android is going to win, but it doesn't have the "go-to"-ness about it yet, much like Windows didn't have that go-to-ness about it until Win95 came along.
> 
> Truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised if 5E didn't have printed books. It makes total sense to go completely online and drop the cost of printing book completely (which is not insignificant). We're not at the point in our culture where ebooks are as readily accepted yet, but we will be. In about 3-5 years.
> 
> ...




One of the things that seems to be notorious for the makers of D&D (whether TSR or WotC, and certainly not WotC overall) is that they tend to lag - if not drag - behind on the electronic side of things.  TSR was way late in putting out its first computer games of D&D (years after Ultima, Zork and many others had been out) and even tools for using D&D electronically (the e-tools fiasco followed an edition later by the initial launch of DDI, and now the issues with the relaunched character generator).  Practically all the other RPG companies offer their books in e-format now, whilst D&D has pulled theirs.  Then we have the virtual table being pushed out now - which Maptools has been doing for years.  It's almost like the D&D staff are a bunch of luddites at times, only going forward into the realm of technology when they have no other choice.  Electronic concerns seem to be after-the-fact consideration, if considered at all.

Yes, eventually WotC seems to get their stuff to a (semi) polished shape, but it's generally after many frustrating months and many years after others has well established themselves in the field; the electronic D&D offerings build off _existing_ technology, but fail to push that technology.  Don't expect to see them lead on the electronic front, but simply to present a spit-shined version of what others have already developed and pioneered.

Thus _when_ 5E finally shows up, expect it to follow whatever is mainstream electonically; if printed books are still in fashion, so will go 5E.  If the likes of Kindle books and tablet pcs have taken over (which I think it won't yet), so will go 5E.  Just don't expect 5E to exploit fringe technology until it's mainstream (as in you can even find it in 3rd world countries).

Sorry for the rant, but D&D's _sloooooooooow_ adoption of technology has always gotten my goat.


----------



## Gryph (Jan 4, 2011)

TheYeti1775 said:


> ...
> Far as a timeline goes, I would wager late 2012 - 2013 being the year of 5E announcements and releases...




This seems about right.

I think OP is correct, actually, that in a lot of ways Essentials feels like WoTC learning from some of the design mistakes of 4E's launch.

Honestly, I hope 5e has the same sort of iterative feel from 4e that 2e had to 1e. I think 4e is pretty close to "right" and some system refinement and, at this point, system trimming will make it a "finished" system.

Value based words in quotes should be recognized as opinions not facts .


----------



## Stoat (Jan 4, 2011)

I predict that WotC never releases a product called "Fifth Edition".  Instead, I predict WotC will do one of the two following things:

1.  Elaborate on the underlying framework of 4E with products similar to Essentials.  A combination of errata, rules revisions and new splats gradually changes the game, but no new edition is ever announced and there is never any clear break in rules continuity.  I'm not a Magic fan, but I'm under the impression that this is how MtG has developed.

2.  WotC abandons the tradition of sequentially numbering the new editions.  It puts out a new edition, but simply calls it "Dungeons and Dragons."  

In no case do I think 5E is coming anytime soon.  Isn't the VTT supposed to be a 4E product?  At a minimum I'd expect WotC to get that up and running before they put out a new edition.


----------



## noffham (Jan 4, 2011)

Right, no 5E just reworked D&D. They've already started with the Ravenloft and Gamma World games and will move more and more towards boardgame based design either in print or on-line or both.

Then they will release D&D Classic Edition with pdfs and reprints of OD&D/AD&D.

This must be true because the dog in the next yard tells me so.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 4, 2011)

Stoat said:


> 2.  WotC abandons the tradition of sequentially numbering the new editions.  It puts out a new edition, but simply calls it "Dungeons and Dragons."




Kind of like this?


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 4, 2011)

Sorry for the double-post.  Been awhile since I've been here.
***
Most of the numbering is done by fans.  Most of the editions were simply called "D&D" (or AD&D, as the case may be).

As I recall, 2nd edition AD&D and "3.5" were the only two editions in the game's history to actually use the version number in their titles.


----------



## korjik (Jan 4, 2011)

Until WOTC learns from its mistakes, no time is a good time for 5e.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jan 4, 2011)

Well, anybody who imagines that 4e will stay evergreen and just get revised via online updates has their head in the clouds.  Of course there will be a 5e; it's just a matter of time.

What matters is whether 5e will be anything like the marketing miracle that 3e was.  3e brought back droves of lapsed gamers who played 1e but didn't like 2e, and gamers who had migrated to WoD or GURPS or had just given up on role-playing altogether; and it single-handedly created the 3rd party market with the OGL.  At this point, only a 5e with some kind of open license can do the impossible and reunite the fractured base of 4e, PF, and OSR players.

Personally, I await with righteous amusement the day when the WotC designers finally come forward with their pitch for 5e, because they will be obliged to point out all of 4e's flaws, explain why 4e suddenly sucks now (but it really sucked all along, you just didn't know it if you were having fun playing it), and how 5e will fix all of your problems (which you may or may not have known you had).

3e dissed 2e with its "back to the dungeon" campaign.
4e dissed 3e with its "10 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours of play" meme.
5e?  I predict that it will have something to do with dialing back the hour-long battles and dissociated mechanics.  At least, it had better if WotC wants to reunite the fanbase.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jan 4, 2011)

Stoat said:


> 2.  WotC abandons the tradition of sequentially numbering the new editions.  It puts out a new edition, but simply calls it "Dungeons and Dragons."




They've done this for Magic.  They simply call it Magic 11, or Magic 10 based on the current year.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 4, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> Sorry for the double-post.  Been awhile since I've been here.
> ***
> Most of the numbering is done by fans.  Most of the editions were simply called "D&D" (or AD&D, as the case may be).
> 
> As I recall, 2nd edition AD&D and "3.5" were the only two editions in the game's history to actually use the version number in their titles.




   2nd Edition dropped the numbering as of 1995, feeling that there was no longer a need to differentiate. (That was probably the point at which they'd sold through the last of the 1E backstock. TSR's approach to edition change was _dramatically_ different from WotC's "There is no back catalog" approach.  )

   Having my 4th Edition Core Rulebook Collection at hand, the box and the back covers refer to '4th edition'. The front covers don't. The credits refer to the 4th Edition design and development teams, but the text of the books only references '4th Edition' in the "History of D&D" sidebar in the _PH_.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 4, 2011)

samursus said:


> I agree, with the conspicuous silence from wotc, this seems to indicate change.




It is called winter vacation, people. 

As for 5E. No, it is too early. 4E came at the right time. 3.5 was done. They had explored everything they really could and had seemingly run out of ideas. The last few complete books were just minor minor variations on themes. The big departures from the themes, like Tome of Magic and Incarnum, had not done well at all. 

5E is still a long ways away. I still see a lot  that WOTC can do with 4E. I just hope it is with regular 4E, not essentials style.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 4, 2011)

They should go the The Fast and the Furious route, and make the next edition Too Dungeony, Too Dragony.

But yeah, sure, I think WotC should have long term plans, and those plans probably involve releasing a new edition in 2 to 4 years. They're probably looking at new technologies, trying to figure out when it'll be best to jump into the all-electronic field, where you run games from a tablet, and everyone has their characters on their smart phones, and your animated holographic 3D miniatures move around on your Microsoft Surface touchscreen table.

Sure, you can still purchase print-on-demand books, and print your character sheets, and use a rolled up map with dry erase markers, but the norm will be high tech.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 4, 2011)

I suppose that WoTC could announce 5e at any time but I do not see it happening anytime soon. I think they are putting a lot of effort into online tools and DDI right now and changing editions before that is completed and out the door would be madness. 
It would pretty much kill DDI. For that matter the fans would not wear it, the edition wars still rumble on a little and that would have to fade for a successful marketing campaign.

From my own experience of the VTT and the other online tools, they are a couple of year out from final version in my opinion.
Basically in my opinion the requirements for a successful launch of 5e are;
All the 4e tools have to be out there in DDi and in a intgrated fashion.
In that Characters created in the CB would have to be importable into the VTT , the same with monsters. The campaing management tools (what ever they are; at least an encounter builder and journalling capacity) would need to be in place and we would have to have some history to see how stuff like player/DM is and third party stuff is handled.

They are from 2 to 4 years away from that at the moment.

Then the electronic tools to support 5e need to be in place from the get go or no-ne will adpot, having being spoiled on the 4e tools.
We alsready have people refusing to create essentials characters by hand.

While, in 5 years the mass paperback market may not have been replaced by the eReader, the winning format will porbably be known and the end of the mass paperback market will be visible. 

So Wizards amy go books plus electronic, or electronic plus books or a mix of both, or they may go electronic plus box sets full of coloured plastic.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 4, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> Then the electronic tools to support 5e need to be in place from the get go or no-ne will adpot, having being spoiled on the 4e tools.




I'd be willing to bet as soon as 5E comes out, the 4E tools would vanish.  "Evolve or Die".


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 4, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> I'd be willing to bet as soon as 5E comes out, the 4E tools would vanish. "Evolve or Die".



 It is impossible to say at this point in time. The VTT as currently exists could be used to play any rpg but it does have a bias to 4e. 
What actually happens and wheither WOTC take a heavy or light hand remains to be seen. 
What they actually do, in practice will, I think have a very significant impact on how the tools are used, how they evolve and the general acceptance of the tools in the marketplace.

IMHO, they would be wise to facilitate any game played in their tools, since it encourages subscriptions to DDI. Subscriptions to DDI may prove a more valuable revenue stream than anything the editions make.
However, all that remains to be seen and as of this moment all bets are off.
Time will tell.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 4, 2011)

Difficult to predict, the future is. - Yoda.

Lets look at the recent developments. 

- D&D Essentials just came out, to generally positive reviews. Its turn-around time was fairly quick, and it incorporated errata, new ways of doing stuff, and some alternative sub-systems into the 4e game. Its recent push of new material (much of it "evergreen" rule books and starters) leads one to believe that they intended it for more than just one year.
- WotC has just released a new character builder, and has plans for a new monster builder and virtual table top. Software needs long lead-time, much longer than even the game books themselves. By the time they finish debugging the online tools, the new ones would have to be ready for a new edition. 
- There were no annual WotC layoffs. This means they are at or below acceptable team-levels OR they are bulking up for new development.
- Several early-released books disappeared off the radar. This included updates to the PHB (Heroes of Swd & Spl) and the Nentir Vale gaz. This can mean a lot of things: the material isn't ready (due to lack of development time), its being held to puff-out the latter half of 2011 (possibly due to other cancellations), or they are killing the products to prep a new edition (2000/2008 all over again). The last possibility is that they are winding down D&D products altogether due to lack of energetic sales. (Aka the Doomsday scenario). 
- D&DMinis and Heroescape have both wound down to next to nothing. This bodes poorly to the mini-heavy 4e, and pogs/tokens have taken they're place as a cheap alternative. 
- Pre-Essential material (such as PHB3 and MM3) didn't sell as well as Core 1 and Core 2 releases. This is the reason for a lack of DMG3, the ending of the PHB/DMG/MM a year schedule, and perhaps even "classic" itself. Only Dark Sun bucked the trend.
- D&D Neverwinter is still in development and supposed to utilize the D&D 4e rules. Its unclear if they are the Classic or Essential version of the rules. In theory, it could be changed to a mythical 5e.
- Dragon/Dungeon Content is thin. This bodes poorly because it means they aren't getting enough submissions, or they are withholding material (see books, above). 
- Thanks to the thinning content, the char-builder debacle, and problems with monster-builder and the compendium updates, there seems to be a rash of DDi account cancellations (anecdotal, at least). That could mean a cash-flow loss. 
- 4e, despite inter-compatibility, is now two "branches", Classic and Essential. WotC appears unable or unwilling to support both except through token measures (sparse Dragon material). The material canceled seems to be generally classic-era material. Perhaps this is to make room for more Essential-era material? 

What does all this mean?  Either...

a.) Essentials did better than anyone at WotC hoped, and they are quickly recalculating their product lineup to take into account their "new" D&Ds success, phasing out "classic" support altogether. 
b.) Essentials did well, but not well enough and they are gearing up for a major new revision/edition/marketing blitz to try to win back the numerous fans they lost in various 4e-era debacles (the roll-out, DDi, PDFs, etc). 
c.) Essentials did well, but not enough to keep D&D as a primary WotC cash-cow. Material will be thin from here-on-out, leading to an eventual shelving in 2012/13. 
d.) The Unquiet ghosts of Gygax and Arneson have wrecked havoc on WotC. 

A is optimism. B. is desperation, C. is Despair, and D is probably true.


----------



## Stoat (Jan 4, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> Well, anybody who imagines that 4e will stay evergreen and just get revised via online updates has their head in the clouds.  Of course there will be a 5e; it's just a matter of time.




I'm not so certain.  We know that developing a new edition involves a pretty hefty upfront investment in time and money.  Estimates in this thread are that it takes +/- 3 years of in-house development to get a new edition off the ground.  I presume a hypothetical 5E would also need online tools available soon or immediately after launch.  That's an additional upfront cost.

I can imagine a scenario where WotC tries to avoid these costs by doing what it's already done: releasing products like Essentials that take less time (and presumably cost) to develop.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 4, 2011)

Remathilis said:


> - Several early-released books disappeared off the radar. This included updates to the PHB (Heroes of Swd & Spl) and the Nentir Vale gaz. This can mean a lot of things: the material isn't ready (due to lack of development time), its being held to puff-out the latter half of 2011 (possibly due to other cancellations), or they are killing the products to prep a new edition (2000/2008 all over again). The last possibility is that they are winding down D&D products altogether due to lack of energetic sales. (Aka the Doomsday scenario).




   I'm not convinced _Class Compendium_ is really canceled yet; I'll want more confirmation than its absence on WotC's spottily updated site. I suspect _The Nentir Vale_ was canceled because of overlap in target market with the forthcoming _Neverwinter Campaign Setting_, with Neverwinter being judged to have more probability of success. Given that Amazon is showing a $40 boxed set adventure for August, I don't think 'winding down' is likely.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 4, 2011)

As to the above, I did notice that on the WotC site the catalog of 4E releases looks alarmingly slim.  I believe it was two 4E books listed within the Jan-June release schedule - certainly much smaller than the 1-2 book release schedule I seem to recall up through 2010.


----------



## avin (Jan 4, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> 5E?  No way.
> 
> Edition fatigue is already an issue.  5E would likely make it worse.
> 
> ...




I want 5E.

4E is almost dead to me.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 4, 2011)

avin said:


> I want 5E.
> 
> 4E is almost dead to me.




Well, besides you.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 4, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> As to the above, I did notice that on the WotC site the catalog of 4E releases looks alarmingly slim.  I believe it was two 4E books listed within the Jan-June release schedule - certainly much smaller than the 1-2 book release schedule I seem to recall up through 2010.




Is it really 'alarmingly slim'?

A lot of people have sai how WOTC puts books out too fast, and I would tend to agree withteat. Maybe WOTC is jsut slowing down?

We won't know till WOTC communicates better. I am hoping for an announcement this week or next.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 5, 2011)

[ The 4th Edition of the rules was announced, then released.  And whether you love it, hate it, or have never even played it, you cannot deny that it has been a success.]


This "success" part of this is highly debatable.  I think we've all seen evidence of it not being a success.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Jan 5, 2011)

Wizards is indeed working on releasing the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and currently has all their staff porting the good bits of 4e and upcoming products to it.  Given people's concerns over number of books to get into the hobby, they'll start by releasing a single book which will contain all rules needed to run.  They're also extending the cap on levels to give 6 more levels over 4e.  They are releasing....

Rules Cyclopedia... the original fifth edition of D&D.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 5, 2011)

Ulrick said:


> No. It's time for 7e. Let's just skip a couple of editions and get to lucky number 7.




I'm down for that! Hurray for 7e!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 5, 2011)

Shazman said:


> [ The 4th Edition of the rules was announced, then released.  And whether you love it, hate it, or have never even played it, you cannot deny that it has been a success.]
> 
> 
> This "success" part of this is highly debatable.  I think we've all seen evidence of it not being a success.




After hearing you say that for two years, your doomsday proclamations have lost a bit of leeway.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 5, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Is it really 'alarmingly slim'?
> 
> A lot of people have sai how WOTC puts books out too fast, and I would tend to agree withteat. Maybe WOTC is jsut slowing down?
> 
> We won't know till WOTC communicates better. I am hoping for an announcement this week or next.




I've been one who has long been wishing the tide of books would slow down.  It is, however, highly unexpected considering past trends.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 5, 2011)

I really wish there'd be a moratorium on 5e threads. Come on, please, give it a rest.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 5, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> After hearing you say that for two years, your doomsday proclamations have lost a bit of leeway.




Saying that 4E's success is debatable isn't a doomsday prediction; it's just noting that it's up for debate based on what we're able to cobble together - that's all.

And besides, Rome wasn't destroyed in a doomsday.


----------



## Plaguedguy (Jan 5, 2011)

No, 5th Edition is not 'right around the corner' and I imagine it won't be for quite some time. This, no matter how upset people are that Essentials has changed future product design and development.

I mean, I'm assuming it's Essentials that has started all this '5th edition' and 'Wizards of the Coast is doomed' discourse because prior to it being released everyone seemed satisfied to discuss class optimization, power creep and why there was no 'player's guide' for Dark Sun.


Edit: And really, even if we accept the premise that 4E is a horribly failing product, no one at Wizards of the Coast or Habsro is going to suggest the solution is to alienate distributors, retailers and consumers by releasing an entirely new-but-the-same product line.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 5, 2011)

Plaguedguy said:


> I mean, I'm assuming it's Essentials that has started all this '5th edition' and 'Wizards of the Coast is doomed' discourse because prior to it being released everyone seemed satisfied to discuss class optimization, power creep and why there was no 'player's guide' for Dark Sun.




Nah, 5th edition threads started appearing the day after 4th edition was announced, and I say that without joking.

If there's one thing those who have lived through an edition change can attest to is "all of this has happened before and will happen again." (and again, and again, and...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 5, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Nah, 5th edition threads started appearing the day after 4th edition was announced, and I say that without joking.
> 
> If there's one thing those who have lived through an edition change can attest to is "all of this has happened before and will happen again." (and again, and again, and...




True, any game is like that. Take Monopoly and its clones. Or cards. How many ways can you play with 54 pieces of cardboard? I mean really? Answer: A whole lot. And then add personal variations on all of them.

I just cannot see 5E coming soon. I mean, can you imagine what the nerdrage would be now, after Essentials and DDI and such? If I were a store owner and they released 5E soon, I would probably stop carrying the whole line.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 5, 2011)

Anyways, there's no new Blizzard IP for us to insultingly compare the new D&D to, so we can't have 5e.  At the earliest it's ten years (1 year Blizzard Time) until Diablo 3 if we want to reuse that ;p


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 5, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Anyways, there's no new Blizzard IP for us to insultingly compare the new D&D to, so we can't have 5e.  At the earliest it's ten years (1 year Blizzard Time) until Diablo 3 if we want to reuse that ;p




Well, there was that leaked Blizzard schedule saying their new MMO is scheduled for 2014...



Maggan said:


> No. WotC still needs to see how the combination of DDI and D&D Essentials plays out commercially. DDI would be such an integral part of 5E (at least that's what I would do) that they need to hammer that down before even thinking of changing to 5E.




WotC needs to first prove that they can do digital competently before they can prove anything commercially.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 5, 2011)

As I always do, I like to link to my blog post on this subject so I don't have to retype my thoughts on it.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 5, 2011)

One barometer for this sort of thing that nobody has mentioned yet is bloat.

2e sank under its own bloat before 3e arrived.
3.xe was well on the way to sinking under its own bloat when 4e arrived.

I don't play 4e nor do I follow its release track very closely, so I need to ask those of you who do: is it getting overly bloated?  If yes, 5e won't be too far away.  If no, you've got some time yet.

And whenever 5e does come it had better be on paper, buy-able by picking it up in my hands and physically taking it to a counter where a real person takes my money for it... 

Lan-"this year's GenCon could be interesting"-efan


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 5, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> One barometer for this sort of thing that nobody has mentioned yet is bloat.
> 
> 2e sank under its own bloat before 3e arrived.
> 3.xe was well on the way to sinking under its own bloat when 4e arrived.




Agree 100%



> I don't play 4e nor do I follow its release track very closely, so I need to ask those of you who do: is it getting overly bloated?  If yes, 5e won't be too far away.  If no, you've got some time yet.




In my opinion, not yet. Eventually? Absolutely. 



> And whenever 5e does come it had better be on paper, buy-able by picking it up in my hands and physically taking it to a counter where a real person takes my money for it...
> 
> Lan-"this year's GenCon could be interesting"-efan




That is the same for me. I want a book. Support it all you like online, knock yourself out, but don't get rid of the offline component. Right now, I have no problems with WOTC's online and offline mix. I wish for many people pdfs were online, and I think they should be, but nothing I can do about that. People know what I think of me using DDI, but I'm glad that other people enjoy it, and I think it is a good step forward.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 5, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> After hearing you say that for two years, your doomsday proclamations have lost a bit of leeway.




Not a doomsday prediction.  Just a statement of fact.  No one has ever demonstrated that 4E has indeed been a complete commercial success.  Essentials kind of hints that it wasn't as big of a success as they hoped or needed.


----------



## delericho (Jan 5, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> And whenever 5e does come it had better be on paper, buy-able by picking it up in my hands and physically taking it to a counter where a real person takes my money for it...




Yeah. In fact, I'd go further than that.

If 5e has any required electronic component, any required collectable component, or requires the use of minis, then I'm not interested. They can add any and all of these things to the core if they want, but if they require them, I'm out.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 5, 2011)

Maybe WOTC should change up their game plan and try _sticking with_ a system for a while.

Arguably, the "big shakeup" model has not been working for them. 3.5 went OK, people were willing to accept it. But will people accept it over and over again? Where I come from, the "Do-Over" has a rule: if "Do-Over"s are actually allowed, the rule is that you get one. After that, whatever you do stands.

I say this as someone who thinks that Essentials is tons better than baseline 4E. But sometimes you have to stick with a suboptimal approach because that was your approach. Once you're committed, go forward.

How many times can you re-release the same material with new rules? How many times can you blow up the Forgotten Realms and reassemble it with Litko Insta-Cure and leftover Blokus tiles? How many times can you have a book/module whatever about the dang Drow? I've heard of recycling, but this is ridiculous.

On top of that, there's the marketing question. The "Your doonit WRONG" school of 4E launch marketing was an insult... and I say this as a person who finds 3E to be the _worst_ edition of D&D ever made. There are certain people who will refuse to drag out their wallets after being slapped really hard in the face (I guess some people might like it, but that's beyond the scope of this thread).

So how would they even market 5E, especially after Essentials? I guess they could go with "You guyz R tards" or possibly "OOPS we did it again!"


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 5, 2011)

5e will be announced at Gencon 2011. It is not rational but there it is. They did the same thing with 4e. The announcement came while ther was a ton of 3e stuff on the shelves of retailors.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 5, 2011)

I think it's silly to _complain_ about the fact that there will eventually be a new edition of D&D. Do you want WotC to go out of business? Do you want the gaming hobby to shrink? If not, then you'd better think of a dash clever business model that lets them keep putting out products, without those products being redundant, without putting out a new edition.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 5, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> I think it's silly to _complain_ about the fact that there will eventually be a new edition of D&D. Do you want WotC to go out of business? Do you want the gaming hobby to shrink? If not, then you'd better think of a dash clever business model that lets them keep putting out products, without those products being redundant, without putting out a new edition.




I am not sure that putting out a new edition *is* putting out new products without their being redundant. 


RC


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Jan 5, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> As to the above, I did notice that on the WotC site the catalog of 4E releases looks alarmingly slim.  I believe it was two 4E books listed within the Jan-June release schedule - certainly much smaller than the 1-2 book release schedule I seem to recall up through 2010.




What if these cancellations (if they actually are cancellations) are actually a precursor for doing a big marketing push for DDI?  That is, taking all of that material and increasing the size of Dungeon and Dragon?


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Jan 5, 2011)

Alternatively, since AFAIK, the 'cancelled' books are all hardcovers, it could be as simple as them being changed to the Essentials softcover format.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 5, 2011)

ArcaneSpringboard said:


> What if these cancellations (if they actually are cancellations) are actually a precursor for doing a big marketing push for DDI?  That is, taking all of that material and increasing the size of Dungeon and Dragon?




I dunno, but unless something's changed I would have thought they make much more money out of the book market than DDI subscriptions.  For D&D, the books are a form of advertising ("Hey, look what's new this month!")


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 5, 2011)

Shazman said:


> Not a doomsday prediction.  Just a statement of fact.  No one has ever demonstrated that 4E has indeed been a complete commercial success.  Essentials kind of hints that it wasn't as big of a success as they hoped or needed.




Again, I've heard these "4e isn't a success!" claims for more then two years now.  Accept that it fairly obviously didn't fail and move on with your life.  It's getting _tiresome_.

If 4e hasn't been a success for _more then two years_, I think we would've seen some more obvious signs about it.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Again, I've heard these "4e isn't a success!" claims for more then two years now.  Accept that it fairly obviously didn't fail and move on with your life.  It's getting _tiresome_.
> 
> If 4e hasn't been a success for _more then two years_, I think we would've seen some more obvious signs about it.



Well, I'm not so far out on the extreme, I don't claim "fail".

But it certainly isn't gangbusters either.  And, afaiac, I've seen plenty of "signs" of that.

And, to split hairs, the mixed success it has been may very well be a failure compared to the business expectations set for it.  We will never know.

The refusal by some to accept that it isn't a total failure may be tiresome.  But, the constant claim of "*I* personally like it, therefore it is a good as can be and any claims of split markets and lack of living up to legacy are baseless" is amusing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 5, 2011)

BryonD said:


> The refusal by some to accept that it isn't a total failure may be tiresome.  But, the constant claim of "*I* personally like it, therefore it is a good as can be and any claims of split markets and lack of living up to legacy are baseless" is amusing.




No different are the claims of "I personally dislike it, therefore it is as bad as can be and any claims that it's any sort of success or even calling it D&D are baseless."

Well there is one difference - the first person is characterized by enjoying a game and hobby, the second person is characterized by hating and refusing to accept the enjoyment of others.

Come to think of it, that's a pretty large difference.


----------



## Eridanis (Jan 5, 2011)

General Note:

Things are starting to get a little heated - please take a moment to think before you post. This thread has been OK so far; don't be the one to send it to the Anvil of the Banhammer.


----------



## DM Howard (Jan 5, 2011)

I'll set this down coming from a group that started with the end of second edition (The black starter box with the red dragon on it.).  

My friend and I loved playing 2nd edition and we played it by ourselves until 3rd edition came out.  We made the switch and we didn't find anything to be overly displeased about and we continued on playing all the way until 4E was released and then we made the switch to that.  We didn't feel like we HAD to move to 4E but since it was the new edition we thought we should go for it.  so we get the books and we like it for a time and all is well.  

Eventually we all are sitting around and voice this disappointment over 4E.  Not a "I hate 4E RAWR!!!1!" kind of disappointment, but just the feel that something has been lost during the transition.

We've been playing a 4E campaign and we enjoy it well enough, but we also play Dark Heresy, Traveler and Pathfinder as well.  

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that (for my group) 4E, Dungeons and Dragons in its current state is not the be all and end all of RPGs for my group like it used to be.  

Do I think a new edition, a 5E is needed?  Yes, but I don't think 4E is bad, I just think the system doesn't cater to as many different play-styles and groups as older editions have.  We love 4E, but it isn't all we play anymore and I'm not sure why exactly.  I think if there are going to announce a 5E it would be in a year or so not much sooner as they still need to see the effects of 4E.  

Sorry for the wandering rant.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 6, 2011)

It's called "maturing" as gamers. One system doesn't scratch every gaming itch if you're really in to gaming. The more games you see, the more you see there are things you like in a lot of them.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 6, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> So how would they even market 5E, especially after Essentials? I guess they could go with "You guyz R tards" or possibly "OOPS we did it again!"




As long as they don't use the word "cool" fifty million times in the pre-release material.  Honestly, I was prejudiced against 4e from the moment I read the "Wizards Presents" books.  According to those two books, it seemed like every decision they made regarding the direction of 4e was made because "it was cool."  

What a long, long way from Gary Gygax's magnificent, prose-rich DMG.

Yeah, I know, I'm just being petty.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 6, 2011)

5E?

Dude. We just got 4.5 (Essentials in disguise), maybe in a nother 2-3 years.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 6, 2011)

Eridanis said:


> Anvil of the Banhammer.



Didn't they tell you?  That's going to be a magic item in 5e: hit it with any hammer and it produces Silence 10' radius around it, duration 5 minutes...hit it with The Banhammer and the Silence effect is permanent.



Lan-"it'll negate Bardic effects, too"-efan


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 6, 2011)

Count me among the folks that says 2-3 years, maybe an announcement at GenCon 2012 with a release in 2013, or maybe a year later. But I see 5E coming out in 2013 at the earliest - that's five years and doesn't sound quite as sheepish as four.

Lots of interesting thoughts in this thread. I do think that 5E will better integrate technology, but I don't think that paper books will be POD only. Maybe 6E or 7E, but by then there will be POD kiosks all over the place, maybe in some homes.

4E was a success in that it sold some books for WotC, but it was _not _a success in that it fractured the fan-base like no other edition before and probably was not as big a success as WotC had hoped, especially with the rise of Pathfinder. WotC hoped that 4E would come out and build up steam, but instead it peaked early on and then dropped, with a slight bump up with Essentials. We'll see if that holds or not.

Of concern, or at least interest, is the undeniable fact of the ever-changing 2011 4E lineup. It may be nothing, or it may be that WotC is in a state moderate crisis and trying to figure out what to do next. I wouldn't even be surprised if we get a year or two of minimalist publications while they develop 5E, in the meantime focusing on DDI and non-TTRPG D&D products like the boardgames and a MMORG.

But there _will _be a 5E, although it may be more akin to Essentials Revised, or E2. And 5E will be a golden opportunity to re-unite the fan-base. How? There are many ways, but I think one would be to re-integrate some of the things that have been lost - the emphasis on free-form gaming, taking away the (near) necessity of using miniatures, shortening combat, bringing the magic back to magical items, taking Essentials another step and further diversifying classes, and--for the love of every deity in any splat book every printed (regardless of edition)--_*making the game modular so that folks can play different versions of the same game/edition and still be "official."* _In other words, a Basic/Advanced format.

One thing that crossed my mind is maybe the Neverwinter Campaign Guide is going to be a transition product, a "Classic Realms" book that both pushes the Realms back pre-apocalypse, and segways the game into the next edition, sort of like the old _Greyhawk Adventures _did with 1E to 2E (Didn't it say that it was compatible with both on the cover?).

I also wouldn't be surprised if we see a 4E Revised before 5E. In other words, errata-ed, re-formatted, and revised versions of the core three, fully compatible with Essentials. Maybe that's why _Sword & Spell _is on hold.

In the end, WTFKs?


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 6, 2011)

What would happen if 5E were a beautiful combination of OD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3E--if it were WotC's own Pseudo-Retro Clone? 

Could the World contain such beauty?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 6, 2011)

Good luck finding two people who agree on what a beautiful combination of those four are.

But more seriously, I cannot see WOTC going back too far. But I would like to see 5E be a lot WIDER than 4E, able to do more than combat well.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 6, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> What would happen if 5E were a beautiful combination of OD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3E--if it were WotC's own Pseudo-Retro Clone?
> 
> Could the World contain such beauty?




You mean the edition to make oD&D, 1E, 2E and 3E fans equally unhappy? I don't think that there would be beauty in that frankenstein monster. "Crap, i didn't factor weapon speed into Golden Wyvern!"

*shudders*


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 6, 2011)

At the moment (and probably for quite a while) WotC would have a difficult time selling me anything at all. My dislike for the 'Essentialization' of 4e taints my objectivity when trying to judge the quality of their products right now.

They should definitely wait a couple of years before coming out with a new edition.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 6, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> ... And 5E will be a golden opportunity to re-unite the fan-base.



"One game to find them,
One game to bind them..."

I do not beliee such a game exists, that it existed at all was a heppenstance of history and circumstance and sundered elements will never again unite in the way they once did. Unless they invent the holodeck.



Mercurius said:


> --_*making the game modular so that folks can play different versions of the same game/edition and still be "official."  *_



That could be done in 4e as it stands with some effort on Wizards part. If they want to make the effort.



Mercurius said:


> I also wouldn't be surprised if we see a 4E Revised before 5E. In other words, errata-ed, re-formatted, and revised versions of the core three, fully compatible with Essentials. Maybe that's why _Sword & Spell _is on hold.



I would not either but they could put that out with 5e announced. I think also we will see some more experimental books in the Book of 9 Swords style before 5e will be announced, probably something with classless D&D.

However, I thing 3 years is too soon, I thin 5 years is the minimum and here is why: It will take 3 years to create a fully integratred suite of DDI tools and at least 2 years of observation to see how people use them.
In that 2 years they can develop the new tools to support 5e. When that toolset is nearly ready then they announce 5e for a years time.

I think that they are now capacity constrained in software develoopment and while the can output stuff for the current game and develope a new game in 3 years I am not convinced that they can develope new tools for the existing game and tools for the new game at the same time. Hell, it is not obvious right now that they can complete the development process for the tools in the existing game right now.
A 5e with no eTools having gone as far as they have gone with etools for 4e is pretty much unthinkable, and would have very little credibility.

Especially as they have demonstrated the interest in the marketplace. Failure to deliver would certainly open the door for others to succed where they have failed.


----------



## Whisper72 (Jan 6, 2011)

Dndungeoneer said:


> Sorry for the wandering rant.




I kill it and take it's stuff... making sure to check for gems and magic items in the least obvious of places...


----------



## Nagol (Jan 6, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> What would happen if 5E were a beautiful combination of OD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3E--if it were WotC's own Pseudo-Retro Clone?
> 
> Could the World contain such beauty?




It would fracture the current 4e base in a way that makes the 3.5-->4e fracture look like a papercut.

And it probably attracts only a modest return from the retro-clone adherents as they already have a game they like.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 6, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> "One game to find them,
> One game to bind them..."
> 
> I do not beliee such a game exists, that it existed at all was a heppenstance of history and circumstance and sundered elements will never again unite in the way they once did. Unless they invent the holodeck.
> ...




The problem with the belief that the company can design both a game system and software to support it at the same time is it is naive.  Too much is in flux about the game design up until the game goes to print.

Sure, you can architect a skeleton knowing the expected role of the application, but the details drive the detailed design.  Those fiddly bits take a lot more time to build, test, and verify than the skeleton does.  Those details aren't completely available until the game goes gold.

In effect, its the mirror image of why strategy guides for PC games are obsolete before they're on the shelves of the store -- the game changes too much between when the guide was researched, written, and sent to print and it appears on the shelf.

At best, WotC can use 4e's debugged skeleton for the apps.  It'll probably require data model change and the whole guts replaced and that'll set the user community back to being beta testers all over again.


----------



## Aldern Foxglove (Jan 6, 2011)

5E would have to be a truly spectacular product to tempt me away from Paizo.  4E whatever it is, is not for me, and I've been consistently impressed with Paizo since slowly listing over into the Pathfinder camp.

I have a hard time picturing 4E as a success, because everyone I seem to know or game with has dropped it, mind you a great many of them including myself purchased the books initially.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 6, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Didn't they tell you?  That's going to be a magic item in 5e: hit it with any hammer and it produces Silence 10' radius around it, duration 5 minutes...hit it with The Banhammer and the Silence effect is permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> Lan-"it'll negate Bardic effects, too"-efan




But characters with the "Moderator" class are immune......


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jan 6, 2011)

Here is a big question when 5E does hit:  What happens to the current 4E DDi stuff?

Personally, I think WotC would kill the majority of it (Character Builder, Monster Builder, Compendium) in an effort to drive consumers to the latest edition.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 6, 2011)

Keefe the Thief said:


> You mean the edition to make oD&D, 1E, 2E and 3E fans equally unhappy? I don't think that there would be beauty in that frankenstein monster. "Crap, i didn't factor weapon speed into Golden Wyvern!"




I hate to say it, but WotC doesn't care about making OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3E (and not to mention BECMI) fans equally happy or unhappy. Everyone pre-3E combined is probably a relatively small percentage of the player base, even smaller in terms of what they buy.

The real key would be to make both 3E and 4E fans happy _and _attract a new generation of players. Quite frankly I'm not sure that WotC currently has the creative juices for it.



ardoughter said:


> "One game to find them,
> One game to bind them..."
> 
> I do not believe such a game exists, that it existed at all was a heppenstance of history and circumstance and sundered elements will never again unite in the way they once did. Unless they invent the holodeck.




Maybe, maybe not. I think it is possible but would be very, very difficult to do. One can dream, though...



ardoughter said:


> That could be done in 4e as it stands with some effort on Wizards part. If they want to make the effort.




Yes, and the fact that it hasn't happened is one of the reasons that I question the "creative juices" of WotC. Of course the _Hero Builder's Guidebook _brings a ray of hope.



ardoughter said:


> I would not either but they could put that out with 5e announced. I think also we will see some more experimental books in the Book of 9 Swords style before 5e will be announced, probably something with classless D&D.




Maybe, but that sort of approach has been proven to be un-lucrative. My sense is that they'll feel things out with _Hero Builder's _and then if that takes off, expand from there.

One thing that no one seems to be taking into account, or at least mentioning, is that WotC itself may not know when 5E will come out. Or rather, it probably depends upon various factors, what the profit trajectory is, etc. They could be thinking 3-5 years, depending upon sales in the next 1-2. If sales dip precipitously in 2011 and don't come back up in early 2012, we could get a 5E announcement at GenCon of that year then 5E in 2013. If things improve or at least plateau a bit, that could be pushed back another year or two.



ardoughter said:


> However, I thing 3 years is too soon, I thin 5 years is the minimum and here is why: It will take 3 years to create a fully integratred suite of DDI tools and at least 2 years of observation to see how people use them.
> In that 2 years they can develop the new tools to support 5e. When that toolset is nearly ready then they announce 5e for a years time.
> 
> I think that they are now capacity constrained in software develoopment and while the can output stuff for the current game and develope a new game in 3 years I am not convinced that they can develope new tools for the existing game and tools for the new game at the same time. Hell, it is not obvious right now that they can complete the development process for the tools in the existing game right now.
> A 5e with no eTools having gone as far as they have gone with etools for 4e is pretty much unthinkable, and would have very little credibility.




It may be that DDI right now will form the basis for 5E DDI, that we will start to see transition products like _Book of Nine Swords _was from 3.5 to 4E. As many have said, 5E may not be so distinctly marked as "5E". It might be a more gradual transition through continual updates and changes to DDI. Eventually they will want to make a big announcement and a new line of core books, but they might sneak up on us a bit.



ardoughter said:


> Especially as they have demonstrated the interest in the marketplace. Failure to deliver would certainly open the door for others to succed where they have failed.




Yes, as we saw with Pathfinder.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 6, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> It may be that DDI right now will form the basis for 5E DDI, that we will start to see transition products like _Book of Nine Swords _was from 3.5 to 4E. As many have said, 5E may not be so distinctly marked as "5E". It might be a more gradual transition through continual updates and changes to DDI. Eventually they will want to make a big announcement and a new line of core books, but they might sneak up on us a bit.



Hey, that would be fine with me.  As others have pointed out, 3rd Edition didn't have "3rd Edition" written anywhere on the covers of its Core Rulebooks...and different edition numbers weren't as ubiquitous then as they are now.  Putting "5th Edition" on the cover would be a very bad idea, IMO.

It can look like a duck, and walk like a duck, and sound like a duck...but for the love of Pelor, _don't call it a duck!_ 

Still though, I wouldn't be surprised if a 5E announcement (or a surge of sweeping "updates" on DDI) happens later this year, possibly around GenCon.  It probably won't happen...but I wouldn't be surprised if it did...


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 6, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The problem with the belief that the company can design both a game system and software to support it at the same time is it is naive. Too much is in flux about the game design up until the game goes to print.



I am not entirely convinced that htis is so. If it is then you have more than doubled the development cycle for 5e by adding software tov the mix.



Nagol said:


> Sure, you can architect a skeleton knowing the expected role of the application, but the details drive the detailed design. Those fiddly bits take a lot more time to build, test, and verify than the skeleton does. Those details aren't completely available until the game goes gold.
> 
> In effect, its the mirror image of why strategy guides for PC games are obsolete before they're on the shelves of the store -- the game changes too much between when the guide was researched, written, and sent to print and it appears on the shelf.
> 
> At best, WotC can use 4e's debugged skeleton for the apps. It'll probably require data model change and the whole guts replaced and that'll set the user community back to being beta testers all over again.



So am I to take it that you do not see a 5e ever, or are you saying that WoTC will abandon the software support for the edition?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 6, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Maybe, but that sort of approach has been proven to be un-lucrative. My sense is that they'll feel things out with _Hero Builder's _and then if that takes off, expand from there.



Could you elaborate on this? I was under the impression that BO9S and Uneathed Arcana were sucessful books.



Mercurius said:


> One thing that no one seems to be taking into account, or at least mentioning, is that WotC itself may not know when 5E will come out. Or rather, it probably depends upon various factors, what the profit trajectory is, etc. They could be thinking 3-5 years, depending upon sales in the next 1-2. If sales dip precipitously in 2011 and don't come back up in early 2012, we could get a 5E announcement at GenCon of that year then 5E in 2013. If things improve or at least plateau a bit, that could be pushed back another year or two.



I doubt also if there is a date pencilled in for 5e but I also doubt it is as responsive to the market as you are making out here. I am also dobutful that 5e is salable in the next 2 to 3 years. 



Mercurius said:


> It may be that DDI right now will form the basis for 5E DDI, that we will start to see transition products like _Book of Nine Swords _was from 3.5 to 4E. As many have said, 5E may not be so distinctly marked as "5E". It might be a more gradual transition through continual updates and changes to DDI. Eventually they will want to make a big announcement and a new line of core books, but they might sneak up on us a bit.



That is pretty much my expectation, they will dervisify 4e with more stuff like Gamma World, Ravenloft and boardgames and setting specific rpgs, using the 4e engine and some card driven mechanics.


----------



## Festivus (Jan 6, 2011)

I am thinking that WoTC is done with versions, so we will never see 5.0 come out.  A new D&D game will come out, but it will be something like "D&D - Fantastic Journeys" or something like that.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jan 6, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> I doubt also if there is a date pencilled in for 5e but I also doubt it is as responsive to the market as you are making out here. I am also dobutful that 5e is salable in the next 2 to 3 years.




What's a new Edition.  I think if we define what a new Edition is we can accurately estimate when the next edition will come out based on WotC's DnD publishing history.  This is a guess, but I wager that the core books tend to be the best selling DnD books and WotC wants to reap that core Edition windfall as often as possible..  

For my buck, a new edition is created upon the release of a new core PHB, DMG, and MM.  

In 2000, we got the 3rd Edition PHB, DMG, and MM.  
In 2003, we got 3.5's core three.  
In 2008, we got 4th Editions core three.  
In 2010, we got Essential's core books (two Player Handbooks - Fallen Lands and Forgotten Kingdoms -, the DMG, and the Monster Vault).

If we use the gap between 3.5 and 4 to estimate the gap between 4.5/Essentials and 5, we can guess that 5th will be along in 4-6 years (2014-2016).

If we say Essentials is not an Edition release and keep the 4-6 years between Editions, 2012-2014 is likely for 5E.  

Both times WotC has developed a core edition, they spent three years on it (97-00 and 05-08).  Using that logic and the possible release ranges, you can make an educated guess on when work on 5E has or will begin.

For my buck, I'm wagering that work on 4E began in 2010 for a 2013 release.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jan 6, 2011)

There's no point in rolling out a new edition until the community is substantially saturated with the previous edition.  If most people are still playing 4e games and buying 4e products it's too early to make a new edition as this will simply alienate people who are still playing 4e.

Ideally, WotC would announce 5e juuuuuust as the serious fans are starting to get a little bored with 4e.  That point hasn't been reached yet and I don't think it will be for another year at least.  

FWIW, I also believe that 5e will not go by that name.  They'll pick some catchy marketing title like "Dungeons and Dragons: Evolution."


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 6, 2011)

Festivus said:


> I am thinking that WoTC is done with versions, so we will never see 5.0 come out.  A new D&D game will come out, but it will be something like "D&D - Fantastic Journeys" or something like that.




Yep.  And that will be 5th edition.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 6, 2011)

I say we should start talking about 8th Edition. 

I'm gonna make the claim now that there'll never be a 9th edition.

Why?

Because seven eight nine.

And I'm sure there'll never be a thirteenth edition. Who wants that kind of curse hanging over their head. Might as well be 12A Edition. We just can't have the number thirteen in any of the edition because for all we know when people buy that edition they'll be dropping left and right. It's the hardiest of Satanic curses you'll ever see, you see. For the curse of the number thirteen have been with us for at least two millenia, and probably beyond.

And we know that if there's a thirty second edition then you should never buy that either. Because there is a 32 conspiracy that is being perpetrated by the government. If you buy the 32nd edition you'll be in support of Fascism. So those who love freedom and individuality will never buy the 32nd Edition.

And then we have to worry about the revelations that Numerology will give us. Because numbers have secrets and as you can see each edition will have their secret numerological connection in some way shape or form.

Here are some lucky numbers from numerology to consider when it comes to the editions to also avoid the Satanic curse of the number thirteen:

Some lucky number combinations include:


99 — doubly long in time, hence eternal; used in the name of a popular Chinese-American supermarket chain, 99 Ranch Market.
168 — road of prosperity or to be prosperous together  literal  translation is "continuing to be wealthy"— many premium-pay telephone  numbers in China begin with this number. It is also the name of a motel chain in China (Motel 168).
518 — I will prosper, other variations include: 5189 (I will prosper  for a long time), 516289 (I will get on a long, smooth prosperous road)  and 5918 (I will soon prosper)
814 — Similar to 168, this means "be wealthy, entire life". 148 also implies the same meaning "entire life be wealthy".
888 — Three times the prosperity, means "wealthy wealthy wealthy".  (E.g., the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing were designated by the  Chinese officials to begin on the most auspicious date possible to  ensure the success of the Games for its hosts: August 8, 2008—on the 8th  day, of the 8th month in the 8th year of the new millennium.)
1314 — whole lifetime, existence.
289 — This combination is quite straight forward: ease in finding  enough luck/fortune and holding it for a long time. (2 is easy, 8 is  fortune, 9 is enough and/or for a long time)
So please, let's just consider that there will be other editions in the far future and we might as well be talking about them now.

After all, 5e isn't even out and more than likely will not be out for several years yet. So if we're going to talk about 5e we might as well talk about 666e.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 7, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> After all, 5e isn't even out and more than likely will not be out for several years yet. So if we're going to talk about 5e we might as well talk about 666e.



Sounds like you missed the point I was trying to make, DC.  

Besides...it's fun to speculate about a possible 5th Edition, whether it ever happens or not.  Right?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 7, 2011)

> Besides...it's fun to speculate about a possible 5th Edition, whether it happens or not.  Right?




I'm sorry, but it's really not. At least not for me. I personally wish it would wait and things would slow down until an actual 5e is confirmed. Let 4e be established for a few years. Let the good folks at WotC iron the rough edges out of 4e before even considering a 5e. 

Personally I'm happy with 3.5 e. My personal favorite will always be 1e, but I do believe 3.5e is a far superior rules set because of how it streamlined things.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 7, 2011)

CleverNickName said:


> Besides...it's fun to speculate about a possible 5th Edition, whether it ever happens or not.  Right?




Not for a lot of peoiple. And how many topics here on Enworld get such a careful look and frequent outright bans as 5E?


----------



## Votan (Jan 7, 2011)

In Star Trek movies, every even movie was extremely good (wrath of khan, the voyage home, etc) and the odd movies seem to lack the same zest.  

My theory with D&D editions is that I (personally) am more inspired by the odd editions so 5E is fine by me . . .


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 7, 2011)

And lo, a book was published, called the Rules Compendium.
And some saw the Compendium and dismayed, but they were few.
Across the land, they did not heed this sign.
And the seal was opened, and they were amazed.
And they cried out, but their prayers went unanswered.
And there was great wailing, and hoarding of books.
For forty days and forty nights, the world was dark, and without a publication schedule.
And on the dawn of the first day after the fortieth night, the sun was as red as blood, and stood suspended in the sky. It did not move.
The new edition was upon them.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 7, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> For my buck, I'm wagering that work on 4E began in 2010 for a 2013 release.



So *that's* what ails 4e - they released it 2 years before they started working on it!

Or did you mean to say 5e? 

Lan-"I still think this coming GenCon could be interesting"-efan


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 7, 2011)

Essentials is not 5e. It is a feeler guage for 5e. Just as ToB was a test run for 4e.

I'm not kidding, 5e announcement Gencon 2011 release date 2012.


----------



## DandD (Jan 7, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> Essentials is not 5e. It is a feeler guage for 5e. Just as ToB was a test run for 4e.
> 
> I'm not kidding, 5e announcement Gencon 2011 release date 2012.



They need at least one rule-variant in any later product, just like set defense scores from Star Wars Saga Edition and Tome of Battle-maneuvers were for 4th edition. 

So far, I haven't seen anything in Essentials that is that "revolutionary" or "evolutionary" apart from regular 4th edition. It would need to be something like a new method to calculate  your d20-roll or even replace it with something like, I don't know, 3d6 or something like that, do away with hit points and somehow integrate it into defense scores, make psionics the new beginning standard or anything in that line. 

Just having more nostalgia-orientated character builds won't be enough for the WotC-spin doctors to sell a new edition, just like they tried with 4th edition. They need more beef for that.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 7, 2011)

I agree. There is nothing that even vaguely looks like 5E around. It is ssimply too early in 4E's life cycle. Now a revised 4E could be around, certianly. That is easy to do.

Talk of a new edition seems to be a stick certain types like to beat the current edition with. Including WOTC, based on 3E and 4E.


----------



## Momeeche (Jan 7, 2011)

CleverNickName said:


> Is it time for 5E?




(Momeeche throws a goat at CleverNickName)


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 7, 2011)

I'm sorry but i didn't read the whole thread. Did we find out if it was time for 5e?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 7, 2011)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I'm sorry but i didn't read the whole thread. Did we find out if it was time for 5e?



 Some said yes, some said no and some ran screaming for the hills.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 7, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> Some said yes, some said no and some ran screaming for the hills.




And one threw a goat.


----------



## Goonalan (Jan 7, 2011)

I have not read the whole thread... but in answer to the question- is it time for 5E- 

No.

I am undecided as regards the throwing of the goat.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2011)

It is not time for 5e.

Those who said there would never be a 5e are dead wrong.

Goat throwing is okay, so long as no actual animals are harmed in the throwing of the goats.

Pawsplay is a funny, funny individual with too much time on his hands.

That is all.



RC


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 7, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Those who said there would never be a 5e are dead wrong.RC



Technically, they are correct until 5E actually appears. They aren't wrong... yet.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 7, 2011)

Mmm, delicious goat...  

I can't decide if I should try to continue the discussion, let it fade out, or apologize for bringing the subject up in the first place.     The Essentials line of products do not constitute a new edition...but they could be a step towards one.  There is a resurgence of "old school" styles of gaming happening right now.  Also, simplified or "light" rules systems and play styles are becoming more numerous and more popular...this could be inconsequential, or it could be a trend.  DDI is a good idea, but it isn't sustainable in its current form.  Maybe I'm reading too much into all this, but it feels like the time is right.

I agree with Dice4Hire...talk of a newer edition seems to end up being "a stick to beat the current edition with."  But it doesn't _have_ to be.  A new edition could be a fun and interesting topic to discuss--what it will look like, when it might happen, what could be added/removed/changed--but probably not here.

*sigh*  I'm rambling.  It's early, and I need coffee.  Also, toast.

There will be a new edition of D&D.  Not because 4E is flawed or failing; it's just how the business works.  Some of us are looking forward to it, others aren't, and some don't even want to think about it.


----------



## darjr (Jan 7, 2011)

I have not an idea about when or if there will be a 5e. I think that they'll try the morphing of the current rules as long as possible.

I do think that both essentials and Gamma World are a bit like Bo9s and Star Wars Saga, in that some of the ideas in them are from the labs, who's residents are working on what is 'next' for D&D, whatever that is.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jan 7, 2011)

I'll throw some oil on the fire.  How about this:

5e, whenever it comes and whatever it is called, will not look anything like 3x, 2e or 0d&d.  Old skool gamerz will continue to be bitterly disappointed.

With every edition there's a contingent hoping that the _nex_t one will be a return to whatever version is their favorite.  But that's never happened.  And it's not going to happen in the future.  

Those old editions have been _done_.  They are still being done.  You have Pathfinder and retro clones and yes, your dogeared copies of the actual game.  

But while releasing, let's say, the Uber Ultimate Edition of classic AD&D might garner a temporary wave of enthusiasm in the community, it's a dead-end.  Once everyone who is 30+ had finished hailing D&D's return to its roots, they'd go back to raising their kids and working at their office jobs.  Sales would slump as the younger gamers who actually drive them completely failed to connect with the older style of game.

Eventually D&D enthusiasts would become like model train builders - a rapidly graying group whose hobby is unlikely to be transferred to a new generation.

Model trains are kinda cool, but I don't really want to spend Saturday afternoon working on one in the basement with grandpa, you know?

D&D has to move forward and connect with new players.  Its design needs to reflect what the kids are familiar with.  4e brought in a lot of CCG design and codified concepts that are familiar from MMOs.  That wasn't an accident.  3e I think reflected the rise of cRPGs with their demand for more consistent rules and mechanics.  

5e will also borrow from whatever the kids are playing.  It will be yet another evolutionary step forward.  I have no doubt that it will alienate a lot of 4e players and leave them pining for 6e, which they are sure will represent the triumphant return of whatever it is they liked about 4e (it won't).  But 5e will be different, as different from 4e as 4e was from 3e, and it will make a lot of us feel old.

My point, I guess, is that people shouldn't be too quick to call for a new edition of the game.  New editions are extremely unlikely to fix whatever you personally feel is wrong with the game or restore it to the style that you and your friends spent so many hours playing.  And they're very likely to change things up, skewer the sacred cows, and generally make you feel like the new edition isn't what YOU would call D&D.

As 4e appears to be likely to remain with us in 2011, this might be a good time to take a deep breath and appreciate the classic elements that remain in this edition.  After all, Fourth Edition still involves rolling dice, requires a DM, and can be played without the aid of a computer.

The next edition might not.

OK, I'm going to go hide under my desk and wait for people to start throwing rocks.


----------



## Goonalan (Jan 7, 2011)

Dungeoneer said:


> OK, I'm going to go hide under my desk and wait for people to start throwing rocks.




We've progressed from the traditional (Pre 4e) rock throwing, we're throwing (Essentials/4.5e) goats.

Goat Fling
PC Attack 1
Requirement: You must be wielding a goat.
Staggering you grab the goat, lift it above your head- and fling the beast at your mortal enemy.
Standard- At Will: Range 5/10
Target: One Creature
To Hit: Strength vs AC
Damage: 2d8 + Strength damage, and target knocked Prone.
Miss: Roll on Goat Scatter Table.
Effect: Your goat is gone.

Cheers PDR


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jan 7, 2011)

Goonalan said:


> We've progressed from the traditional (Pre 4e) rock throwing, we're throwing (Essentials/4.5e) goats.
> 
> Goat Fling
> PC Attack 1
> ...



I recommend making this close burst so it won't provoke OAs.  In the meantime I will be picking up a feat that gives me Resist 5 to damage from Thrown Horned Ungulates.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 7, 2011)

Did somebody say goat?

YouTube - Death Goat on rampage


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 7, 2011)

See, this is what I was talking about.  Goat-throwing is not an innovation of 4E (or the theoretical Essentials/4.5E) system.  We allowed the tossing of ungulates way back in 3.5E, using the rules for improvised weapons and the Throw Anything feat.  (More strict DMs would require the tosser to first grapple an adjacent goat.)

I predict that in the next edition, goat-throwing will be expanded to include all manner of barnyard animals: chickens, pigs, maybe even dairy cows.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jan 7, 2011)

Dungeoneer said:


> I'll throw some oil on the fire.  How about this:
> 
> 5e, whenever it comes and whatever it is called, will not look anything like 3x, 2e or 0d&d.  Old skool gamerz will continue to be bitterly disappointed.
> 
> ...




Okay, I have to jump in here and stand up for the old school gamers (note the use of letters like "c" and "s" in spelling that phrase, by the way).  This might just be ideology-driven punditry on my part, but I happen to disagree with a lot of what you're saying here.  

For one thing, sometimes new editions do in fact hearken back to what came before.  One of 3rd edition's major selling points was that it sought to revive some of what was lost from 1st edition.  It trumped the brining back of demons and devils, monks and assassins, half-orcs and barbarians.  The slogan was "back to the dungeon," which was kind of a backhanded way of saying "away from 2nd edition's poncy setting-and-narrative style."  

And it worked.  Many lapsed gamers who skipped 2nd edition came back for 3rd.

Now, are there any grognards who really believe that 5th edition will look anything like older D&D?  Realistically, of course not.  Attack tables, descending AC, and saving throws vs. dragon's breath are just never coming back.  We know this.  And we accept it; it's all just so much window-dressing anyway.  But, speaking for this old-school gamer at least, I do look forward to 5th edition, because I might not be disappointed.  I might be vindicated.  That will happen if the new slogan is something like: "back to the fantasy world" or "between the battles" or "beyond the encounter."  If *that* is the guiding principle that drives the design of 5th edition, then 5th edition will indeed recapture the spirit of editions zero through three.  And in that case it will probably bring back many lapsed gamers who skipped 4th edition to go play Pathfinder or a retro-clone (because they didn't want to play a glorified skirmish game that probably should've been called "D&D Tactics").

I will argue this point, at least, until my lungs run out of breath and my fingers can type no more: so long as D&D remains a relatively complex game that plays out like a series of battles with obligatory smatterings of "story" in between, the player base will not grow.  Simplify, simplify, simplify.  The only way to connect the game to young people is to hook them with a "basic" game that does what tabletop RPGs do well -- inspire the imagination -- and not what tabletop RPGs do poorly, which is try to be a battle sim without a CPU to do the number-crunching for you.  In short: <Frankenstein voice> "Math... bad!!!  Roleplay... good!!!  Battles... bad!!!  Exploring... good!!!" </Frankenstein voice>


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 7, 2011)

D&D is basically the geek's soap opera.


----------



## Goonalan (Jan 7, 2011)

Goat Scatter Table

On a Miss roll a D12 and refer to the following table-

1- Goat lands D4 squares to the North of the target, if square occupied see '10'.
2- Goat lands D4 squares to the North East of the target, if square occupied see '10'.
3- Goat lands D4 squares to the East of the target, if square occupied see '10'.
4- Goat lands D4 squares to the South East of the target, if square occupied see '10'.
5- Goat lands D4 squares to the South of the target, if square occupied see '10'.
6- Goat lands D4 squares to the South West of the target, if square occupied see '10'.
7- Goat lands D4 squares to the West of the target, if square occupied see '10'.
8- Goat lands D4 squares to the North West of the target, if square occupied see '10'.
9- Goat caught by target, may make Goat Fling attack back as Free Action.
10- If target Huge or larger then target opens mouth (or similar) and consumes goat- set target state to 'Sated', target exits combat, belching, as a Free Action. If target smaller than Huge, goat lands in same square as target, target mounts goat as Free Action- see Goat Mount sidebar.
11- Roll 1d8 again and refer to Goat Scatter Table. If goat not consumed then goat charges original thrower as Free Action.
12- Goat unfurls bat-like wings and takes flight, goat is never seen again- remove Goat from equipment list.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 7, 2011)

Goat of Wonder! Operates like a Wand of Wonder!


----------



## Momeeche (Jan 7, 2011)

I'm living in Bulgaria - there are a lot of goat here. And sheep. And donkeys. But I don't think it's time for 5E yet.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> Technically, they are correct until 5E actually appears. They aren't wrong... yet.




My TARDIS says otherwise.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 7, 2011)

So time traveling Goats. Hmmm... I can see how Goats could evolve to a new life form that is just as sentient as humans.

If not superior.

Except for that fainting weakness thing.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 7, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I'm playing 5e... it's pronounced "Pathfinder."




I don't consider Pathfinder 3.75, 4e or 5e.

Then again, my ideal is for 5e to be like Savage Worlds or True20 Revised, but I'd settle for d20Modern or Grim Tales as the base with 
a) No level Drain
b) Ability score reduction gives penalty to appropriate rolls rather than reduce the score itself
c) True20 Conviction/M&M Hero Points and their uses
d) True20/M&M Damage Save (gets rid of hit points and escalating Armor Class) 
e)  M&M Complications
f) Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin) system for mental powers
g)  Elements of Magic: Mystic Earth (EN Publishing) for magic
h)  Blood and Fist (RPGObjects) for Martial Arts
i)  Magic Item Creation as per Artificer's Handbook (Mystic Eye Games)
j) Revision of the Grapple rules
k)  Smart and Agility Tricks as in Savage Worlds
l) 4e Saves as Defenses
m) 4e single save progression for all classes
n)  4e Heroic Tier Multiclassing based on feats
o)  4e Disease Track
p) Add incantations/rituals
q) Revise many of the class abilities
r) Advanced Classes use Talent Trees
s) d20 Modern Foe Factory (Adamant Entertainment) NPC design


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 7, 2011)

Votan said:


> In Star Trek movies, every even movie was extremely good (wrath of khan, the voyage home, etc) and the odd movies seem to lack the same zest.




I lost all interest after Spock died.  Poor bastard sacrifced himself for everyone on board the Enterprise.  (sob)  I have no clue what happened after that, and I don't care.  It will never be the same without Spock.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 7, 2011)

Not yet.

  The Old School/3E-Pathfinder/4E War is still raging, but it has a ways to go before it can reduce D&D to a completely barren and lifeless battlefield, with the three sides divided into armed camps that refuse to step outside their boundaries, accept any outsiders, or show anything but the bloody sword to those who will not bow before their idols of Gygax, Paizo, or Mearls. 

  Adding a 5E would dilute the conflict and shake things up--it might even bring about the possibility of peace. And that can not be allowed if we are to destroy D&D once and for all.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 7, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Not yet.
> 
> The Old School/3E-Pathfinder/4E War is still raging, but it has a ways to go before it can reduce D&D to a completely barren and lifeless battlefield, with the three sides divided into armed camps that refuse to step outside their boundaries, accept any outsiders, or show anything but the bloody sword to those who will not bow before their idols of Gygax, Paizo, or Mearls.
> 
> Adding a 5E would dilute the conflict and shake things up--it might even bring about the possibility of peace. And that can not be allowed if we are to destroy D&D once and for all.




Do ya think we could drum up some investement for a console RTS based on it "Geeks of War"


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 7, 2011)

My prognosticatons are only good for about nine months or so. The goat entrails from previously airborne goats make for some fine components.


----------



## LeStryfe79 (Jan 8, 2011)

If I were Hasbro, I'd reduce WotC's d&d department down to a skeleton crew, which could churn out a small trickle of new products, while re-releasing all the old products(in pdf or print on demand) as a sign of good faith. Then after a few years and a much needed break, they could hire a bunch of old/new guys to make a long awaited 5th edition, which would debut in 2018. More than likely however, the new edition is slowly being worked on for a 2014 40th anniversary date.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 8, 2011)

CleverNickName said:


> The 4th Edition of the rules was announced, then released.  And whether you love it, hate it, or have never even played it, you cannot deny that it has been a success.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Thoughts?



I think you should be thinking about taking it on the road or something. You're one hilarious guy!


----------



## delericho (Jan 8, 2011)

DandD said:


> They need at least one rule-variant in any later product, just like set defense scores from Star Wars Saga Edition and Tome of Battle-maneuvers were for 4th edition.
> 
> So far, I haven't seen anything in Essentials that is that "revolutionary" or "evolutionary" apart from regular 4th edition.




Gamma World. And the new Fortune Cards.

To maximise profits, I would expect WotC to want any 5e to synergise the DDI with collectable cards. Fortune Cards are a start, but they'd almost certainly do better to get the power cards themselves into a collectable format.

So, in the next little while, I might well expect to see them do the following:

1) Ramp up the amount of DDI-exclusive material. There's already some (new feats and new powers in Dragon), but I'd expect to at least one entirely new class that appears only on the DDI, and _never_ makes it to print. Said class may well be a slightly better variant of an existing class.

2) A class (or classes) which doesn't have individual levels for its powers. They may well have a "power cascade" mechanic, where if you use a power of a given type, you may also use any other powers you have of the same type. (The initial class may be some sort of Elementalist or Wu Jen, so that the cascades can be easily understood, such as the Fire Cascade...)

3) Possibly a class that can take on any of the four roles, depending on the powers you choose. To maintain niche protection, the class would of course work better if you stick pretty solidly within a single role.

Then, I'd expect 5e to take a format similar to Gamma World:

- A boxed set, rather than hardbacks.

- A simplified ruleset, again as in Gamma World.

- They may or may not ditch classes. The advantage of doing so is that they'd only need one deck of power cards, rather than several. On the other hand, keeping classes allows them to offer only 4 in the starter box, with available as DDI exclusives.

- A level-based system, where level controls the number of powers you have. However, the powers themselves don't have levels (instead, using the cascading effects of point #2 above). This allows them to sell a single deck of powers used at all levels. (Otherwise, you could open a booster and get only epic-level powers that you can't use for months!)

- A starter deck of power cards, with more available in random boosters (or virtual random boosters on the DDI). Naturally, there would be Common, Uncommon and Rare cards, with the starter deck containing only commons. It's even very possible that the physical and virtual decks will have limited overlap (and possibly with the best cascades only available if you combine powers from both).

- Tie-in between the collectable power cards and the DDI - each card has a code used to unlock the power in the DDI.

- More flexible retraining rules, allowing players to essentially switch out their entire deck between sessions if desired. (Or... they could allow players to have a deck of any size, but have their level limit the number of cards they can hold in a hand at a time. Then, with each encounter, players can redraw from the deck. Hmm...)

Some good news for the DMs: I would expect monsters to not be heavily randomised. Instead, I'd expect to see a single Monster Manual/Monster Vault containing lots of monsters, with more regularly appearing. Mostly, this is because they need DMs to keep running lots of games, to keep players playing (and buying). That said, I can see them being tempted to do either random minis or random tokens, possibly with some monsters only being available in the boosters.

It's worth noting that I didn't sleep very well, and am feeling extremely cynical today. Hopefully, none of the above will prove at all accurate.


----------



## Aloïsius (Jan 8, 2011)

delericho said:


> It's worth noting that I didn't sleep very well, and am feeling extremely cynical today. Hopefully, none of the above will prove at all accurate.



MtG as the next D&D edition has been a very old fear, but an unrealistic one... Whenever 5e comes out, it will be a roleplaying game, not a collectible card game.

As many others, I do think it's too soon for 5e. Plus, I'm not even sure there will be a 5e at all : it may as well be more and more a matter of constant evolution/fixes. Especially with the increasing importance of e-readers.

When there will be color nook or kindle, there won't be any new edition for many years. Just patches, and subscriptions...


----------



## delericho (Jan 8, 2011)

Aloïsius said:


> MtG as the next D&D edition has been a very old fear, but an unrealistic one... Whenever 5e comes out, it will be a roleplaying game, not a collectible card game.




No doubt, but we've already got RPGs with collectable-card elements (Gamma World, and the new Fortune Cards for D&D). Suddenly, it looks a whole lot more likely we'll see a much greater emphasis on this with any new edition.



> Plus, I'm not even sure there will be a 5e at all : it may as well be more and more a matter of constant evolution/fixes.




Every time WotC put out a new version, they get a massive bump in their sales, when everyone goes out and buys a new PHB/DMG/MM (or equivalents). That pretty much guarantees that there will be a 5e.

(And I'm also pretty sure the 5e will be notably different from 4e, rather than just an "Essentials II", because simply incorporating the fixes will give decreasing returns with each iteration.)


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2011)

Maybe it's the lack of sleep talking but I think it's time to drop the banhammer on 5E threads. They're nothing but PA edition warring.


----------



## delericho (Jan 8, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Maybe it's the lack of sleep talking but I think it's time to drop the banhammer on 5E threads. They're nothing but PA edition warring.




The thing is, though, that that's not actually true. While there's been some amount of sniping at 4e from 3e/PF fans, and a certain amount of sniping at 3e/PF by 4e fans, the bulk of the thread has actually been fairly measured discussion of the topic at hand, with what appears to be a strong majority from all sides saying "not yet" to 5e. (In fact, has there been _any_ mod activity on this thread?)

Just in case your post was aimed at mine from this morning (which could be read as "OMG, 4e is becoming a CCG!"), I hope you will accept that that is not my intention. While 4e is not my edition of choice (I stuck with 3.5e), there are a number of things about it that I really like, and it has also highlighted a number of genuine flaws with my preferred edition. I had actually had (have?) real hope that a good 5e might, eventually, come around and blow me away.

Nor, by and large, do I have a problem with what WotC is doing with 4e. I thought Essentials was a very positive step, and although the new Character Builder was a disaster on release, the manner in which they've fixed it up has been extremely impressive.

I _do_ have a problem with the Fortune Cards. But that's a problem with _one_ specific product, and _not_ with 4e as a whole. My post from the morning reflects my fears of where that might lead with any new edition.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 8, 2011)

delericho said:


> No doubt, but we've already got RPGs with collectable-card elements (Gamma World, and the new Fortune Cards for D&D). Suddenly, it looks a whole lot more likely we'll see a much greater emphasis on this with any new edition.




  That depends on how well the Gamma World boosters and the Fortune Cards do. I remember the last wave of CCG elements in RPGs--nearly 20 years ago, with _Everway_ and _Changeling: The Dreaming_. They didn't take, so no one's really returned to the concept since, until now. If the products don't succeed for WotC this time, the concept will probably lie dormant for another decade or two.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 8, 2011)

LeStryfe79 said:


> If I were Hasbro, I'd reduce WotC's d&d department down to a skeleton crew, which could churn out a small trickle of new products, while re-releasing all the old products(in pdf or print on demand) as a sign of good faith. Then after a few years and a much needed break, they could hire a bunch of old/new guys to make a long awaited 5th edition, which would debut in 2018. More than likely however, the new edition is slowly being worked on for a 2014 40th anniversary date.




They are already operating with a skeleton crew.  Why do think they didn't ahve any pre-holiday layoffs in 2010?


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 8, 2011)

ggroy said:


> In light of recent events, one wonders what is going to happen to the content of the possibly canceled (or omitted) 4E 2011 titles.  In particular, the following titles advertised at Gencon 2010 but which are conspicuously absent from amazon.com or WotC's own online catalog:
> 
> (removed or omitted from amazon.com)
> - Champions of the Heroic Tier
> ...




I believe some of those are not really cancelled, but delayed.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2011)

delericho said:


> I _do_ have a problem with the Fortune Cards. But that's a problem with _one_ specific product, and _not_ with 4e as a whole. My post from the morning reflects my fears of where that might lead with any new edition.




The Fortune Cards look kind of cool and I'm glad they're experimenting and expanding the game space with optional tools. That said, I'll most likely be skipping them as they're not an element I'm keen to add.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 8, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> I believe some of those are not really cancelled, but delayed.




You're probably right but then the question is, why doesn't WotC make a very simple, easy, and painless announcement? This has been their MO for quite some time and one of the reasons they have been (rightly, imo) criticized of poor PR.

So my advice to WotC would be, quite simply: _Communicate with your customers!_ You don't have to tell us your inner corporate secrets, what you have in store for us etc, but just let us know what is going on. It would go a long way towards fostering goodwill between fans and the company. I mean, take one from Paizo.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 8, 2011)

You realize, of course that by discussing 5e so much you run the risk of encouraging WotC of publishing an actual 5e. 

That also means discontinuing support for 4e just like they discontinued 3.5/d20 products.

That will create even more of a schism among the fan base and the customers.

And when will it stop?

Because of crap like constantly talking about 5e, I can see that when and if 5e is actually published, the fans will start discussing a 6e right away and will just go on and on and on and.

So when will it stop?

Please, give it a rest and let 4e be established and supported for a long time before there's even a 5e.


----------



## Pour (Jan 8, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> So my advice to WotC would be, quite simply: _Communicate with your customers!_ You don't have to tell us your inner corporate secrets, what you have in store for us etc, but just let us know what is going on. It would go a long way towards fostering goodwill between fans and the company. I mean, take one from Paizo.




I think they've been pretty open these passed two months with calendar changes, design philosophies, podcasts, the apology for the e-assassin, increase of fluff to Dragon and Dungeon (which is a balance they're still trying to get right, but hey it's a process) and so on. And they do preview what they have in store for us. Not to mention we have the luxury of actual reps and designers occasionally stopping in or blogging, and guys like mudbunny nice enough to go digging for even more information. 

Who else do you think they should foster good will with at this point? The 3e/PF people still haunting the WotC site and 4e threads? I see that as a lost cause, despite the fact many of them still seek nothing short of corporate and designer apologies for making something they don't like. Grognards? New players? The Chicken Littles?

Yes there have been PR blunders along the way. I'm not denying that. But I do see positive change. I mean fostering good will isn't instantaneous. They are taking the preliminary steps to communicate with their fan base and experiment with new products, despite the great internet wailing- people who will never be content with this game.


----------



## DandD (Jan 8, 2011)

delericho said:


> Gamma World. And the new Fortune Cards.



I doubt that fortune cards will prove that much of a success. 


> 2) A class (or classes) which doesn't have individual levels for its powers. They may well have a "power cascade" mechanic, where if you use a power of a given type, you may also use any other powers you have of the same type. (The initial class may be some sort of Elementalist or Wu Jen, so that the cascades can be easily understood, such as the Fire Cascade...)



That actually sounds very good. 


> 3) Possibly a class that can take on any of the four roles, depending on the powers you choose. To maintain niche protection, the class would of course work better if you stick pretty solidly within a single role.



That would be a nightmare to balance, so rather unlikely. 


> Then, I'd expect 5e to take a format similar to Gamma World:
> 
> - A boxed set, rather than hardbacks.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I actually think that all the points you listed off are actually a good idea to implement for 5th edition, without being cynical myself. And should randomised booster packs and minis become necessary, then it's because it proved to be a success, which then it's entirely the fault of the players... which then also simply means that tastes have changed over the decades, and people like you and me aren't part of these groups. It would suck for us, but oh well, not everybody can win.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> You realize, of course that by discussing 5e so much you run the risk of encouraging WotC of publishing an actual 5e.




You realize, of course, this is exactly what a very loud minority of gamers want. They feel somehow "wronged" by WotC and will only be happy when those who enjoy the current edition of the game feel the same way and/or think somehow WotC will do a rewind and go back to what they want. 

It's an internet tantrum, and it's in no way limited to RPGs. Sports and politics, for two easy examples, are generally FAR more combative. Fans of the very same team can't agree and many make it very known they don't.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 8, 2011)

So your contention is that this constant bringing up of 5e discussions is by people of 3e in order to create a schism between 4e and 5e?


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2011)

Sort of. Some 3E people are mad WotC "ruined" their game. They're so bitter they want WotC to "ruin" the game for the people who like 4E and get them mad at WotC too. Some even think that if they "scream" loud and long enough, WotC may go back to doing things in a way they like. It's delusions of grandeur that if WotC doesn't do what they want, they will "ruin" WotC. 

It happened with Chainmail, OD&D, etc. too, there just wasn't the internet and the Anonymous Keyboard Commando Empowerment Complex.

There's also an impatient portion of teh gaming population that is always clammoring for teh next thing. It happened in minis when as soon as the set list was known there was a couple of days of banter, then speculation/endless chatter about what would be in the next set. And this was often before the current set even hit the "street".


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2011)

Herschel said:


> You realize, of course, this is exactly what a very loud minority of gamers want.



Since we keep getting asked to prove every assessment as absolute quantified fact, can you demonstrate your claim of "minority"?



> They feel somehow "wronged" by WotC and will only be happy when those who enjoy the current edition of the game feel the same way and/or think somehow WotC will do a rewind and go back to what they want.



Meh, WotC hasn't wronged me in any way.  So obviously your hyper-generalization doesn't accurately describe the circumstance.  Certainly there are some that express such, but, IMO, that is a very small minority of the broader and significant "4e isn't good enough" crowd.  It may make you feel better to try to paint everyone with one brush, but it doesn't make it accurate.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2011)

And yet you insult 4E and its players in your signature. You've toned it down quite a bit but it's still there.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 8, 2011)

If you take a statement that accurately explains how some the "maigic" of D&D has been lost in the transition to 4E as an "insult" maybe you are just looking to be insulted.  It's not an insult just a good way of stating a certain point of view.  It's also a statement that is hard to argue with.  The good stories and great RPG sessions are never about balanced encounters but about being heroic and pulling off daring deeds you should not expect to be able to accomplish.  Maybe you are a bit upset because you see the truth in this statement?  It is very difficult to get that type of experience from 4E.    4E encounters are either balanced and boring or an excercise in frustration.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 8, 2011)

Herschel said:


> And yet you insult 4E and its players in your signature. You've toned it down quite a bit but it's still there.




Waitaminute... you're saying his sig insults an inanimate game... and the people who play it... ... huh?


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2011)

It's pretty ironic that I'm accused of painting people in to a group when I say there's a minority of and some posters paint themselves in to that group quite efficiently.


----------



## delericho (Jan 8, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> You realize, of course that by discussing 5e so much you run the risk of encouraging WotC of publishing an actual 5e.




Discussing 5e does no such thing. WotC will release 5e at the point when they think it makes commercial sense for them to do so, based either on the _real_ sales figures of 4e products (info we don't have access to, but they most certainly do), or due to _real_ customer feedback (and not the discussions of a random, tiny, and self-selecting group of message board members).

I discuss 5e because I'm interesting in the topic. Period. Just as I discussed 4e for several years before it was released, and just as I'll discuss 6e, probably starting a few months before 5e is released (once the shape of 5e is known in broad strokes, if not in detail).

If you don't want to discuss the topic, you don't have to.

(Edit: that said, this thread seems to have run its course. Guess we'll have to wait a few weeks for the next one.  )


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2011)

delericho said:


> WotC will release 5e at the point when they think it makes commercial sense for them to do so,




Very true. 


> I discuss 5e because I'm interesting in the topic. Period.




And I'd venture a strong guess you're actually in the majority, albeit impatient for upcoming stuff news, like me, just for 4E-compatible goodies.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jan 8, 2011)

Herschel said:


> It happened with Chainmail, OD&D, etc. too, there just wasn't the internet and the Anonymous Keyboard Commando Empowerment Complex.




...Wait, whut? 

Are you actually claiming that when Chainmail came out, there was a fanbase to be angry at whatever wargame it could've been superseding?  And that when D&D came out, it made the Chainmail fans mad, but they just didn't have an internet to go complain on?  "Stupid Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, ruining our wargames with their newfangled role-playing?"  _Really?!_

Unless of course, you're just using hyperbole to make your point.  That, I get.  Your point is obviously wrong, because you're just trying to paint all fan-driven internet arguments as the same sort of narrow-minded, tribalistic, impotent nerd-rage, thus excluding by fiat (or more accurately, by false equivalence) the very possibility that one might have a legitimate complaint about anything.  But I get it.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 8, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> And that when D&D came out, it made the Chainmail fans mad, but they just didn't have an internet to go complain on?  "Stupid Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, ruining our wargames with their newfangled role-playing?"  _Really?!_




  While I wasn't there (I wasn't even _alive_ when OD&D came out), I've heard that this sort of grumbling not only existed among the old-school wargaming fans, but it's where the application of the term 'grognard' in this hobby came from in the first place.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 8, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> While I wasn't there (I wasn't even _alive_ when OD&D came out), I've heard that this sort of grumbling not only existed among the old-school wargaming fans, but it's where the application of the term 'grognard' in this hobby came from in the first place.




I was alive then, and I remember the moaning from the wargaming community about D&D. I'm not sure it's where grognard came from, mind you. It wouldn't surprise me, since Napoleonics was one of the most popular wargaming periods and the term would likely have been familiar to a lot of people, but I didn't hear it used among RPGers until the 1990s - White Wolf being the catalyst.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> Your point is obviously wrong, because you're just trying to paint all fan-driven internet arguments as the same sort of narrow-minded, tribalistic, impotent nerd-rage, thus excluding by fiat (or more accurately, by false equivalence) the very possibility that one might have a legitimate complaint about anything.




I did nothing of the sort, but (as others have also pointed out) there's always been fan-driven nerd-rage. Doesn't mean it's even a majority, but deny it's there is rather..... blind. 

The funny thing is those most vehemently denying this phenomena are usually the ones most guilty of it. There's a difference between legitimate complaint and frothing lunacy, but sometimes that line gets a little blurred. 

Except for furries. Nobody likes them


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 8, 2011)

Well, I guess I don't fit the mold.

I don't have anything against people who want 4e.

But I am frustrated that we only had a couple of years of support for 3.5e/d20 though. That was a bad move and they should've waited a few more years before going on to 4e.

I just wish that some 4e players had the same kind of respect for me, that they wouldn't hold anything against me because my preferred game is 3.5 and d20.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 8, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> ...Wait, whut?
> 
> Are you actually claiming that when Chainmail came out, there was a fanbase to be angry at whatever wargame it could've been superseding?  And that when D&D came out, it made the Chainmail fans mad, but they just didn't have an internet to go complain on?  "Stupid Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, ruining our wargames with their newfangled role-playing?"  _Really?!_
> 
> Unless of course, you're just using hyperbole to make your point.  That, I get.  Your point is obviously wrong, because you're just trying to paint all fan-driven internet arguments as the same sort of narrow-minded, tribalistic, impotent nerd-rage, thus excluding by fiat (or more accurately, by false equivalence) the very possibility that one might have a legitimate complaint about anything.  But I get it.




Dude, where do you think the modern usage of "grognard" _came_ from?


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 8, 2011)

Indeed. I remember being ridiculed and insulted at a games club in the 80s by older wargamers because I played roleplaying games like 1st edition thus diluting my devotion to boardgames. And their attacks were just as uninformed and prejudiced as some against 4th edition.

Fortunately at the time, 90% of the club happily played anything with anyone. And nowadays, 90% of players will play any roleplaying game which has a group and a dungeon master.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 9, 2011)

Pour said:


> I think they've been pretty open these passed two months with calendar changes, design philosophies, podcasts, the apology for the e-assassin, increase of fluff to Dragon and Dungeon (which is a balance they're still trying to get right, but hey it's a process) and so on. And they do preview what they have in store for us. Not to mention we have the luxury of actual reps and designers occasionally stopping in or blogging, and guys like mudbunny nice enough to go digging for even more information.
> 
> Who else do you think they should foster good will with at this point? The 3e/PF people still haunting the WotC site and 4e threads? I see that as a lost cause, despite the fact many of them still seek nothing short of corporate and designer apologies for making something they don't like. Grognards? New players? The Chicken Littles?
> 
> Yes there have been PR blunders along the way. I'm not denying that. But I do see positive change. I mean fostering good will isn't instantaneous. They are taking the preliminary steps to communicate with their fan base and experiment with new products, despite the great internet wailing- people who will never be content with this game.




Improvement? Yeah, maybe - I don't feel like I've paid enough attention to their announcement to be able to make a good judgment. But "improvement" is by definition relative; it doesn't mean "good."

What I'd like to see, for one, is them tell the customers what happened to disappeared product that we might have been looking forward to. How hard would it be to say "Don't worry, the _Nentir Vale Gazetteer _is coming later in 2011" or, if they want to be cryptic and have something special in store for us, "_Nentir Vale Gazetteer? _A bigger, better product killed it and took its stuff."

Without either kind of response we're left wondering if the product was just axed, which doesn't go over all that well.


----------



## Pour (Jan 9, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Improvement? Yeah, maybe - I don't feel like I've paid enough attention to their announcement to be able to make a good judgment. But "improvement" is by definition relative; it doesn't mean "good."
> 
> What I'd like to see, for one, is them tell the customers what happened to disappeared product that we might have been looking forward to. How hard would it be to say "Don't worry, the _Nentir Vale Gazetteer _is coming later in 2011" or, if they want to be cryptic and have something special in store for us, "_Nentir Vale Gazetteer? _A bigger, better product killed it and took its stuff."
> 
> Without either kind of response we're left wondering if the product was just axed, which doesn't go over all that well.




Fair enough, but you've got to admit 'improved' is moving closer to 'good' and further away from 'bad'. 

They've got a ways to go yet, and I wouldn't mind some information on these missing books too, but I'm willing to give them some time and some leeway, especially since we're so early into the new year and there's still so much I'm anticipating that hasn't been definitively nixed, electronic and print.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 9, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> I was alive then, and I remember the moaning from the wargaming community about D&D.





I was there, too, and in northern Illinois and just south of the heart of what I call the Cradle of D&D (a crescent shape running from Chicago to Minneapolis, its outer arc encompassing Milwaukee and inner arc cresting through northern Illinois  ).  In the local game clubs which including mostly wargamers, often from Fort Sheridan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center, there was a great deal of looking down the nose by wargamers toward early RPGing.  Some of us were young enough not to make the distinction and just did lots of both.




Bluenose said:


> I'm not sure it's where grognard came from, mind you. It wouldn't surprise me, since Napoleonics was one of the most popular wargaming periods and the term would likely have been familiar to a lot of people, but I didn't hear it used among RPGers until the 1990s - White Wolf being the catalyst.





Here's where the modern use of the term grognard stems -

The Word "Grognard"


----------



## JeffB (Jan 9, 2011)

I'm up for 5E- assuming it meets my tastes. If it doesn't, I don't really care though. I was not happy w/ 3E, I was not happy w/ 4E at first, but grew to really like it in many aspects.  

However, D&D is so far removed these days from my style of play and what I want/need out of the game (for the most part) I just am not concerned with what happens with the WOTC editions anymore. I am not the target market anymore and am OK with that. So if 5E is announced, thats cool & it will be nice to see something new, but I have plenty of other D&D system options that are meeting my needs, and plenty of support for them (Thanks Mr. Dancey!)


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 9, 2011)

Greg K said:


> Then again, my ideal is for 5e to be like Savage Worlds or True20 Revised, but I'd settle for d20Modern or Grim Tales as the base with
> a) No level Drain
> b) Ability score reduction gives penalty to appropriate rolls rather than reduce the score itself
> c) True20 Conviction/M&M Hero Points and their uses
> ...



It's probably a good thing you and I aren't both on the 5e design team, as (other than 'j' and 'q', which I agree with; and 'e' and 's', which I've no idea what they are) my reaction to the entire list above pretty much amounts to "bleah".

For 'q', I'd like to see the revision become a division, so there's less overlap between what the classes can do thus allowing each to shine at what it does best.

But overall from reading the above it still sounds like there'd still be a need for a character builder, and that alone is enough to turn me away. 

That said, props to you for thinking it through in some depth.

Lan-"characters are not built before play, they are forged during it"-efan


----------



## LeStryfe79 (Jan 9, 2011)

This thread is funny.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 9, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I was there, too, and in northern Illinois and just south of the heart of what I call the Cradle of D&D (a crescent shape running from Chicago to Minneapolis, its outer arc encompassing Milwaukee and inner arc cresting through northern Illinois  ). In the local game clubs which including mostly wargamers, often from Fort Sheridan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center, there was a great deal of looking down the nose by wargamers toward early RPGing. Some of us were young enough not to make the distinction and just did lots of both.




I had exactly the same experience in the UK at around the same time.  




> Here's where the modern use of the term grognard stems -
> 
> The Word "Grognard"




Oh, I'd heard the word in the wargaming context. I don't remember hearing it applied to a player of RPGs until the 1990s, describing someone who had a virulent hatred for White Wolf games (not proper RPGs  sounds familiar) and didn't mind complaining about it at every opportunity in my FLGS. He got described as an old grognard, which sounded strange at the time since I associated it with people older than me and he was younger.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 9, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> I had exactly the same experience in the UK at around the same time.





There seemed to be a lot of game clubs back then (from what I know talking to people at conventions and reading in various publications of the time).  Nowadays, I don't hear of many that meet outside of gamestores and individual homes.  I wonder if public space has become too cost prohibitive for such networking.




Bluenose said:


> Oh, I'd heard the word in the wargaming context. I don't remember hearing it applied to a player of RPGs until the 1990s, describing someone who had a virulent hatred for White Wolf games (not proper RPGs  sounds familiar) and didn't mind complaining about it at every opportunity in my FLGS. He got described as an old grognard, which sounded strange at the time since I associated it with people older than me and he was younger.





I've seen similar misuse of the modern version of the term as a pejorative, sometimes applied by persons to anyone who plays games that are out of print, or to anyone who doesn't play the most recent edition of their chosen game, or even just to anyone who doesn't use the most recent supplements or upgrades.  In other cases I have seen the modernized form of the term misused as a self-applied badge of honor to depict someone as a throwback to any time previous when they felt a particular game or brand was still a valid form of their game of choice.  I tend to refer to these latter individuals as neo-grogs.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 10, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> There seemed to be a lot of game clubs back then (from what I know talking to people at conventions and reading in various publications of the time).  Nowadays, I don't hear of many that meet outside of gamestores and individual homes.  I wonder if public space has become too cost prohibitive for such networking.



I suspect many such groups were in fact college/university student clubs.  I'd like to think such things still exist, they're certainly not as obvious as they once were...

Lan-"Clubs are good.  Swords are better"-efan


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 10, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well, I guess I don't fit the mold.
> 
> I don't have anything against people who want 4e.
> 
> ...




And a LOT of the OD&D, 1e, and 2e players that stuck with it would like the SAME respect from the D20/3.X die hards...but that never happened.

Still hasn't.

Perhaps turn around is fair play.

Overall, it would be great if everyone could respect everyone else's game of choice, but they don't.

I think the worst offenders actually were the 3.X players originally.  Not a majority, or even most of them, but some particularly hard nosed die hards who constantly derided older editions of the game as inferior.

I think some of the older players may not have really preferred 4e either, but jumped on the bandwagon when 4e initially came out to poke the hot stick from the fire right back at those tormenters who suddenly had their idolatry of D20 shoved from under them and had the same experience as some of the older gamers when 3e came out.

However, I think that some of those that have switched to Pathfinder, or are the really hard nosed die hards of D20 have only aggravated the situation over the years.  I feel it could have died out.  The D20 hardnosed die hards (the small but LOUD minority I've talked about) can't let dead dogs lie.  They take every opportunity to praise their D20 game and put down everything else.

That automatically puts people on the defensive.  They're continued arguments about "improvements" over past editions...but that 4e destroyed D&D simply puts fuel on the fire with people firing back about how 4e is actually an improvement and how 3e was so terribly unbalanced.

I actually like 3.5 a lot.  I think it's a better game ever since the migration of players went to Pathfinder, including a majority of this small minority of die hards who complain loudly and insult everything but their chosen messiah of a game.  Now the 3.5 players don't seem to have to deal with these people.

I think pathfinder is a good system as well in all likelihood.  I asked about it a little while ago and even gave it a try.  However, two people of the group simply could NOT let me be.  They'd deride the fact that I had no problem with 4e or AD&D constantly...and spout all sorts of nonsense about how superior Pathfinder and D20 games were.  Instead of taking a baseball bat to their heads, I left the group and have never gone back.  I'll probably NEVER play Pathfinder again.  It was a group of around 5 people...so they were absolutely the minority...but made life so painful to game around them...I don't want to put up with it.

In otherwords, it's not the game system I have a problem with, it's the people that play it.

I've never had a problem like that with others for any other game system...maybe I'm just blessed.

Where was a I going with this...got sidetracked with just how disgusted I got with those two guys...It was so disgusting it actually turned me off of what probably was a good game system overall.

Ah, that's right...I think a LOT of this was actually a small minority of people, specifically a minority that plays some D20 type games.  I'm not certain what attracts this mindset to that type of game, but it's the only place I've ever actually seen it in public...and seen a reflection of it on the internet.

I remember wargames and the change (I still call myself a wargamer and boardgamer overall, and typically will not actually admit to being part of an RPG group amongst them unless they play RPGs as well), but I NEVER SAW ANYTHING even close to the insults and catcalls, the derision and fury I've seen the edition wars of late.  Much of that was probably if many of these items were stated to one's face, it would have ended up in a fist fight.  People tend to be more polite when face to face.

I don't really recall any such fury over the 1e to 2e change.  Most seemed to be take it or leave it.  Some were very angry, but again, nothing like these edition wars of late.  Much of it could have been TSR's official stance was a grandfather clause which stated that anything in 1e could be used with 2e via grandfather clauses when 2e came out.  I think there was a LOT of those who used 1e intermixed with 2e.  Others simply ignored 2e.  Some hated on 2e...but again, nothing like what I've seen when 3e came out.

When 3e came out it was like holy fire from the sky with wars concerning the differences, whether it was or was not D&D, whether it was inspired by Diablo or not (I actually feel it was inspired by the Diablo games as much as 4e was inspired by MMORPG's) and a whole slew of forum wars about them.  Things we'd never say to each other face to face went on, and insults abounded about both editions.

I've never seen anything that completely embattled about an edition before or since.  Even these latests 3e to 4e wars seem tame in comparison to just how much and how far reaching these arguments went.  Forums would simply be full from top to bottom with these arguments.

There was unhappiness with 3e to 3.5, but once again, the editions wars of AD&D/D&D to 3.X were still there and probably were just as disruptive as the 3e to 3.5 arguments.

3e to 4e was big, and still is, but still nothing like when 3e came out.  I actually think it may die out if some of the minority of die hards could let it die out.

I know I was shocked when 4e was announced.  Part of me was angry, and I saw WotC as the new T$R (the $ is on purpose...symbolizing what some saw them representative of), perhaps as the new WotC$.  For a while I went back and forth between whether to really simply drop anything and everything WotC from there on out, or stick around and see what happened with 4e.  I stuck around, especially when I saw those making the loudest noise typically were those who had insulted every edition prior to 3.X previously anyways...and saw the hypocrisy of their actions.  I really didn't want to be a part of that...and for a while there it didn't seem like there was any middle ground.

Since then I've grown to like 4e in many ways.  I feel it gets rather bloated with all the powers and such at later levels, but it is itself a fine game system.  

For the future, ideas for 5e are already in development.  Whether it will be called 5e or not...remains to be seen.  Perhaps a new game system called AD&D will come out again...with a separate team working on revising 4e with ideas of the collectible cards and other elements from Gamma world being worked on.   Whatever it is, I expect the new status quo will be yet another big edition war, with the usual culprits leading it...probably offended because it's not a D20 system recap.

I still play boardgames and wargames.  The groups are still around.  A new edition is not going to change that.  I still play AD&D with those I can find...a new game system isn't going to change that.  I still play 3.5, and with those that I enjoy their company in.  I don't know of a group that I will play PF with currently...may never be able to unless I can be assured to avoid a small but hostile group that seems to play that game (though a majority of them I'm certain are great people to be around...I know a group of people who Play Rolemaster and are excellent people...and also play pathfinder...but with that group are some undesireables occasionally).  I play 4e...and if a 5e comes out I'll probably give it a whirl.

This is a LOT longer than I intended to be originally, probably should have made it a blog or it's own topic...especially since all I wanted to say was that I don't recall edition wars being this hot or bad prior to the internet or prior to 3e coming out.  Maybe I was disillusioned with youth and simply didn't see it.  I do see those promoting these edition wars and continually bringing them up to attack every game system as a small minority however...and not representative of the gaming community as a whole.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 10, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Instead of taking a baseball bat to their heads, I left the group and have never gone back.




Umm, dude... chill the heck out man.


----------



## DandD (Jan 10, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> Umm, dude... chill the heck out man.



He did. And he did the best thing by not ever dealing with these people that behaved like obnoxious tweerps anymore.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 10, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> I've never had a problem like that with others for any other game system...maybe I'm just blessed.




I agree with nearly everything you say, but...

[tongue in cheek] You have been blessed. Traveller: The New Era; that had a real flame war, not the mamby-pamby stuff that passes for one nowadays.[/tongue in cheek]

Seriously, it got nasty. And it still lives on, twenty years later.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 10, 2011)

I concede that there are people who will always feel insulted when others speak ill of a game they like.  And there are those who feel they will be left behind or miss out on new material unless they play the latest edition.  And that there are those who feel that past edition X didn't get the support, acknowledgement, respect, or time in the limelight that it deserved. And I think that most of these so-called edition wars are just gamers reminiscing about the Good Old Days and blowing off steam--we should probably not take them so seriously.

But none of this has anything to do with the eventuality of a 5th Edition.  Our discussion of it in these forums won't hinder or hasten it...we are pretty cool, but we aren't THAT cool.    And 4E Love/Hate isn't a factor...until it affects sales.  As others have said, 5E will be released when it makes sense for The Wizards to do so.

I happen to think it will be sooner rather than later, but that's just one nerd's opinion.  I'm no more right or wrong than anyone else in this thread.  (shrug)


----------



## Maggan (Jan 10, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> I've never had a problem like that with others for any other game system...maybe I'm just blessed.




I don't know if you are blessed or I am cursed, but the only game I play that I haven't seen massive edition wars over is Call of Cthulhu.

Well, apart from the massive flame war over Call of Cthulhu d20 vs Call of Cthulhu BRP, that is. 

One of the most frustrating was WFRPv1 vs. WFRPv2. 

/M


----------



## JeffB (Jan 10, 2011)

Maggan said:


> I don't know if you are blessed or I am cursed, but the only game I play that I haven't seen massive edition wars over is Call of Cthulhu.





Indeed  And there is a very obvious answer for why that is.

For those who don't play, it's because each " new edition" of CoC is 95% just adding additional material from supplements, clarifying a rule or mechanic, and providing erratta. On occasion they have added  a skill or removed a few and rolled them into one new skill, or added a new rule to cover a specific situation that comes up fairly often, but thats it. Not to mention, nearly every edition has a blurb that tells you "here's what we added, here's what we changed", so any prospective buyer can determine whether or not it' even neccessary for them to plunk down the $.

You can take a Chaosium product from 1983's 2nd edition era, and it will be 95% (or even more) usable with the current "6th edition" rulebook without any "prep" or conversions needed beforehand.

While it may not be the huge seller it once was, it's fans are extremely loyal to the game system, and to Chaosium, and often upgrade whether they feel a need to or not.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2011)

Maggan said:


> ne of the most frustrating was WFRPv1 vs. WFRPv2.
> 
> /M



 I remember skimming a WFRPG 2 book and deciding that there was not enough difference to justify buying it. What did I miss? I thougth there was very little difference.


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 10, 2011)

I don't know if it has been brought up yet, but all 3 FR boards on the WotC site have multiple-month old threads on their front page (at least when I checked a few minutes ago).  I have to imagine that that is a "heads-rolling" level of problem, but could be very FR specific, given 4e's handling of the setting.  Eberron... is doing a little better.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 10, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Where was a I going with this...got sidetracked with just how disgusted I got with those two guys...It was so disgusting it actually turned me off of what probably was a good game system overall.




I ran a few 4E games when it first came out even though I was less than enamored with the system. I decided that I'd stay with 3.5 and then moved over to Pathfinder when it was released. I probably will never play 4E again though, despite the fact that it's a well designed system. One of the reasons is that it's not a play style than i'm interested in being part of. But then again I've played games that I'm not huge fan of before. Another part of it is a few people at my local D&D meetup were pretty boorish when it came to talking about 3x/Pathfinder. I'm pretty much content to play what I like and was pretty even handed about how feel about both systems (both have things that I like and things that I dont). But one of the organizers could not leave well enough alone and couldn't really post without taking a dig at 3x/Pathfinder whenever he could. 

That coupled with the people here who did pretty much the same thing for about a year (a lot of whom are still on ignore, which is the only way I can really stomach coming back here sometimes) has pretty much kept me from trying 4E again at any point, with ANYONE (even people that I like) even in a one shot game. 

Now I've seen the 3x people do the same thing and they're just as bad and in some cases worse. But to lay blame directly on one group isn't exactly accurate or fair. It's BOTH groups who are being equally douchey about this. If everyone simply played what they liked and didn't really give a crap about what anyone else was doing it would go a long way towards everyone getting along a little better. At this point it's like were all like sports fans, we're rooting passionately for our own teams, but taking a dump all over our rivals when ever we can, JUST BECAUSE.


----------



## DandD (Jan 10, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I ran a few 4E games when it first came out even though I was less than enamored with the system. I decided that I'd stay with 3.5 and then moved over to Pathfinder when it was released. I probably will never play 4E again though, despite the fact that it's a well designed system. One of the reasons is that it's not a play style than i'm interested in being part of. But then again I've played games that I'm not huge fan of before. Another part of it is a few people at my local D&D meetup were pretty boorish when it came to talking about 3x/Pathfinder. I'm pretty much content to play what I like and was pretty even handed about how feel about both systems (both have things that I like and things that I dont). But one of the organizers could not leave well enough alone and couldn't really post without taking a dig at 3x/Pathfinder whenever he could.
> 
> That coupled with the people here who did pretty much the same thing for about a year (a lot of whom are still on ignore, which is the only way I can really stomach coming back here sometimes) has pretty much kept me from trying 4E again at any point, with ANYONE (even people that I like) even in a one shot game.
> 
> Now I've seen the 3x people do the same thing and they're just as bad and in some cases worse. But to lay blame directly on one group isn't exactly accurate or fair. It's BOTH groups who are being equally douchey about this. If everyone simply played what they liked and didn't really give a crap about what anyone else was doing it would go a long way towards everyone getting along a little better. At this point it's like were all like sports fans, we're rooting passionately for our own teams, but taking a dump all over our rivals when ever we can, JUST BECAUSE.



Obnoxious tweerps are obnoxious, no matter what hobby they pursue.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 10, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> I agree with nearly everything you say, but...
> 
> [tongue in cheek] You have been blessed. Traveller: The New Era; that had a real flame war, not the mamby-pamby stuff that passes for one nowadays.[/tongue in cheek]
> 
> Seriously, it got nasty. And it still lives on, twenty years later.




Ah, I have heard some grumbilngs about Traveller.  I never got into the game to tell the truth.  Early on when I first looked at it, for some reason I thought it looked complicated (and this coming from a guy who plays SFB...none the less!) and never really tried it any further.  Later on with later editions...I just never got the interest.  Looks like I missed out on the oldest flame war out there (though there were some pretty ragged arguments occasionally over some wargames and their rule interpretations) that was really hot perhaps?

Still haven't really looked at the new Traveller stuff either.  Perhaps I should try someday, but now (perhaps from those disagreements long ago) I get several different answers on which version to try and what supplements when I questions some Traveller gamers.



ardoughter said:


> I remember skimming a WFRPG 2 book and deciding that there was not enough difference to justify buying it. What did I miss? I thougth there was very little difference.





Hmmmm....where to begin.  There's enough that I'm sort of at a loss.

No alignments

Only use the D10

Racial stats are different

Feats and skills...errr I mean talents are in some ways like feats IMO and are the same names as some skills of old

the four class divisions do not exist anymore...no rolling up your starting career on the Ranger, Warrior, Rogue or Scholar lists, it's one big list now

Attributes increase in 5% increments instead of 10% (this was a biggie for me)

you can invest more in skills to get skill mastery

No Dragon Slayer

Only using D10's obviously affect combat in a major way.

Magic handles differently

Insanity handles differently

And a horde of other things.

Hope that describes it all in really short summary.  I actually like WHFRP 2e, the changes into 3e were FAR more drastic (completely different game system....WHFRP 1e is probably more different than BECMI D&D or AD&D compared to 4e D&D if that says anything about WFRP 3e mechanics).

This is off the top of my head, so hopefully I gave somewhat of an idea of the differences.



Kraydak said:


> I don't know if it has been brought up yet, but all 3 FR boards on the WotC site have multiple-month old threads on their front page (at least when I checked a few minutes ago).  I have to imagine that that is a "heads-rolling" level of problem, but could be very FR specific, given 4e's handling of the setting.  Eberron... is doing a little better.





Oh my gosh, now that was a hot flamewar when it started.  The changes to FR, I don't think I've ever seen a community so hopping mad.  I think there were more FR fans that were angry (higher percentage at least) with that change then the percentage of those upset about the change to 4e...or even the change from AD&D to 3e.  If it weren't for LFR I'd say WotC had made the FR just about extinct with that move...I used to play FR...I don't anymore.  That about covers that.  They're loss.

Other than that I think I simply stay out of those arguments about FR overall.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 10, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> snip
> 
> 
> Hmmmm....where to begin. There's enough that I'm sort of at a loss.
> ...




Thanks for the info, sounds like I might have missed out, some of those changes sounded interesting. Not really into Warhammer these days but I could see myself picking up a copy if I come across one.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 10, 2011)

Maggan said:


> One of the most frustrating was WFRPv1 vs. WFRPv2.
> 
> /M




  Was it worse than the WFRP2 vs. WFRP3 flamewars? I only saw the edges of those, but they seemed _nasty_--almost as bad as the Endless Edition War that dawned in late 2007 and rages to this day in D&D fora.

  And another one I've observed--go talk to oWoD fans about Mage 2nd vs. Mage Revised.


----------



## Shazman (Jan 10, 2011)

Well Greylord, you really shouldn't let a few obnoxious people keep you from playing a perfectly good game system.  I've played a lot of Pathfidner in the last year or so, both standard home games and Pathfinder Society, and I haven't seen anyone behave in such a hostile manner.  There may be a bunch of off topic chat about movies, news events, etc. but no one I know would rather spend their time with gaming friends griping about a game they don't like.  Like most normal gamers, they spend that time playing games they do like.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 11, 2011)

LoL


----------



## pemerton (Jan 11, 2011)

CleverNickName said:


> I concede that there are people who will always feel insulted when others speak ill of a game they like.



I've got no objection to those who explain why they don't like to play a game. I do that often enough. I don't mind even that they point out features of the game that give rise to the aspect of it that doesn't appeal to them. I do this to. It's when they draw a conclusion along the lines of ". . . and therefore no creative/rational/sane/non-causal gamer could enjoy this RPG" that I tend to get irritated.

The sort of criticism I don't mind receiving (and don't mind making!): Rolemaster has no encounter build guidelines, which can make designing combat encounters a very hit and miss affair (I know this from a lot of experience GMing Rolemaster). It can also be very swingy, especially at low levels when PCs don't have the magic that will let them compensate for the effects of high- and low-open-ended rolls. For me, these aren't the main reasons I moved from Rolemaster to 4e, but they did contribute. I could perfectly understand someone who thought these features of Rolemaster were, for them, a perfectly good reason not to consider playing the game at all.

I don't have so much 3E experience, but it seems to me that the issue of monster/NPC building, especially at high levels, is a pretty clear one in that game that might put off some people. I can equally see that others regard the resulting mechanical detail as a virtue.

When it comes to 4e, I don't mind at all when others explain how it's non-simulationist approach to encounter design and action resolution isn't for them. What does irritate me is when they go on to assert that these non-simulationist elements mean the game doesn't support serious roleplaying. I don't know if I'd say that's insulting, but it's pretty annoying, especially when it's not backed up with an analysis of the relationship between other non-simulationist games and roleplaying (eg HeroQuest, Burning Wheel). Serious discussion of the potential pitfalls of non-simulationist action resolution, on the other hand (eg the potential for players to bypass the gameworld altogether when thinking about PC actions, and simply to talk in mechanical terms) is always welcome.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 11, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Was it worse than the WFRP2 vs. WFRP3 flamewars? I only saw the edges of those, but they seemed _nasty_--almost as bad as the Endless Edition War that dawned in late 2007 and rages to this day in D&D fora.




Dungeons & Dragons 40E: In the grim darkness of the future, there is only edition war.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 11, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> Dungeons & Dragons 40E: In the grim darkness of the future, there is only edition war.




Someone set us up the bomb?

New editions only come about for 2 reasons. Revenue streams for the producer, and system overhauls.

I know 1st~2nd doesnt look like an overhaul, but it wasnt an overhaul of the system as much as the people in charge of it.

There have already been about 12 editions, let me restate that, 12 different games with the name Dungeons and Dragons, so a new edition isnt needed. All that is needed is sticking with one that works or with all, and suppirt them with what you can that will make money.

There will be a 5th edition and it will apparently have some CCG elements to it.

Is a 5th edition needed? Not for existing or future players. They have plenty of choices for D&D as it is.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 11, 2011)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Was it worse than the WFRP2 vs. WFRP3 flamewars? I only saw the edges of those, but they seemed _nasty_--almost as bad as the Endless Edition War that dawned in late 2007 and rages to this day in D&D fora.




I actually consider the WFRPv2 vs. WFRPv3 flamewars as a mild summer breeze. 

IMO, WFRPv3 did at least one thing right: it united fans of WFRPv1 and WFRPv2 and made them realise that their versions were quite similar after all. 

Cheers!

/M


----------



## Maggan (Jan 11, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> I remember skimming a WFRPG 2 book and deciding that there was not enough difference to justify buying it. What did I miss? I thougth there was very little difference.




Hmmm, yeah, that's my take. Some WFRPv1 fans claimed WFRPv2 was a completely new game, at odds with the previous version and that the two versions were incompatible in both tone and rules.



I always thought that was boll... bologna.

EDIT: GreyLord does correctly list some of the changes. It's just that to me, they were not game breakers, or even that substantial. The core ideas were the same, with careers, advances, and what not.

Cheers!

/M


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I've got no objection to those who explain why they don't like to play a game. I do that often enough. I don't mind even that they point out features of the game that give rise to the aspect of it that doesn't appeal to them. I do this to. It's when they draw a conclusion along the lines of ". . . and therefore no creative/rational/sane/non-causal gamer could enjoy this RPG" that I tend to get irritated.



I agree.  I think that this is most often accidental; the critic uses hyperbole and exaggeration that gets misconstrued by sensitive readers, who use more hyperbole and exaggeration, and so on.  Before you know it, the discussion goes off the rails, crashes, and burns.  Sure, there are a few bad apples who like to pick fights, but I think they are the exception and not the rule.

During the advent of 4th Edition, I went on a week-long vacation and didn't have access to the Internet.  It did wonders for my blood pressure.  Now, I don't take it so seriously.  When people start making sweeping generalizations and blanket statements, they are probably getting emotional and are blowing things out of proportion.  (Words like "always," "never," "everyone," and "nobody" are dead giveaways.  Excessive smileys and acronyms, slightly less so.)  Just take a breath, and give them the benefit of the doubt.  They probably don't mean to sound oafish.  We are all friends here, after all.



pemerton said:


> I don't have so much 3E experience, but it seems to me that the issue of monster/NPC building, especially at high levels, is a pretty clear one in that game that might put off some people. I can equally see that others regard the resulting mechanical detail as a virtue.



I won't lie; it can be a pain.  In fact, I have reason to believe it cost me points in an Iron DM competition a couple years ago, when I screwed up the stats on a fiendish half-dragon advanced gargantuan beetle...

But there are "gearheads" out there, who really love that crunchy, game mechanics stuff.  Where some of us see tedium and extra work, others see creativity and versatility.  A "low math" game would be easier to play, but it wouldn't feel right to some.



pemerton said:


> When it comes to 4e, I don't mind at all when others explain how it's non-simulationist approach to encounter design and action resolution isn't for them. What does irritate me is when they go on to assert that these non-simulationist elements mean the game doesn't support serious roleplaying. I don't know if I'd say that's insulting, but it's pretty annoying, especially when it's not backed up with an analysis of the relationship between other non-simulationist games and roleplaying (eg HeroQuest, Burning Wheel). Serious discussion of the potential pitfalls of non-simulationist action resolution, on the other hand (eg the potential for players to bypass the gameworld altogether when thinking about PC actions, and simply to talk in mechanical terms) is always welcome.



There are a lot of boilerplates out there, and this one is one of the big ones.  The trouble is that D&D supports many different styles of play, and we all like different things.  After all...what's "serious" to me might be "dismissive" to you.

It's not a design flaw, it's a design feature.  

What I don't like are the threads where people try to tell other people how to play the game.  "How can I resolve this issue?" reads a lot like "I don't know what I am doing, can you help?" for some people.  They might not realize how condescending they are being when they "help."  Some examples...

Guy: "How do I incorporate Action Points in my existing 3E game?"
Dude: "Upgrade to 3.5E, duh."

Guy: "How do I reduce combat grind?"
Dude: "Avoid combat."
Chap: "Play something else!"

And the list goes on.  Everything from which character build makes the better rogue, to how much storytelling should be blended in between the dice rolls.  It doesn't take long for someone to imply (whether accidentally or intentionally) that someone else doesn't know what they are doing.  And that's just rude.

PSA:  It's okay not to post a reply if you don't know the answer.


----------



## mxyzplk (Jan 12, 2011)

Well, they can't release 5e yet, they are still working on a way to make the game

- require collectible cards
- require collectible dice
- require collectible minis
- require a monthly electronic subscription

Actually, reviewing that list, they're already at 3 out of 4. Maybe it is coming soon!  They just have to dust off all the old Dragon Dice and make it so you use those instead of standard dice.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 12, 2011)

mxyzplk said:


> Well, they can't release 5e yet, they are still working on a way to make the game
> 
> - require collectible cards
> - require collectible dice
> ...



True insofar as 3 out of 4 exist; 4 out of 4 if you include your aforementioned Dragon Dice

Not true (yet, and may it always be so) in that 3 out of 4 are not *required* in order to play the game but are instead optional.

Lan-"requirements are pencil, paper, dice, imagination, beer, in no order"--efan


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 12, 2011)

mxyzplk said:


> Well, they can't release 5e yet, they are still working on a way to make the game
> 
> - require collectible cards
> - require collectible dice
> ...




Strangely, I was drawn to WHF3, and it seems like a really good game.  It:

- requires cards (and only comes with enough copies for 3 players)
- requires custom dice (and its best to have each player buy their own set)
- has a wide range of WHF minis you *could* use (but doesn't require them or a battlemat)

Don't know if they have electronic support.

In short, I don't think any of the elements above (cards, custom dice, minis and electronic support) are bad things, nor is requiring them.  I'm just not personally into the idea of them being _collectible..._er, yet.  Done right, though, I might go for it as a player.  A game lite enough that "open a pack & play your character" would be something I'd be willing to try.  But not if they treated the DM the same way - ugh.  Couldn't see that side working that way.


----------



## mxyzplk (Jan 12, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Strangely, I was drawn to WHF3, and it seems like a really good game.  It:
> 
> - requires cards (and only comes with enough copies for 3 players)
> - requires custom dice (and its best to have each player buy their own set)
> ...




Warhammer's a good inspiration, you just rule "you have to have the mini to play the mini" Warhammer mini battles style and sure, take the dice idea from WFRP3.  And you'd just have to get rid of the DM.  They've been whitting away at the DM's role anyway, and there are GM-less indie games out there that they've probably been following.  Once you get rid of the DM then nothing stands in the way of your great collectible dice/mini/card/online combo platter.  And adventures, too, expand Encounters to be adventure packs (perhaps with a collectible element from the online thing- "bonus room!"  You're left with the perfect game.


----------



## eyebeams (Jan 14, 2011)

The choice to design a new edition is not a game design directive. It's a business management directive. So the time between editions has nothing to do with "design lessons learned" or anything else. 

5th edition's primary challenge will be to make its game systems engaging from a narrative and story world perspective. 4th was notably careless in the way it brought systems, traits and powers into the world. Disdain for the game as something straddling game and fiction reached its zenith in the form of innovative systems that were difficult for many gamers to bring into the fiction and thus, give a damn about. (HINT: When you decide that all soft content creation sucks as a basic corporate dictum, you lose the ability to understand subtle, interstitial things about what you're doing.)

4e makes your fighter really nifty, but it doesn't make you care about your fighter. I look at iconic fighters and I just don't care who they are. They're anonymous martial arts experts. In earlier editions, you just might be a local boy done good -- y'know, that thing fantasy novels do -- or a general, pulpy badass -- that thing *other* fantasy novels do -- but not here. Who are you? You're a guy best understood by referring to other types of games, and that constitutes an argument to play those games. While I do think there;s no problem with taking concepts from MMOs and JRPGs, those need to be more than shallow images and crunch concepts.

Now I love 4e, but this is a real problem. The descriptions and supporting fiction, even the format of power writeups need to satisfy the need to situate them in fiction. Play and DMing advice need to deal with this head on.

To support this, 5e needs a world -- a real one, not vague descriptions of lost Nerath. It needs all the trimmings that last decade told you sucked, because it turns out that these were the only things keeping D&D from descending into dumb ruminations on how awesome it was when you were a kid, which is no help at all. It needs a history, important NPCs we all know -- a world all D&D players know well, even if they don't choose to play in it.

Lastly, 5e needs cross-platform electronic support that lets players choose which tools they'll use, use them on any device, and which have significant advantages over fan-built alternatives.


----------



## caudor (Jan 14, 2011)

I think eyebeams is correct in suggesting that new editions are driven by corporate business needs.

Such is the nature of corporate politics.  Change is driven from the top down, not the bottom up.  And sometimes, all of us are dumber than any one of us.

Consider recent events, sudden product cancellations, shifts in direction, etc.  It is plainly apparent the WotC is thrashing about...trying to change the tires while the car is moving.  This is not an easy task; I'm not at all surpized it looks messy and to some....desparate.

Do you still consider 5e to be out of the question late this year or next?  I'm not sure it will be an new edition, but I believe big changes are coming sooner rather than later.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 14, 2011)

eyebeams said:


> To support this, 5e needs a world -- a real one, not vague descriptions of lost Nerath. It needs all the trimmings that last decade told you sucked, because it turns out that these were the only things keeping D&D from descending into dumb ruminations on how awesome it was when you were a kid, which is no help at all. It needs a history, important NPCs we all know -- a world all D&D players know well, even if they don't choose to play in it.




I agree, but apparently the Forgotten Realms showed us that a significant number of gamers live in abject terror of "canon lawyers" that develop around settings that have all of those trimmings.



> _Lastly, 5e needs cross-platform electronic support that lets players choose which tools they'll use, use them on any device, and which have significant advantages over fan-built alternatives._




Just so long as that support is optional, and not required. I still love my paper books and print magazines.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 14, 2011)

Alzrius said:


> I agree, but apparently the Forgotten Realms showed us that a significant number of gamers live in abject terror of "canon lawyers" that develop around settings that have all of those trimmings.




I would say the Realms failed because of trying to adapt something that was designed to fit somewhere else, and there was nothing to bridge the gap for the players...as well as too many Realms-shattering events.

Had Abeir replaced Toril with the same locales, but all the people missing and 4th had just taken place on the lost planet of Abeir, then things could have been different because the canon didnt have to come into play. The lost of the main supporting cast of the Realms could have been seen as making the world not the Realms, but as long as the places were still their, this alternate Realms could have been done better with less fight as new canon could have been made for it. Why different people inhabited Abeir and ended up with the same cities? Only Mystra knew....maybe Maztica, Kara-Tur, and the others didn't exist on Abeir even. Being lost for so long, then it truely would have been the Forgotten Realms.

So when making a world for the game, it needs to be something all can agree on and accept, yes.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 14, 2011)

eyebeams said:


> To support this, 5e needs a world -- a real one, not vague descriptions of lost Nerath. It needs all the trimmings that last decade told you sucked, because it turns out that these were the only things keeping D&D from descending into dumb ruminations on how awesome it was when you were a kid, which is no help at all. It needs a history, important NPCs we all know -- a world all D&D players know well, even if they don't choose to play in it.




Yes and no

Yes, it need something better than points of light.

No, we never ever ever need another FR with every grain of sand on every beach named and given a unique histroy. 

But there is a lot of middle ground. I like blurbs and interesting parts, but there needs to be enough history to hang a campaign and a character background on. Look at H123, P123, and E123. At the end, the world was pretty interesting, but full of holes. At the beginning all characters could do was pick cliche #357 and go with that for their background.  There was no world. 

And now the 4E default world is still mostly non-existant. If you read all the blurbs and fluff books, there are enough hints to put it together, but it is still full of holes and needs to be consolidated into one book. 

That should have been campaign setting #1, not FR. FR should have been #2.

I really liked Dark Sun as I thought it had everything to run, well enough to run. A lot of hints and some solid facts. But it is not enough for everyone running a Dark Sun game to be even moderately on the same page. I had to think long and hard about the world after I read the book and before I started my first game, to fill in the holes and make everything hang together. Now that I ahve done tha, I like the world a lot, but I'll bet it is different form any other DM's world.

And it should nto be that different.


----------



## eyebeams (Jan 14, 2011)

Good points about the Realms. As I mentioned in another thread, event-driven Things That Change Everything every year, and arcs that were tightly bound to a few real protagonists was not just a 90s RPG thing, but a 90s nerd property thing. Remember Marvel's Heroes Reborn? That stuff. (Marvel still does big events, but they tend to be more aware of consequences and avoid treating as many characters as chaff. Plus, Marvel and DC now allow some looser and alternate continuities to be more than novelties.)

So no, nothing like the old Time of Troubles, but yeah, there should be Elminster and Drizzt and yes, many areas that are pretty well detailed. But along with these, we need wild areas and clear direction as to how they interact with PC protagonists.

Have you ever read White Wolf's Scion? It does an excellent job of presenting its setting along with canon NPCs *and* sample characters, along with a major story arc that happens to *also* be the included campaign. So even though there are many indications as to what happen's to Thor's son, we go into knowing that Thor's kid is a placeholder for my PC. That works great.


----------



## rounser (Jan 14, 2011)

> To support this, 5e needs a world -- a real one, not vague descriptions of lost Nerath. It needs all the trimmings that last decade told you sucked, because it turns out that these were the only things keeping D&D from descending into dumb ruminations on how awesome it was when you were a kid, which is no help at all. It needs a history, important NPCs we all know -- a world all D&D players know well, even if they don't choose to play in it.




It's not that simple, although I agree that WOTC's stone soup world is the wrong answer (and the equivalent of doing all the fun stuff like naming empires, whilst leaving all the hard yards of fleshing out to the players, which sounds more like a reaction to complaints about FR than anything else).

First, D&D gets used by it's players as a Fantasy Adventure Construction Kit.  Homebrew has been and probably always will be the most popular setting.  D&D is not a movie or a comic book, but a form of self-actualisation like a fantasy Lego kit.  It should start acting more like it, and actively support and encourage it, IMO, because that's what it ends up getting used for mostly.

This is at odds with selling novels, and also at odds with design creativity (i.e. design with a specific world in mind always ends up brighter and better than not), and also with the part of the audience who doesn't have time or desire to worldbuild, so there is a strong argument to make worlds available.  But the implied setting should not tread on the toes of DMs by saying "dark gnomes are from the empire of Grumoor" in the PHB.  Far too many DMs don't like your name, the idea of dark gnomes having had an empire, and in general you    impinging on the fun of the game.  Put the world in an appendix where it belongs as a serving suggestion, unless it's something less obtrusive, like Drawmij on a spell name.


----------



## eyebeams (Jan 14, 2011)

rounser said:


> It's not that simple.
> 
> First, D&D gets used by it's players as a Fantasy Adventure Construction Kit.  Homebrew has been and probably always will be the most popular setting.  D&D is not a movie or a comic book, but a form of self-actualisation like a fantasy Lego kit.  It should start acting more like it, and actively support and encourage it, IMO, because that's what it ends up getting used for mostly.
> 
> This is at odds with selling novels, and also at odds with design creativity (i.e. design with a specific world in mind always ends up brighter and better than not), and also with the part of the audience who doesn't have time or desire to worldbuild, so there is a strong argument to make worlds available.  But the implied setting should not tread on the toes of DMs by saying "dark gnomes are from the empire of Grumoor" in the PHB.  Far too many DMs don't like your name, the idea of dark gnomes having had an empire, and in general you    impinging on the fun of the game.  Put the world in an appendix where it belongs as a serving suggestion, unless it's something less obtrusive, like Drawmij on a spell name.




They tried it that way, and here we are: four editions in a decade. The whole game vs. novel argument is a false dichotomy. Obviously you don't say D&D is definitely in a single world, but you don't provide a half-assed default setting, either.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 14, 2011)

eyebeams said:


> 4e makes your fighter really nifty, but it doesn't make you care about your fighter.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Now I love 4e, but this is a real problem. The descriptions and supporting fiction, even the format of power writeups need to satisfy the need to situate them in fiction.



I largely agree with this. Paragon paths and epic destinies could help with this, but (i) they come too late in the PC's development, and (ii) there is very little advice to either players or GMs about how to integrate these aspects of the PC into the unfolding events of play.

More generally, there is a tendency - certainly in the fanbase, at least as I read them on ENworld, but also in the way that rulebooks and adventures for 4e are written - to assume that because a certain outcome for a PC is guaranteed at the metagame level, it is unnecessary or redundant to address it in the fiction. Thus, to give one example: because every PC who gets to 21st level is guaranteed an epic destiny, it is often said or implied that being epic has no meaning in the gameworld. Whereas what a good rulebook would do would be to give the players and GM the advice they need to construct and run adventures from which _PCs becoming epci_ is the natural outcome.

Skill challenges raise a similar issue in relation to action resolution - how to order and narrate ingame events such that the outcome that the structure will deliver can be made to feel like a natural emergence from the ingame reality. But as far as I'm aware, the _only_ bit of 4e rulestext that comes close to addressing this is the example of play for a skill challenge in the Rules Compendium - and because it is an example of play without any sophisticated commentary, you have to learn the lesson by osmosis. For example, we see the GM deciding that a failed Streetwise check attempting to identify building A, which also makes the 3rd failure for the challenge overall, leads to thugs who earlier had been Intimidated away coming out of building B to beat up the PCs. This is an example where there is a complete severing of the nexus between ingame causation and metagame causation, but the example doesn't even point this out - yet unless a GM becomes familiar with and skilled at this sort of ingame/metagame distinction, successful skill challenges can't be run.

The contrast with the rules for a game like HeroQuest, which tackles all of this sort of stuff head on from the start, is pretty marked.



eyebeams said:


> In earlier editions, you just might be a local boy done good -- y'know, that thing fantasy novels do -- or a general, pulpy badass -- that thing *other* fantasy novels do -- but not here.



This I don't agree with quite as much. Nothing in earlier D&D editions obliged you do do this sort of thing, and I remember GMing plenty of nameless, faceless Basic fighters (or not nameless, but with names like Kill 'Em Dead Quick).

I think there is a difference, though, in that in earlier editions if you _didn't_ work out this sort of stuff about your PC then your PC had no depth at all, whereas in 4e (and perhaps 3E - I'm not experienced enough to make a confident call) the inherent _mechanical_ depth of a PC can act as a sort of substitute for fictional depth.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting post. I'm a big fan of 4e, but over the past couple of months posts like this one have given me a better handle on why some people see it as mostly a skirmish game/dice rolling exercise.


----------



## rounser (Jan 14, 2011)

> They tried it that way, and here we are: four editions in a decade. The whole game vs. novel argument is a false dichotomy. Obviously you don't say D&D is definitely in a single world, but you don't provide a half-assed default setting, either.



I disagree.  Gygax pushed Greyhawk in AD&D.  Mentzer was built assuming Mystara.  3E and 4E came with built in gods.  And 2E had some nice stuff like the Campaign & Catacomb Guide or Villains Handbook, but not much built into the core, plus a setting deluge spearheaded by the Forgotten Realms.

D&D's saving grace as a construction kit was a baseline implied setting that drew on enough mythology, pulp fantasy and Tolkien to have done enough foundation work to support most people's idea of what swords & sorcery was, even if a few anomalies did creep in (e.g. clerics, oriental monks). From that baseline, innumerable frustrated fantasy enthusiasts found a departure point for creating their own worlds and playing their own adventures.

No D&D takes players by the hand and goes something like, "this is an elf.  You might want to build these subraces for your world", with the result being Johnny's purple, jungle-dwelling Feral Elves and Johnny thoroughly invested in the game, because it's not Gygax's Greyhawk or Mearl's Nerath, but Johnny's World of Magerizing.  Or something like that, I don't know the details because it hasn't really been done.  The most support given to homebrewing is stuff about town demographics and wandering monster tables by climate, that sort of thing.  Not exactly riveting stuff compared to the apple the designers themselves bite into.

But it's a core appeal of D&D.  If you want someone else's world, there are CRPGs, comics, novels, movies and MMORPGs aplenty to service you.  D&D appeals to an audience of creators, at least in the DM's seat, and the players wouldn't be there save for the passion of that person for what they've made.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 14, 2011)

I don't buy this idea that 4e characters of one class are all the same.  If anything, they're far more distinct then they've *ever* been.

What's the difference between Bob the Fighting Man and Joe the Fighting Man?  Nothing!  Nothing at all!  If they are the same level then there is nothing differentiating between the two.

Oh wait, Bob rolled 4 HP and Joe rolled 2.  _Character development!_

Meanwhile, Bob the 4e warrior is a classic sword and shield fighter with several defensive maneuvers and a wide array of abilities to push enemies back away.  Joe the 4e warrior is a brawler and doesn't use a weapon at all - he walks up to the enemy and *grabs* them, beating the tar out of them face to face.  Sue the 4e warrior - who isn't penalized due to hilariously terrible misogyny built into the system this time - uses a polearm, hitting the enemy from reach, dragging the enemy away - or towards! - where she thinks best.

But it's not just mechanical.  It effects how you _play_.

A fight breaks out!  Joe and Bob in 1e are...well, they act the same.  They don't really have any different tactics.  Joe has a shield so I guess his AC is higher.

Meanwhile, Bob in 4e stands in front of his party, taking the hits from the monsters and keeping his friends and allies safe.  Sue acts with cold precision, dividing the baddies and maneuvering them right into the open blades of the others.  Joe...Joe is a brawler.  He just finds the biggest, baddest son of a gun, charges it, and tries to throw it into a headlock.

See, the farther back you go, the _fewer_ choices there are.  Just from the choices of weapon and powers alone - not even going into skills or backgrounds! - the three fighters are all_ characterized_ differently.  Bob is upfront and selfless, taking the hits of others, wanting to defend the others more then anything else.  Sue is practical and tactical, dividing and conquering.  Bob has a wild gleam in his eye and will punch anyone in the face who challenges him.

1e didn't let you make a viking or a pirate or a knight or a good ol' farm boy.  It let you make a fighting man who had high hit die and a better to hit table.  That's it.  That's all the game gave you.  Nothing more.  Now, you could still make a viking or a pirate or a knight or a farm boy, but it was _entirely_ on what _you_ brought to the game.  4e doesn't kill that.  You can still make a viking or a pirate or a good ol' farm boy.  The only difference is, now you can actually make it in the game _on top_ of acting like one.

The difference in early D&D between Joe the viking and Bob the knight is that Joe called himself a viking and bob called himself a knight.  In 4e, Bob stands before the foe and delivers his challenge valiantly, while Joe throws himself uncaringly at the enemy to rip off some heads, _and it's represented_.


----------



## rounser (Jan 14, 2011)

> A fight breaks out! Joe and Bob in 1e are...well, they act the same. They don't really have any different tactics. Joe has a shield so I guess his AC is higher.



The extent to which that matters is the extent to which My Precious Encounter (TM) is the focus of the game.  In a campaign where combat is incidental to getting on with the campaign arc and exploring the dungeon or wilderness, the fact that Joe and Bob only differ in dual wielding versus use of a shield may not matter, just roll the d20s and get on with the campaign.  I think quirks and flaws do a better job of defining character than kewl manoovers anyways.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 14, 2011)

rounser said:


> The extent to which that matters is the extent to which My Precious Encounter (TM) is the focus of the game. In a campaign where combat is incidental to getting on with the campaign arc and exploring the dungeon or wilderness, the fact that Joe and Bob only differ in dual wielding versus use of a shield may not matter, just roll the d20s and get on with the campaign. I think quirks and flaws do a better job of defining character than kewl manoovers anyways.




Are there rules for quirks and flaws in any PHB? 

Is it impossible to give them to 4e characters?

YMMV


----------



## rounser (Jan 14, 2011)

Hackmaster 4E has quirks and flaws, and crits and fumbles.  Proves that the 4E WOTC&D way is just one possible direction among many.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 14, 2011)

And Fate puts Aspects to good use, and Pendragon has had Passions and Traits since the 1980s, and I've played in a Heroquest where someone's grandmother shamed a berserker into surrendering. Yet somehow D&D has been the most popular game on the market pretty consistently for over thirty years while lacking anything really like them.


----------



## avin (Jan 14, 2011)

rounser said:


> The extent to which that matters is the extent to which My Precious Encounter (TM) is the focus of the game.  In a campaign where combat is incidental to getting on with the campaign arc and exploring the dungeon or wilderness, the fact that Joe and Bob only differ in dual wielding versus use of a shield may not matter, just roll the d20s and get on with the campaign.  I think quirks and flaws do a better job of defining character than kewl manoovers anyways.




In a roleplaying game I like my RP choices met my mechanic character choices as well.

I don't like "my precious encounters" as well, and many things can be said against 4E, but not that all characters are all the same.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 14, 2011)

rounser said:


> The extent to which that matters is the extent to which My Precious Encounter (TM) is the focus of the game.  In a campaign where combat is incidental to getting on with the campaign arc and exploring the dungeon or wilderness, the fact that Joe and Bob only differ in dual wielding versus use of a shield may not matter, just roll the d20s and get on with the campaign.  I think quirks and flaws do a better job of defining character than kewl manoovers anyways.




It's a good thing 4e has skills and feats and backgrounds and rituals and utility powers then!

You know, like older editions had...

Had...

Um.

Huh.


----------



## LeStryfe79 (Jan 14, 2011)

I always liked character kits: lots of fluff and a little crunch. They should have been more balanced, but they gave a lot of novice roleplayers a good sense of direction. I tend to place a little more importance on fluff in my pnp, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 14, 2011)

rounser said:


> The extent to which that matters is the extent to which My Precious Encounter (TM) is the focus of the game.  In a campaign where combat is incidental to getting on with the campaign arc and exploring the dungeon or wilderness, the fact that Joe and Bob only differ in dual wielding versus use of a shield may not matter, just roll the d20s and get on with the campaign.  I think quirks and flaws do a better job of defining character than kewl manoovers anyways.




Not to mention you don't need every posible tactic movement spelled out and a short list to pick from, as D&D isnt about grocery shopping from a list, but the realism of it comes form the characters ability to move, and those movement are decided by the player. So you can move in all 3 dimensions so Bob and whomever can be distinguished in how each of them chooses to move around during the combat rather than clash swords.

If it is time that people are wanting to just pick special moves, like picking a Street Fighter game character, then the direction of D&D has changed and an entirely new system is needed as even 4th doesnt let people pick special moves as each player could make the same or different classes and basically have the same mechanical effects. The only way to make sure one, using a list of "maneuvers", is different from another is to make sure they have things others cannot do. But it wont serve anything when several people are of the same list.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 14, 2011)

shadzar said:


> If it is time that people are wanting to just pick special moves, like picking a Street Fighter game character, then the direction of D&D has changed and an entirely new system is needed as even 4th doesnt let people pick special moves as each player could make the same or different classes and basically have the same mechanical effects. The only way to make sure one, using a list of "maneuvers", is different from another is to make sure they have things others cannot do. But it wont serve anything when several people are of the same list.





You could do that if the "maneuvers" were on collectable cards, and each character could only play so many cards within a given combat.  You purchase more cards to gain more "maneuvers" (increasing sales to WotC) while your class and level determine how many cards of each "type" you can use.

It would be a different game than D&D has been in the past, but the Gamma World experiment demonstrates that it might be a fun game nonetheless.


RC


----------



## shadzar (Jan 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You could do that if the "maneuvers" were on collectable cards, and each character could only play so many cards within a given combat.  You purchase more cards to gain more "maneuvers" (increasing sales to WotC) while your class and level determine how many cards of each "type" you can use.
> 
> It would be a different game than D&D has been in the past, but the Gamma World experiment demonstrates that it might be a fun game nonetheless.
> 
> ...




I could easily be done like that or many other ways, but again it would be a change in the game, and just adding things doesnt mean it is the same game. MtG changed with the inclusion of equipment artifact things, so it became a new game, some liked it others didnt. Like D&D, you could play without those new things, but sadly not in any "organized events" as they are forced into them.

Which is another problem with "organized play" all together, not connected to any one edition.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jan 14, 2011)

I posted my thoughts on Wizard's actions on my blog.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 14, 2011)

Yeah, but if the goal is simply to make money, ideally you would have a low barrier to entry, some reason to keep spending, and something that allows money to become a form (but not the only, or even necessarily the best form) of mastery.

So, a game where you get a starter deck, but the best cards appear randomly in boosters, and where play is focused on those areas (such as combat) where the cards could best be used, might actually sell well, and might turn a tidy profit.  With a recognizable brand name behind it, such a game might do very well indeed.

If WotC's duty is to make money for its shareholders, that might be the route to go.  RPGs are a messy business, after all, and I feel certain that such a game could still allow for role-playing for those who want it.  Simply narrate and negotiate the parts around the combats, possibly using dice, and possibly randomly removing cards from a player's deck as a consequence for failure.

I feel quite certain that there would still be a large enough number of people on the InterWeb who would champion the new game as essentially the same as the old, and put any differences in play experience down to rose-coloured glasses and the like.  

Heck, the more I consider it, the better a business move it seems to be.  I am begining to believe that it would surprise me if it fails to occur.


RC


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 14, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> A fight breaks out!  Joe and Bob in 1e are...well, they act the same.



They don't. Because the game is not the rules, and the rules are not the game.

This is the major shift that happened, this notion now that the game is just the sum of its rules, and the rules encompass the whole gammut of game play. This is a weird, nonsensical idea for anyone playing First Edition consistently. 

Hence the fundamental misunderstandings.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 14, 2011)

I was sure this thread was about the need or not for 5E, not an edition comparison LOL all edition threads end up the same.

In answer to the OP I think it is time for 5E just because WotC have made such a hash of 4E recently (not the rules but they way they are running it). As the OP has said the understanding that WotC have of the way the rules work has massively increased. Basically there IS a need for 4.5, but since the fall out from that would be worse than the rubbish they are doing now the only way would be to rename it 5E. Basically a tidy up and organise of the said rules. However I don't know if there will ever be a 5E, either the game will die (if WotC stuff up this new way of going digital with bugger all books) or it will just go totally digital and evolve continuously.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yeah, but if the goal is simply to make money, ideally you would have a low barrier to entry, some reason to keep spending, and something that allows money to become a form (but not the only, or even necessarily the best form) of mastery.
> 
> So, a game where you get a starter deck, but the best cards appear randomly in boosters, and where play is focused on those areas (such as combat) where the cards could best be used, might actually sell well, and might turn a tidy profit.  With a recognizable brand name behind it, such a game might do very well indeed.
> 
> ...




SOrt of like the WoW card game as played by Penny Arcade?

Penny Arcade! - Cloaked In Twilight

Penny Arcade! - Hot Dogs

Penny Arcade! - The Obliterator

Penny Arcade! - He Who Fights With Nerds


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 1e didn't let you make a viking or a pirate or a knight or a good ol' farm boy.  It let you make a fighting man who had high hit die and a better to hit table.  That's it.  That's all the game gave you.  Nothing more.  Now, you could still make a viking or a pirate or a knight or a farm boy, but it was _entirely_ on what _you_ brought to the game.  4e doesn't kill that.  You can still make a viking or a pirate or a good ol' farm boy.  The only difference is, now you can actually make it in the game _on top_ of acting like one.
> 
> The difference in early D&D between Joe the viking and Bob the knight is that Joe called himself a viking and bob called himself a knight.  In 4e, Bob stands before the foe and delivers his challenge valiantly, while Joe throws himself uncaringly at the enemy to rip off some heads, _and it's represented_.




Hmmm.... maybe Gygax was right about keeping the rules light.  I never think of 1E/BECMI characters as being the same and I kept playing Fighters over and over and over again.

But when I'm making a 4E character on the website, I feel like I'm just plugging in info on a generic character--no personality at all--as if all Fighters are the same.  Something oddly psychological is occurring.

Maybe the lack of rules actually does lead to more creativity in the mind, even when it comes to simply one's perception of one's character.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 14, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It's a good thing 4e has skills and feats and backgrounds and rituals and utility powers then!
> 
> You know, like older editions had...
> 
> ...




Well, they had skills.  They were called non-weapons proficiencies.

They had backgrounds. Under "non-professional skills," labeled "secondary skills" which specified what PCs did before adventuring (but the benefits were more general in nature)--in the 1E DMG.

They had rituals.  They were called "spells" back then.

And BECMI had the first powers.  Anyone remember the "Smash"?  (Companion set)

Ya got me on utilities.  Don't recall any feature regarding small, temporary bonuses, etc. other than potions and spells.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 15, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It's a good thing 4e has skills and feats and backgrounds and rituals and utility powers then!
> 
> You know, like older editions had...
> 
> ...




Obviously you know little about older editions.  Welcome! I am pleased to enlighten you.  May I suggest you begin with the following reading:

AD&D 1e Player's Handbook
AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide
AD&D 1e Wilderness Survival Guide
AD&D 1e Oriental Adventures
AD&D 1e Dungeoneers Survival Guide

These five will at least get you started in learning about the enormous range of options available to characters in first edition AD&D.  Of course, both second edition and BECM (Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters--"BECM" is a widely used acronym) have an equal range of material.

I don't blame you for being confused.  Older editions are indeed intimidating due to the sheer wealth of material available.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 15, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Well, they had skills.  They were called non-weapons proficiencies.
> 
> They had backgrounds. Under "non-professional skills," labeled "secondary skills" which specified what PCs did before adventuring (but the benefits were more general in nature)--in the 1E DMG.
> 
> ...




Paladin Immunity to disease

Ability to lay on hands

I believe cure disease

Rangers bonus against giants

Cleric turn undead

Things like that...does that work?

Not that I actually agree with your premise...but going along with it...I guess that could work into that slot...


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 15, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> Obviously you know little about older editions. Welcome! I am pleased to enlighten you. May I suggest you begin with the following reading:
> 
> AD&D 1e Player's Handbook
> AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide
> ...




Professor Cirno's point was NOT that older editions had no options for characters. His point was that 4e is about fun and imaginative things other than combat and supports those things as well as any other edition.

4e has elegant and interesting tactical rules. This does not mean players are somehow restricted from the usual non-combat roleplayed conversations, explorations and quests.

As for his "Had. Um. Huh." he will need to explain what those words meant. (I think he meant, "Why are people saying 4e is only about combat when other editions had no more stuff for non-combat options than 4e does?")


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 15, 2011)

******** On topic: it would be a disaster if 5e came out in only a year or two from now. But on the other hand 4e is (quite suddenly) unraveling. I am a staunch fanatic of 4e, but all the recent announcemts (and chiefly lack thereof) and developments have been extremely disheartening for me.

No compiled magazines, no new miniatures, far fewer books of note, a confused mess with Essentials (despite all its options which I do like), no more off-line Character Builder (and the new one half-finished), a surfeit of evil classes and races, very little campaign world support, no epic level support, crappy modules, crappy new magic items and rarity... it is like the Wizards are in some strange panic, a nervous breakdown.

I truly do not understand the sudden panic of the Wizards. Fourth Edition was doing very well. More and more players were playing it, and it was becoming the standard game in many game shops, conventions and clubs because of Living Forgotten Realms and the Encounters games. Just keep improving it please... but then WHAM! change after change after change, and then cancellation after cancellation, and retrenchment after retrenchment. Hasbro has not changed the basic Monopoly in 80 years: why put pressure on WoTC to mess around with such a new edition as 4e?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 15, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Professor Cirno's point was NOT that older editions had no options for characters. His point was that 4e is about fun and imaginative things other than combat and supports those things as well as any other edition.
> 
> 4e has elegant and interesting tactical rules. This does not mean players are somehow restricted from the usual non-combat roleplayed conversations, explorations and quests.
> 
> As for his "Had. Um. Huh." he will need to explain what those words meant. (I think he meant, "Why are people saying 4e is only about combat when other editions had no more stuff for non-combat options than 4e does?")




Naw, you more or less got it 

No amount of character developmental options in older editions are missing in 4e.  On the other hand, 4e has added _more_ developmental options.

Yeah, older editions had their versions of skills, utilities, etc, etc.  And 4e does too!  But 4e has expanded them for the most part and added more support for them.  Skills have expanded, contracted, back and forth, but are now a core part of the game rather then a supplement.  Rituals belong to all classes rather then a select few.  Class choice and attributes are decided by the player to fit a character concept, rather then the other way around.  A less lethal game makes for more potential character depth, as the game isn't a meat grinder.

Now, if you like rules lite, then 4e is *not the game for you*, not by far.  *4e is not rules lite.*

At the same time, I find it kinda disingenious to claim that 4e is just nothing but combat.  I mean, sure, they've polished the combat up a lot, but there's plenty of other stuff there to define your character - more, I'd say, then any other edition in the past.  Now if you don't want a lot of mechanics for that, then man, this ain't a game you'll like.  But it's a game you won't like _because_ it has all those options, not because it lacks them.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 15, 2011)

Hmm.

3rd edition D&D. It's Diablo on paper!

4th edition D&D. It's WoW on paper!

5th edition D&D. It's Diablo 3 on paper? Except Diablo 3 isn't out yet, so no-one can start designing until it is.

Although there is another 'secret project' under way at Blizzard.

Mein gott! Blizzard are working on D&D 5th edition! It's got to be true! 5th edition next year!


----------



## mrswing (Jan 15, 2011)

If Blizzard are working on D&D5e then we'll get that around 2020. 

And all PCs will be tattooed, cigar smoking overly muscular good ol' boy Texan cowboys.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 15, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 4th doesnt let people pick special moves as each player could make the same or different classes and basically have the same mechanical effects.



It would be interesting to see some actualy play reports to illustrate this claim. Or even some example builds.

In my game there are 5 PCs: a polearm "controller" dwarf figther; a drow chaos sorcerer built around blazing starfall and a whole heap of interrupts; a defender paladin; an archer-ranger/cleric; and a jack-of-all-trades tome-of-readiness wizard. They have different mecanical effects: damage from the two strikers, but only one doing area damage; quite different control from the fighter and wizard; and straight-down-the-line defence from the paladin. Out of combat, the paladin is a diplomat, the sorcerer a trickster, the wizard a scholar and pastry chef, the dwarf an athete and the ranger a tracker/acrobat. Where is this alleged sameness?


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 15, 2011)

mrswing said:


> If Blizzard are working on D&D5e then we'll get that around 2020.
> 
> And all PCs will be tattooed, cigar smoking overly muscular good ol' boy Texan cowboys.




Not all of them.

Edit: OK, that link didn't work. Gnome sabotage, it is.


----------



## delericho (Jan 15, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No amount of character developmental options in older editions are missing in 4e.  On the other hand, 4e has added _more_ developmental options.
> 
> Yeah, older editions had their versions of skills, utilities, etc, etc.  And 4e does too!  But 4e has expanded them for the most part and added more support for them.  Skills have expanded, contracted, back and forth, but are now a core part of the game rather then a supplement.  Rituals belong to all classes rather then a select few.  Class choice and attributes are decided by the player to fit a character concept, rather then the other way around.  A less lethal game makes for more potential character depth, as the game isn't a meat grinder.
> 
> At the same time, I find it kinda disingenious to claim that 4e is just nothing but combat.  I mean, sure, they've polished the combat up a lot, but there's plenty of other stuff there to define your character




Yeah, this is all true.

I have noticed a tendency amongst the people I play with (including myself) to limit themselves to the options that are on the sheet/cards in play. So, if I have a card the allows a "slide attack", then I may well play that; if I don't, I won't even consider it. (And, similarly, for "character development" options.)

But the truth is this: when we do this, _we're choosing to limit ourselves_. The game isn't doing it for us.

(In one of the recent interviews, Bob Salvatore made a comment along the lines of "in 3e, to have a great game, you really need a creative DM. In 4e, it only really works if you have creative players." I think that was really quite insightful. There's a lot of truth in it, IMO.)

But, ultimately, it comes down to personal preference. A 4e fan will never persuade a 1st Ed fan that his game is superior, no more than the 1st Ed fan will convince the 4e fan. People just like different things, and for different reasons.

But, hey, by all means let's continue with the edition wars. At least all our post counts get to climb!


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 15, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Mein gott! Blizzard are working on D&D 5th edition! It's got to be true! 5th edition next year!




Shortly after the release of 4e, there was a poll on these boards on when we'd see 5e.   I doubt I can find it now, though.  At the time, I said 5e would be released sometime in 2012.  I still think it will, though it may not be CALLED 5e.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 15, 2011)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Shortly after the release of 4e, there was a poll on these boards on when we'd see 5e.   I doubt I can find it now, though.  At the time, I said 5e would be released sometime in 2012.  I still think it will, though it may not be CALLED 5e.




They can call it whatever they want.  They can call it "Dungeons & Dragons Revolution".  It will still BE 5e.  And will affect the game/community accordingly, for better or worse.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 15, 2011)

Yeah, it's too early.

_Personally_, I would jump on board with 5E tomorrow, if it continued along the lines they seem to be going--less metagamey, more old-schooly, plus the death of DDM means they can move away from 4E's heavy dependence on miniatures. I would shake the dust of 4E off my boots and never look back.

But then, my feelings on 4E have been deeply ambivalent for a while*. If the 4E community were a solar system, I'd be a comet, swinging around the fringes in a highly eccentric orbit, only tenuously bound by gravity. Most 4E players would be justifiably infuriated to see a new edition so soon; there would be _another_ split in the community, half moving to 5E and the other half sticking with the current edition.

Meanwhile, what about the other side? The paramount goal of any 5E release should be to reunite the D&D community as much as possible, bringing the folks who couldn't stomach 4E back into the fold. But a lot of those people are happily playing Pathfinder right now. In time, many of them will start getting antsy and ready to move on--that's the nature of RPGs. When that happens, the time will be ripe for 5E. But right now, no.

[size=-2]*Also, I'm a single guy with no kids and a good job, so coming up with the money to buy into 5E would not be a problem.[/size]


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 16, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Professor Cirno's point was NOT that older editions had no options for characters. His point was that 4e is about fun and imaginative things other than combat and supports those things as well as any other edition.




Dude, what's with that font? Ouch.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 16, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> I truly do not understand the sudden panic of the Wizards. _*Fourth Edition was doing very well.*_ More and more players were playing it, and it was becoming the standard game in many game shops, conventions and clubs because of Living Forgotten Realms and the Encounters games. Just keep improving it please... but then WHAM! change after change after change, and then cancellation after cancellation, and retrenchment after retrenchment.




The fact that there was this "WHAM! Change after change" effect should demonstrate the obvious: 4e was NOT doing well.  If it had been selling a ton of books, they would have changed nothing.  The fact that they are doing something as radical as Essentials (and all the other changes we've discussed here) proves that 4e was NOT a success.  Simple economics of supply and demand.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 16, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Yeah, it's too early.
> 
> _Personally_, I would jump on board with 5E tomorrow, if it continued along the lines they seem to be going--less metagamey, more old-schooly, plus the death of DDM means they can move away from 4E's heavy dependence on miniatures. I would shake the dust of 4E off my boots and never look back.
> 
> ...



I'd jump too, and I'm married, 4 kids and part time job 


Tallifer said:


> ******** On topic: it would be a disaster if 5e came out in only a year or two from now. But on the other hand 4e is (quite suddenly) unraveling. I am a staunch fanatic of 4e, but all the recent announcemts (and chiefly lack thereof) and developments have been extremely disheartening for me.
> 
> No compiled magazines, no new miniatures, far fewer books of note, a confused mess with Essentials (despite all its options which I do like), no more off-line Character Builder (and the new one half-finished), a surfeit of evil classes and races, very little campaign world support, no epic level support, crappy modules, crappy new magic items and rarity... it is like the Wizards are in some strange panic, a nervous breakdown.
> 
> I truly do not understand the sudden panic of the Wizards. Fourth Edition was doing very well. More and more players were playing it, and it was becoming the standard game in many game shops, conventions and clubs because of Living Forgotten Realms and the Encounters games. Just keep improving it please... but then WHAM! change after change after change, and then cancellation after cancellation, and retrenchment after retrenchment. Hasbro has not changed the basic Monopoly in 80 years: why put pressure on WoTC to mess around with such a new edition as 4e?




Well said


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 16, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> Yeah, it's too early.
> 
> _Personally_, I would jump on board with 5E tomorrow, if it continued along the lines they seem to be going--less metagamey, more old-schooly, plus the death of DDM means they can move away from 4E's heavy dependence on miniatures. I would shake the dust of 4E off my boots and never look back.
> 
> ...



I'd jump too, and I'm married, 4 kids and part time job


----------



## lordxaviar (Jan 16, 2011)

you forget that WoTC is gone its a front for Hasbro.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 16, 2011)

lordxaviar said:


> you forget that WoTC is gone its a front for Hasbro.




I would have preferred if they would've become a font for Hasbro. Fonts are awesome, especially with random tables attached:

You drink from the font called Wotc. Roll a D20:

1 Roll twice on the table

2-4  3d4 horned devils appear, playing "Highway to Hell" with an assortment of cowbells

5-8 you contract yellow mold. Roll d%: 1-60 you die (no save), 61-85 you die (DM acts like you have a save, but you really haven't), 86-100 you forced your henchman to drink first. He crumbles to dust while you nod and twirl your moustache. If you have no moustache, you too crumble to dust just because.

9-13 Your lips disappear. From now on, the only language you are able to speak is your alignment language and any kind of sign language. Lose the whistling nonweapon proficiency.

14-19 The font gives off an erie glow, reflecting ominous magical dwimmer radiance light mightily. Adjectives and pronouns slowly fill the room, forcing you to wade into other parts of the dungeon where grammar is more shallow.

20 The archmage Hevard Anton Sigmund Bernhard Ringo Oldenwood and his apprentice wizard from the seaside appear beside the font. Babbling random stuff about essential initiatives, they curse your spellbook in a most inconvenient fashion. You now can only read it while connecting it with a chain to the wall of your house. Page turning takes forever, and now and then a page will be totally illegible until you wait while shaking your fist. The two cackling wizards vanish in a puff of smoke, leaving you none the wiser.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Jan 16, 2011)

I'd love to see a 5th edition of D&D that:
1] Went back to basics in terms of races:  dwarf, elf, gnomes, halfling and human.  1/2 elves and 1/2 orcs would be available through a feat choice.
2] Went back to basics in terms of classes:  cleric, fighter, magic-user and thief.  Feat and/or talent trees would allow for differentiation of these classes so that your fighter could be a swashbuckler, ranger, paladin or cavalier.
3] Had 3 core books:  The PHB, the DMG and an all-in-one Monster Manual.
4] Didn't rely of DDI for near constant game updates and content patches.
5] Had non-collectible supplements.  Wants spell cards?.?.?. here's a deck with every wizard spell in it. 
6] Returned the classic elements that were ditched with 4th edition:  something like Vancian magic, classic races & classes (see 1+2 above), the full alignment spectrum, the classic Realms, Greyhawk, etc.

At the same time the game would need to run far faster than 3rd or 4th edition (which should be possible if Powers are ditched, and stacking effects, DR, and ability-boosting items are cleaned up).  Cut back on the escalation of numerical modifiers in order to make D&D into a game of action, not accounting.

Basically... make 5th edition into a retroclone that employs cleaned up d20 mechanics and some modern design elements that have been shown to improve the game.


----------



## delericho (Jan 16, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> The fact that there was this "WHAM! Change after change" effect should demonstrate the obvious: 4e was NOT doing well.  If it had been selling a ton of books, they would have changed nothing.




I think it's not as simple as it being a success or being a failure. It may well have been successful, and indeed selling a ton of books, and still not been doing well enough to satisfy the needs of Hasbro. _Especially_ if they sank a whole bunch of money into developing the DDI and it just hasn't brought in the return on investment that the team promised management when they sought the green light for it.

Bear in mind that what would qualify as an awesome success for any other RPG company (including Paizo) may well be considered an Epic Fail by Hasbro. (Indeed, do I not recall an anecdote from just after the takeover, when the WotC guys were congratulating themselves that the brand-new "Psionics Handbook" for 3.0e had sold lot of copies, only to have the Hasbro rep ask, "Why are we even producing this book?"?)



Keefe the Thief said:


> 2-4  3d4 horned devils appear, playing "Highway to Hell" with an assortment of cowbells




Do they threaten to eat your soul unless you play for them the greatest rock song ever?


----------



## scruffygrognard (Jan 16, 2011)

delericho said:


> Bear in mind that what would qualify as an awesome success for any other RPG company (including Paizo) may well be considered an Epic Fail by Hasbro. (Indeed, do I not recall an anecdote from just after the takeover, when the WotC guys were congratulating themselves that the brand-new "Psionics Handbook" for 3.0e had sold lot of copies, only to have the Hasbro rep ask, "Why are we even producing this book?"?)



Which is why Hasbro should get out of the RPG business.  It's not a good fit now and probably never has been.


----------



## delericho (Jan 16, 2011)

One other thought: while we talk about a two-way split in the community (4e vs 3e/Pathfinder/retro-clones), WotC probably saw a three-way split:

1) People who didn't move to 4e
2) People who buy the physical 4e books
3) 4e DDI subscribers

Obviously, there's some overlap between the groups, as some people play multiple games, and some people both buy 4e books and subscribe to the DDI.

But I would be surprised if many people are both DDI subscribers and bought the splatbooks. And yet, those splatbooks would have been amongst the top selling supplements in previous editions.

So, that could be a problem, especially since WotC probably can't yet afford to drop D&D in print.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Paladin Immunity to disease
> 
> Ability to lay on hands
> 
> ...




Thanks!  Now I am fully armed in my argumentation.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

Tallifer said:


> Professor Cirno's point was NOT that older editions had no options for characters. His point was that 4e is about fun and imaginative things other than combat and supports those things as well as any other edition.





I just don't get this conclusion.  The proportion of combat-to-noncombat in 4E is VASTLY out of balance compared to earlier editions (esp. the further you go back).  Even if you don't do a word/chart count, it is a simple mathematical fact...

3E added feats and a complex skills system.
On top of that, 4E added a powers system.
2E and earlier did not come remotely close to those levels of rule-increase on combat.

Furthermore, 4E significantly reduced its coverage of noncombat mechanics (wandering monsters, timekeeping, mapping, etc.)




Tallifer said:


> 4e has elegant and interesting tactical rules. This does not mean players are somehow restricted from the usual non-combat roleplayed conversations, explorations and quests.




I don't see anyone saying "restricted from."  Only that the emphasis in RAW has changed.  And at times this change in emphasis can guide, sometimes in a rather firm way, players towards a certain way of thinking.  Just look at spell descriptions.  A seasoned vet can interpret them for noncombat usage.  But first time players?  Probably not going to have that skill.



Tallifer said:


> (I think he meant, "Why are people saying 4e is only about combat when other editions had no more stuff for non-combat options than 4e does?")




Since he affirmed this in another post, I will just respond to it here...

That statement would be false.  1E, 2E and BECMI had exponentially more stuff for noncombat than 4E.  Where 4E just gives a minimal paragraph, other editions give pages or even entire hardback volumes.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 16, 2011)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I would have preferred if they would've become a font for Hasbro. Fonts are awesome, especially with random tables attached:
> 
> You drink from the font called Wotc. Roll a D20:
> 
> ...




I haven't laughed like that in weeks. Sadly, I must spread some XP around before giving it to Keefe again.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

delericho said:


> Yeah, this is all true.
> 
> I have noticed a tendency amongst the people I play with (including myself) to limit themselves to the options that are on the sheet/cards in play. So, if I have a card the allows a "slide attack", then I may well play that; if I don't, I won't even consider it. (And, similarly, for "character development" options.)
> 
> But the truth is this: when we do this, _we're choosing to limit ourselves_. The game isn't doing it for us.




How many times have you pulled off the paved highway and driven through a field?  In a desert, we see more paths.  But on a highway, the path is clearly laid before us and so we go.  This is just human nature, and 4E appeals to that nature.

It seems ironic that more game features would lead to a feeling of fewer options, but plenty of folks have that feeling.  We get trapped in an endless morass of strategy options that, in the end, just seem to prolong the encounter.

Of course, all those extra HP also contribute to this problem.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 16, 2011)

cperkins said:


> Which is why Hasbro should get out of the RPG business.  It's not a good fit now and probably never has been.




Hasbro is simply too big.  They think they can milk DnD the way they milk Star Wars--and it simply ain't gonna happen.  

If they pulled off a movie franchise, they might make a killing with action figures...

But the rpg itself has a limited audience.  And Hasbro doesn't put much energy into limited audiences.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 17, 2011)

fumetti said:


> I just don't get this conclusion. The proportion of combat-to-noncombat in 4E is VASTLY out of balance compared to earlier editions (esp. the further you go back). Even if you don't do a word/chart count, it is a simple mathematical fact...
> 
> snip



The word count is utterly irrelevant, the skill system covers all the basis I want it to cover, I was pretty disenchanted with thre 3.x skill system. The existance of the skill challange concept and the rituals and utility powers and the ability of the players to ,you know roleplay are; all I (and many others) require for  rich noncombat encounters.

Now you don't agree, that is fair enough, nobody is stopping you playing your edition of choice but kindly stop stating as an unarguable truth that 4e does not support out of combat play.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 17, 2011)

The word count is especially irrelevant considering that *every* edition has had more effort put into the mechanics of combat then with anything else.

Besides, last I checked, 4e's word count had far more detail put into roleplaying and storytelling then 3e did.  3e's word count was almost entirely put into spells.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 17, 2011)

cperkins said:


> I'd love to see a 5th edition of D&D that:
> 1] Went back to basics in terms of races:  dwarf, elf, gnomes, halfling and human.  1/2 elves and 1/2 orcs would be available through a feat choice.
> 2] Went back to basics in terms of classes:  cleric, fighter, magic-user and thief.  Feat and/or talent trees would allow for differentiation of these classes so that your fighter could be a swashbuckler, ranger, paladin or cavalier.
> 3] Had 3 core books:  The PHB, the DMG and an all-in-one Monster Manual.
> ...



Agreed pretty much wholesale except for a few very minor quibbles; but I'd add one more thing:

Throw in a section - a very large section, as some seem to be equating importance with wordcount - that covers the following topics:
 - worldbuilding and campaign design
 - the game beyond combat and adventuring:
 - - resting, recovery, and time spent in town
 - - treasury division methods and ideas
 - - giving personality and character to your character
 - - in-character disputes, romances, etc. and how to handle such
 - how to plan and run a long campaign
 - how to handle character and-or player turnover during a campaign
 - timekeeping
 - DM record-keeping, both in-session and archival
 - other similar thigns I can't think of right now

Lan-"if wordcount really does equal importance, I probably win"-efan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The word count is especially irrelevant considering that *every* edition has had more effort put into the mechanics of combat then with anything else.




All you demonstrate here is your profound ignorance of earlier editions.  It is a simple matter to extract the combat info from any of the Complete books in 2e, and you will see the plethora of material that remains.  In fact, I was looking at the Complete Ranger's book last night, and was amazed at how many pages are devoted to rangers getting together to party.  Or how many pages are devoted to different instruments in Complete Bard's.  Similarly, all aspects of theft, guilds, and illegal operations in Complete Thieve's.

In 2e, the amount of effort put into worldbuilding easily dwarfs that put into combat.

In 1e, the amount of effort put into realizing settings (WSG and DSG) exceeds that put into combat by a fair degree.  Heck, just look at how much information is available about *polearms*!


RC


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 17, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> All you demonstrate here is your profound ignorance of earlier editions. It is a simple matter to extract the combat info from any of the Complete books in 2e, and you will see the plethora of material that remains. In fact, I was looking at the Complete Ranger's book last night, and was amazed at how many pages are devoted to rangers getting together to party. Or how many pages are devoted to different instruments in Complete Bard's. Similarly, all aspects of theft, guilds, and illegal operations in Complete Thieve's.
> 
> In 2e, the amount of effort put into worldbuilding easily dwarfs that put into combat.
> 
> ...




Personally I suspect spell descriptions of being the largest percentage of rules material in previous editions, and power descriptions in 4e.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 17, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Personally I suspect spell descriptions of being the largest percentage of rules material in previous editions, and power descriptions in 4e.




Yeah, pretty much.

As someone with a character that uses a non-core kit in a 2e game, I'm well aware of whats in the respective PHBs.  And whats been in them overwhelmingly were spells.

Combat and things related to combat came in second place.

Spells are by and large related to combat.

So there you go!

In fact, lets look at 2e, the PHB.  Ignoring the _seven_ different appendixes for spells, we have the combat chapter taking up the most room by far.  Then we add in all the stuff on weapons, as well as the parts on various other chapters that involve combat.

And then we ignore all that even though it supports my statement, and look at mechanics.

What did 2e feel was most important to cover in mechanics?  Remember, the big criticism for 4e is that it doesn't have enough non-combat stuff.

Well, we have several mechanics, because 2e is awful and thinks every single thing needs its own unique style of resolution.  They fall into three catagories, however.

1) Spells.  God, the long, long lists of spells.  No more or less straining then the wall of powers, save that not everyone got to enjoy reading these long lists.

2) Non-combat.  Your NWPs, your thief skills, your bending bars.

3) Combat.

Of the three, its very clearly spells, then combat, then non-combat.  Except, in terms of variance, its combat first.  See, the NWPs are basic - _extremely_ basic - and all non-combat options are entirely binary.  There are no choices.  You have the skill and thus use it, or you don't and thus do not.  Spells are more complex - you have the skill and maybe use it, or maybe don't.  With combat however, each _part_ of combat has a rule, as well as several choices - including spells! - that can be done.  Again, in terms of variance, the combat chapter is the longest.  The spells chapters are long but they're literally just giant walls of spells and nothing else - recipes in a cookbook.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 17, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> All you demonstrate here is your profound ignorance of earlier editions.  It is a simple matter to extract the combat info from any of the Complete books in 2e, and you will see the plethora of material that remains.  In fact, I was looking at the Complete Ranger's book last night, and was amazed at how many pages are devoted to rangers getting together to party.  Or how many pages are devoted to different instruments in Complete Bard's.  Similarly, all aspects of theft, guilds, and illegal operations in Complete Thieve's.
> 
> In 2e, the amount of effort put into worldbuilding easily dwarfs that put into combat.
> 
> ...




I thought rangers spontaneously combusted if they socialized in groups greater than three.


----------



## Stoat (Jan 17, 2011)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I thought rangers spontaneously combusted if they socialized in groups greater than three.




That's why they needed pages and pages to describe how Rangers party.  (In essence, it involves a warren of little honeycombed rooms, each big enough for three rangers at a time, the details are where things get more complicated).

Also, are the huge number of polearms in 1E and 2E being touted as an example of _noncombat_ rules?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Yeah, pretty much.
> 
> As someone with a character that uses a non-core kit in a 2e game, I'm well aware of whats in the respective PHBs.  And whats been in them overwhelmingly were spells.
> 
> ...




Whyever would you limit the system to the PHB?  Wait a sec, I know the answer to that question -- it is the only way your point can carry.

If one looks at the system as a whole, not only is your non-standard kit not in the PHB, but no kit is.  All of those kits?  Not in the PHB.

"Spells are by and large related to combat" is perhaps true in 3e; less true of any pre-3e edition.  In fact, the 1e DMG suggests that 50% of 1st level m-u spells are combat related, half offense and half defense, with the other 50% being split between utility and misc. spells.  The two extra spells not accounted for, Tenser's Floating Disc and Nystul's Magic Aura, are utility and misc. spells respectively.

With 2e, when you add in each class' Complete book, each race's Complete book, the Historical References, the DM's references, and so on, it becomes clear that the predominant theme is setting creation, including making characters appropriate to the setting.  Many kits were criticized, in fact, for failing to balance re: combat, simply because the balance sought had nothing to do with a game focused solely (or even predominantly) with combat.

In 1e and earlier, XP are primarily gained by gaining treasure.  In 2e, a system was provided where XP are primarily gained by using class skills -- many of which are not combat oriented! -- or by meeting story goals.  Only when we get to 3e does combat provide the majority of XP.

When one examines the number of pages devoted to spell descriptions, it should be extremely obvious that this is because each spell is an exception to the general rules, and those exceptions each need to be described.  This is no different than the reason powers take up space in 4e.

Again, all you demonstrate here is your profound ignorance of earlier editions, non-standard kits notwithstanding.  Or, to paraphrase another poster, "Your increasing show of ignorance of how earlier editions work do not paint your arguments in a favorable light."




RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2011)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I thought rangers spontaneously combusted if they socialized in groups greater than three.




That's 1e rangers; 2e rangers get together and party.  Per RAW!  



Stoat said:


> Also, are the huge number of polearms in 1E and 2E being touted as an example of _noncombat_ rules?




I am referring specifically to the appendix in the 1e UA, which includes illustrations and descriptions not so that you know the mechanics of polearms (which are covered in the 1e PHB), *but so that you can describe them properly*.  It is a reprint of an article Gary wrote for the Strategic Review.

And 2e is the game that allowed you to purchase period clothing piece by piece, including nearly any piece you might care to think off, from a ruff to slop.


RC


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Personally I suspect spell descriptions of being the largest percentage of rules material in previous editions, and power descriptions in 4e.



....in the PHB, and item descriptions in the DMG and monster description in the MM.

There fore look at what info if presented about those things. Do monsters have anything of value written about them other than combat stats? Are spell usable in in way outside of combat. AHA!

4th there are no such things as spells, no matter what you want to call them, then are just the wizards "powers", like all other classes have. Powers are a function solely of combat. Rituals in 4th however are where the "rest of the spells" are in 4th. Those are pretty much just an extension of and different way to perform a skill challenge.




ProfessorCirno said:


> Spells are by and large related to combat.


----------



## DandD (Jan 17, 2011)

shadzar said:


>



Yes, the truth can be quite shocking. Even although some spells could be used out-of-combat, most spells were still designed how to get the edge on opponents, and of the spells meant to be not used in combat, some clever and more smarter players than the gm found a way how to use it in combat anyway, so that the rules have to specify for _create water_ to not be conjured inside somebody.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 17, 2011)

Pre-4E spells were not quite so "by and large combat."  Sure, there's plenty of combat effect spells.  But there were also a great many spells that had no necessary relationship to combat.  

Try finding a 4E spell that isn't constructed for combat.  I only found one.  Every other one was reimagined as an in-combat casting.  (4E had rituals to balance this, but have been conspicuously absent from the Essentials.)  There's just no mechanic text to guide the player for noncombat usage, unlike earlier editions.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 17, 2011)

I'd be careful on the spell front - 2E did put out a 4 volume set of wizard spells, a 4 volume set of priest spells and a 4 volume set of magic items.  So there's quite a volume of that stuff out there.

Th funny thing is that many of the spells in 1e & 2e were present because of a lack of an integrated skill system - spells such as Jump come to mind.

Still, the focus of 1e and especially 2e come across completely different than 3e or even 4e.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2011)

DandD said:


> Yes, the truth can be quite shocking.




Indeed, and the truth is that spells are _*not*_ by and large related to combat.

As you point out, the rules specify that certain spells cannot be used in the most obvious way they would be in combat.  Because those spells are not about combat.  Funny, that.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Still, the focus of 1e and especially 2e come across completely different than 3e or even 4e.




Very much so.  XP to you!


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 17, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> I'd be careful on the spell front - 2E did put out a 4 volume set of wizard spells, a 4 volume set of priest spells and a 4 volume set of magic items.  So there's quite a volume of that stuff out there.




Actually, the Priest's Spell Compendiums only had three volumes; divine spellcasters didn't get quite as much love as arcane spellcasters.

That said, those series all rocked on toast, and were some of the very best material ever to come out of Second Edition.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 17, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Th funny thing is that many of the spells in 1e & 2e were present because of a lack of an integrated skill system - spells such as Jump come to mind.



That's a good observation. Spells were an important "lever" with which to move the game world in part because there were formal rules for them, unlike skills. In fact, in the campaigns I played in --and, frankly, ran-- by mid-level, magic became the most important lever the PC's employed, which had the unintended consequence of making those PC _capable_ of deploying spells more important when it came to overcoming game challenges ie, making them more important period. 

And I don't think this was an uncommon experience. One of most eye-opening things revealed by the 4e Edition War was the degree to which some D&D players equated spell use with role-playing. To them, 4e's deliberate scaling back --or evisceration, if you prefer-- of non-combat spells was tantamount to the removal of _role-playing_ itself from the system. 

The fact 4e replaced spells with a more robust skill system as the primary lever for affecting the game world seemed lost on them.

As did the fact much of D&D's literary inspiration featured little or no protagonist-controlled magic. 

Sometimes I miss the old, pre-4e spell system/lists. I love fantasy wahoo as much as, if not more, than the next guy. But whenever 5e comes round, slouching towards Lake Geneva, I sure hope it doesn't go back locating the most decisive PC abilities in the spell-casting classes.


----------



## delericho (Jan 17, 2011)

Alzrius said:


> That said, those series all rocked on toast, and were some of the very best material ever to come out of Second Edition.




Yeah. I was really, really disappointed that the 3e Compendia didn't have anywhere close to the same level of completeness. Oh well.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 17, 2011)

DandD said:


> Yes, the truth can be quite shocking. Even although some spells could be used out-of-combat, most spells were still designed how to get the edge on opponents, and of the spells meant to be not used in combat, some clever and more smarter players than the gm found a way how to use it in combat anyway, so that the rules have to specify for _create water_ to not be conjured inside somebody.




: confused : =  and hovering over the image with your mouse will show the title/alt text for the image.

Spells were designed for the spell, not to use in combat. I recall when 4th came out all the "where are the non-combat spells?, and why can you only fly in combat?"

Others have probably explained where you and the original person i quoted is wrong in their poor understanding of the spells, but I will just say, that you might want to read a bit of them before you start stating their purpose or design intent. Many would also be bad idea to use during combat, unless you are jsut trying to waste it and free up a spell slot by letting yourself be distracted so the spell is lost.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 17, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Pre-4E spells were not quite so "by and large combat."  Sure, there's plenty of combat effect spells.  But there were also a great many spells that had no necessary relationship to combat.
> 
> Try finding a 4E spell that isn't constructed for combat.  I only found one.  Every other one was reimagined as an in-combat casting.  (4E had rituals to balance this, but have been conspicuously absent from the Essentials.)  There's just no mechanic text to guide the player for noncombat usage, unlike earlier editions.




Try looking under "Utility," which is an entire catagory of powers that everyone gets.

Well, first, read the actual powers, as I'm doubting you did so in the first place.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Try looking under "Utility," which is an entire catagory of powers that everyone gets.
> 
> Well, first, read the actual powers, as I'm doubting you did so in the first place.




Luckily, I took the liberty of creating a small sample list of the non combat utility powers.


Holy Lantern, Cleric Utility 6: Summons a lantern that lights stuff up, boosts Insight and Perception, and is good for 10 hours.

Cloud Chariot, Cleric Utility 22: Summons a, well, chariot that can you can ride in air and use for travel.

Astral Speech, Paladin Utility 2: “You gain a +4 bonus to Diplomacy checks until the end of the encounter.”

One Heart, One Mind, Paladin Utility 6: This is mind linking power. Also boosts the aid another action.

Crucial Advice, Ranger Utility 2: Let’s an ally re-roll a skill check that they made.

Skilled Companion, Ranger Utility 6: Gives an ally bonus to their skill checks.

Forest Ghost, Ranger Utility 22: Makes you invisible if you have cover or concealment.


This is just from the PHB and just from 3 classes.  I didn't include powers that heal or enhance movement since while those powers can be used out of combat, most of the time they'll be used in it.  The Fighter didn't have any that made the list but that class is called the "Fighter" for a reason.  I stopped at the Rouge because almost every utility power is useful outside of combat.  The list can be expanded if desired but I'm too lazy to do it unless I have to.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

Here (from memory, apologies for errors) is the list of the 12 spells for 1st level wizards and elves in Moldvay Basic:

Magic Missile
Charm Person
Sleep

Protection from Evil
Shield

Floating Disc
Hold Portal
Light
Ventriloquism

Detect Magic
Read Magic
Read Languages​
I've grouped them roughly as attacks, defences, utility and divination.

In 4e you still have MM and sleep. Charm person is gone from the PHB, but returns in Essentials in two versions - the Suggestion cantrip, which I quite like, and the controversial 2nd level Utility power, which I don't like for the same reason as many others. (For charm person in the PHB, you need to use the Warlock utility Beguiling Voice.)

The defensive spells are still there (protection from evil is now Staff Wizard instead).

The utilities are still there - two as rituals, two as cantrips. It has become harder to cast Hold Portal under time pressure - it now behaves more like wizard lock. I'm not sure how big a loss to the game this is. Prestidigitation plus an Arcana check as part of a skill challenge could probably be used to replicate the old delaying function of hold portal.

The divination spells are still all there, the first two as part of the Arcana skill (in which all wizards are trained) and the last as a ritual. (For what it's worth, the two most-used rituals in my 4e game are Comprehend Languages and Object Reading. But then my players have always liked divination magic when they can get hold of it.)

This doesn't establish anything about the _relative_ balance of combat to non-combat. But the idea that the non-combat elements of the old game have been removed isn't one that I really subscribe to.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Do monsters have anything of value written about them other than combat stats?



I'm one of those who quite liked the non-combat info in the original 4e MM. It has an intro paragraph or three, plus lore entries for each creature, and a list of encounters in which the creature might be found. From that I learned enough about the social organisation of various humanoids, the structure of the planes and the role of planar creatures, and where undead come from to run (what I think is) a pretty good game.

Compared to Rolemaster Creatures and Treasure, the descriptions are pretty rich. And the entry on spiders also told me that Lolth used to be a god of fate, which otherwise can't be learned anywhere in the core books.

I actually find the longer text entries in the MM3 and Monster Vault a bit annoying. But I gather I'm in a minority here. But I don't mind the loss of the tactics sections. I don't think these added much.



shadzar said:


> Are spell usable in in way outside of combat.



Rituals are. Some utility powers are. And attack powers are. So I think the answer is yes.

_Attack powers,_ you ask? Yes. For example, in my last session the wizard PC used Twist of Space (a level 7 wizard encounter attack that teleports its targets) to free a woman who had been magically trapped inside a mirror. And it's not the first time that spell has been used in this sort of way. (When using it on friendlies, the PC always uses his Expand Spell feat to reduce the damage!)


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 18, 2011)

Back on topic...

I see no pressing need for a Fifth Edition.

1. Fourth edition still has many players and customers. Dungeons & Dragons Insider keeps this edition's content up-to-date and conveniently available. These customers will probably be unwilling to switch so soon to a new edition, so there is no money to be made in such a move yet.

2. Most of the people who dislike Fourth edition already have the editions that suit them. Many of the wishlists in this thread indicate a desire to return to earlier editions, all of which are amply supported in the marketplace. There are retro-clones, Pathfinder and plenty of old used books to satisfy people who like 0 through 3.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 18, 2011)

pemerton said:


> _Attack powers,_ you ask? Yes. For example, in my last session the wizard PC used Twist of Space (a level 7 wizard encounter attack that teleports its targets) to free a woman who had been magically trapped inside a mirror. And it's not the first time that spell has been used in this sort of way. (When using it on friendlies, the PC always uses his Expand Spell feat to reduce the damage!)




I think this is a major key to where the books got it wrong. Calling this an "attack" power when it should have uses outside of combat, when by the very name it screams COMBAT!

When you look at a power with that word and think of using it outside of combat, it sort of sound to me like "I attack the darkness." 

Does it require a 5th edition? Probably an apology for the keyword system, and probably a complete redesign of it. Otherwise how can people help but see the most of the powers as things for a miniature combat game?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 18, 2011)

They aren't actually called attack powers, as I understand.  They're simply "powers" and "utility powers," with the caveat that "powers" tend to be built for combat - no more or less then Magic Missile was built for combat.

Incidentally, awhile back in my 4e game, my psion used Living Missile to grab an enemy, swing it around and use it as a wrecking ball against it's own allies, then throw it off a cliff.  It was basically the most fun I've ever had in _any_ D&D game.  Living Missile owns.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> They aren't actually called attack powers, as I understand.  They're simply "powers" and "utility powers," with the caveat that "powers" tend to be built for combat - no more or less then Magic Missile was built for combat.
> 
> Incidentally, awhile back in my 4e game, my psion used Living Missile to grab an enemy, swing it around and use it as a wrecking ball against it's own allies, then throw it off a cliff.  It was basically the most fun I've ever had in _any_ D&D game.  Living Missile owns.




So they changed them?

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Powers)



> The first line of a power description gives the name of the power, the class it’s associated with, the kind of power it is (attack or utility), and the power’s level (or the fact that it’s a class feature). In the above example, acid wave is an attack power that a wizard can choose at 19th level.




Seems that attack and utility is the only type of powers...or was last I saw.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> They aren't actually called attack powers, as I understand.  They're simply "powers" and "utility powers," with the caveat that "powers" tend to be built for combat - no more or less then Magic Missile was built for combat.





Ah, yes.  And swords are built for combat, so clearly every edition includes predominantly equipment geared for combat, and nothing else.  'Cause they got swords, you know.  

How many pages of combat rules do you think there are in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook?  Just over 30, roughly 1/3 of the book.  As there is a Complete book for every race and class, you can imagine how little space there is, relatively, between (say) combat rules and character kits.  And kits, as we all know based on loads of InterWeb nerd rage, are not balanced along combat lines. 

Funny that.

Saying that all editions are primarily focused on combat is rather like saying that nothing in 4e is not focused on combat.  Both statements are simply untrue.  As a result, any argument that relies on either statement is a non-starter.

YMMV, of course.  I have found that facts on the InterWeb have far less traction than clever turns of phrase.



RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 18, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Ah, yes.  And swords are built for combat, so clearly every edition includes predominantly equipment geared for combat, and nothing else.  'Cause they got swords, you know.




For starters, I was wrong!  The powers are labeled as being "attack," so yep, my bad.

...But beyond that, uh, that's not the point I was trying to make, so...?



> How many pages of combat rules do you think there are in the 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook?  Just over 30, roughly 1/3 of the book.  As there is a Complete book for every race and class, you can imagine how little space there is, relatively, between (say) combat rules and character kits.  And kits, as we all know based on loads of InterWeb nerd rage, are not balanced along combat lines.




You're right, kits aren't balanced around combat lines.  But they're still based in combat.  You uh, you can be based around combat and not be balanced for it.  It's a thing that happened quite a lot.

You're right though, the new rules on combat only take up a 1/3rd of the book.  When you don't include kits, or the new lists of weapons, or the new lists of armor, or the methods with which you can create weapons and armor.



> Saying that all editions are primarily focused on combat is rather like saying that nothing in 4e is not focused on combat.  Both statements are simply untrue.  As a result, any argument that relies on either statement is a non-starter.




Making a blank statement about blank statements being wrong is a pretty interesting path to take, I suppose.

I do agree that your double negative is false, though!


----------



## shadzar (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> For starters, I was wrong!  The powers are labeled as being "attack," so yep, my bad.




So then, would you say the presentation can lead to people not being able to see the forest for the trees?

Again I use that way someone might think "I attack the darkness", and see if you don't have a properly listed target, then being out of combat, the powers are presented in a manner that would make you think you cannot use them otherwise. Consider this especially so for Attack/ Encounter powers, when you are not in an encounter.

So while the DMG may correct this, it fails to be addressed to the players, so players don't try to step off the line of using powers as they aren't really told anything form the mystical Page 42 that appears in the DMG.

In regards to 5th edition, doesn't mean it has to be, just the failure of keywording present in all WotC games needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

When you place a "keyword" on something, odds are people view that as defining, rather than suggesting, otherwise why bother taking the time to assign that keyword to it?

Really to me I could see people thinking this keyworded power gets palced on the "stack" per Magic the Gathering, where after you do an attack, you have to check states of everything to see if anything can respond to the attack before it is complete, such as optional actions or triggered effects from the "attack" being initiated.

But not trying to related 4th to CCGs with that, I could to that MANY other ways, just saying the presentation is in need of fixing but not requiring a new edition to do so, unless these "power types" are so ingrained into the system.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> For starters, I was wrong!  The powers are labeled as being "attack," so yep, my bad.




I know you were wrong.



> ...But beyond that, uh, that's not the point I was trying to make, so...?




I know that wasn't the point you wanted to make.  But both points use the same logic, and both lead to equally wrong conclusions.



> You're right, kits aren't balanced around combat lines.  But they're still based in combat.






Sure, there are some kits that are based in combat.  And many more that are not.  Shall we make some lists and compare?

Or is this another one of those things where magic missile appearing on the spell lists means all spells are about combat?



RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 19, 2011)

Ok, since we're talking Complete Warrior, name the fighter kit that isn't based around combat.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So then, would you say the presentation can lead to people not being able to see the forest for the trees?




By the same token, how are many older edition spells any different?  How many times have you seen fireball used outside of combat, despite that being the purpose of the fireball spell?  How many spells have far, far more information on what they do in a fight, only to be used to some way different, possible bizarre, end?

Players who think outside the box will think outside the box; those that won't, won't.  I've seen - and I'd bet we've all seen - plenty of pre-4e wizards who never used a spell in a creative manner.  And I've seen 4e wizards that do.  The edition doesn't change that.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok, since we're talking Complete Warrior, name the fighter kit that isn't based around combat.



The American buffalo population has gone extinct due to people hunting it for food. Since it's extinction less people have been eating buffalo.

Is that good enough to join in the game a logical fallacy?


ProfessorCirno said:


> By the same token, how are many older edition spells any different?  How many times have you seen fireball used outside of combat, despite that being the purpose of the fireball spell?  How many spells have far, far more information on what they do in a fight, only to be used to some way different, possible bizarre, end?
> 
> Players who think outside the box will think outside the box; those that won't, won't.  I've seen - and I'd bet we've all seen - plenty of pre-4e wizards who never used a spell in a creative manner.  And I've seen 4e wizards that do.  The edition doesn't change that.




Player: I cast Magic Mithle (missile)
DM: On what?
Player: I am attacking.
DM: What are you attacking?
Player: I attack the darkness.

You know where that joke comes from? What people tried to do with magic missile outside of direct damage to an opponent in battle. Using it to move levers across chasms or unlock a jail cell, etc.

Magic missile is pretty much the quintessential combat only spell, but MANY arguments were had on people trying to use it another way.

As to your fireball itself...MANY times has I seen it used outside of combat. My players really love to search every room of a structure. If that structure is old an unoccupied and found along the way, they would have no qualms about fireballing it out of existence so they didnt have to search it again in the future. The ranger even considers it a good way to return nature to its natural state.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> The ranger even considers it a good way to return nature to its natural state.




Works for me.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Player: I cast Magic Mithle (missile)
> DM: On what?
> Player: I am attacking.
> DM: What are you attacking?
> ...




Yes, that's my point.  Many spells in previous editions were very much designed for combat, but used outside of it.  I see no reason why 4e is excluded from this.


----------



## Krensky (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> The American buffalo population has gone extinct due to people hunting it for food. Since it's extinction less people have been eating buffalo.
> 
> Is that good enough to join in the game a logical fallacy?




The American bison is nowhere near extinct. They are significantly reduced from their pre-nineteenth century numbers, but they're currently not even listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Players who think outside the box will think outside the box; those that won't, won't.



Absolutely.

The gray area is those many players who would think outside the box if they were encouraged to or even realized they were allowed to.  And that comes down to how the game is presented.  If the written books are presented as guidelines (both for players and DMs) you'll get a lot more out-of-box thinking overall than if the books are presented as hard-and-fast rules.

Lan-"the challenge is to successfully use Tenser's Floating Disc as an attack"-efan


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Yes, that's my point.  Many spells in previous editions were very much designed for combat, but used outside of it.  I see no reason why 4e is excluded from this.



Except the spells give more than just combat use right there. The fact you only see and think combat is the difference in what is presetnted and what is there. The fact 4th edition powers SCREAMS combat is the difference I am talking about. It would make you see it more as jsut for combat, when you see all spells as combat only anyway.



Lanefan said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> The gray area is those many players who would think outside the box if they were encouraged to or even realized they were allowed to.  And that comes down to how the game is presented.  If the written books are presented as guidelines (both for players and DMs) you'll get a lot more out-of-box thinking overall than if the books are presented as hard-and-fast rules.
> 
> Lan-"the challenge is to successfully use Tenser's Floating Disc as an attack"-efan




Use the disc to push an enemy off a cliff, into a fire, under green slime, deliver a moltov cocktail into a group of sleeping enemies, etc....

....and Exactly. The fact that some see fireball as only combat, is not the system, but their view. Not entirely a wrong view, but 4th just yells it form the top of the mountain. Does a 4th edition fireball exist, and does it "ignite all other combustable material in the blast radius"?


----------



## Nagol (Jan 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok, since we're talking Complete Warrior, name the fighter kit that isn't based around combat.




Beast Rider


----------



## Nagol (Jan 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok, since we're talking Complete Warrior, name the fighter kit that isn't based around combat.




Actually, glancing through all the kits in the Complete Warrior, a lot offer no combat advantage.

There are 14 kits in total and 6 fall into this category: 

Beast Rider -- empathic abilities with one type of mount
Noble Warrior -- social kit for feudal campaigns
Peasant Hero -- social kit for feudal / tyrannical campaigns
Pirate/Outlaw -- social kit
Savage -- semi-mystical / skill monkey
Wilderness Warrior -- survival specialist

Several other kits have at least a small combat advantage in addition to the other features of the kit like Swashbucker, a primarily social kit that offers +2 AC bonus in light armour only.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 19, 2011)

Mallus said:


> The fact 4e replaced spells with a more robust skill system as the primary lever for affecting the game world seemed lost on them.




I don't follow.  You are saying that the 4E skill system is where all the noncombat spell activity is?  I know there's a bit, such as detect magic, but from what I saw 4E put the noncombat spells in with the rituals, not the skills--and then dumped the rituals rituals in 4EE (5 rule books and not a ritual in sight).


----------



## fumetti (Jan 19, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Th funny thing is that many of the spells in 1e & 2e were present because of a lack of an integrated skill system - spells such as Jump come to mind.




Another puzzler... are you saying the old _jump _spell was really supposed to be a jump skill?  Wouldn't the purpose of creating a _jump _spell be to overcome the fact that the wizard simply could not physically accomplish such a jump?

I'm not keen on putting ANY actual magical casting within a skill system that is separate from the wizard's spellcasting system (4E's detect magic as a skill bothers me).  Either make it a spell or a ritual.  But making it a skill just confuses what is magic and what is not.

"Skill" implies that anyone can learn to do it without fully dedicating oneself to the class.  If anyone can cast a magic-effect without the hard training young wizards undergo, then why have the wizard class at all?


----------



## fumetti (Jan 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Try looking under "Utility," which is an entire catagory of powers that everyone gets.
> 
> Well, first, read the actual powers, as I'm doubting you did so in the first place.




Don't get so haughty so fast.  Because you are wrong.

I said virtually all spells are _constructed for_ combat.  Meaning, they are created in that context.  (I never said they couldn't be used outside of combat, just that combat is central to their structure.)

Combat occurs within an encounter.  It does not exist _outside _an encounter.  Shifts, standard actions, move actions, interrupts, etc. all occur _within _an encounter.  (It would be utterly pointless to tell a wizard outside of combat that he is using his standard action for that turn when there is no turn because there is no encounter.)

*Darn near every wizard utility in the PHB is either defined by being an "encounter" spell, or by its type of combat activity (free/minor/standard action), or actually contains in-combat effects.*  (There are exceptions, but they are the minority.)


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 19, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Another puzzler... are you saying the old _jump _spell was really supposed to be a jump skill?  Wouldn't the purpose of creating a _jump _spell be to overcome the fact that the wizard simply could not physically accomplish such a jump?
> 
> I'm not keen on putting ANY actual magical casting within a skill system that is separate from the wizard's spellcasting system (4E's detect magic as a skill bothers me).  Either make it a spell or a ritual.  But making it a skill just confuses what is magic and what is not.
> 
> "Skill" implies that anyone can learn to do it without fully dedicating oneself to the class.  If anyone can cast a magic-effect without the hard training young wizards undergo, then why have the wizard class at all?




Well, I don't have my 1E books with me, but I do not remember a standardized way to make a jump check prior to the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide/Wilderness Survival Guide (and 2E's NWPs were optional - I knew many groups that did not use them).  I think its pretty obvious jump was meant to clear pits or other such obstacles - for at least one PC (it is a touch spell), mayhaps to get a Pc to the far side to clear an obstacle (I seriously doubt many wizards would use the spell thusly themselves - probably on the fighter or more likely rogue, who'd be toting a rope or somesuch).

To be honest, with an integrated skill system, I dislike spells/magic items that circumvent such use (which 3E had a tendancy to do).  It cheapens those who devote part of their character's abilities to skills.  However,  If you can't count on having a skill system, I think its fine to have spells or magic items that allow you to do skill-like things (boots of springing and striding, jump spell, etc.)


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 19, 2011)

(I hate to get drawn into this argument, because it is completely off the topic of 5th edition. But _c'est la vie_ in a discussion forum.)

Fumetti and friends: look for all the out-of-combat spells in the Rituals. Look for other out-of-combat stuff in the skill section. 

Furthermore, the two Dungeon Master Guides give plenty of details about running campaign worlds, scenarios, non-player characters, social situations, et cetera. Indeed, the DMG2 is very light on new rules and very heavy on fluff and how-to. Also, more and various guidelines on world stuff can be found in the many other guides: Manual of the Planes, Forgotten Realms, Ebnerron, Underdark, Astral Sea, Primal Chaos, et cetera.

There is nothing which a player or dungeon master could do in previous editions which he cannot do using some sort of Fourth edition mechanics or simple roleplaying within its rules.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Well, I don't have my 1E books with me, but I do not remember a standardized way to make a jump check prior to the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide/Wilderness Survival Guide (and 2E's NWPs were optional - I knew many groups that did not use them).




Since newer things such as feats and skills in their respective editions still use the ability scores, the wouldn't some "jump" skill actually be the same as was implied, and later spelled out for people, as was done in 1st?

Jump uses DEX stat correct? So an attempt to jump would just be rolling versus your DEX. For all such checks you rolled under or equal to pas, rolling over would be a fail in the attempt; such as people wanting higher stat scores.

I could get my books out, but just put them back up. 

For most of these type of things and ANY action, you would just find the ability score that closest related and roll vs that ability.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> As to your fireball itself...MANY times has I seen it used outside of combat. My players really love to search every room of a structure. If that structure is old an unoccupied and found along the way, they would have no qualms about fireballing it out of existence so they didnt have to search it again in the future.



Are you really suggesting that the typical 4e player would never think of using a fire attack to destroy a timber structure simply because the power description doesn't canvass this option?

Fireball in Rolemaster is presented purely as an attack spell - it is classed as an Elemental Ball Attack Spell, it is resolved by making an Elemental Attack Roll, the description in Spell Law Classic is "A 1' ball of fire is shot from the palm of the caster; it explodes to affect a 10'R area; results are determined on the Fire Ball Table," and the Fire Ball Table to which one is referred is described as an attack table. The results on the table are hits of damage, and criticals, and in early editions of the game there were no core rules for applying these results to inanimate objects (later editions have tended to incorproate the rules from Rolemaster Companion V).

Nevertheless, the player of the firemage in my first RM campaign never hesitated to use fireball to burn down ships, warehouses, ordinary houses, just about anything really  . . .



shadzar said:


> The fact 4th edition powers SCREAMS combat is the difference I am talking about.





shadzar said:


> I think this is a major key to where the books got it wrong. Calling this an "attack" power when it should have uses outside of combat, when by the very name it screams COMBAT!
> 
> When you look at a power with that word and think of using it outside of combat, it sort of sound to me like "I attack the darkness."



I really think this is a red herring. I've never heard an issue of it made in relation to Rolemaster. Why is 4e (or its players) any different? The 4e DMG has rules for attacking objects, for object defences and hit points, for object immunity, resistance and vulnerability to various damage types, etc. These rules are replicated in the DMG kit and the Rules Compendium.

I just don't feel the force of what you're saying here.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2011)

fumetti said:


> I'm not keen on putting ANY actual magical casting within a skill system that is separate from the wizard's spellcasting system (4E's detect magic as a skill bothers me).  Either make it a spell or a ritual.  But making it a skill just confuses what is magic and what is not.



This actually links to the discussion about Hussar's rouge's "magic" lock-opening spoon on another thread.

I have enjoyed running a game (RM) in which the magic/skill distinction is very clear. I'm also enjoying running a game (4e) in which it is far less clear. Interestingly, the second sort of game makes a fairy story/Tolkien-style approach to magic easier. I think the first sort of game generates a different flavour, that I would identify as more modernist/swords-and-sorcery.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2011)

fumetti said:


> I said virtually all spells are _constructed for_ combat.  Meaning, they are created in that context.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Darn near every wizard utility in the PHB is either defined by being an "encounter" spell, or by its type of combat activity (free/minor/standard action), or actually contains in-combat effects.



First, not all "encounters" are combats. Some (many? - it depends on the individual game, I guess) are skill challenges.

Second, all "encounter" means is you need a short rest to get the power back. And "short rest" is not defined by reference to combat. (Within the rules as published, it is an open question whether an Encounter buff can be used multiple times in a skill challenge that occurs over an extended time interval that permits short rests. The most literal reading of the rules probably suggests that it can be. My preferred ruling is that it can't be. As far as I know, the designers have never specifically addressed this question.)

Third, specifying the action required is no different from specifying casting times in earlier editions. Comprehend Languages has a casting time of "1 standard action" in 3E, and (from memory) 1 segment in AD&D. No one suggests that this makes Comprehend Languages a combat spell in 3E or AD&D, even though I have to go to the combat section of the rulebooks to find out what those terms mean. Similarly, from the fact that a particular utility buff is a minor action in 4e, it doesn't follow that it's a combat spell or created in the context of combat.

Finally, and confining myself to the PHB, here are the non-combat Wizard utilities:

2nd level: Feather Fall and Jump (2 of 4)
6th level: Dimension Door, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Levitate and Wall of Fog (5 of 6)
10th level: Arcane Gate (1 of 4)
16th level: Fly, Greater Invisibility (2 of 4)
22nd level: Mass Fly, Mordenkainen's Mansion (2 of 3)​
For Warlocks, here is the same list:

2nd level: Beguiling Tongue, Ethereal Stride, Shadow Veil (3 of 4)
6th level: Dark One's Own Luck, Fey Switch, Spider Climb (3 of 4)
10th level: Ambassador Imp, Shadow Form, Warlock's Leap (3 of 4)
16th level: Cloak of Shadow, Eye of the Warlock, Infuriating Elusiveness (3 of 3)
22nd level: Raven's Glamour, Wings of the Fiend (2 of 3)​
Undoubtedly many of these spells could be used in combat (especially the movement and invisibility ones) - just as was the case in AD&D. Equally, there are some spells I haven't mentioned - one's which raise defences or grant resistance - which could be used out of combat, for example if exploring or negotiating certain sorts of natural or magical traps/hazards.

Nevertheless, I don't see any evidence here that nearly every utility spell in the 4e PHB is a combat spell.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Are you really suggesting that the typical 4e player would never think of using a fire attack to destroy a timber structure simply because the power description doesn't canvass this option?



I was answering the question asked to me which was:

By the same token, how are many older edition spells any different? How many times have you seen fireball used outside of combat, despite that being the purpose of the fireball spell?​
But if you want to get down to who would think about it in 4th edition lets look at fireball, and Intelligence attack against a Reflex defense right?

Targets each creature within the burst right?

Now does it say it will ignite combustible material anywhere to give people the idea it would, or could it be another magical flame that is like Magic Missile, that doesnt do anything outside of what it says. Previous editions explicitly say ANYTHING within the blast area that is combustible is ignited. That is the big difference.

Sure a DM might allow it, but first the player has to choose to try to use it outside of combat, outside of the box. Is there anything in the power description of 4th that would lead you to believe it was usable other than during combat?

The power itself says it targets/affects creatures. A player has to WANT to try something else with it for the DM to apply page 42 to that action.

In the context of the discussion it was brought up in, what does this fireball power in 4th inspire for someone to try to use it outside of combat other than having "fire" in the name of the spell, but the spell itself, even with the Fire keyword, defines the affected thigns of the spell?


> Fireball in Rolemaster is presented purely as an attack spell - it is classed as an Elemental Ball Attack Spell, it is resolved by making an Elemental Attack Roll, the description in Spell Law Classic is "A 1' ball of fire is shot from the palm of the caster; it explodes to affect a 10'R area; results are determined on the Fire Ball Table," and the Fire Ball Table to which one is referred is described as an attack table. The results on the table are hits of damage, and criticals, and in early editions of the game there were no core rules for applying these results to inanimate objects (later editions have tended to incorproate the rules from Rolemaster Companion V).
> 
> Nevertheless, the player of the firemage in my first RM campaign never hesitated to use fireball to burn down ships, warehouses, ordinary houses, just about anything really  . . .
> 
> ...




You just keep mentioning RoleMaster, and it sounds to me like that IdolMaster game, so have no clue what you are really trying to say. So I really can't answer any questions in regards to 4th edition players in comparison/contrast to RoleMaster players since I have no idea what RoleMaster is.


----------



## eyebeams (Jan 19, 2011)

rounser said:


> I disagree.  Gygax pushed Greyhawk in AD&D.  Mentzer was built assuming Mystara.  3E and 4E came with built in gods.  And 2E had some nice stuff like the Campaign & Catacomb Guide or Villains Handbook, but not much built into the core, plus a setting deluge spearheaded by the Forgotten Realms.
> 
> D&D's saving grace as a construction kit was a baseline implied setting that drew on enough mythology, pulp fantasy and Tolkien to have done enough foundation work to support most people's idea of what swords & sorcery was, even if a few anomalies did creep in (e.g. clerics, oriental monks). From that baseline, innumerable frustrated fantasy enthusiasts found a departure point for creating their own worlds and playing their own adventures.
> 
> ...




If I am a novice gamer, the appeal to me to do all kinds of crap to have an elf in a unique world makes my eyes glaze over. It's boring. I just want to play al elf in a cool world. I don't care how much you think it's virtuous to make my own world and elf mini-culture based on vague implications. 

If I am an experienced gamer, that vagueness is equally useless, because it's less than what I can come up with myself. If I am experienced gamer, I want a more detailed world, because the more stuff there is, the more I have to choose from. Any detailed campaign setting is a smorgasboard unless I want to complain on the Internet about how Elminster's existence oppresses me. 

Your approach fails new gamers and old. We've seen it tried. WotC had a chance to show us how awesome D&D would be with the world moved backstage and replacing it with rules mastery. This has proven to be unsustainable. In fact, even the period we could as success seems in hindsight to have been a period largely fuelled by self-delusion at all levels of the hobby. The D&D hobby did not need to reach faddish levels again -- it needed simple sustainability. 3e failed to provide even this, and having amputated itself of the ability to produce decent narrative content, WotC resorted to ever more convoluted extensions of the rules mastery principle, along with rebadging to disguise the inevitable supplement treadmill -- inevitable because little brown softbacks were obviously a failure, and by 2002 pretty much everyone who wanted a PHB had one. 3.5 was a manifestation of these issues. Eberron was an example of how basic flaws in creative leadership led to the squandering of obvious talent. (As I have said before, my view is that Paizo basically does the same thing -- makes creative people make uninteresting things.)

4e was a ground up revision pretty much because it needed to be, and in the process it absorbed a bit of fashionable nonsense promulgated by terrible gamers, but it still managed to be brilliant in its design. It just wasn't interesting as a thing that connected people to a world, and to fiction of their own devising. It lacked some critical ambiguity as to whether it was creating the basis of the fiction or the beats of the fiction. The OSR proved that this was still a cherished value, even at the expense of game systems that, honestly, really are kind of better.

What I'm talking about is something often expressed in edition wars. I love 4e, and it is totally true that you can rationalize 4e systems in the world in all kinds of cool ways -- but 4e's text seems utterly unconcerned and reads as almost dismissive of this kind of thing. This reproduces the decade-old failure to understand that even though rules matter, it isn't really all about the rules.

D&D basically suffers from a dearth of meaning now, and WotC doesn't seem to know how to fix that. D&D's image is cheezily self-referential in a way that reeks of coded self-contempt.

Before 5e takes place, WotC needs to get its community building on. It needs to rebuild the idea of a D&D hobby as something other than a bunch of balkanized gamer tribes, one of which it throws its weight behind. This might take years. It might even be a good idea to just shut D&D down completely for a while. 1 to 2 years might do it. After that, it might be able to come back without so much of its damaged legacy to be greeted by gamers who actually want to see it again. I'd go for easy to learn but extensible rules, some return to atmospheric quirkiness in the system (especially spells) over rigid principles, and at least one world with decent support and a strong place at the front of D&D's image.


----------



## rounser (Jan 19, 2011)

> If I am a novice gamer, the appeal to me to do all kinds of crap to have an elf in a unique world makes my eyes glaze over. It's boring. I just want to play al elf in a cool world. I don't care how much you think it's virtuous to make my own world and elf mini-culture based on vague implications.



This is just a restatement of the "12 year olds are uncreative, impatient and low brow" argument, an assumption we're well used to and continues to be nought but ageism IMO.

True, when learning the game you need a bog standard elf, and a dungeon to sack.  But I guarantee you that once the game is learnt, games masters always immediately become adventure writers, world builders or rules tinkerers...or all three.

IMO, it's perhaps THE core appeal of D&D.  Homebrew is the most popular setting and adventures don't sell very well for very good reason - despite the way the game is written as a reflection of the designer's personal ego, D&D players subvert the game for their own worlds, adventures and rules (although 
house ruling culture is diminished thanks to 3E and 4E rules milking focus).

All I'm saying is that for once the rules might try SUPPORTING what happens anyway, instead of always fighting it, or downplaying it by superimposing some designer's idea of what is cool.  I understand you have experience in IP of worlds, but in this case I suggest you're so used to wielding a hammer that you're seeing this issue as a nail, when in fact it's perhaps a lot more subtle than that.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I really can't answer any questions in regards to 4th edition players in comparison/contrast to RoleMaster players since I have no idea what RoleMaster is.



I think comparison to other fairly well-known RPGs can help understand elements of a game's design.

People say "4e kills creativity because its attack spells don't mention non-combat uses". Well neither did Rolemaster's attack spells (RM was one of the biggest selling non-D&D RPGs in the 80s and early 90s). But no one ever thought RM killed anyone's creativity. So I find the claim about 4e suspect also.

People say "4e kills roleplaying because it separates ingame causation from metagame/rules causation". Well, HeroQuest does the same thing. And HeroQuest is generally regarded as a premier vehicle for roleplaying. So I find the claim about 4e pretty suspect.

People say "Skill challenges kill roleplaying because they put a structure on what should be done freeform". Well, Burning Wheel had Duels of Wits before 4e had skill challenges. And no one seriously suggets that Burning Wheel kills roleplaying. So I doubt that 4e skill challenges do either.

I think there are legitimate criticisms to be made of 4e's design. LostSoul, for example, makes some (namely, certain features of the rules make it very easy for players to disengage from the fiction). I also think that it is obviously a design that does not cater to all tastes. Nor does 3E. Or Rolemaster. Or HeroQuest. What frustrates me is people whose tastes in RPGing differ equating a difference of tastes to "killing roleplaying". I personally don't want to play Classic Traveller. Outside of the character generation system I find the game pretty tedious. I'm not really into sci-fi RPGing at all, I must confess, and Traveller's unrelentingly simulationist mechanics get me down. But it would never even occur to me to suggest that Classic Traveller kills roleplaying.

So the notion that 4e kills roleplaying and creativity because it's all about combat and dice rolling! Just not true. Not true of RM. Not true of HQ. Not true of BW. Not true of 4e.

(And that's not even taking into account that _in this very thread_ I've posted lists of 4e spells, and comparisons of 4e spell lists to Basic D&D spell lists, that show that 4e incorporates at least comparable amounts of non-combat magical abilities into the game.)


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

Um ok... Don't know if you are talking about the RPG I just found out existed or what when you mention HeroQuest, and still have little idea what the others are either, so it still tells me nothing with all that mixed in.

What exactly about 4th in regards to what I was discussing about presentation guiding playstyle are you saying. If you want to reference other game you will have to explain what you mean about them more, because I don't know any of those you mentioned except for HeroQuest the board game. You will ahve to take the he said/she said things in regards to comparing other games like that up with those who said them.

The game presents itself in a manner that had been proven that old and new players stop being creative with 4th. I think that says something, even if other do get creative. We will have to wait for that one person to ask about their group to find out what difference is going on for them to get an idea of one case why.


----------



## rounser (Jan 19, 2011)

> Your approach fails new gamers and old. We've seen it tried. WotC had a chance to show us how awesome D&D would be with the world moved backstage and replacing it with rules mastery. This has proven to be unsustainable. In fact, even the period we could as success seems in hindsight to have been a period largely fuelled by self-delusion at all levels of the hobby. The D&D hobby did not need to reach faddish levels again -- it needed simple sustainability. 3e failed to provide even this, and having amputated itself of the ability to produce decent narrative content, WotC resorted to ever more convoluted extensions of the rules mastery principle, along with rebadging to disguise the inevitable supplement treadmill -- inevitable because little brown softbacks were obviously a failure, and by 2002 pretty much everyone who <snip>



I couldn't agree more.  I'm not promoting rules mastery.  But nor am I promoting stone soup settings, encyclopedic detail settings, nor some middle path between.  I think you should maybe go back and read my posts a bit more carefully.  And no edition helps you customise the implied setting, or sets out to help you craft your world the way it assumes you build a character.  No, it's elves and dwarves and Greyhawk, or dragonborn and tieflings and Points of Light.  The nearest D&D ever came to it was 0E, where the rules were presented as serving suggestions, and the idea of buying a published world like the Wilderlands was spoiling the fun part of making it up yourself.  

Yes you need published settings for numerous reasons, but your assumption that I'm promoting 4E's dusty bones approach to settings is waaaaay off base.  It's anathema to the way I think D&D should be handled.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> The game presents itself in a manner that had been proven that old and new players stop being creative with 4th.



I don't concede this point. The only evidence I have is my experience plus the various anecdotes posted here. My experience and Mallus's and Hussar's points one way. LostSoul's and a few others have evidence that points another way. I don't have any reason to think that one set of experiences is more representative than the other.

I do think that LostSoul's is on to something in identifying, as a potential problem, the capacity of the game to be played without reference to certain elements of the fiction - though we have different opinions as to the extent of this. I think skill challenges anchor things in the fiction a bit more than he does, for example, and I also see the battlemap and movement/terrain rules as playing a more important role in this respect than he does. Not that this means I think LostSoul is wrong or confused. Rather, I suspect we have slightly different views as to what counts as "anchoring the gameplay in the fiction".

These sorts of differences of opinion, and related differences of experience with any game system - including 4e - are not very surprising. But they don't warrant a general claim that "4e kills creativity". Perhaps it's true that, for a certain sort of player who is simulationist by habit, 4e makes it harder to roleplay - I personally haven't experienced this, and neither it seems has Hussar, but I don't completely rule it out - but again this is a very different claim from "4e kills creativity".

That blanket claim, together with blanket and unwarranted claims about combat focus - which I've refuted, as far as spells are concerned, _in this very thread_ - are in my view simply not warranted.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Since newer things such as feats and skills in their respective editions still use the ability scores, the wouldn't some "jump" skill actually be the same as was implied, and later spelled out for people, as was done in 1st?
> 
> Jump uses DEX stat correct? So an attempt to jump would just be rolling versus your DEX. For all such checks you rolled under or equal to pas, rolling over would be a fail in the attempt; such as people wanting higher stat scores.
> 
> ...




For the most part, this is true.  But one example I remember from C1 - Hidden Shrine in Tamoachan, there's a series of jumps you have to make across 4" wide beams spaced 7' apart (a sort of jump/balance combo).  It uses a Dex check, but on 4d6 (I remember this because I converted it for use in 3E some time back, and replacing the little subsystem with 3E skill checks stuck out in my mind).  Again, without having the books handy, I have to wonder back how S2 - White Plume Mountain handled vaulting from one swinging disk to another in the mud room; I know it had the rules in that section somewhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were quite different from the rules for C1.

While you can certainly infer from the newer rules how to handle these types of skill checks now, my point is when these old spells and items first came out there was not a standard method for determining skill sets or probabilties (perhaps beyond a thief's skills), without a heavy dose of fiat (which is part of the reason a DM is there to figure out these things).

  As the game system evolved and these questions started getting answered by being presented in the core rules, the items and spells weren't scaled back or removed as standardized ways to perform the same thing became part of the standard skill set of every player.  

This came somewhat to a head in 3E, where spells and some items gave a free pass on certain checks.  4E tried to tackle this by sidelining those spells (and near-nullifying certain items) into rituals with exceptionally long (and in my opinion toooooo long) casting times and cost to encourage skill use over the use of these "legacy" spells.  They're not gone (well, maybe essentials has finally nullified them), but they've been marginalized in the extreme (much to my annoyance - I don't want them to dominate, but they've been regulated to the "nerfed so bad they aren't worth the effort").


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 19, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Don't get so haughty so fast. Because you are wrong.
> 
> I said virtually all spells are _constructed for_ combat. Meaning, they are created in that context. (I never said they couldn't be used outside of combat, just that combat is central to their structure.)
> 
> ...




I think defining 'encounter' as 'combat' is one mistake you are making here. Similarly, providing mechanical structure for skill/scene/movement benefits does not prevent their use in less mechanical forms. 

From what you seem to be saying, an ability that says, "You are skilled at negotiating! You gain +2 on Diplomacy checks!" is somehow more geared towards non-combat activity than an ability that says, "You are skilled at negotiating! You gain Smooth Words, an At-Will Utility power that, as a minor action, gives you a +2 bonus on your next Diplomacy check!"

I'm not sold on that idea. Most players I know will still use that power when getting involved in negotiations outside of combat. 

I'm not going to say you are completely wrong - the format can change someone's expectations for the power, and I think there is some minor attitude adjustments along those lines. At the same time, there are some benefits to the stricter mechanical format and context for these powers, rather than omnipresent bonuses or abilities that are vague or poorly defined. 

My main objection is to the claim that this element of format somehow trumps other areas of the rules where the game encourages or advises creative use of abilities, or pursuit of non-combat goals or actions, etc. 

Could 4E do _more _in this department to encourage creative power use, or selection of more non-combat elements? Probably. And, honestly, they are doing quite a bit of that these days, between the 'built-in' ritual abilities in Essentials (such as druids who can talk with plants 1/day), as well as articles in Dragon on creative power use or reflavoring abilities (and likely similar articles to come when they start adding their free gaming advice columns.) 

But the fact they can give better advice doesn't inherently mean there is currently no advice at all, or that they are fundamentally worse about this than other games or editions out there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2011)

Good post, and interesting thesis, Stormonu.  Sorry I can't XP you at the moment.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> That blanket claim, together with blanket and unwarranted claims about combat focus - which I've refuted, as far as spells are concerned, _in this very thread_ - are in my view simply not warranted.




And you are welcome to your view, but just refuting it doesn't change it, so we will just be of different views. I see the strong combat focu due to the evidence I have given somewhere on this site...

Stormonu I am finding that and digging the Hidden Shrine out to read to see what you are talking about then coming back to this thread so I can follow along correctly.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> For the most part, this is true.  But one example I remember from C1 - Hidden Shrine in Tamoachan, there's a series of jumps you have to make across 4" wide beams spaced 7' apart (a sort of jump/balance combo).  It uses a Dex check, but on 4d6 (I remember this because I converted it for use in 3E some time back, and replacing the little subsystem with 3E skill checks stuck out in my mind).  Again, without having the books handy, I have to wonder back how S2 - White Plume Mountain handled vaulting from one swinging disk to another in the mud room; I know it had the rules in that section somewhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were quite different from the rules for C1.




Considering Hidden Shrine is an RPGA convention adventure, I am just going to throw that out as representative, because everyone didnt have access to it, not everyone went to conventions, and will just stick with something using more core rules. So it having a strange way to do thing isn't uncommon for RPGA material as tournaments at cons had to be ran within time limits and such rather than just playing at home.

So to White Plume and will try to compare it to revised that was online so we have two side by side ways of doing it to look at.

Original had only a strength check to hang onto the muddy wooden disks of fall into the lethal mud, with various modifiers.

Revised uses the DC system for "stepping (or leaping)" to cross the cavern.

NWPs first mention prof checks, but saw nothing really in 1st during that quick look through that said anything about it. We always did a "skill check" just figuring what was done in relation to the ability scores and went from there. Just as the NWPs picked a stat to align with to use and that has been used ever since.

I hope this is ok, but I can't really take RPGA material seriously, since it could have easily been made with the confines of being run during an RPGA event, so not really an example of "normal play".

All this said, a streamlined system would get rid of all that new crap and make ability scores useful again as something other than jsut a palce to grab bonuses, and use the former system that is similar to the DC system, where the DM sets some modifier to make things easier or more difficult, and 5e can just let people use the ability scores, but that would mean confusing when you are trying to roll UNDER the number when it is "more intutitive" to have a higher roll be better.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 19, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Considering Hidden Shrine is an RPGA convention adventure, I am just going to throw that out as representative, because everyone didnt have access to it, not everyone went to conventions, and will just stick with something using more core rules.



_The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan_ was published. Most of the classic published AD&D adventures began their life-cycle as tournament modules.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

Mallus said:


> _The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan_ was published. Most of the classic published AD&D adventures began their life-cycle as tournament modules.




OK, so what does it say and do they both do it the same way?

I wasnt too much into buying adventures since I could make them up just as easy except for one I wanted to take parts from.

Still White Plume doesnt have a thing for "jumping" as a mechanic, just telling how to not fall, which goes along with using the ability most associated with it. They chose STR, since you were trying to hold on as opposed to DEX to prevent from falling by losing a foothold.

Really the players may try to cross in a fashion that could require either to be used, or maybe even neither to actually get across the disks. Therein lies the problem with "railroady" built in solutions. So even White Plume isnt representative of how to do it, as it tries to offer only one solution.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 19, 2011)

From C1 _The Hidden Shrine of Tamochan_ (c) 1980



> A character may attempt to cross this pit by leaping from one bar to the next.  There are a total of 8 bars.  For a character to successfully cross the pit he must roll his or her dexterity or less 2 times on 3d6.  If the character should stop to regain balance on any bar in the pit, he or she must save vs. his dexterity one more time.  If a character fails a save, he or she will fall into the pit.  It takes 2 rounds to cross the pit.  Bars #3 and #6 are corroded and will break 1 chance in 4 each time weight is placed on them.




The White Plume Mountain room with the suspended disks doesn't have a jumping system.  The disks are 4' across, 3' apart, teetering,  and very slippery.  THe big dangers in the room are mud geyser that require a STR check to avoid being swept off of specific disks.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

Nagol said:


> From C1 _The Hidden Shrine of Tamochan_ (c) 1980
> 
> 
> 
> The White Plume Mountain room with the suspended disks doesn't have a jumping system.  The disks are 4' across, 3' apart, teetering,  and very slippery.  THe big dangers in the room are mud geyser that require a STR check to avoid being swept off of specific disks.




Thanks.

So they use the same dice as creating the ability scores instead of jsut a d20 to change the probability a bit.

They still use a series of checks based on the ability score to do it.

Now that we know this, what were we using it to discuss again?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2011)

Here are some quotes from the 4e PHB, pp 18, 54, 259:

Your choice of class powers defines how your character functions in and out of combat.

Every class has access to a mix of attack powers (used to harm your enemies in combat, more or less directly) and utility powers (used to overcome a variety of obstacles both in and out of combat).

Noncombat encounters focus on skills, utility powers, and your own wits (not your character’s), although sometimes attack powers can come in handy as well. Such encounters include dealing with traps and hazards, solving puzzles, and a broad category of situations called skill challenges. . . Chapter 5 describes the sorts of things you can attempt with your skills in a skill challenge. You can use a wide variety of skills, from Acrobatics and Athletics to Nature and Stealth. You might also use combat powers and ability checks.​
On what basis is it being asserted that 4e does not encourage non-combat activity, or out-of-combat use of attack powers?


----------



## shadzar (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Here are some quotes from the 4e PHB, pp 18, 54, 259:
> 
> Your choice of class powers defines how your character functions in and out of combat.
> 
> ...




So two sentences describing their areas, and one paragraph out of a 300+ page book. 

I don't really call that encouragement and thus why the presentation can quite easily lead people to not see the outside uses, once they grasp those things presented.

I would sum it up to this...

pg 18: You get some "cool" powers no matter what class you are, now go read all those lovely powers and know you get to choose some of them.

Easily forgotten. Again they are called attack and utility, and have specific targets bases around a system of keywords. Thus not having the keyword means a player would think that keyword mising make it not a viable target with such a streamlined system one does not have much to worry about since ALL things were planned for....

pg 54: Every power can be used in combat.

Easily forgoten that slight mention of "out of combat".

pg 259: Skill challenges are not combat. You arent fighting a living creature, but some trap or something.

Maybe this might lead way for someone to think about using powers or doing things outside of the box, until the skill challenge system screws them up. "Oh I roll some numbers and my friends can give me bonuses helping and pass or fail depends on best 2 out of 3."

That doesn't really say using a fireball CAN burn down a house, when the power says what it targets/affects.

Seriously, it is a LOT of mixed signals going on, and doesn't inspire or really encourage me to try to do something else. Luckily I do what I want and try what I want with the game no matter what it is, so doesn't affect me, but can see others reading it and getting confused or less encouraged to try other things.

The PHB just fails to deliver anything other than, here is a bunch of rules for the combat in the game.

If I were to put the D&D 4th edition PHB alongside of the Warhammer 40k 2nd/3rd edition rulebook; Warhammer 40k inspires me more to want to get into that world, more than 4th edition D&D PHB does.

Funny how the RPG book reads and inspires miniature based combat gaming best, while the WH40k book has stuff in it to inspire the opposite, when they are doing the thing the other should be doing. 

Not to mention both books have the same kinds of info save for the more "fluff" in WH40k that leads to the inspiration.

4th edition PHB jsut isn't inspiring, nor leads to believe the powers deviate from their written precise rules.

Page 42 of the DMG might should have been in the PHB.

Maybe they figured since 3rd edition things the players had to look for info form the DMG, so they read it, and previous edition thought the DMG held some well guarded secret, so they read it, that 4th edition the players all read the DMG, so the way the PHB is so dry wouldn't have been an obstacle?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 20, 2011)

Dude, you said that sort of line didn't exist, and he quoted it for you.  You can't suddenly claim it doesn't matter after spending so much time talking about how it wasn't there and how 4e kills out of the box thinking.  Meanwhile, your proof is to take more lines that disagree with you and word by word dissect them to try and prove they also don't matter.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 20, 2011)

I said what sort of line didnt exist? Im not going back through all the pages of this thread to guess what post was being replied to if any of mine were.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2011)

shadzar said:


> So two sentences describing their areas, and one paragraph out of a 300+ page book.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



It's a book. It "delivers" by containing sentences. I quoted some sentences, including a (elided) paragraph (the actual paragraph, without ellision, is about half-a-column). If you look to see where those sentences are contained, they're under pretty important headings, like "Powers" and "Encounters". They're not hidden in sidebars, under misleading or irrelevant headings, or under rocks.

And now you're saying the book fails to deliver. Maybe some players failed to read it? I don't know.



shadzar said:


> Seriously, it is a LOT of mixed signals going on



The only mix I see is that the rulebook explains that my PC has a mix of powers useful in combat and outside, and may encounter a mix of both combat and non-combat encounters. Ie I'm playing a typical fantasy RPG.



shadzar said:


> pg 18: You get some "cool" powers no matter what class you are, now go read all those lovely powers and know you get to choose some of them.
> 
> Easily forgotten.



Why would anyone forget to read up on and choose their "cool" powers?



shadzar said:


> Again they are called attack and utility, and have specific targets bases around a system of keywords.



I don't see why targets are objectionable. Spells in AD&D have targets or areas of effect.

Upthread I listed a whole lot of non-combat spells (Warlock and Wizard utility powers) from the PHB. Most have either no target (because they're Personal) or a target of "you or one ally". I don't see how this encourages players to forget what they can be used for.



shadzar said:


> pg 54: Every power can be used in combat.



It doesn't say this. It says that utility powers can be used in and out of combat. I think this is intended as a distributed rather than a collective predication ie some can be used in combat, some out of combat, and some both.



shadzar said:


> pg 259: Skill challenges are not combat. You arent fighting a living creature, but some trap or something.



The paragraph occurs under a heading "non-combat encounters". It descibes non-combat encounters in this way:

Such encounters include dealing with traps and hazards, solving puzzles, and a broad category of situations called skill challenges.

A skill challenge occurs when exploration (page 260) or social interaction becomes an encounter, with serious consequences for success or failure.​
How does this discourage players from thinking about a broad range of non-combat uses for powers?



shadzar said:


> Maybe this might lead way for someone to think about using powers or doing things outside of the box, until the skill challenge system screws them up. "Oh I roll some numbers and my friends can give me bonuses helping and pass or fail depends on best 2 out of 3."



This bears no connection to the actual rules for skill challenges in the PHB and DMG:

PHB pp 179, 259

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.

DMG pp 72–75

More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure…

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results...

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth…

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​
How does any of this discourage players from thinking about how they can use their PC's powers and other abilities to engage the fiction?



shadzar said:


> That doesn't really say using a fireball CAN burn down a house, when the power says what it targets/affects.



This is from page 10 of the PHB, explaining what "exploration" involves when playing the game:

While exploring a dungeon or other adventure location, you might try to do any of the following actions:
* Move down a hallway, follow a passage, cross a room
* Listen by a door to determine if you hear anything on the other side
* Try a door to see if it’s locked
* Break down a locked door
* Search a room for treasure
* Pull levers, push statues or furnishings around
* Pick the lock of a treasure chest
* Jury-rig a trap​
I don't see this as keeping it secret that, in the game, PCs can affect the environment, just like people do in the real world.

Here is the flavour text for fireball (PHB p 161): "A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies, and it explodes on impact."

It's true that fireball lists as targets "each creature in burst" - but the rules on reading a power make it clear that the main function of this text is not to _limit _the effect to creatures (in contrast to objects) but to _broaden _the effect to creatures (in contrast to enemies only).

Would the PHB have been improved by including the rules from the DMG on attacking objects, mounted combat, aquatic combat, exhaustion etc (heavens! players who read the PHB, including the rules on using Athletics to swim, might think that they can't fight in water! or that they can't fight while riding horses!)? Yes.

Does the PHB give the impression that PCs can't do anything useful or interesting out of combat, or that PCs can't use their powers, including attack powers, out of combat? No - I've quoted the text where it _expressly says the exact opposite_.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 20, 2011)

I think we are discussing similar things in 2 threads, and that is confusing me a bit. Maybe not you in another thread, but I seem to be getting them mixed up they are so close, so losing track of what is going on between them and they seem to be bleeding over into each other...

I will come back here and read this to figure out later as I back track through both threads I think are merging in subjects of discussion and see if I can separate the ideas between the two.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 20, 2011)

Yeah, 5E is so far in the future it is hard to see what is going on over there.


----------



## LeStryfe79 (Jan 20, 2011)

Dungeon General's Warning: 5ed Causes Cancer. Playing 5ed By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Roleplaying, Premature Lay Offs, and Low Dice Rolls.


----------



## MrMyth (Jan 20, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Does the PHB give the impression that PCs can't do anything useful or interesting out of combat, or that PCs can't use their powers, including attack powers, out of combat? No - I've quoted the text where it _expressly says the exact opposite_.




Can't give more xp to pemerton, but... yeah, total agreement, and excellent job with showing exactly what is _actually _in the book.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 21, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Thanks.
> 
> So they use the same dice as creating the ability scores instead of jsut a d20 to change the probability a bit.
> 
> ...




Well, I stating they weren't standardized (the C1 uses a bell-curve check, the S2 uses a linear check) and I don't actually remember ability checks as skill checks being discussed in the 1E DMG or PHB (again, don't have my books with me - if someone knows, just point me to it).  Third, back in the day, players were rewarded if the wizard/cleric/druid had memorized "just the right spell" for the situation - using up a precious spell slot for a jump spell or a fly spell would have allowed someone to easily clear either obstacle*.  Nowadays, with individual character resources much expanded (i.e., more abilities, powers, items, spells, etc.) it has become the norm to punish having an "I win button" or prevent the use of an oft-available resource from constantly dominating play. For ex., if you have 5 different "encounters" in one day, and you can only use Finger of Death in one of them, it doesn't break the game as when you can do it every encounter, every day.

  This was a big problem in 3E - moreso with noncombat spells actually, stemming from the fact that restrictions on spellcaster powers were greatly relaxed.  4E tried overcompensate by scaling back the power and splitting the troublesome noncombat stuff out to rituals and making it cost money and time to retard their use.  I personally feel this was the wrong way to go about it, but WotC has seemingly abandoned the premise of drawbacks of any type, as has most of the current fanbase.

* of course, it probably would have only given one person a free pass, and more often than not the cavaet of "don't split the party, you don't know who is waiting for you on the other side" would get the lone individual into deeper trouble)


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

Yeah taking anything away from PCs, except their gold, is bad and not fun. I recall someone discusing Jump and such...so let's jsut say a 5th eidtion would need things that make sense that all people could do physically without having to rely on things a body can do and was built to do.

The skills definately could be refined/simplied without so many things to mes with and just going back to ability checks, rather than ability scores just being a scale for modifiers.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> I don't actually remember ability checks as skill checks being discussed in the 1E DMG or PHB (again, don't have my books with me - if someone knows, just point me to it).



To the best of my memory, it isn't in either book. I think it is suggested in the "GM troubleshooting" section of the Moldvay Basic rules - but again, that is from memory only.



shadzar said:


> The skills definately could be refined/simplied without so many things to mes with and just going back to ability checks, rather than ability scores just being a scale for modifiers.



Doesn't this depend on how big you want the typical differential in a party to be?

For example, consider a first level untrained skill check, with a stat spread from 8 to 18 (pretty typical for 3E or 4e), against a DC of 10 (pretty typical for 1st level in either of those systems). The 8 has a 50% chance of success (with a -1, succeeds on 11+). The 18 has a 75% chance of success (with a +4, succeeds on 6+). The 18 will fail 1 time in 4. The 8 will fail twice as often - 1 time in 2.

A roll-under-stat mechanic gives the 8 a 40% chance of success (succeeds on 8 or less) and the 18 a 90% chance of success (succeeds on 18 or less). So the 18 will fail 1 time in 10. The 8 will fail 6 times as often - 3 times in 5.

Which ratio of failure propsects between strong and weak PCs makes for a better game? This isn't something to be worked out just on the basis of nostalgia or simplicity. It takes at least a bit of maths, and then a lot of playtesting to work out.

I can certainly see why the 3E and 4e designers (and the 2nd ed Skills and Powers designers, for that matter) thought they had reasons for going the way they did. A challenge in an adventure where one PC is six times more likely than another to fail is a difficult one to GM - if only the strong PC has to deal with it, it runs the risk of being nothing more than a tedious roadbump, and if every PC has to deal with it, disaster is likely. Reducing the difference in the propsects of individual PC failure makes it viable to set up a challenge which only 1 PC has to deal with, but which need not be the strong PC, and also a challenge which every PC has to deal with to at least some extent.


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Jan 21, 2011)

I honestly dont know if its time for 5E. But I hope the game actually sticks around so that somebody sees a _15_E. How long do you guys think it will last after 35 years? I personally hope it persists, not that I would advocate it lumber along in some stagnated zombie like form for the sake of the name but...


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Which ratio of failure propsects between strong and weak PCs makes for a better game? This isn't something to be worked out just on the basis of nostalgia or simplicity. It takes at least a bit of maths, and then a lot of playtesting to work out.




Like your DCs, the DM could add modifiers as well, so could any number of other things.

You just don't need a "skill" or "feat" to be able to "jump". I liken it to the firebuilding NWP. Some things you should just have if you want them without much silly crap telling you NO!

If conditions are OK, and nothing to disturb you, then anyone that wants should be able to build a fire. As conditions worsen, you use your "DC"s to modify the roll if one would be needing.

So anyone can jump, the just need to apply the proper skill to check against, and should there be something difficult about it for some reason, adjust the DMs modifier, excuse me, the DC accordingly.

This carries over to levels, to represent growth.

I find it funny and somewhat silly a "skill" called "jump", as it make me think with earning "ranks" in it, someone is sitting, well standing around jumping to practice or jumping over things and all manner of other ways to practice.

I would see maybe an acrobat type person doing that, but can also see a party, over time, swatting the person "skipping" around out of the air cause they get tired of it.

Sheer ice, or _Grease_d ground, then no jumping as you can barely stand.

So long as the rule is applied consistently, and the advantage or disadvantage applied makes sense to the world/action; it really isn't that hard, and you don't need a table fof 60+ DCs or whatever to tell you how to adjust things.

The more tables and such for a game their is that players want to look things up on some table to pick the next best action based on the lists of tables, the more likely I am as a DM to use other numbers that what is in the table, IF I ever use that table, in order to force the players to play the game, not the mechanics.

If a DM is trying to look up all manners of lists for me to be able to jump, I will just say screw it and try something else.

The easier things are, the better the gameplay, and least players and DM alike get distracted form it.

But what is easy for some won't be for others, as you present without something you may feel the rules weren't playtested as it doesn't give you enough range of success~failure that may not be to your taste being so small.

I think if D&D survives to the year 3011 for Qubert Farnsworth et all to play, we are likely looking at D&D 148.0, giving editions roll out about every 7 years now, and we are likely to see 5th edition in some form by the end of this year...143+5=148


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 21, 2011)

Sorry about the partial cross-post.

I do not want to see 5e any time soon.  IMHO, if WotC's management is wise, they will avoid 5e for another 2-3 years at least.

With all of these doom-n-gloom threads out right now, I hope that WotC pulls itself together, dusts itself off, and revitalizes itself by producing more interesting adventure material.  

And dropping the Delve format.  The Delve format reduces the value of their offerings, to me at least, by a significant degree.  The Delve format reinforces a lot of the negative opinions/arguments re: 4e IMHO.  Please, WotC, _*please*_ drop it!

Let's return to the Forbidden City with a poster-sized, detailed map!  I would gladly pay for a boxed set, if the overview maps were well designed, and not scaled to minis.  You can include tiles for combat if you like, but the overview should be beautiful and useful as an overview!  I am certain that I am not alone in finding this idea exciting.

Rules may be more profitable, but well-written adventures and setting keep people interested in the game.  

And, you know what?  You can sell good adventures to people who don't use your system.  People are playing 4e with Pathfinder adventures; people are playing Pathfinder with 4e adventures.  

(And, I hope, the obvious argument about making earlier edition adventures available again here is...obvious.  Not only to generate goodwill, but because "Return to X" means so much more when X is available to compare it to!)

If the adventures are kick-ass, and make good use of the ruleset, they can also make those same folks interested in the rules that inspired said kick-ass adventures.  

Remember those people I mentioned, using Pathfinder adventures in 4e?  They can also make those same folks interested in the rules that inspired said kick-ass adventures.  It is always easier to run an adventure in the system it was written for.  Kick-ass adventures imply kick-ass a system.  If you aren't producing excellent adventures, and your competition is, that has to hurt your bottom line.

For what it's worth, IMHO, a good adventure is not a story or a series of encounters.  It is a setting or a situation that naturally spawns good stories and encounters.  If the encounter must occur as the designer envisions it, well, it leaves the GM in a hard position.  Does the GM constrain player action so as to perseve the encounters as written, or does the GM rewrite the encounters on the fly?

(1) Emphasis on minis (and hence on using the battle maps as drawn), and (2) the Delve Format itself, encourages the GM to constrain player action.  This is bad for the game, and bad for the adventure you are trying to sell.  You can't do much about (1) without rewriting the rules (and, as I said, I think that is a bad idea), but you can do something about (2).

Please.



RC


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 21, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry about the partial cross-post.
> 
> I do not want to see 5e any time soon. IMHO, if WotC's management is wise, they will avoid 5e for another 2-3 years at least.
> 
> ...




I agree with you regard to 5e but i would just like to note that some people (like myself) really like the delve format and do not see as a reason for poor adventure design. I also disagree with 2 above.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 21, 2011)

Well, it might be coincidental that, since Barrow King in the 3e era, the vast majority of WotC's adventures I have read have been dismal.  Or it might just be MHO only.  Or an unfortunately poor sample set.

But I suspect a causal link.  And the link is:

(1)  We provide a format that makes running an encounter in a set way more valuable.
(2)  We then provide adventures that emphasizes running those encounters in a set way.  In some cases, also in a set order.
(3)  We provide little or no guidance in the event that the PCs want to differ, except to encourage the DM to ensure that the encounters occur in that same set way.

Now, I won't say that Delve *mandates* sucky adventures.  That would be crazy talk.  But I do think that it makes it harder to write adventures that flow organically.  And I also think that great adventures flow organically.

So, if WotC should choose to stay with the Delve format, may I suggest that they mandate adventures be written in a different structure, and then formatted as Delves?  And then that they give us access to both, and let us tell them which is better through the only vote that counts - our wallets?

I will remind you.....When people talked about those old modules, they didn't talk about how cleverly the module was written.  They talked about how they handled the encounter, and about how the play was affected about the choices made by the players.  The more homogenous the experience, the less there is to talk about, the less impact your decisions make, the less there is to care about.



RC


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 21, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> I agree with you regard to 5e but i would just like to note that some people (like myself) really like the delve format and do not see as a reason for poor adventure design. I also disagree with 2 above.



The various 4e adventures I've bought have varied somewhat in how good and-or useful they are as adventures, but they've all suffered from some consistent flaws that I've come to realize are all format-based:

1. Too much emphasis on making each encounter or area its own set-piece without reference to other nearby things and how they might interact.  Set-piece battles or encounters can be wonderful things, but that doesn't mean every battle has to be like that.

2. Encounter write-ups are too often either padded to fill the 2-page spread or edited to fit the 2-page spread harshly enough that required information is left out.  At the same time, empty areas (where they occur, not often) aren't even mentioned half the time even if only to note they are empty.

3. As long as the overview map is clear and readable, there's usually no need for the blown-up map of the encounter area in the 2-page spread.  If its only purpose is to tell me where the area occupants are, a few lines of text will do that and in much less space.

4. The overview map needs to be physically separate from the main booklet, so I can tack it to the back of my DM screen or - if the back is blank or has no adventure-related information on it - even use it *as* the DM screen if I don't have one. (in fairness, this problem goes all the way back to 2e; but it's still a problem, and bloody annoying)

5. The poster maps are great once the party has seen the entire area - but not before.  Just plopping the poster map on the table when the party reach that encounter gives away *far* too much hidden information; and usually by the time the party has explored enough to make the poster map viable, they're well into the encounter and it's not worth disrupting everything to take up the minis, put the poster down, and put 'em all back.

Lan-"in 5e the entire campaign will be one great big encounter"-efan


----------



## delericho (Jan 22, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, it might be coincidental that, since Barrow King in the 3e era, the vast majority of WotC's adventures I have read have been dismal.  Or it might just be MHO only.  Or an unfortunately poor sample set.




Frankly, with very few shining exceptions, the WotC adventures have always been poor. There are maybe half a dozen decent ones in the bunch.

As for the Delve format...

For most adventures, I agree: it sucks; drop it.

Where it does have a place, though, and where it can really shine, is for adventures intended for zero/low prep, generally to be run in a single night, and possibly to be slotted in by the DM at the last minute. You know, like in the Dungeon Delve event for which the format was originally developed. In my mythical "if I ruled the world" plan, WotC would produce a book of Dungeon Delves for this purpose maybe once a year, and might even do a single adventure in this format in eDungeon each month.

Basically, I think Wizards saw that it was a useful tool, and therefore decided it was the _only_ useful tool.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 22, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> The various 4e adventures I've bought have varied somewhat in how good and-or useful they are as adventures, but they've all suffered from some consistent flaws that I've come to realize are all format-based:
> 
> 1. Too much emphasis on making each encounter or area its own set-piece without reference to other nearby things and how they might interact. Set-piece battles or encounters can be wonderful things, but that doesn't mean every battle has to be like that.



That is lasy writing and not necessarily the fault of the delve format. My experience is that Wizards have an objection to empty rooms and especially giving empty rooms interesting descriptions. They also seem to have issues to infpormation not relevant to the main plot and that has nothing to do with the delve format.



Lanefan said:


> 2. Encounter write-ups are too often either padded to fill the 2-page spread or edited to fit the 2-page spread harshly enough that required information is left out. At the same time, empty areas (where they occur, not often) aren't even mentioned half the time even if only to note they are empty.[/quote[] that I can agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pemerton (Jan 22, 2011)

I agree with RC that the delve format encourages railroading.

There is no doubt that 4e benefits from preparation, which a well-written module can help with, but there must be better formats which (i) reduce page flipping, and (ii) make GMing in an open-ended fashion easier.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 22, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> no problem here but I do like the mosnter stats to be inline with the adventure. I really dislike flippin to an end appendixx for the monster stats.




Me too.

But you don't need the Delve format to do this.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 23, 2011)

shadzar said:


> look at fireball, and Intelligence attack against a Reflex defense right?
> 
> Targets each creature within the burst right?
> 
> Now does it say it will ignite combustible material anywhere to give people the idea it would



I had a look last night at the fireball text from the original D&D booklets, from Moldvay/Cook D&D, from the BECMI Rules Compendium, and from the AD&D 1st ed PHB.

Only the last-most talks about igniting all combustible materials. None of the other three do- they simply tells you that the spell does 1d6 per level to all creatures in it area of effect - almost identical text to 4e. Yet I've never heard it suggested that original, basic or RC D&D are creativity-killers. In fact, they're normally referred to as creativity inspiriers, precisely because of their sparse rules text!

The notion that 4e has narrow or restrictive rules text in contrast earlier editions is, in my view, simply not borne out when one makes comparisons. Heck, even the 1st ed AD&D PHB, in the introductory text on character classes, talks about different classes having roles - like clerics doing some fighting but being mostly supportive. There are similar comments in the individual class descriptions also (including a comment that most thieves tend towards evil). There is no radical difference, in my view, between this text and the 4e text.

Now, _this is not to deny that there are difference between AD&D, Basic D&D and 4e_! Any review of my posting history will reveal that I have always asserted that there are differences - if there were, I wouldn't play 4e, because it's a long time since I've really wanted to play those other versions of D&D. _But the differences are not to be found in the restrictiveness of rules text, or the alleged narrowness of the game's focus._ Roughly speaking, they're to be found on the GM side, in the way the game approaches encounter and adventure design, and on the player side, in the way the game approaches the relationship between mechanics and gameworld.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 23, 2011)

It seems to me that width of focus is a factor in different editions.  It is a factor between various incarnations of TSR-D&D as well......unless you'd also like to claim that there is no difference in the width of focus between Holmes Basic and 2e?  I know I'd not make that claim!  

In addition, it is difficult to extract a single bit without taking the overall tone into account.  The tone of later 4e products might be different, but the early release (first three core) definitely had a different width of focus than (some) previous editions -- and the designers made no secret about it.  They made clear statements about what D&D was, and was not, and the design followed those statements.


RC


----------



## fumetti (Jan 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> _But the differences are not to be found in the restrictiveness of rules text, or the alleged narrowness of the game's focus._





You otherwise make good points.  But not with this one.

When the creators say themselves that they have changed the focus to combat encounters, there's not much room for debate.

4E feels very narrow, and because all the changes shifted towards combat.  Is there any new feature of 4E that actually pushed focus away from combat?  I know of none.  Not the skills challenges, for sure.  4E has the narrowest skills acquisition and development of any edition since the OD&D.  Even Basic DnD went further--not in skill mechanics, but in breadth.

And read all those 80s adventure modules.  About half exploring and half combat.  4E?  Combat, combat, combat, combat, and a skill challenge.  This tells us what the makers are focusing on.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2011)

fumetti said:


> When the creators say themselves that they have changed the focus to combat encounters, there's not much room for debate.



But they didn't say this, at least that I recall. They did say things about how they intended to change the way combat played, and to change the way monsters _intended primarily as combat fodder_ would be statted up (I'm thinking of stuff from Dave Noonan and Andy Collins). They also talked about being influenced by indie games, but wanting to be _broader_ in focus than those games (I'm thinking of stuff from Rob Heinsoo).

After all, they did introduce a new non-combat mechanical subsystem.



fumetti said:


> 4E feels very narrow, and because all the changes shifted towards combat.  Is there any new feature of 4E that actually pushed focus away from combat?  I know of none.  Not the skills challenges, for sure.



See, I don't agree with this at all. Skill chalenges _do_  push focus away from combat, both as written and as played (at least at my table!).



fumetti said:


> 4E has the narrowest skills acquisition and development of any edition since the OD&D.  Even Basic DnD went further--not in skill mechanics, but in breadth.



See, I don't find this to be true either. With its training, feat and multi-class rules it's actually quite broad, I find, in its approach to skill acquisition and how that fits into character building.

As for the range of skills - my comparitor is really Rolemaster rather than earlier editions of AD&D. It's different, but (given the way skill challenges work) not radically narrower. The number of RM PCs, for example, whose crafting skill was _a major focus of play_ as opposed to a means, via some die rolls, to an end (namely, crafted goods) was pretty small in my experience. And 4e still permits crafting to take place (via rituals and feats), even though it is never going to be a focus of play.



fumetti said:


> And read all those 80s adventure modules.  About half exploring and half combat.  4E?  Combat, combat, combat, combat, and a skill challenge.  This tells us what the makers are focusing on.



The modules are mostly bad, I agree. But they don't even reflect the system as written, let alone what I know from experience it can do.



Raven Crowking said:


> It seems to me that width of focus is a factor in different editions.  It is a factor between various incarnations of TSR-D&D as well......unless you'd also like to claim that there is no difference in the width of focus between Holmes Basic and 2e?  I know I'd not make that claim!
> 
> In addition, it is difficult to extract a single bit without taking the overall tone into account.  The tone of later 4e products might be different, but the early release (first three core) definitely had a different width of focus than (some) previous editions -- and the designers made no secret about it.  They made clear statements about what D&D was, and was not, and the design followed those statements.



I think that earlier editions have had different focuses. I'm not sure which way you're going with the comparison of Basic to 2nd ed. Is the thought that 2nd ed has a more open-ended focus? If so, I'm not sure I agree - I think it liked to present itself in that way, but in my experience it didn't deliver.

If you were saying the opposite - that 2nd ed is narrower than Basic - then maybe I agree with that, but would be interested to hear more.

I think that 4e does have a certain focus - on encounters (or, to use Forge lingo, situations) as first and foremost, and exploration as secondary. That said, it has a robust mechanical system to support exploration - different from AD&D, no doubt, but (in my view) robust nevertheless. It also has the tool - namely, the skill challenge - to turn many examples of what in previous editions would have been explorations _into_ situations. This is a different type of play experience, but I don't know that I would call it a narrowing of focus.

As for changes of tone in later products, this has been mooted by some, but (other than Essentials, which sometimes has a tone I'm not a big fan of) I haven't noticed it. To give one example - The Plane Above raises Heroquesting as an option (to avoid treading on Gloranthan toes they call it something else - "journeying into deep myth", from memory). This is a type of adventure that combines exploration (of gameworld history and mythology), situation (that history and mythology being a launching pad for PC involvement), meaningful choices for players (how do _you_ want to rewrite the history, mythology and therefore the _truth_ of this gameworld?) and epic adventure into one single and (in my view) compelling package. I don't see it as narrow at all. And in my view this is just the sort of adventure that is incipient in 4e's originally published design, when you combine the idea of epic destinies as presented in the PHB (and to a lesser extent the DMG) with the stuff on the gameworld presented in the DMG (and to a lesser extent the PHB).

So I tend to see where the game has gone as building on what was first presented, rather than departing from it.

But I know others see it differently. Back in 2008 (? or thereabouts) Celebrim suggested that I and others were reading the 4e rulebooks (or at least previews thereof - it may have been a preview of the skill challenge rules on the WotC website) wishfully. Was he right? I'm obviously not the best person to judge that question!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think that earlier editions have had different focuses. I'm not sure which way you're going with the comparison of Basic to 2nd ed.




I didn't say "Basic"; I said "Holmes Basic".  The Blue Box.  It covers levels 1-3 and is extremely dungeon-centric, with a strong focus on exploring the underworld.  (And also was my first edition, actually, waaayyyy back in '79!)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> So I tend to see where the game has gone as building on what was first presented, rather than departing from it.
> 
> But I know others see it differently. Back in 2008 (? or thereabouts) Celebrim suggested that I and others were reading the 4e rulebooks (or at least previews thereof - it may have been a preview of the skill challenge rules on the WotC website) wishfully. Was he right? I'm obviously not the best person to judge that question!




I think that is wishful thinking.  After all, the designer comments were not at all about building on what was first presented....quite the opposite, actually.  I am fairly sure that making a game with the same label, but which departed from earlier material enough to escape the OGL, was an important consideration in the creation of 4e.

I would also be careful to differentiate what a good GM, with previous editions under her belt, will make of 4e, in comparison to what someone coming cold to the game will do.

As mentioned upthread, I started the game with Holmes Basic, which gives a very good idea of the direction that the game is intended to follow.  The sample dungeon gives very specific ideas as to what an adventure area should include.

4e does the same, esp. if you add in the KotS.  If KotS was intended as the 4e equivilent of KotB (which came packaged with Holmes Basic in some cases, and I do not believe the similar names are coincidental!), the difference in tone and focus ought to be obvious to anyone.

This isn't to say that 4e cannot be used to capture the same breadth of experience as any other editions (I enjoyed reading Piratecat's description of his recent skill challenge, for instance); it just means that the rules as presented (at least, in the first three core books) aren't going to do it with a novice GM at the helm.

This isn't to say that WotC hasn't learned from reactions to 4e's initial offerings, or that it hasn't added some depth since.  The degree to which WotC has done so....well, I leave that to those who have continued to follow the game.  All I can say is:

(1)  Initial complaints about the depth of 4e were spot-on, and were brought up by the designers even before release as a feature, 

(2)  WotC has learned and increased depth to some degree at least.  Again, I have no idea to what degree.  And, 

(3)  Whatever depth has been added to the ruleset hasn't been translated very well by WotC into its modules.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Jan 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> This isn't to say that 4e cannot be used to capture the same breadth of experience as any other editions (I enjoyed reading Piratecat's description of his recent skill challenge, for instance); it just means that the rules as presented (at least, in the first three core books) aren't going to do it with a novice GM at the helm.



I can't speak authoritatively on what a novice DM would make of 4e... seeing as I'm not one, but I can --somewhat dimly-- recall my early experiences playing and running AD&D.

Let's just say these campaigns weren't exactly poster children for broad role-playing experiences. They were mainly published modules strung together, with little interstitial material, a whole _lot_ of combat, and not too much else. Well, aside from group in-fighting over magic items .

I won't call these experiences definitive, but I doubt they were entirely uncommon, either. There's a reason D&D developed a reputation in some quarters as a shallow, hack-and-slash game. 

Our D&D campaigns only gained depth when we moved away from module-dictated play, started writing our own settings, drawing greater influence from the fiction we read, as opposed to game supplements ie, when we adjusted the balance between _fiction_ and _game_. For my old gaming group this was around the time I began running what turned out to be a long, involved campaign using 2e.

I don't doubt some novice DM's run 4e as little more than strings of combat encounters... because it's exactly what my friends and I did with AD&D. But neither do I doubt some novice 4e groups will move beyond that into deeper, richer campaigns which closer resemble the more fully realized, living worlds we --well, a segment of player base, at least-- tout as the ideal RPG experience.

For some the game's always been deep, and for others it's always been shallow (not that there's anything wrong with that!). The depth is in what we bring to the game, it's not located in the rule books.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 24, 2011)

Mallus said:


> The depth is in what we bring to the game, it's not located in the rule books.




If we accept that argument, it is equally true that *Hannah the Happy Ever After Fairy *







is as deep as *Crime and Punishment*.






After all, the depth is in what we bring to reading, it's not located in the books.  Right?

(And this is an argument of kind, not degree.....I am not claiming that the actual split is this large.  Merely that a split exists, and it is not all "For some the game's always been deep, and for others it's always been shallow"!)



RC


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 24, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Let's just say these campaigns weren't exactly poster children for broad role-playing experiences. They were mainly published modules strung together, with little interstitial material, a whole _lot_ of combat, and not too much else. Well, aside from group in-fighting over magic items .



Within this framework, if the players gave some character to their characters what more do you need? Sounds like a good campaign to me! 

That said, campaigns like that can certainly also have some depth if the DM  puts it there.  The question is whether the players will engage it.

The further question is whether the RAW of a given edition (or game system, for that matter) encourage the DM to add the depth or not, or even indicate that such might be required.  In its own chaotic way, I'd say the 1e DMG does this as well as can be expected while the other DMGs - with that to build on - only kinda wave at it.

So, for 5e, please do more than just wave at it! 

Lan-"wave warning"-efan


----------



## korjik (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> If we accept that argument, it is equally true that *Hannah the Happy Ever After Fairy *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I call BS. Reading is in no way, shape or form the same as game playing. This isnt comparing apples and oranges, this is comparing apples to gamma ray bursts.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that is wishful thinking.  After all, the designer comments were not at all about building on what was first presented....quite the opposite, actually.  I am fairly sure that making a game with the same label, but which departed from earlier material enough to escape the OGL, was an important consideration in the creation of 4e.



I may have been unclear. I agree that 4e is a big departure from previous D&D. My point was that, to me, later 4e doesn't seem to be a big departure from the first 3 core of 4e (with the exception of Essentials, which is somewhat different in tone, I find).



Raven Crowking said:


> I would also be careful to differentiate what a good GM, with previous editions under her belt, will make of 4e, in comparison to what someone coming cold to the game will do.
> 
> As mentioned upthread, I started the game with Holmes Basic, which gives a very good idea of the direction that the game is intended to follow.  The sample dungeon gives very specific ideas as to what an adventure area should include.



I started with Moldvay Basic - I don't know quite how richer (if at all) it is than Holmes Basic. But I also had, very early on, two volumes of Best of White Dwarf, plus the Puffin Book "What is Dungeons and Dragons?" (I don't know if this came to North America, nor if you have Puffin Books - the junior imprint of Penguin -there). These were consistent with Moldvay Basic, but I think helped me see the potential that was there better than otherwise I might have.



Raven Crowking said:


> If KotS was intended as the 4e equivilent of KotB (which came packaged with Holmes Basic in some cases, and I do not believe the similar names are coincidental!), the difference in tone and focus ought to be obvious to anyone.



Difference, I don't disupte. Different focus doesn't on its own entail narrower focus. I don't know KotS, so can't comment on it's inadequacies (if any) - but being a WotC module I assume it has some.

As I'm writing this, I'm recalling that my reading of the 4e DMG was heavily influenced by my earlier reading of Worlds and Monsters. I suspect that the latter does a better job of presenting the 4e gameworld and the range of play it supports than does the DMG. A much-underrated book, in my view, and (unlike Races and Classes) not at all a pay-to-preview. 4e would benefit from having more frankness of that sort in its rulebooks, explaining how different game elements were designed to be used.



Raven Crowking said:


> Whatever depth has been added to the ruleset hasn't been translated very well by WotC into its modules.



Some of the adventure ideas and scenarios sketched in Underdark, The Plane Above, The Plane Below and Demonicon are really very compelling (in my view). Much better than what has been executed in the 4e modules I'm familiar with.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

korjik said:


> I call BS. Reading is in no way, shape or form the same as game playing. This isnt comparing apples and oranges, this is comparing apples to gamma ray bursts.




Excuse me, but the argument is that the contents of the pages are not important; what is important is the person using that content.  If this is true, it is as true for novels as it is for gaming products.  If it is not true, it is equally not true.

It should be obvious that I can get more out of *Crime and Punishment *than my 4-year-old daughter can, and equally clear that my 4-year-old daughter will enjoy the literary stylings of "Daisy Meadows" more than I will.  There is a relationship between reader and value of reading.

But to pretend that the novels themselves (or the rules in a game) bring nothing to the equation......is pretending.

And that's not apples to gamma ray bursts, my friend.  Although I will accept it if you wish to believe it is.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I started with Moldvay Basic - I don't know quite how richer (if at all) it is than Holmes Basic.




I love Holmes Basic, but there is no doubt in my mind that Moldvay Basic is far, far richer.  Holmes Basic is, AFAICT, the true predecessor of the 4e Red Box.  It existed merely to funnel potential players into a fuller game (in this case, AD&D 1e [and in my case, successfully]).


RC


----------



## delericho (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Excuse me, but the argument is that the contents of the pages are not important; what is important is the person using that content.  If this is true, it is as true for novels as it is for gaming products.  If it is not true, it is equally not true.
> 
> It should be obvious that I can get more out of *Crime and Punishment *than my 4-year-old daughter can, and equally clear that my 4-year-old daughter will enjoy the literary stylings of "Daisy Meadows" more than I will.  There is a relationship between reader and value of reading.
> 
> But to pretend that the novels themselves (or the rules in a game) bring nothing to the equation......is pretending.




Sorry, RC, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this.

Novels are a passive form of entertainment. You read, you absorb, but you don't contribute to the story. It's there, complete and intact, for you as for anyone else.

By contrast, RPGs are an active form of entertainment. You and your group together tell the story, and it contains what you collectively put into it. Whatever depth it has (or lack thereof) is there because of you.

Now, I do agree that some games can facilitate some types of play more easily than others. And it is certainly true that if _I_ wanted to tell a "deep and meaningful" story, then _I_ certainly wouldn't use a rules-heavy system (like 4e, 3e or Pathfinder) for that purpose. But that doesn't mean it simply can't be done.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 25, 2011)

delericho said:


> Sorry, RC, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this.
> 
> Novels are a passive form of entertainment. You read, you absorb, but you don't contribute to the story. It's there, complete and intact, for you as for anyone else.
> 
> ...




I disagree that novels are a passive form of entertainment, although not that novels are _*more passive*_ than rpgs.....  Certainly, I disagree that the reader doesn't contribute anything to the story.

I have read LotR over 30 times, for instance, and my perspective at various points in my life has certainly added to what I got out of it each of those times.  Things I had largely glossed over, previously, suddenly spoke to me very strongly.  For instance, when Sam talks to Frodo about a father reading to his son (on the outskirts of Mordor), it meant little to me until I *was* a father reading LotR to my son.  And then it brought tears to my eyes.

Likewise, it should be obvious that I can get more out of *Crime and Punishment *than my 4-year-old daughter can, and equally clear that my 4-year-old daughter will enjoy the literary stylings of "Daisy Meadows" more than I will. 

Communication is not only the speaker, but the speaker filtered through the experience, understanding, and ideas of the listener.  Likewise the writer and the reader.  

The depth of _*Crime and Punishment *_exists due to the efforts of the writer, but it lies fallow until read by a reader who can actively extract that depth.  If it were true that "You read, you absorb, but you don't contribute to the story. It's there, complete and intact, for you as for anyone else." then any reader would walk away from it with the same experience.  I can tell you as a fact that this is not true.  My experience reading the novel will differ from yours, and it will differ from my experience reading the same novel later in my life.  And all these things will differ than my 11-year-old daugher, my 4-year-old daughter, or my 20-year-old son assaying the same material.

The depth of a game system exists due to the efforts of the writer, but it lies fallow until used by a player who can actively extract that depth.  The game player may also partake of authorial duties, it is true, but it is still a valid analogy because the difference is in degree rather than kind.

If you "agree that some games can facilitate some types of play more easily than others", then perforce you must also accept that some of that depth is not due to the players, but due to the system.  Otherwise, all games would facilitate the same degree of depth, with the same degree of ease.

System is not the only thing that matters.  System may not even matter most.  But to claim that system doesn't matter, that "The depth is in what we bring to the game, it's not located in the rule books", then we are guilty of failing to recognize that the depth is in the synthesis of what we bring to the game and what is in the rulebooks.  The rulebooks are important. 




RC


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I love Holmes Basic, but there is no doubt in my mind that Moldvay Basic is far, far richer.  Holmes Basic is, AFAICT, the true predecessor of the 4e Red Box.  It existed merely to funnel potential players into a fuller game



Thanks, and interesting - I've never heard this before.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 25, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Difference, I don't disupte. Different focus doesn't on its own entail narrower focus. I don't know KotS, so can't comment on it's inadequacies (if any) - but being a WotC module I assume it has some.



Ayup.

I converted it and ran it in 1e - it certainly has some good moments and makes for a reasonably decent dungeon crawl; but there's also some gaping truck-wide holes the DM has to fill, some of which are surprisingly hard to see until someone runs into one and you're suddenly flying by the seat of your pants.


> As I'm writing this, I'm recalling that my reading of the 4e DMG was heavily influenced by my earlier reading of Worlds and Monsters. I suspect that the latter does a better job of presenting the 4e gameworld and the range of play it supports than does the DMG. A much-underrated book, in my view, and (unlike Races and Classes) not at all a pay-to-preview. 4e would benefit from having more frankness of that sort in its rulebooks, explaining how different game elements were designed to be used.



Worlds and Monsters is excellent - if nothing else, the art alone makes it worth picking up.

Which might say something in itself, that 4e's best publication came out before the system was even released...

Lan-"anyone ever figured out how you're supposed to close the planar gate in KotS?"-efan


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jan 26, 2011)

5e, sure, why not.  I bought the 4e core books and they have sat on my shelf ever since.  It's not the system for me.  It had some good ideas, and some not so good ones, but not enough I could make work for me.  Whatever, I hold no ill will for WotC and have the utmost contempt for the edition wars.  Even if 5e sucks hard, I'll still buy the core rules, if only so my other 4 (and a half  ) editions have something to cuddle up to on the bookshelf. 

As for my opinion, its in the works, yeah sure Essentials is the new big thing, but that gives me even more thought that yeah, it's coming.  After GenCon last year when they dropped the 'red box' rules, it seemed the WotC folks were waaay too subdued considering they were touting a new product, felt the same way right before 4e dropped.  Yeah, it's not scientific, no proof, but call it a gut feeling.  If not an actual edition re-boot, SOMETHING big is coming that's got the gang all queasy.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> See, I don't find this to be true either. With its training, feat and multi-class rules it's actually quite broad, I find, in its approach to skill acquisition and how that fits into character building.




With other editions, a player did not have to choose between expanding his character's skill abiities and combat abilities.  There were many more skill types and leveling up in skills was its own mechanic.  4E gives certain skills at first and then any further skills requires using a feat.  Feats are generally a way to improve combat abilities.  So using a feat to add a skill comes with the opportunity cost of adding a combat ability.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2011)

Fumetti, that was the same in AD&D, where adding a non-weapon prof could be at the cost of adding a weapon prof (in Oriental Adventures, the two came from the same pool of points, and in D/WSG, weapon profs could be spent on non-weapon but not vice versa).


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 26, 2011)

fumetti said:


> With other editions, a player did not have to choose between expanding his character's skill abiities and combat abilities. There were many more skill types and leveling up in skills was its own mechanic. 4E gives certain skills at first and then any further skills requires using a feat. Feats are generally a way to improve combat abilities. So using a feat to add a skill comes with the opportunity cost of adding a combat ability.



The thing about 4e is, that unless you are real prenikity about hitting things then droping a feat on extra skills is not going to hose your character. It is not like 3e where there was a constant need to watch the BAB and saves. A +1,+2 is as much as you get and there are a lot of feats over 30 levels. A player can afford a couple of flavour feats per tier.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Fumetti, that was the same in AD&D, where adding a non-weapon prof could be at the cost of adding a weapon prof (in Oriental Adventures, the two came from the same pool of points, and in D/WSG, weapon profs could be spent on non-weapon but not vice versa).




Unless my memory has failed, the two were independent of each other.

Weapon proficiency advancement was self-contained and automatic.  You got x weap prof per x levels.  Aside from that, players also got x non-weap proficiencies per x levels.

If a player _chose_, he could sacrifice a new weapon prof for a new on-weap prof (not the other way around), but they were not linked.  A player was not _forced _a choice between the two.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 27, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Unless my memory has failed, the two were independent of each other.
> 
> Weapon proficiency advancement was self-contained and automatic.  You got x weap prof per x levels.  Aside from that, players also got x non-weap proficiencies per x levels.
> 
> If a player _chose_, he could sacrifice a new weapon prof for a new on-weap prof (not the other way around), but they were not linked.  A player was not _forced _a choice between the two.




Correct. Some times they were gained at the same levels, but each is independent.



> Rath (a warrior), for example, gains one weapon proficiency slot at every level evenly divisible by 3. He gets one new slot at 3rd level, another at 6th, another at 9th, and so on. (Note that Rath also gains one nonweapon proficiency at 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc.)




There was really no rule written, that I can find or remember, about swapping slots, but most felt they had enough weapons, and groups everywhere sensed the failing of forcing a WP, so allowed people to use a WP for a NWP, if they didn't want more weapons.

Rarely was a NWP able to be turned into a WP, or even needed to be unless your wizard was just tired of using one proficient weapon until 6th level. Use of kits would help remove this problem by giving access to a different range of weapons. A favorite being from CBoE, War Wizard giving two bonus WPs (sword and bow).


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 30, 2011)

Tactical combat may differ in 4th edition and thus require attention to powers and feats.

However, adventuring in towns, wildernesses and dungeons still require many skills and rituals (which were the non-combat spells of former editions).

Many parties in Fourth Edition have one or two party members who put some effort into learning skills and rituals and even acquiring magical and non-magical items for all the various unpredictable activities encountered on the road or in the marketplace. 

This has been my experience certainly. Certain players and characters are more combat-oriented. Certain others help the party in more diverse ways.

(By the way I speak not of the one-shot dungeon delves which typify the RPGA. I speak of roleplaying campaigns, in which I think most of us are interested.)


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Unless my memory has failed, the two were independent of each other.





shadzar said:


> Correct. Some times they were gained at the same levels, but each is independent.



Actually, this is a case of memory failure on both your parts.

Oriental Adventures (1985), p 51, chapter headed "Proficiencies":

All characters receive a number of proficiency slots . . . some or all of these can be filled with weapon training. Any that aren't devoted to weapons can be filled with other skills . . .​
Wilderness Survival Guide (1986), p12, under "Table 1: Character Proficiencies":

A weapon proficiency slot can be filled with a nonweapon proficiency . . . but the reverse is not allowed . . .​
That is, it is just as I posted upthread: in 1st ed OA, both weapon and non-weapon proficiencies had to be purchased from a common pool, and in 1st ed "Survival Guide" games, maximising non-weapon proficiencies required trading away weapon proficiencies.

So the fact that feats in 4e cross over between combat and non-combat is not a new feature of the game.

That leaves it an open question whether or not this is a problematic design in general. Too date I haven't found it to be so, in part because the retraining rules give a lot of flexibility to remake a PC as levels are gained and a player wants to change focus/reprioritise.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 31, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Actually, this is a case of memory failure on both your parts.
> 
> Oriental Adventures (1985), p 51, chapter headed "Proficiencies":
> 
> ...




No it isn't. You initially brought up OA and the DSG and WSG, but lets look
WSG says the use of NWPs are based on DSG....

DSG says it expanded on the OA use of NWPs.

Right now you are in 2 splatbooks, hardcover but splat non the less. Both of these are AD&D1 books.

Now OA was also a splatbook, pretty much its own campaign setting.

So then all of AD&D has 3 moons per planet that guide the use of magic and change it based on the alignment of the caster?

We might as well be saying this. The fact you have to reach out to extremities to get this doesn't make it true of the whole.

Did NWPs exist in AD&D1? Yes obviously, but the problem is they were such corner cases as they didn't exist until 6 years AFTER AD&D came out.

The place where NWPs became common, and still optional, was AD&D2 where they became a part of the PHB.



pemerton said:


> Fumetti, that was the same in AD&D, where adding a non-weapon prof could be at the cost of adding a weapon prof (in Oriental Adventures, the two came from the same pool of points, and in D/WSG, weapon profs could be spent on non-weapon but not vice versa).




This statement from you isn't entirely true in regards to having to to give up the combat aspect for a non-combat aspect. It just didn't exist for the most part in AD&D1 unless you used one of those special 3 splatbooks.

AD&D2 however is where it was widely used if optioned. Therein then is where best to talk about NWPs "in older editions", rather than talking about them in a special case book like a campaign setting specific one.

Also not so good to say it occured in "AD&D" as AD&D is not one but 4 games, excluding the mountain of settings, depending on if using UA to make a 1.5, and if using a Player's Options game to make a 2.5.

So AD&D didn't do that, OA did, as you initially said.

AD&D2, however, that presented them formally as part of the whole, differed and you did NOT risk a loss of weapon for nonweapon. You couldn't as the NWP system as well the Secondary Skills system was optional.

So as was said the independent systems of AD&D gave the more flexible choices BECAUSE they were independent so that noncombat choices weren't mixed with combat ones, but of two different systems and focuses.

Rather than comparing feats to NWP where they came from, maybe comparing them to feats in 3rd would be best, but then you might again have to look back to AD&D2 where NWP became a actually sub-system the rules accounted for rather than an add-on system the rules did not account for.

But you are right about the cross-over of feats not being new, but that is because 3rd edition that first saw feat did the same thing, did it not?


----------



## caudor (Jan 31, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> 5e, sure, why not...
> ...As for my opinion, its in the works, yeah sure Essentials is the new big thing, but that gives me even more thought that yeah, it's coming.  After GenCon last year when they dropped the 'red box' rules, it seemed the WotC folks were waaay too subdued considering they were touting a new product, felt the same way right before 4e dropped.  Yeah, it's not scientific, no proof, but call it a gut feeling.  If not an actual edition re-boot, SOMETHING big is coming that's got the gang all queasy.




This. I noted DDXP this year seemed...subdued.  That's a good word for it.

It is just a gut feeling with me too.  The rather sudden cancellations, followed by the designers at DDXP wanting _to pause, see where we are at sorta thing _. I'm not worried about the game; I'm just puzzled.


----------



## Tortoise (Jan 31, 2011)

The more I think about it, the more I suspect the early prep work for 5e is getting started. Here's why I say that:

With the hassles they've had on the digital side of things, character builder, monster builder, virtual table, etc, and the negative backlash those problems have caused, it seems to make sense that they would want to be able to launch both a new edition and the corresponding digital capabilities at the same time. That way they avoid the current outcry of a lot of folks that they can't seem to do anything right.

They would still need to be working on the digital stuff for 4e since presumably there will be enough continuity between 4 and 5 that these won't be completely alien to one another.

Now, having said that, I personally feel that although I like 4e, there is a bunch of work to be done to make it better.

I like the monster design from a DM perspective. I've gradually come to the feeling that character design is too bulky and that paring it back some would be a positive. A few nips and tucks here and there would help some more of the lapsed people find their way back as well.

To venture a guess on when 5e might peep out of the developement nest - maybe another few years, 2013 at the earliest, more like 2015 if they really take the time to do it right so as not to shoot themselves in the foot on the digital side of things again.

That also lets them fully test the 4e version of all things digital quite througoughly, especially given it is all 2.5 years behind schedule and not looking to be ready for real use by the masses for possibly another year.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jan 31, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Anyways, there's no new Blizzard IP for us to insultingly compare the new D&D to, so we can't have 5e.  At the earliest it's ten years (1 year Blizzard Time) until Diablo 3 if we want to reuse that ;p




Clearly 5e will change things up a bit, and bring back the idea of running your own kingdom/stronghold.

However, due to the success of gamma world, the main 5e line will contain lots of content for sci-fi adventures.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 1, 2011)

Maybe 5E is already for sale but WOTC has not been able to communicate with us well enough to tell us it is being offered.

Based on the last few months, it is plausible.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 1, 2011)

Tortoise said:


> To venture a guess on when 5e might peep out of the developement nest - maybe another few years, 2013 at the earliest, more like 2015 if they really take the time to do it right so as not to shoot themselves in the foot on the digital side of things again.



I admire your optimism, that they'll test it into the ground before release.  I hope you're right.

However, past record indicates - at least on the pen-and-paper side - that testing is what we're for: we buy it, we play it, we tell 'em what's wrong, errata follow...

Lan-"the over-under for the first batch of 5e errata is 4 months after release"-efan


----------



## Emirikol (Feb 3, 2011)

mxyzplk said:


> Warhammer's a good inspiration, you just rule "you have to have the mini to play the mini" Warhammer mini battles style and sure, take the dice idea from WFRP3.  And you'd just have to get rid of the DM.  They've been whitting away at the DM's role anyway, and there are GM-less indie games out there that they've probably been following.  Once you get rid of the DM then nothing stands in the way of your great collectible dice/mini/card/online combo platter.  And adventures, too, expand Encounters to be adventure packs (perhaps with a collectible element from the online thing- "bonus room!"  You're left with the perfect game.




I miss the old solo adventures from 1e D&D and WFRP (Night of Mystery anyone?).

WFRP3's takeover of the warhammer market has been interesting to say the least, but the fan-base was split.  Just as 3e split from 4e, 4e will certainly split from 5e.

Problem is that you lose so much good talent between editions and the writers are not stepping up anymore like they used to..they're busy being spoon-fed and chained in their basements by the non-tabletop industry.

We're seeing this the most in the scenario-writing arena.  

jh

..


----------

