I have been a ‘lost’ D&D player ever since the release of the 4th edition. Although I still play (well, GM/DM) role-playing games, the most recent edition of D&D is no longer counted among them. The design assumptions, principles and decisions underlying the 4E system simply do not appeal to me.
Recently, however, I came across a thread on another forum that linked to the Legends & Lore series of articles. I have read them with interest and must say I like where Mr. Mearls is heading towards with the hypothetical D&D game (possible 5E on the horizon?) he discusses. A modular system, assuming it was well-executed and that it rested on good (and non-controversial) foundations, could reunite the fractured D&D player-base. Of course, executing it would be a tall order and a game trying to cover all bases could end up being a confusing mess good at none of them. Nevertheless, Wizards of the Coast may be able to succeed at such an endeavor – it would certainly be nice if they could succeed at such a task.
With this in mind, I thought I would try to organize my thoughts on some underlying principles that I find important, which if addressed in a future game might help draw in some of the forlorn D&D players of yesteryear. Most of the forsaken former D&D players have most likely abandoned these boards, so perhaps somebody might find such a perspective interesting. Note that I do not intend to dwell on highly specific rules, but rather outline some general thoughts about the game design doctrine that would generate a game I would find appealing.
Just to give a bit of background, I came up with much of this at the dusk of the officially-supported 3.5E era, a little bit before, but most after 4E had already been announced and although I tried to like it, I did not like what I was hearing in the previews. As the bad news accumulated, it eventually reached a critical point, where I decided I would not switch to the 4th edition. Musing about why I did not like the new edition, I tried to systemize my likes and dislikes. If somebody here would find it interesting or helpful to hear in a respectful manner from a former D&D player who has abandoned the game with the 4th edition, I would certainly be willing to put my ideas on paper. I am not sure if people are interested, though, as perhaps I am wrong and players of other editions have not abandoned these boards with the advent of 4E like I did (mostly because I did not have much to say about a game I was not going to play and there seemed to be a lot of acrimonious flame wars, which I had no intention of participating in) and you hear about this all the time. In that case, repeating what has probably already been talked about to death would be a waste of my time (this introduction alone already is a lot longer than I had originally intended) and it would be a waste of yours to read it. So please be honest with me - would you be interested in that or would it be a waste of time?
I think Hasbro and WotC consider the future of the business if the videogames, and classic rpg by tablet PCs.
5th will be designed to a easier adaptation to videogames. And my suggestion for a new d20 Modern is a second count of XPs for "special help" like mounts (now pets are very popular in the MMOs), hightech, superpowers, sidesicks..
So please be honest with me - would you be interested in that or would it be a waste of time?
Don't worry dude! just share your thoughts, i would be glad to hear them
I met several people who had problems adapting to 4th edition or who simply didn't want to switch to that edition.
Personally, the transition was smooth. I played 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and now I play 4th edition. I switched to every new edition when it was released and I enjoyed most moments I played those (I'm still playing 4th). Since I adopted 4th edition (since its release), I find myself unable to play 3.5 ... but it was the same thing when 3rd edition was released ... I never reverted to older editions. Seeing them as positive evolutions, I chose to move with the flow.
Honestly, in my DD4 games, there are as much interractions and roleplaying with NPCs and between characters as with previous editions. The most important thing that DD4 brought, I think, was to make combat more interesting and fun as well as allowing each class to shine during these moments. I like the tactical aspect of DD4 but that doesn't prevent my group from roleplaying outside combat. From a general point of view, the various editions did not drastically change my way of playing D&D. Mostly combats evolved very far from what they were in the first editions of D&D.
Frankly, I do not think what I should expect from a 5th edition. I had the same feeling when playing 3.5 and when 4th was announced. But 4th edition seems quite complete from my point of view.
But obviously if a 5th edition would be released to content those players who did not make the transition to 4th edition, would those who made that transition accept the changes of the 5th edition? An interesting question that will be answered in a few years I guess.
Powers about moving x spaces could be useful like player, but I´m a collector fan, not player. I want buy books about new core classes and PC races, not about powers of moving. I enjoy when I creating the PC by my imagination, not choosing list of powers and feats. Wizards´ familiars may be not useful like some build or spells, but for me the little animal what help wizard is funnier (And because I rembember the talker animal what were friends of main character of "endless quest" gamebooks). I know a pegasus mount can be useful for a paladin but if he is underground or indoors.. but I love exotic mounts, a artificer creating a contruct bodyguard.
D&D isn´t only throwing dices but too creation of stories by your imagination. The books are only the bricks and I´m the builder.
I have been a ‘lost’ D&D player ever since the release of the 4th edition. Although I still play (well, GM/DM) role-playing games, the most recent edition of D&D is no longer counted among them. The design assumptions, principles and decisions underlying the 4E system simply do not appeal to me.
A modular system, assuming it was well-executed and that it rested on good (and non-controversial) foundations, could reunite the fractured D&D player-base. Of course, executing it would be a tall order and a game trying to cover all bases could end up being a confusing mess good at none of them. Nevertheless, Wizards of the Coast may be able to succeed at such an endeavor – it would certainly be nice if they could succeed at such a task.
It's good that they are thinking along the lines of 'reuniteing the fanbase' because it's obvious something needs to be done if WotC can maintain its relevance. I think there are two problems. The first is that the D&D fanbase has splintered into three groups, the 4e loyalists, Paizo people, and those who have left. 4e loyalists very well might get mad at going for a 5e compromise which is more like a combined 3.5/4e (and don't ask me what it would look like). The Paizo people, in addition to, like you, not being impressed with 4e, have been positively impressed with a company that listens to it's fanbase, has good customer service, and puts out a good product....and pdfs. Paizo has earned a lot of customer loyalty, and they would be hard to win back. As for former fans, I have a hard time picturing what might pull them back in other than a quality game. I'm not sure WotC is capable of producing such an RPG.
Secondly Hasbro is a problem. What would be good for a small to medium sized company like the old WotC and TSR is peanuts to Hasbro, which causes them to pull resources and money, make tactical mistakes like pulling out of minis (if only temporarilly) and cut attractive markets as 'underperforming'.
It would be better if WotC could escape Hasbro, but I don't see this happening.
Unless these systemic problems at WotC are dealt with, the most likely result, and this is what I think is most likely rather than what I want to happen, is that a 5e is released. It alienates half the remaining 4e crowd. Hasbro pulls the plug on an 'underperforming' brand, and the D&D fanbase is mostly reunited, playing Pathfinder 2.0....because it's the only game left, until Mattel buys Paizo, screws it up, and 6e comes roaring back.
Somehow, I don't think this is what Mr. Mearls has in mind.
Hasbro is earning money with copyright of adaptation of videogames. Since "Baldruc Gate" Forgoten Realms is known better by no rpg-fanboys. Near half of products of D&D are novels. D&D like franchise has to be the "spoilt girl". Today warcraft and lord of the rings is known by everybody. A good movie of D&D had to be a f****ing master of blockbusters, true chicken of gold eggs for Hasbro. Why can´t it see it?
Times are changing. If people doesn´t buy pre-painted miniatures will buy cheapier miniatures from the board games. The games of fantasy batles are being replaced by RTS videogames.
Where is the next generation of rpg book buyers? Are they playing videoconsole?
Will be e-books the D&D of future?
If somebody here would find it interesting or helpful to hear in a respectful manner from a former D&D player who has abandoned the game with the 4th edition, I would certainly be willing to put my ideas on paper. I am not sure if people are interested, though
I think people are interested, but do be prepared for a lot of replies, everyone and their dog has something to say about it!
I would say, genuinely and without bias, do try 4e for a few games with a good DM and make a judgement then, and if you still don't like it, it's fair enough.
I tried to systemize my likes and dislikes. If somebody here would find it interesting or helpful to hear in a respectful manner from a former D&D player who has abandoned the game with the 4th edition, I would certainly be willing to put my ideas on paper. I am not sure if people are interested, though,
You could try one of two aproaches, I think:
You could tell us everything you decided you didn't like about 4e without ever having tried it, and we could go nuts telling you how wrong you are... ;)
Or, you could go into detail about what would be the ideal take on the 5th ed of our beloved game, and listen to people shrieking at you that there won't be a 5th ed for the foreseeable future, even though Mike Mearls has been wool-gathering over it's potential shape in L&L for months now. ;)
Either way, I, for one, would love to hear what you have to say - but do expect that some folks'll be mean to you, this is the internet.
It's really quite silly when HP is already an abstract, and it slows things down alot.
I met several people who had problems adapting to 4th edition...
I'll confess that I'm one of those people; the ones who have problems adapting to 4E. I've played OD&D since the 1970's and have bought and played every edition ever since.
For me part of the problem is a change in the way a DM has to view the game. As players began to get more and more options, I find that I have a harder time anticipating what players can and cannot do, which makes it harder for me to plan adventures of the proper difficulty. Also, running a game has become more complex as monster statblocks and NPC skill lists, etc, have grown larger and longer. In the old days I could specify a monster as "orc, 3 hp, sword, chain & shield" and was ready for an encounter. In the modern game I need to have significantly more information in order to run the encounter fairly, since benefits that the players get ought to be given to monsters as well.
Anyway, I love the concept of 4E but have difficulties with the execution of the game. My teenaged son is a huge fan and continues to push me into running games, but I just don't feel as confident with the rules as I do with older editions. I think that as power lists have become so large in 4E that, rather than being familar with all character classes, I have to pass more of the responsibility of knowing the powers onto the players. This is a distinct philosophical shift for me, and one that I'm not as comfortable with as I'd hoped.
If a 5E comes out soon I'm sure that I'll buy at least the core books and probably a lot more. What I'm hoping to see is fewer options and faster play. Personally, I'd trim back skills even more and trim out many of the powers to keep the details more manigible. I'd focus on lower level play instead of building a system that goes to 30th level, since I don't think I'd be ever using most of the rules the way it's set up now.
Just thoughts off the top of my head on the topic.
Our group really likes 4E, at least the combat. Spellcasters no longer just sit around after they've used their Magic Missiles and Cure Light Wounds and fighter types don't just seem to do the same thing over and over. The attack powers may be a little restrictive but that has prevented a lot of arguing about exactly what an action does. Our games now move along much faster and there is less time between players turns, despite no longer having the wizard and cleric just Pass every round after the 3rd. What I believe is lacking is role-playing away from combat. Skill challenges haven't worked for us. I miss the rules for influencing NPC's and other non-combat events. I know the game is set up to make up your own rules, but I don't have a lot of time to do that and would like to just reference charts or something else to tell me what happens in a given situation.
- Emarket for ebooks
- HTML 5 + Javascript web tools (usable in all the OS) no silverlight ****.
- Basic books (ebook format) = free
- Basic books (printed, essentials format) = $$
- Optional books, campaign settings, not general resources (ebook format) = $
- Optional books, campaign settings, not general resources (printed, essentials format) = $$
- Access to rules, rules updates, basic sources = free (limited compendium)
- DDI = $$
- Extra content (feats, powers, thematic resources, items) = DDI subscribers
- Full compendium = DDI
- Adventures (ebook format) = $
- Adventures (with ALL the maps, tiles, etc. needed) = $$
- Playtest in all the new relevant content.
- Less resources but more versatile (feats, powers, etc.)
- Obsolete resources (feats, etc) = out, this resources only makes me waste time.
Recently, however, I came across a thread on another forum that linked to the Legends & Lore series of articles. I have read them with interest and must say I like where Mr. Mearls is heading towards with the hypothetical D&D game (possible 5E on the horizon?) he discusses. A modular system, assuming it was well-executed and that it rested on good (and non-controversial) foundations, could reunite the fractured D&D player-base. Of course, executing it would be a tall order and a game trying to cover all bases could end up being a confusing mess good at none of them. Nevertheless, Wizards of the Coast may be able to succeed at such an endeavor – it would certainly be nice if they could succeed at such a task.
Legends & Lore started out as a fun series of articles looking back at the evolution of certain elements of the game. And I miss that. But it's certainly fallen into the niche of selling 5e.
4e did have the problem of being less necassary. It wasn't the easy sell of 3e. And 3e still had a tonne of life left in it, as seen by its continued sales. 4e didn't so much try to sell itself as a good game so much as sell itself as fixing problems in 3e.
The announcemnet of 4e was so sudden, with no real advance warning other than the cries of "doooom" on message boards and perpetual flow of insider information that continues to this day. So WotC had to suddenly go from saying their game kicked ass to saying it sucked and you had to buy the new edition.
L&L is groundbreaking. In that it's breaking ground and laying the foundation for a new edition. It's establishing a need.
For me part of the problem is a change in the way a DM has to view the game. As players began to get more and more options, I find that I have a harder time anticipating what players can and cannot do, which makes it harder for me to plan adventures of the proper difficulty.
IMX, you really don't /need/ to anticipate the PCs abilities so much, at least, with characters from the first two PHs. Campaign/encounter-disrupting abilities are doled out more or less by tier. So at heroic, you don't much have to worry about PCs flying, for instance. At high Paragon, it's prettymuch a given that they'll be able to handle an underwater adventure (they may have to dig up a specific ritual, but it's decidedly doable). Aside from broad things like that, you don't need to audit character sheets the way you did in 3.x (for broken combos and spells) or AD&D (for crazy items).
You just build an encounter to the guidelines, add in a few flourishes with the environment, and you're good. At higher tiers, you have to take some possibilities into account, but by then you should be warmed up.
Also, running a game has become more complex as monster statblocks and NPC skill lists, etc, have grown larger and longer. In the old days I could specify a monster as "orc, 3 hp, sword, chain & shield" and was ready for an encounter. In the modern game I need to have significantly more information in order to run the encounter fairly, since benefits that the players get ought to be given to monsters as well.
4e actually reigned that problem in substantially. Monster blocks in 4e are not that hard to deal with, a monster has 2 or maybe 4 or so encounters, all fairly clearly defined. NPCs work like monsters. It's not like 3e where every monster had skill points and feats to distribute.
I think that as power lists have become so large in 4E that, rather than being familar with all character classes, I have to pass more of the responsibility of knowing the powers onto the players. This is a distinct philosophical shift for me, and one that I'm not as comfortable with as I'd hoped.
Yep, there is very much /less/ for the DM to worry about, and more for the players to do. The nice thing is, what a player does in a given round is rarely a combination of crazy from different items and books, and usually just all a power (on a 'card' if he's using the CB) - very easy for the DM to look at, understand, and rule on if needed.
If a 5E comes out soon I'm sure that I'll buy at least the core books and probably a lot more. What I'm hoping to see is fewer options and faster play. Personally, I'd trim back skills even more and trim out many of the powers to keep the details more manigible. I'd focus on lower level play instead of building a system that goes to 30th level, since I don't think I'd be ever using most of the rules the way it's set up now.
I'm generally on board with fewer/broader skills. Taking yet another completely different aproach, and releasing level 1-10 of a good breadth of classes, each with only a few powers per decision point, might be a good move though. You could have more classes out quickly, and then you could time future releases of adventures and rules for higher level characters... This time around, we were presented 1-30 from the beginning, but never got much epic level support, and the game is still back-filling heroic support because that's what new players /need/.
Hello fellow gamers,
Just want to share my opinions.
Quick Background: Started playing Basic D&D in 1983 (Red Box) Age 14, played AD&D, a little 2nd Ed and 3.5 additionally I have DM’d 4ed campaigns to level 17 and another to level 14. I have GM’d 2 pathfinder campaigns to 15-20ish level. I ran a Kingmaker Campaign and completed all 6 Adventure paths with Pathfinder rule set. Also played the new Gamma World RPG.
1st of all my problems with Paizo Pathfinder:
- Tons of power creep which leads to unnecessary math
- Splat books start to get very strange concepts, like dual wielding wands as daggers, huh?
- The system is a rules lawyers dream.
In my opinion 5th Edition needs to fix the following design flaws that 4ed has:
- Battles are too long, except with 3 or less player characters.
- Tracking conditions is painful.
- the ½ level bonus to almost everything (if everything gets it, traps monsters players then what’s the point)
- +1 to all abilities as a level bonus(see #2)
- Too many feats are expected/essential to your build to maintain a competitive attack bonus if everyone needs them then why is it a choice, e.g. expertise
- Magic items are very vanilla, most are sold right away and very forgettable
- There’s still a 15 min work day, only exception is if the story drives the party, otherwise just nova, extended rust, rinse and repeat.
- The milestone mechanic is not enough incentive to drive on through adversity.
- During Battles Heroes will at time go down up down up. I.e. unconsciousness is too often used.
- No vancian spell casting, let there be jack of all trades spell casters like a Bard or Wizard that has lots of options.
And my biggest problem with 4ed is the bedrock traditional concepts of the 6 Ability scores (STR CON DEX etc etc) seem to becoming somewhat undistinguishable. Intelligence used for Armor class? I attack that creature with my longsword using my charisma? Because of my background my dexterity is used for starting hit points?
Although it seems I have many problems with the current system there are my aspects I do like:
- Character skills – they are simplified and intuitive
- Combat mechanics are easier to adjudicate than 3.4/Pathfinder e.g. Close burst.
- Teamwork thrives
- Tactical play is enjoyable
Hello fellow gamers,
Just want to share my opinions.
Quick Background: Started playing Basic D&D in 1983 (Red Box) Age 14, played AD&D, a little 2nd Ed and 3.5 additionally I have DM’d 4ed campaigns to level 17 and another to level 14. I have GM’d 2 pathfinder campaigns to 15-20ish level. I ran a Kingmaker Campaign and completed all 6 Adventure paths with Pathfinder rule set. Also played the new Gamma World RPG.1st of all my problems with Paizo Pathfinder:
- Tons of power creep which leads to unnecessary math
- Splat books start to get very strange concepts, like dual wielding wands as daggers, huh?
- The system is a rules lawyers dream.
In my opinion 5th Edition needs to fix the following design flaws that 4ed has:
- Battles are too long, except with 3 or less player characters.
- Tracking conditions is painful.
- the ½ level bonus to almost everything (if everything gets it, traps monsters players then what’s the point)
- +1 to all abilities as a level bonus(see #2)
- Too many feats are expected/essential to your build to maintain a competitive attack bonus if everyone needs them then why is it a choice, e.g. expertise
- Magic items are very vanilla, most are sold right away and very forgettable
- There’s still a 15 min work day, only exception is if the story drives the party, otherwise just nova, extended rust, rinse and repeat.
- The milestone mechanic is not enough incentive to drive on through adversity.
- During Battles Heroes will at time go down up down up. I.e. unconsciousness is too often used.
- No vancian spell casting, let there be jack of all trades spell casters like a Bard or Wizard that has lots of options.
And my biggest problem with 4ed is the bedrock traditional concepts of the 6 Ability scores (STR CON DEX etc etc) seem to becoming somewhat undistinguishable. Intelligence used for Armor class? I attack that creature with my longsword using my charisma? Because of my background my dexterity is used for starting hit points?
Although it seems I have many problems with the current system there are my aspects I do like:
- Character skills – they are simplified and intuitive
- Combat mechanics are easier to adjudicate than 3.4/Pathfinder e.g. Close burst.
- Teamwork thrives
- Tactical play is enjoyable
Except that somes of the 'issues' you 'have' with 4th ed are easily fixable, or bonus actually, good things - like NO vancian casting.