Is "Dungeons & Dragons" Dead?

[Mutazoia]

Here's one to strain your grey matter through. Has D&D finally jumped the shark? I'll play devils advocate and tell you why I would say "yes".

Now I will admit, I've been playing since the days of Chain mail and I've seen the game go through many changes. Some were bad, most were good. Character level caps were expanded then removed, etc. But, for me, the downfall started with 3.0.

Don't get me wrong. 3.0 had some great changes. I never was really fond of the old THAC0 charts and the lack of a skill system made doing some things either embarassingly easy or totally impossible. But some of the balance went with it. The Munchkins were in charge of the game design. Soon we started getting half dragon Cerebermaster/Doomguard/Talon of Tiamat's running around. And there seem's to be no end in sight.

And now with 4.0, which (if you haven't noticed) is simply a PnP, D&D version of World of Warcraft, the game seems to have completely jumped shark.

Now I'm all for change, but not all change is good. Leave a gallon of milk on the counter for a week... It will change alright, but I wouldn't want to dunk my oreo's in it.

Discuss

[randomhero00]

Possibly. So long as you don't consider Pathfinder D&D. There's still plenty of people playing 3.5/PF.

[Sipex]

I will warn you that this thread has a very high chance of flaming out and getting locked or just getting pre-emptively locked by a mod due to the risk here.

BUT, in the spirit of the discussion (without tempting a flame war) I will have to say no, I don't think so.

Now, maybe this is because I didn't come onto the scene until after D&D 3.5 came out but while I have noticed some of the same downfalls as you have I have also noticed that people still like playing D&D, and not just some, a lot of people.

To start things off tentatively I would say that, alone, is enough to show that D&D isn't dead at all.

[Cartigan]

And now with 4.0, which (if you haven't noticed) is simply a PnP, D&D version of World of Warcraft, the game seems to have completely jumped shark.


No, it's not. And that's stupid. What it is becoming however, is a money printing PnP-board game-CCG.

[Comet]

My favourite D&D material is from the AD&D times 3.5 is mechanically sound, if a bit unimpressive, but the books themselves were much less fun to read in part because the text and the art was just... bland, I suppose. Soulless.

4th edition is different, I'll give you that. I like it and would definitely play it if someone offered to DM, but I can see why it wouldn't be your thing.

D&D has changed, but not died in any sense of the word. Far as I am aware, there are plenty of people who play 4th edition and like it immensely. It does some things so well that it really puts 3rd edition to shame.

So, no. I don't think we'll see D&D die in a while. And the Warcraft criticism? Wasn't particularly insightful back when the edition was first put out and is no more clever now. Sure there are similarities, but WoW has influenced our modern concept of fantasy to such a degree that it isn't really all that surprising. 4th edition is in no way, shape or form, a tabletop Warcraft as far as I can see. I mean, sure, it has warlocks and orcs, but...

[Mystic Muse]

Here's one to strain your grey matter through. Has D&D finally jumped the shark?

"Dead" Implies it is either not used or is not widely used. Sort of like how Latin is a "dead" language. Being dead and Jumping the shark are not the same thing.

quoted from TVtropes


Jumping The Shark is the moment when an established show changes in a significant manner in an attempt to stay fresh. Ironically, that moment makes the viewers realize that the show has finally run out of ideas. It has reached its peak, it will never be the same again, and from now on it's all downhill

Whether it's all downhill is completely debatable. I like 4th edition personally and wouldn't call it jumping the shark. However, jumping the shark is something that is pretty subjective. I just wanted to point out that a game being dead and having jumped the shark are two separate things.

[Mutazoia]

Now, maybe this is because I didn't come onto the scene until after D&D 3.5 came out but while I have noticed some of the same downfalls as you have I have also noticed that people still like playing D&D, and not just some, a lot of people.

To start things off tentatively I would say that, alone, is enough to show that D&D isn't dead at all.

But is the game running on inertia? I remember when TSR was still in business and WOTC released their D20 FRPG. It failed miserably and was out of stores in less than a year. Fast forward a bit and WOTC, cashing in on the success of MTG, buy's out TSR, slaps all the recognized D&D bits and bobs on their old system and presto! It sells.

I know people that pre-ordered all the (currently available at the time) 4.0 books before the game was released, sight un-seen, with out hesitation, simply because it was labeled as D&D. They didn't want to wait to see if it was even any good. It said D&D on the cover and they snarfed it up.

[JonestheSpy]

Well, it's alive and breathing for me. I don't play 4e, doesn't sound the slightest bit interesting for me, but still play 3.5, with a lot of my own houserules and slowly incorporating some Pathfinder stuff.

DnD has always had lots of optional stuff that you could use or not - stuff from Dragon Mag, 3rd party books, etc. And I like 3.x better than any previous version, mostly because of the addition of the skill and feat systems. But then, I don't play with munchkins and I run a tight game when I DM, so players can't get away with anything gamebreaking even if they were inclined.

The thing that I find the most annoying in 3.x is the whole WBL thing. It seems to encourage the worst kind of finagling with folks designing characters in great detail with the assumption they can get any magic item they want to synergize with the rest of the character's abilities. Magic becomes just completely mundane that way - it's not heroic fantasy anymore, it's consumerist fantasy where everything you want is just a shopping trip away. However, this comes up more in theory and internet discussions than it does in actually gaming, so it's still not a big deal to me.

[Seerow]

If you think D&D4.0 is WoW, you've never played WoW.

[Mutazoia]

No, it's not. And that's stupid. What it is becoming however, is a money printing PnP-board game-CCG.

Well let me explain the logic that underlies my conclusion. Every body now has "powers" that specific "cool down times". Look at WoW...look at the bottom of your HUD...you'll see "powers" that have specific cool down times.

Now granted, I've played 4.0 once. Was not impressed with the over all design; the complete re-vamp of some of the most basic elements of the game.

Granted, many many people still play D&D and will continue to do so for many many years, but is it [4.0 and beyond] still D&D or is it just a pretender in D&D clothing?

[Comet]

But is the game running on inertia? I remember when TSR was still in business and WOTC released their D20 FRPG. It failed miserably and was out of stores in less than a year. Fast forward a bit and WOTC, cashing in on the success of MTG, buy's out TSR, slaps all the recognized D&D bits and bobs on their old system and presto! It sells.

I know people that pre-ordered all the (currently available at the time) 4.0 books before the game was released, sight un-seen, with out hesitation, simply because it was labeled as D&D. They didn't want to wait to see if it was even any good. It said D&D on the cover and they snarfed it up.

This seems about right.

D&D is so big now that it basically survives by its own name alone. There are so many better systems out there, in my opinion anyway, but the Dungeons and Dragons brand has mass appeal beyond any other system on the market.

[Mystic Muse]

Well let me explain the logic that underlies my conclusion. Every body now has "powers" that specific "cool down times". Look at WoW...look at the bottom of your HUD...you'll see "powers" that have specific cool down times.

A bunch of classes in 3.5 did too. The same could be said for Any spellcaster, ToB class, or heck, any class or creature that has a feature that can only be used a certain number of times.

Similarites do not mean a game is the same as another. Otherwise most games in the d20 system could be said to be the same as any other.

[Sipex]

I believe on intertia would imply that the product out now is inheritly bad though and while it is different in my opinion it's far from bad.

Sure, it's far from the D&D you know but to me it's D&D, it does everything D&D should be able to do and I have fun playing it.

I admit, there has been a decline in popularity in the game and I don't know if it's going to be constant until it dies but we'll have to wait and see. If the company dies or discontinues the line I'll be inclined to agree but not now.

edit: I should also add that it could also imply that while D&D is good there are easier options which are inheritly better and more affordable. This is up to personal opinion I think. When 3rd edition and 3.5 came out this wasn't the case but now with pathfinder it might be.

As far as I'm aware, 4th edition does not have this yet (and no, WoW doesn't count).

[Lost Demiurge]

Here's one to strain your grey matter through. Has D&D finally jumped the shark? I'll play devils advocate and tell you why I would say "yes".

Now I will admit, I've been playing since the days of Chain mail and I've seen the game go through many changes. Some were bad, most were good. Character level caps were expanded then removed, etc. But, for me, the downfall started with 3.0.

Don't get me wrong. 3.0 had some great changes. I never was really fond of the old THAC0 charts and the lack of a skill system made doing some things either embarassingly easy or totally impossible. But some of the balance went with it. The Munchkins were in charge of the game design. Soon we started getting half dragon Cerebermaster/Doomguard/Talon of Tiamat's running around. And there seem's to be no end in sight.

And now with 4.0, which (if you haven't noticed) is simply a PnP, D&D version of World of Warcraft, the game seems to have completely jumped shark.

Now I'm all for change, but not all change is good. Leave a gallon of milk on the counter for a week... It will change alright, but I wouldn't want to dunk my oreo's in it.

Discuss


Nope. You've brought nothing to the table that hasn't been discussed many times before.

Try again, sorry.

[Cartigan]

Well let me explain the logic that underlies my conclusion. Every body now has "powers" that specific "cool down times". Look at WoW...look at the bottom of your HUD...you'll see "powers" that have specific cool down times.
And every other magical class or beast had "powers" that had "cool-down times" in 3.0 and 3.5 using your argument.

Smite Evil? CDT 24 hours
Paladin's Remove Disease? CDT 1 week
Spells? 24 hours
Dragon's breath weapon? d4 rounds
Scarlet Corsair's Feint? d4 rounds

[Tackyhillbillu]

Well let me explain the logic that underlies my conclusion. Every body now has "powers" that specific "cool down times". Look at WoW...look at the bottom of your HUD...you'll see "powers" that have specific cool down times.

This is incredibly insightful.

Thank you for opening my eyes. I now see that 3.5 is really just a complicated game of Diablo. See, in 3.5, you wander around as various classes, and kill monsters. Now, if you look at Diablo... you'll see your character that has a class, and wanders around killing monsters.

[Jarian]

This cannot possibly end well.

...

*grabs popcorn*

[Seerow]

Well let me explain the logic that underlies my conclusion. Every body now has "powers" that specific "cool down times". Look at WoW...look at the bottom of your HUD...you'll see "powers" that have specific cool down times.

And look at D&D 4e... you'll see your powers do not. They're one shot attacks that you can use once in a fight, or once in a day. There are no rotations to manage, no random procs, no cooldowns that refresh mid fight...

Then of course you have WoW which has basically unlimited healing, while 4e characters will run out of healing surges eventually. Your leader isn't sitting there spamming heals constantly on a tank bouncing back and forth from full hp to 20% hp, in fact, most only have 3-4 heals per encounter, with the rest of their abilities focused on buffing, or even attacking, things healers in WoW don't do.

There's also no aggro or the like in D&D 4e. Monsters can attack whoever they want. The tank can mark them, but it's hardly a taunt, it just gives a penalty to the monster for attacking someone else. A less intelligent monster might just bash away at the defender, but smarter opponents will weigh the penalties of attacking someone else against the futility of attacking the guy with much higher defenses, hp, and more likely to be healed since he has a higher healing surge value. Frequently this leads to anything but the typical WoW tank and spank scenario.

Oh, and D&D doesn't have a controller role, at all. DPS are expected to do CC.

So... the only similarities I'm seeing between WoW and 4e are: Both have powers. Both have different roles people in the group. Funny thing? Those things are universal to basically every RPG ever.

[Cartigan]

This is incredibly insightful.

Thank you for opening my eyes. I now see that 3.5 is really just a complicated game of Diablo. See, in 3.5, you wander around as various classes, and kill monsters. Now, if you look at Diablo... you'll see your character that has a class, and wanders around killing monsters.

Good God! They are exactly the same! Why didn't I see this before?!

[Gullintanni]

Well let me explain the logic that underlies my conclusion. Every body now has "powers" that specific "cool down times". Look at WoW...look at the bottom of your HUD...you'll see "powers" that have specific cool down times.

I understand this take on the material, but I think you're probably over extending the metaphor. 4th Edition is more like WoW than AD&D...but that still doesn't make it at all like WoW.

As for D&D having jumped the Shark...IMO, it jumped at 3.x. I loved AD&D and still do. 3.5 is an entirely different game though, with some significant carryovers from the original beast. 3.5 certainly does some things well though. It's by no means a bad game, it's just sufficiently different that it doesn't feel like playing D&D seems like it should feel.

That being said, there's a healthy bit of nostalgia there, and someone going the other way (from 3.x to AD&D) is likely to accuse TSR's prior editions of being unpolished and incomplete. It really is a matter of opinion and perspective.

[LoneStarNorth]

Well let me explain the logic that underlies my conclusion. Every body now has "powers" that specific "cool down times". Look at WoW...look at the bottom of your HUD...you'll see "powers" that have specific cool down times.

They don't have cooldown times, they can only be used once every so often (per encounter or per day). You know, like what spells have always been. And like what rage, smite evil, and other abilities were in 3e.

Anyway, it seems to me like D&D is not the same as it was when you started playing, and you feel it's not as good because of that perhaps? But that just means you're not buying the new material, not that you stopped playing. Nor does it mean that there aren't thousands of people who like the new stuff. The fact that the boards here had to recently be split to accomodate all the different kinds of D&D threads should be saying something!

EDIT: Ninja'd pretty hard. Or swordsage'd or whatever the cool kids are saing these days.

[Comet]

On the whole "they turned my fantasy into a vidja game" thing:

To be fair, 4th edition does feel considerably more like a game than previous editions, I feel, and doesn't even try to be 'realistic' or such. A warrior can use certain abilities a certain number of times before having to rest and that makes for a good game and a good story but isn't at all realistic.

I don't mind it one bit, personally, but it's there and I can see why one could feel uncomfortable with the notion.

So, in the end, it all boils down to opinions. 4th edition is radically different. Some like it, some don't.

[Reverent-One]

They don't have cooldown times, they can only be used once every so often (per encounter or per day). You know, like what spells have always been. And like what rage, smite evil, and other abilities were in 3e.

And how are "cooldown times" different from "can only be used once every so often"?

[Sipex]

I think jumping the shark doesn't really apply here. This sort of analogy fits better with something where the story becomes unbelievable where as D&D the story is completely different from game to game and it doesn't really have a 'static' story.

[Mutazoia]

I believe on intertia would imply that the product out now is inheritly bad though and while it is different in my opinion it's far from bad.

Not inherently bad, but perhaps fundamentally different? I recall my first car. A 75 mustang. A 4 cylinder POS with a mustangish body on a escort frame. Was it still a Mustang just because the lickey-stickum on the back said so or was it a Ford Escort dressed as a Mustang for Halloween?

[Mystic Muse]

To be fair, 4th edition does feel considerably more like a game than previous editions, I feel, and doesn't even try to be 'realistic' or such. A warrior can use certain abilities a certain number of times before having to rest and that makes for a good game and a good story but isn't at all realistic.

I don't mind it one bit, personally, but it's there and I can see why one could feel uncomfortable with the notion.


Now this I agree with. I do agree that 4e is more like a video game than other editions and that they completely threw out realism. I just don't see why that makes it a bad game instead of just a game you don't want to play.


Not inherently bad, but perhaps fundamentally different? I recall my first car. A 75 mustang. A 4 cylinder POS with a mustangish body on a escort frame. Was it still a Mustang just because the lickey-stickum on the back said so or was it a Ford Escort dressed as a Mustang for Halloween?

If 4e isn't D&D, then 3.0 and 3.5 aren't either. If the company who owns that label says that's what it is then that is what it is. This isn't like a car company calling a truck a convertible or a clothes company calling their pants a shirt.

[Mutazoia]

I think jumping the shark doesn't really apply here. This sort of analogy fits better with something where the story becomes unbelievable where as D&D the story is completely different from game to game and it doesn't really have a 'static' story.

Granted. (though personally some of the PRC's /PRC combo's these days are pretty unbelievable.):smallbiggrin:

[Telasi]

Dead, hardly. In danger of dying, possibly. There's enough vitriol for both 4e in general and Essentials specifically that it's possible we'll never see another edition released. I doubt it will really happen, but there is that chance.

Essentially, though, it seems like this thread is a 4e vs. older editions debate. As far as that goes, play whatever suits you. As for 4e being a WoW clone, though, I respond that 3.x has that particular angle covered by virtue of having a rulebook (http://www.amazon.com/World-Warcraft-Roleplaying-Game-d20/dp/1588467813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302544506&sr=8-1) specifically for that available. Just sayin'. :smallamused:

[Mutazoia]

Now this I agree with. I do agree that 4e is more like a video game than other editions and that they completely threw out realism. I just don't see why that makes it a bad game instead of just a game you don't want to play.

I never said "BAD". Has it changed enough that it can still reasonably be called D&D instead of some completely new entity going by the same name?

Ok haven't figured out the multi-quote bit so bear with me...

True..3.0 and 3.5 weren't D&D either. They were WOTC's original FRPG they released to compete with D&D. They just slapped the D&D Moniker on it after they bought out TSR.

[LoneStarNorth]

And how are "cooldown times" different from "can only be used once every so often"?

A "cooldown", to me, implies that a fixed amount of time goes by and you get your ability back. That's definitely similar to "once per X", but in 4e if you don't spend your 5 minutes or 6 hours resting you don't get your stuff back. Same with 3e spellcasters, if you get interrupted in your rest you have to start over. If the powers had a "cooldown" then you could, say, spend 5 minutes of combat running away from your enemies in a straight line until you get your superpowers back, then turn around and smack them, rinse and repeat. But you can't.

[Sipex]

Not inherently bad, but perhaps fundamentally different? I recall my first car. A 75 mustang. A 4 cylinder POS with a mustangish body on a escort frame. Was it still a Mustang just because the lickey-stickum on the back said so or was it a Ford Escort dressed as a Mustang for Halloween?

D&D has never been about being the exact same mechanically, at least in my opinion.

It plays different but it still carries a lot of the same features that make it D&D. Beholders, Illithids, Class based system, inheritly fantasy based, D20 system. These sorts of things.

I mean, sure, if you want to define it that way, where it has to be the same mechanically and things don't change too much between versions then I can see where you're coming from and in that case what we play these days isn't D&D but simply a very good PnP rpg which shares a lot of similiarities with D&D.

[Comet]

I never said "BAD". Has it changed enough that it can still reasonably be called D&D instead of some completely new entity going by the same name?

It has dungeons and dragons in it. Good enough for me.

We've already had Dark Sun, Eberron and Spelljammers. I figure it's safe to say that D&D, as a name, can mean whatever it wants, whenever it wants these days.

[valadil]

Fast forward a bit and WOTC, cashing in on the success of MTG, buy's out TSR, slaps all the recognized D&D bits and bobs on their old system and presto! It sells.


This makes me wonder what you mean by "Dungeons & Dragons." If 3rd and 4th ed aren't D&D to you, then I can understand asking if D&D is dead. To me 3rd and 4th are both D&D (and I started with 1st ed), so there's no questioning that it's very much alive.


Well let me explain the logic that underlies my conclusion. Every body now has "powers" that specific "cool down times". Look at WoW...look at the bottom of your HUD...you'll see "powers" that have specific cool down times.


1) So what? If a good idea comes along, I want my game system to use it. An optimal game will steal ideas. Had the designers looked at WoW and said timers were a good idea, but they can't use that because it was taken, I'd have questioned the designers' collective sanity.

2) I think the timing addresses problems I had with 3.5 very well. I've been running a 4e game for 15 months now. Not once have we had the 5 minute work day. While I don't think that daily martial powers make a lot of sense for real world combat (although they're great for pro wrestling combat), expendable powers and healing surges do a much better job of representing your ability to expend a little during several events of the course of a day.

Powers have also eliminated the problems of buff duration. I can't tell you how many arguments I saw about whether or not a buff would still be active during the next fight. It just isn't worth counting how many turns you took walking through the dungeon. Granted 4e doesn't do as much buffing, but when buffs do happen it's very obvious how long they'll be in effect.



Now granted, I've played 4.0 once. Was not impressed with the over all design; the complete re-vamp of some of the most basic elements of the game.

Ah. Why is it that 90% of the criticism I see about 4e comes from people who have barely played? I respect that you may not have liked the game and don't intend to play again, but I'm just not interested in your opinions if you haven't played in depth. And that's a general you/your to people who criticize without having played.

[nyarlathotep]

Don't get me wrong. 3.0 had some great changes. I never was really fond of the old THAC0 charts and the lack of a skill system made doing some things either embarassingly easy or totally impossible. But some of the balance went with it. The Munchkins were in charge of the game design. Soon we started getting half dragon Cerebermaster/Doomguard/Talon of Tiamat's running around. And there seem's to be no end in sight.


This accusation baffles me right here. What evidence is there that "munchkins" designed the game. I saw a massive paradigm shift but it was not from "pure uncorrupted roleplaying" to "evil muchkinfest" it was from a DM-friendly system to a player friendly system. Also classes became more varied and thus were tools to build your character rather than a choice that defined your character.

Also that is a terrible if not downright impossible build you'd be better off just going straight wizard.

[Mystic Muse]

I never said "BAD". Has it changed enough that it can still reasonably be called D&D instead of some completely new entity going by the same name?

Yes, it can still reasonably be called D&D because that's what it is. Repeating my edited in point, this isn't like a car company calling a truck a convertible or a clothes company calling a pair of pants a shirt. It's still a tabletop RPG, it's still made by the same company, and it's still called Dungeons and dragons. A different edition is more like a different year of mustang. It's not the same with every version and you can like a younger/older version. That doesn't change the fact that a mustang is a mustang regardless of year.

[Cartigan]

I never said "BAD". Has it changed enough that it can still reasonably be called D&D instead of some completely new entity going by the same name?

You roll polyhedral dice and Rage as a Barbarian. What's so significantly different about it that it isn't D&D but 3.0 is after AD&D or AD&D is after 1e?

[Vladislav]

Ah. Why is it that 90% of the criticism I see about 4e comes from people who have barely played?
You seem to be trying to imply these people only don't like 4E because they don't play it much, but the causality probably goes the other way round. They don't play 4E because they don't like it.

[Tyndmyr]

Possibly. So long as you don't consider Pathfinder D&D. There's still plenty of people playing 3.5/PF.

See, that's the thing. Pathfinder is HUGE. Add them to the contingent of people playing 3.5, and you may actually have more players than those playing 4e. Exact numbers are hard to find.

I'll agree that 4e is significantly different than 3.5, and that D&D, as a product line, might be on it's way to dying(though even that would likely take a bit). However, I don't think that the style of gaming is dying at all.


Edit: On the edition war topic, I have played a campaign in 4e. I hate it. I don't generally give games more of a chance than that. The entire group swapped back to 3.5 afterward, after agreeing that 4e is not the game we enjoy playing. This is different from it being a bad game. It is a balanced game, it is a tactical game, positioning is important, all that jazz. If it fits into the type of game you like, it's fairly good, and you'll likely enjoy it...but it's a very different kind of game than 3.5. Not everyone enjoys both types.

[Mutazoia]

A "cooldown", to me, implies that a fixed amount of time goes by and you get your ability back. That's definitely similar to "once per X", but in 4e if you don't spend your 5 minutes or 6 hours resting you don't get your stuff back. Same with 3e spellcasters, if you get interrupted in your rest you have to start over. If the powers had a "cooldown" then you could, say, spend 5 minutes of combat running away from your enemies in a straight line until you get your superpowers back, then turn around and smack them, rinse and repeat. But you can't.


Well I remember the Pally I played in 4e. I remember the power that let me add my Charisma bonus to my damage or something along that line (its been a while) that "recharged" every round. or the clone of the WoW taunt ability...mark a guy and he has to attack ME or take damage every round..that recharged after every encounter. Now spellcasters have always needed rest to renew their spells. Warriors have never needed to rest between attacks.

[oswulf]

Dead? Not by any stretch.

Now, it is my personal opinion that 4.0's movement toward the more formulaic excessively restricts options in a way which may be necessary in video games but is an unnecessary restriction on role playing. But that's certainly not to say that everybody has to share my opinion, or that 5.0 won't move back in a direction I approve of.

[Hyperion]

When 2nd edition came out, 1st edition players said dnd was dead, when 3rd edition came 2nd edition players said dnd was dead...you know where I'm going with this right?

[Mystic Muse]

Well I remember the Pally I played in 4e. I remember the power that let me add my Charisma bonus to my damage or something along that line (its been a while) that "recharged" every round. There aren't any powers that have a one round recharge time as far as I can recall
or the clone of the WoW taunt ability...mark a guy and he has to attack ME or take damage every round..that recharged after every encounter. No, they take damage only once which is the first time they attack somebody besides you, and you have to remark them.
Now spellcasters have always needed rest to renew their spells. Warriors have never needed to rest between attacks.
It's called HP.

[grimbold]

No, it's not. And that's stupid. What it is becoming however, is a money printing PnP-board game-CCG.

to some degree i believe that you are correct
while the older editions are definitely not dead as their are still people who play them and enjoy them. However I still think 4.0 is a pretty good game as far as games go, yet for me it does not have the same magic as D&D up to 3.5

Don't get me wrong though, i still very much think that 4th edition is good, just less 'magic'

[Mutazoia]

You seem to be trying to imply these people only don't like 4E because they don't play it much, but the causality probably goes the other way round. They don't play 4E because they don't like it.


Not really...I can see the appeal to people who like that kind of system. If it were called Stickywickets new FRPG game, I would probably have a better reception to it. What prompted the question is can it be revamped so much that is is no longer vaguely resembles what it was. Is D&D itself so changed that it is no longer D&D. They style of game play will change and move on whether the name lives on or not

[Tyndmyr]

I suspect that 5th Ed will be made with the goal of simplifying the game to capture the younger market. I forecast a move away from actually writing things down on character sheets, and a reduction in the number of dice used. The poor, poor D12 will be the first to go.

Instead, we'll have cards and such. We've already started to move in this direction, expect to see leveling be simply a replacement of one card with another.

There may also be cross-promotion with MTG and getting rid of all monsters that are not sufficiently kid-friendly.

Of course, I'm always pessimistic with WoTC.

[Mutazoia]

It's called HP.

Really? so all these years I should have been making my fighters stop and rest for a day after every swing of the sword? Man your combat rounds must take years....

[Radar]

When 2nd edition came out, 1st edition players said dnd was dead, when 3rd edition came 2nd edition players said dnd was dead...you know where I'm going with this right?
Pretty much this. Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/23/) summarised it quite neatly.

[Mutazoia]

When 2nd edition came out, 1st edition players said dnd was dead, when 3rd edition came 2nd edition players said dnd was dead...you know where I'm going with this right?

lol yes I know what your trying to say. Though personally I didn't hear that much fuss over 2nd ed...it was still the same game, just cleaned up some grey areas and fixed a few bugs.

[Roland St. Jude]

For what it's worth, I think D&D will be alive long after those of us who played its early versions are dead.

Sheriff of Moddingham: Is D&D dead is kind of an interesting topic, but the 4e=WoW retread and general overall tone of the OP suggests that this thread is not a serious discussion nor likely to be taken serious. Already it has the hallmarks of a burgeoning flamewar with the usual doomsaying/threadcrapping. Thread locked.