D&D 5th Edition XVI: Not resembling the final product, honestly!

[obryn]

That said, I've spoken with a super-secret playtester who says that, indeed, the current playtest looks nothing like what the public has seen. So there may be hope yet :smallamused:
90% sure the closed playtest is testing some of Next's advanced modules. It's pretty late in the game for a Summer release if they're still testing basic mechanics. I take them at their word that the core game went to a smaller team of internal testers (including some MtG guys, who are WotC's best and brightest at the moment) for finalization.

I'm guessing/hoping there will be a stripped-down one-book basic game containing ... well, basic stuff - think Rules Cyclopedia for Next. And then we'll see all the cool stuff that they're talking about in the closed playtest when the "advanced" guide or whatnot comes out.

[obryn]

Release dates and prices.

D&D "Starter Set" - mid-July, $20 list price
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/d-d-starter-set-wizards-rpg-team/1118613016?ean=9780786965595

Players' Handbook - Gen Con, $50(!) list price
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/d-d-playerss-handbook-wizards-rpg-team/1118612271?ean=9780786965601

Who knows what each will be, though. If the "starter set" is useless crap like the 3e and 4e box sets, I'll be pretty peeved. If the PHB requires a $50 DMG and a $50 MM, it's way over my "auto-buy" threshold and I'll need to look at it veeery closely. If $50 is the normal price for D&D books down the line, I'll be mad.

Basically, I see nothing good here. :smalleek:

[Broken Twin]

Yeah, I'm not spending $150 to pick up core books for a game system.

If the Player's Handbook has everything needed to play the game, I'll consider it.

[obryn]

Yeah, I'm not spending $150 to pick up core books for a game system.

If the Player's Handbook has everything needed to play the game, I'll consider it.
Apparently, that's approximately in line with inflation for D&D releases, but marking your initial books down as loss leaders seems like a smart idea.

If B&N has it wrong, though, and the "Players's Handbook" [sic] is actually a self-contained game, that's extremely reasonable.

[Raven777]

The Pathfinder CRB (http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj) has always been 50$ and it was greeted with massive success (despite the whole content also being available freely on the internet). So I don't see why you think Wizard should make theirs any cheaper. :smallconfused:

[Knaight]

The Pathfinder CRB (http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj) has always been 50$ and it was greeted with massive success (despite the whole content also being available freely on the internet). So I don't see why you think Wizard should make theirs any cheaper. :smallconfused:

The Pathfinder CRB is basically the PHB and DMG put together, based on previous PHBs and DMGs. If Wizards hasn't merged them, they're operating at double price.

[Felhammer]

but marking your initial books down as loss leaders seems like a smart idea.

That is a dangerous move considering how popular the 4E core rule books were compared to how unpopular the rest of the edition's releases were.

Sadly, the core rule books are where WotC will earn a sizable chunk of the profits for the entire edition.


The Pathfinder CRB is basically the PHB and DMG put together, based on previous PHBs and DMGs. If Wizards hasn't merged them, they're operating at double price.

Technically only a bit more than half again as much as Pathfinder is 50 for the Core Book and 40 for the Bestiary (so 90) while D&D would be 150 for the three core rulebooks (assuming the other two rule books would also be priced at 50).

[Knaight]

Technically only a bit more than half again as much as Pathfinder is 50 for the Core Book and 40 for the Bestiary (so 90) while D&D would be 150 for the three core rulebooks (assuming the other two rule books would also be priced at 50).

It depends on what all is included - I wasn't including the MM, as it's more optional.

[Lokiare]

No, because WotC didn't spend eight years building up 4e as a brand before announcing 5e. Heck, they didn't even have branded stores this time around!

IMHO, folks reacting negatively to 5e is because there are fundamental problems with what we've seen. This isn't really about aesthetic differences -- it's just built badly.

That said, I've spoken with a super-secret playtester who says that, indeed, the current playtest looks nothing like what the public has seen. So there may be hope yet :smallamused:

Some interesting Tweets about the play test from the developers:

@Trevor_WotC I keep seeing a few questions out there about why ____ that showed up in L&L wasn't in a playtest packet. 1/2
@Trevor_WotC The public playtest was never going to cover every aspect of #dndnext. It focused on the core. The rest is for private/internal testing. 2/2

yeah, so basically they are testing the core of the game, not a modularized thing. Or something that they will break into modules later. You cannot build a 4E style game on top of what was in the play test packets using modules. Which is one of their design goals (to support all play styles of all editions).

I can't find it now, but there was a tweet about how the rules wouldn't change a lot from the play test to the finished product. Something about 'that's what a playtest is for' or something like that.

Not to mention on other forums people that have looked at the NDA rules said there are not significant changes, just tweaks and a few added things.

[Lokiare]

That's how 4e was leading up to its release too. And hell I remember more than a few people reacting negatively to 3e when it was new too (either because of some rules nuance or design issue or because there was no OD&D 3).

What I'm curious to see is whether or not we'll get a bunch of 4e grognards pushing a third party company into making a "this is totally not 4e guys" game that makes all the mistakes 4e did but still gets rabidly defended by its fans because "WOTC threw us under the bus with their new edition" and that's all they have left outside trying to homebrew which is messy, time consuming and hard to agree upon.

See I'd rather another company pick up D&D altogether, or for WotC to clean house and start over with a whole new crew. Of course my second pick would be for a company to buy the rights to continue 4E from WotC/Hasbro and then create a 4.5E that fixes all the mistakes of 4E. That's unlikely. So what we will have to settle for is a company making a similar game to 4E and fixing all the problems while making it different enough that they won't get sued for it by WotC.

Personally I see a way that all fans of D&D (from any edition) could play a 5E that was designed a certain way and come out of it happy. Unfortunately they didn't go that way, even though it sounded like it when they were first starting.

Its really on them though.

[Surrealistik]

I'm one of the playtesters for the new content; there's a lot of love/hate going on; it's complicated. Suffice to say though that as it stands, without getting too specific, 'classic' 3.5 style brokenness is currently very much a thing so for people who are into that, you'll be pleased... I think. People who loved the finely honed balance of 4e however are probably going to be much less happy however until I see some good modularizing rules or fixes.

[Lokiare]

90% sure the closed playtest is testing some of Next's advanced modules. It's pretty late in the game for a Summer release if they're still testing basic mechanics. I take them at their word that the core game went to a smaller team of internal testers (including some MtG guys, who are WotC's best and brightest at the moment) for finalization.

I'm guessing/hoping there will be a stripped-down one-book basic game containing ... well, basic stuff - think Rules Cyclopedia for Next. And then we'll see all the cool stuff that they're talking about in the closed playtest when the "advanced" guide or whatnot comes out.

The tweet I quoted upthread proves that what we were testing is the actual 'core' of the game with all the wrong stuff crammed into it.

[Lokiare]

That is a dangerous move considering how popular the 4E core rule books were compared to how unpopular the rest of the edition's releases were.

You mean the 4E books that were so unpopular they hit best seller lists and WotC claimed they sold as much as 3.5E up until Pathfinder came out? Those books right?


Sadly, the core rule books are where WotC will earn a sizable chunk of the profits for the entire edition.



Technically only a bit more than half again as much as Pathfinder is 50 for the Core Book and 40 for the Bestiary (so 90) while D&D would be 150 for the three core rulebooks (assuming the other two rule books would also be priced at 50).

I think you might be right about the core books being a sizable chunk of the profits for 5E. I think most of the D&D fans will buy the books sight unseen, and then subsequently never buy another 5E product.

[Lokiare]

I'm one of the playtesters for the new content; there's a lot of love/hate going on; it's complicated. Suffice to say though that as it stands, without getting too specific, 'classic' 3.5 style brokenness is currently very much a thing so for people who are into that, you'll be pleased... I think. People who loved the finely honed balance of 4e however are probably going to be much less happy however until I see some good modularizing rules or fixes.

Yep. That's pretty much my take on it, since the tweets and Mike's blog indicate there aren't any really big changes to the game.

Maybe they will do the smart thing and branch D&D into two major games D&D Classic, and D&D Tactics.

D&D Classic - would have all the brokenness inherent in 3.5E and earlier while D&D Tactics will have all the balanced tactical options from 4E (and what small balanced tactical options were in the other editions).

Then they can simply put out adventures that work for both:

"Goblin gamblers
This room is filled with several goblins throwing small gnawed on bones, some are cheering and others are cursing. They don't seem to notice you. Their weapons are near the far wall.

There are 5 goblins here. They will attempt to retrieve their weapons before attacking.

D&D Classic: 4 goblins and 1 goblin leader.

D&D Tactics: 2 goblin archers, 2 goblins black blades, and 1 goblin hexer."

It would work well and everyone would get what they want.

[obryn]

You cannot build a 4E style game on top of what was in the play test packets using modules.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what parts you're aiming for.

Also? Multiquote is here:
http://i.imgur.com/2hPwEwk.png


I'm one of the playtesters for the new content; there's a lot of love/hate going on; it's complicated. Suffice to say though that as it stands, without getting too specific, 'classic' 3.5 style brokenness is currently very much a thing so for people who are into that, you'll be pleased... I think. People who loved the finely honed balance of 4e however are probably going to be much less happy however until I see some good modularizing rules or fixes.
yeeeesh.... that's not good news at all, man. :smallfrown: A $150 outlay is looking less and less likely, unless "this crap is broken" is what you're specifically there for.

(Which is a terrible use of playtesters, btw. The horribly broken stuff should never make it out of internal testing.)

[Felhammer]

You mean the 4E books that were so unpopular they hit best seller lists and WotC claimed they sold as much as 3.5E up until Pathfinder came out? Those books right?

Each supplement individually sold less than the original three books. This is true of every edition. Everyone needs a PHB and every group needs an MM and a DMG. Not every group needs Martial Power, Complete Divine or the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

It is dangerous to sell the core rulebooks at a loss because you may not make up for that loss if the system does not become the dominant force in the industry (which given all the competition D&D now has, it stands to reason WotC needs to be very cautious in that regard).



I think you might be right about the core books being a sizable chunk of the profits for 5E. I think most of the D&D fans will buy the books sight unseen, and then subsequently never buy another 5E product.

I highly doubt that. D&D will remain successful simply due to its name brand recognition, even if it vies for the top spot with Pathfinder on a regular basis.

The real danger is that if Hasbro does not see D&D as a big money brand, they may sell the brand off, or worse, box the entire line. This is why WotC has been pushing board games recently and licensed WizKids to make D&D minis - all in an effort to find additional streams of revenue to stave off the bean counters in Pawtucket.

[squiggit]

To be fair, part of the problem with 4e's later supplements is that there was a decline in quality too. They switched back to older style classes with the Essentials line that didn't go over as well with the core audience and some of their later books (Hello Heroes of Shadow) were just really poorly put together. At least in terms of crunch.


Technically only a bit more than half again as much as Pathfinder is 50 for the Core Book and 40 for the Bestiary (so 90) while D&D would be 150 for the three core rulebooks (assuming the other two rule books would also be priced at 50).
Isn't the PF GM guide another 30 on top of that?

[Broken Twin]

To be fair, part of the problem with 4e's later supplements is that there was a decline in quality too. They switched back to older style classes with the Essentials line that didn't go over as well with the core audience and some of their later books (Hello Heroes of Shadow) were just really poorly put together. At least in terms of crunch.


Isn't the PF GM guide another 30 on top of that?

There is no core GM guide. The core rulebook for PF is both the player's guide and the GM's guide.

[1337 b4k4]

Apparently, that's approximately in line with inflation for D&D releases, but marking your initial books down as loss leaders seems like a smart idea.

My understanding of the economics of RPG development is that selling your core books as a loss leader is unlikely to recoup the development costs in extra sales.

[Kurald Galain]

Players' Handbook - Gen Con, $50(!) list price
What.

Even if I didn't have other complaints about 5E (and I do), that price would have been a dealbreaker all by itself.


I'm one of the playtesters for the new content;
Interesting. Could you tell us how you were selected for that? Not that I want to join but I'm curious how they put the "secret" team together.

[obryn]

My understanding of the economics of RPG development is that selling your core books as a loss leader is unlikely to recoup the development costs in extra sales.
Yeah, that's true, sad to say... What, like 80%-90% of the entire game line's profits are made on the core books, right?

[Lokiare]

What.

Even if I didn't have other complaints about 5E (and I do), that price would have been a dealbreaker all by itself.


Interesting. Could you tell us how you were selected for that? Not that I want to join but I'm curious how they put the "secret" team together.

I can tell you that. They chose family and then friends of the developers. Basically if you have the same preferences and inability to estimate probability math as the developers because you run in the same circles you probably got into the closed play test.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I can tell you that. They chose family and then friends of the developers. Basically if you have the same preferences and inability to estimate probability math as the developers because you run in the same circles you probably got into the closed play test.
I'm actually in agreement in this.

The guy I talked to was lukewarm about 5e but really excited about 13th Age because they "had rules (as distinguished from mechanics -- don't ask me how) that allowed the Players the affect the plot" and it "blew [his] mind." I then pointed out the Burning Wheel had such mechanics back in 2002 and he seemed unsure as to what I was talking about.

So yeah. They're finally learning game mechanics we've known about since the start of the millennium :smallsigh:

[Surrealistik]

Much as I appreciate the implicit insult, I think my ability to calculate/estimate probabilities in so far as it relates to D&D mechanics is pretty well spoken for.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Much as I appreciate the implicit insult, I think my ability to calculate/estimate probabilities in so far as it relates to D&D mechanics is pretty well spoken for.
I apologize if my accord indicates insult; it was not intended.

That said, I do feel that WotC has a lot of GroupThink within their "trusted" staff -- their employees and their friends and relatives. My own anecdotes lead me to believe that their design/testing pool just isn't familiar with a lot of the refinements in roleplaying games mechanic since the year 2000. It's not a matter of bad math, per se, but more of a limited experience pool.

[Lokiare]

Much as I appreciate the implicit insult, I think my ability to calculate/estimate probabilities in so far as it relates to D&D mechanics is pretty well spoken for.

Really? Were you able to point out the inconsistencies in the (dis)advantage mechanic and how many times its better to keep disadvantage than trade it out for something else?

Did you point out that regardless of how easy saving throws are, they equal all the hp of a monster if you disable that monster in comparison to another classes ability to deal a flat amount of damage? Did you point out casters get to do this multiple times per encounter after level 5, and each time they do this the probability of a saving throw failure increases, so that by level 10 or so when they can pop 3 of these off per encounter (assuming they save half their spell slots for utility) its nearly guaranteed that they will succeed? Not to mention spells that require a save every round while in a zone.

If you did, then good for you, but that just means the developers can't do math and they don't believe others can do math. worse yet they might think the math doesn't contribute to the feel of the game at all, instead of how it really is, where it takes both math and structure to define a feel. (I don't talk about the fluff because that can be found or altered from anywhere).

[squiggit]

There is no core GM guide. The core rulebook for PF is both the player's guide and the GM's guide.

My mistake then. I saw something called the "Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide" and I assumed it was a DMG.

[Surrealistik]

Really? Were you able to point out the inconsistencies in the (dis)advantage mechanic and how many times its better to keep disadvantage than trade it out for something else?

Did you point out that regardless of how easy saving throws are, they equal all the hp of a monster if you disable that monster in comparison to another classes ability to deal a flat amount of damage? Did you point out casters get to do this multiple times per encounter after level 5, and each time they do this the probability of a saving throw failure increases, so that by level 10 or so when they can pop 3 of these off per encounter (assuming they save half their spell slots for utility) its nearly guaranteed that they will succeed? Not to mention spells that require a save every round while in a zone.

If you did, then good for you, but that just means the developers can't do math and they don't believe others can do math. worse yet they might think the math doesn't contribute to the feel of the game at all, instead of how it really is, where it takes both math and structure to define a feel. (I don't talk about the fluff because that can be found or altered from anywhere).

Yes to all of the above, and then some. The problem with the devs is that they seem to be both inordinately influenced by 3.5 grognards and their own pet ideas/sacred cows, or perhaps the idea that the perfect is the enemy of the mediocre.

I mean hell, look at the post I just made; far from the picture of satisfaction.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, I'm just one man.

[Lokiare]

Yes to all of the above, and then some. The problem with the devs is that they seem to be both inordinately influenced by 3.5 grognards and their own pet ideas/sacred cows, or perhaps the idea that the perfect is the enemy of the mediocre.

I mean hell, look at the post I just made; far from the picture of satisfaction.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, I'm just one man.

It sounds like the same thing they did with 4E. The play testers pointed out all kinds of problems with the game from a mathematical perspective, and the developers completely ignored them (Mearls included) and put the game out with many, many flaws that required tons of errata over the following years.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I admit that I didn't really pay attention to the [s]5e[/] Next news as closely as I probably should have. When the news first came out, I was enjoying 2 Pathfinder games, and then I graduated college, and I took a step away from TTRPGs. When I came back I went back to recent Pathfinder news, even participating in the Advanced Class Guide playtest. I don't have the energy to deal with Paizo right now, so I'm taking this time to try and learn more about 5th edition from you guys.

So, generic question ahoy: What are some of the well executed ideas in the playtest, and what are some of the poorly executed ones?

[captpike]

So, generic question ahoy: What are some of the well executed ideas in the playtest, and what are some of the poorly executed ones?

respectively none and all

[Zaydos]

Yeah, I was under a rock during the playtest, is there still a way I can look over the material for the last public playtest?

[Felhammer]

I admit that I didn't really pay attention to the [s]5e[/] Next news as closely as I probably should have. When the news first came out, I was enjoying 2 Pathfinder games, and then I graduated college, and I took a step away from TTRPGs. When I came back I went back to recent Pathfinder news, even participating in the Advanced Class Guide playtest. I don't have the energy to deal with Paizo right now, so I'm taking this time to try and learn more about 5th edition from you guys.

So, generic question ahoy: What are some of the well executed ideas in the playtest, and what are some of the poorly executed ones?

The idea of not spamming classes but instead builds within a class (like Second Edition). Advantage/Disadvantage. The decision to focus on less fantastic fantasy (in the core game).


It sounds like the same thing they did with 4E. The play testers pointed out all kinds of problems with the game from a mathematical perspective, and the developers completely ignored them (Mearls included) and put the game out with many, many flaws that required tons of errata over the following years.

Sounds like every game made by a big publisher. No company wants to go back and re-do the entire math for their game. Errata is so much easier.


Yeah, I was under a rock during the playtest, is there still a way I can look over the material for the last public playtest?

Not from WotC directly but, as with everything, if it was on the internet, it will still be there (some where). Just make sure you snag the playtest packet from October.

[squiggit]

What does "spamming classes" even mean?

[huttj509]

What does "spamming classes" even mean?

Multiclass stew.

Class A 1/B 2/C 1/X 3/g 1/H 2/d 1/M 3/p 1/L 5

[archaeo]

So, generic question ahoy: What are some of the well executed ideas in the playtest, and what are some of the poorly executed ones?
This depends entirely on who you ask right now.

A lot of "generalist" forums, like reddit, seem to be filled with very optimistic threads. Threads where people unironically talk about 5e fixing quadratic wizards and the benefits of bounded accuracy. These players tend to be happy with Next's streamlined combat mechanics and general ease of use, and the most heavily upvoted comments are bullish on the prospects for Next.

In threads like this one, on a "specific" forum dedicated to RPGs with the 5e discussion segregated in a single on-going discussion, negative comments predominate. On the one hand, these guys have a point; 5e doesn't seem very exciting or innovative, and while their refined tastes make them hard to please, their doubts aren't without merit. On the other hand, these threads have all turned into pretty gross echo chambers at this point; having followed this thread for awhile, I see that most people with positive impressions just dip in for a moment, while the posters with highly negative impressions stay around to really make their position clear.

Maybe the most balanced approach can be found on WotC or EN World's forums, but then you're wading into circuitous threads of insanity, especially at WotC. EN World, for what it's worth, seems iffy on the whole enterprise but largely interested in checking out the books.

Which is a really long way of saying that there isn't really a "consensus" view on 5e yet, or at least not one that's durable on more than one forum.

[Avilan the Grey]

I would imagine the vast and silent majority of people who play D&D and don't actually care enough to get online and edition war will do so.

Only to the overly dramatic.

Everyone i know in person loves the new ed, and will definitely abandon / transfer any game they play to the new edition.

[Stray]

New Legends&Lore (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140303), warlock this time. Fewer spells than wizard and sorc, at-wills, and it doesn't even have spell levels.

Also, Rule-of-three (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20140228) specifies that metamagic is sorcerer only thing, and it's done through sorcery points.

[Kurald Galain]

Ultimately the only way to know is by looking at sales figures a year from now. Sure, there's a large silent group of people who will just buy 5E and play it. There's also a large silent group who will stay with their current system, whatever that is. There's no way of knowing in advance which group is bigger.

However:

It is important to realize that solid math and game balance do not sell games. Basically all the popular games in their time (2E, 3E, 4E, but also e.g. White Wolf) have some pretty obvious flaws in balance, but none of that stopped them from becoming popular. So it doesn't surprise me that there are positive threads about 5E on other forums; the majority of players simply don't find math or balance all that important, or find that a good DM will be able to evade these issues.

Speaking for me personally, while math issues may be a pet peeve of mine, I could probably fix those with half a page of house rules; the main reason why I'm not going to buy 5E is because it just doesn't bring anything new to the table. I'm not so much looking for reasons to dislike 5E and falling over the math, but I'm looking for reasons to buy 5E and not finding them. If its main selling points are being easy to learn and having fast combat resolution, well, I've already got games that do that anyway. I'm not going to buy an expensive book just because it has a D&D logo on the cover.

[Morty]

Yes to all of the above, and then some. The problem with the devs is that they seem to be both inordinately influenced by 3.5 grognards and their own pet ideas/sacred cows, or perhaps the idea that the perfect is the enemy of the mediocre.


Sounds pretty in-line with Mearls's blogs.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

New Legends&Lore (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140303), warlock this time. Fewer spells than wizard and sorc, at-wills, and it doesn't even have spell levels.

Also, Rule-of-three (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20140228) specifies that metamagic is sorcerer only thing, and it's done through sorcery points.

I... Actually like this a lot (metamagic is sorcerer only)

At first I was not keen on the idea of wizards not getting metamagic... But I like their explanation of why wizards dont get it.

As for the warlock... I'll have to wait and see but I'm generally optimistic about it.

[Kurald Galain]

I... Actually like this a lot (metamagic is sorcerer only)

Wanna bet that within the year, a splatbook will give wizards an option for metamagic as well? :smallamused:

[Joe the Rat]

New Legends&Lore (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140303), warlock this time. Fewer spells than wizard and sorc, at-wills, and it doesn't even have spell levels.

Also, Rule-of-three (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20140228) specifies that metamagic is sorcerer only thing, and it's done through sorcery points.

I was amused by how much the name-checking of the Binder class in the Warlock discussion. "We were influenced by 3A, 3B, and 4A, which is 3A and 3B put together." I guess that's a matter of making sure the editions are covered in their discussion.

Frankly, I'm okay with Wizard being formulaic, and Sorcerers being the master of tweakery. But I'm from a time when metamagic was not a standard part of the caster's toolbox, and can make do without. I suppose that makes me more the exception than the rule for their "return to us" market, but that is less of a problem for the new-to-the-game crowd.

I appreciate that they are trying to make the type of play different between the three. Wizard can beat anything, with preparation. Sorcerer can come up with clever ways to use of his bag of tricks. Warlock has a hammer... and can hammer all morning, hammer in the evening, and occasionally throw the hammer at things. The world is very nail-like.

Fighter is stuck with a shovel.

[BWR]

My mistake then. I saw something called the "Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide" and I assumed it was a DMG.

While the core Pathfinder book has basically crammed both the PHB and the DMG into one book.

The Game Mastery Guide is in truth a game mastery guide in that it delves a lot deeper into the theory behind the game and how to lead it, troubleshooting, problem solving, ideas and things to consider for creating your own settings and campaigns, the role of house rules, emergency NPC stats, adventure hooks, random encounter tables, lists of names for all sorts of things and tons of cool miscellany.
In short it does a better job of being a guide to game mastery than the DMG, which is mostly just about the mechanics.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Wanna bet that within the year, a splatbook will give wizards an option for metamagic as well? :smallamused:

Oh yeah, I would say the over-under is 1.5 years though.

However, when they give wizards metamagic what I would like to see is the following.

Academic Metamagic: When the wizard scribes a spell in their spell book they may add a metamagic effect on the spell. This metamagic spell is considered an entirely new spell and must be scribed at a higher level determined by level of the metamagic effect.

Silent Spells: +1 Spell Level
Still Spell: +1 Spell Level
Empower Spell: +2 Spell Level

So a Wizard could have burning hands in their spell book. However they can't apply the Empower Metamagic to that spell, they must scribe in a higher level slot in their spell book "Empowered Burning Hands".

They wouldn't need to know Burning Hands to scribe Empowered Burning Hands.

This gives Wizards more options but doesn't take away from the sorcerer. The Wizards really has to give up something in order to use metamagic.

[Morty]

Fighter is stuck with a shovel.

It is telling that their goals for the three arcane casting classes is to diversify and come up with different mechanics to represent their different approaches to spell-casting... but as far as I can tell, their goals for non-magical combat and skills have been to simplify, simplify and then simplify some more.

[Madfellow]

This is the one thing that annoys me about Next: the dev team's need to include 3 primary arcane spellcaster classes. In my opinion, one game does not need 3 different flavors of "guy in robes who throws fireballs." If the team wants to include the wizard, sorcerer, and warlock, then I think they should be subclasses under the Mage base class. When I get around to DMing a 5e game, I'll probably just ban all 3 of them and do without; I've never been a big fan of the "guy in robes who throws fireballs" as a member of an adventuring party. He makes a better villain IMO.

[Joe the Rat]

It is telling that their goals for the three arcane casting classes is to diversify and come up with different mechanics to represent their different approaches to spell-casting... but as far as I can tell, their goals for non-magical combat and skills have been to simplify, simplify and then simplify some more.

The closest analogue here would be comparing the "Mundanes": Fighter, Barbarian, Monk*, Rogue. There are some mechanical differences between them for combat, each with a special trick or resource. Are there mechanical differences between these classes? Are they distinct enough that each will play differently?

I think they do. But that doesn't change the fact that that the core of "what they do" is pretty limited.



* - While they are supposed to be "super-normal," they are closer to being freaky fighters than falling in with the half-casters (Paladin, Ranger, Bard)

[obryn]

I'm not completely great with Next, but I tend to think it's going to turn out a lot better than is the norm, here.

There's stuff legitimately wrong with it, but there was - last I saw - still possibly time to fix it.

[TheLoneCleric]

This thread is depressing. I want to be optimistic about 5E. I'm tired of second guessing why WoTC is doing something and just accepting what is done and playing the bloody game.

[Madfellow]

This thread is depressing. I want to be optimistic about 5E. I'm tired of second guessing why WoTC is doing something and just accepting what is done and playing the bloody game.

Here here!

[Scowling Dragon]

So hows the game coming along? I haven't checked in forever.

[TheLoneCleric]

So hows the game coming along? I haven't checked in forever.

Not bad at all. If I was to describe it, it's 3.5 core with elements of 4E/13th Age character design (backgrounds, meta feats), Pathfinder like archtypes (sub-classes), and 2E combat. AoO/Flanking gone, buffs are concentration and can be interupted.

So it's a hodpodge but it works nicely.

[neonchameleon]

*Oddly enough despite the general consensus that 4e is a more stifling game here a lot of my 4e gaming group seem to feel 3e makes it too hard to customize their character unless they're playing a spellcaster.

This is due to different methods of customising characters. Two 3.5 rogues are different out of combat because they've got different plusses in different places and at fifth level you've spent sixty four skill points. Two 4e rogues are different because they have different abilities beyond the norm. One can climb walls without rolling. Another can pick pockets with a brush pass. These are huge psychological differences and very different from getting a few points more on a d20 roll when you check a certain skill. You use different methods to customise characters in 3.X and 4e for all their superficial similarities. Personally I find 4e vastly more flexible if I want to play something useful that isn't a caster (and 3.5 more flexible than Pathfinder) - but this is because I know how to customise in both games.


The guy I talked to was lukewarm about 5e but really excited about 13th Age because they "had rules (as distinguished from mechanics -- don't ask me how)

I'd guess this ties to my earlier point. If you're distinguishing the two, a mechanic involves maths, and is a bonus. A rule is an ability - something you can do.


It is important to realize that solid math and game balance do not sell games.

Quoted for truth. And we're all connoisseurs of some sort or other here. It's the social aspect, however. From almost everything I've seen, 4e DMs will throw up their hands screaming at how hard Next is to run - while Pathfinder is the huge fly in the ointment. I don't think Next is going to draw people away from Pathfinder.


I'm not completely great with Next, but I tend to think it's going to turn out a lot better than is the norm, here.

There's stuff legitimately wrong with it, but there was - last I saw - still possibly time to fix it.

Yup! And I think they are fixing the DMing issues. They don't have much time left.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It wouldn't be so bad if they had an unbalanced game where some mundanes and some casters were over powered and some mundanes and some casters were severely underpowered.

You know?

Is there any reasons why mundanes CAN"T be overpowered?

*shrug*

[obryn]

I'm largely agreeing with folks elsewhere - the real "litmus test" for me is going to be that Starter Set.

Now, I expect it's going to be extremely limited without all too much breadth for characters. Four classes, four races, single builds for each, no/few feats to pick from, that sort of thing. I also don't expect it to have more than a handful of levels - remember, the most popular box set of all time only had levels 1-3.

But is WotC going to sell a complete game in that box? Or is it going to be garbage like ... oh, every single other starter box that WotC has ever made? The key is - how much support will it give for a new DM to branch out and run games beyond whatever adventure gets bundled up with it? Will it have a decent collection of monsters? Advice for making/running further adventures? Talk about how to run a campaign?

Also, will it actually be compatible with the full game, so once you hit 3rd or 5th or 10th or whatever, you can take that same character into the Advanced game?

All of this just seems like Basic Set 101 to me, and yet WotC has yet to get it right. Will this be the first time? If they manage it, that full game's price tag looks a lot more reasonable to me.

[obryn]

It wouldn't be so bad if they had an unbalanced game where some mundanes and some casters were over powered and some mundanes and some casters were severely underpowered.

You know?

Is there any reasons why mundanes CAN"T be overpowered?

*shrug*
Because Magic.

No, really, because magic. The game's rules are all geared towards what non-magic things do - so they deal with stuff like AC, hit points, skill target numbers, etc. If you break those rules, then it has to be because magic. Spells are just player fiat tokens which let you ignore/bypass parts of the rules.

If the Fighter got to break those rules, it would have to be because he was doing magic. But Fighters are defined, in part, by their inability to do magic, and therefore cannot spend fiat tokens to break rules, so here we are.

The above paragraphs are not meant as an endorsement of this philosophy. :smallbiggrin:

[Joe the Rat]

A little cross-post info: We have a target date for our hopes and/or fears and/or ridicule (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132589-Dungeons-Dragons-Next-Release-Date-New-Product-Leak).

Yeah, I'm seeing a 1-3 or 1-5 Core Four Red Box there. And $50 a pop for the hardbacks.

[Kurald Galain]

This is the one thing that annoys me about Next: the dev team's need to include 3 primary arcane spellcaster classes. In my opinion, one game does not need 3 different flavors of "guy in robes who throws fireballs."
I wholeheartedly agree.


I'm largely agreeing with folks elsewhere - the real "litmus test" for me is going to be that Starter Set.
Previous editions have taught me that ignoring a starter set and just grabbing the PHB1 already gives more value for your money.

[Surrealistik]

To be fair, there are quite a few good things to be said about 5e; most of them have to do with the speed and ease of play.

The balance is also markedly superior vis a vis 3.5 for at least the first 5-10 levels or so, and the differences in power between the classes isn't as great overall.

[neonchameleon]

This is the one thing that annoys me about Next: the dev team's need to include 3 primary arcane spellcaster classes. In my opinion, one game does not need 3 different flavors of "guy in robes who throws fireballs." If the team wants to include the wizard, sorcerer, and warlock, then I think they should be subclasses under the Mage base class. When I get around to DMing a 5e game, I'll probably just ban all 3 of them and do without; I've never been a big fan of the "guy in robes who throws fireballs" as a member of an adventuring party. He makes a better villain IMO.

Possibly not. But it doesn't need more than a dozen spells either. If you want more than that you need to spread things around a bit rather than having one class gluttonously gorging on dozens of special abilities (i.e. spells) and other classes (fighter, rogue) having very few and only being able to do things Commoners can do slightly better.

[obryn]

This thread is depressing. I want to be optimistic about 5E. I'm tired of second guessing why WoTC is doing something and just accepting what is done and playing the bloody game.
Backtracking a bit ... It's weird, but being here makes me more excited about the game through some weird psychological trick. So many folks here are down on it for either (1) reasons that show no understanding of the playtest packets, (2) no actual playtest with recent packets, or (3) what I consider completely batcrap reasons, that I seem positively bullish in comparison.

And I end up thinking, "Wow, now I'm looking forward to this!"

[Jacob.Tyr]

Backtracking a bit ... It's weird, but being here makes me more excited about the game through some weird psychological trick. So many folks here are down on it for either (1) reasons that show no understanding of the playtest packets, (2) no actual playtest with recent packets, or (3) what I consider completely batcrap reasons, that I seem positively bullish in comparison.

And I end up thinking, "Wow, now I'm looking forward to this!"
I'm mostly upset with it for lacking interesting options for mundanes. Sure there are some viable options, but they lack versatility and still amount to "I attack" as the only action you can take. With Pathfinder getting a ToB inspired supplement in the next few months or so, I really can't come up with a reason to buy 5E anymore.

[Lokiare]

Sounds like every game made by a big publisher. No company wants to go back and re-do the entire math for their game. Errata is so much easier.

Except they were in the development process. You know, where you're supposed to go back and fix things.


So, generic question ahoy: What are some of the well executed ideas in the playtest, and what are some of the poorly executed ones?

You'll get different answers from different people. The key to understanding the failure of 5E can be found in this article http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

Once you read that and the play test documents and then peoples comments on it in various fora, then you will completely understand how 5E is going to fail.


This depends entirely on who you ask right now.

A lot of "generalist" forums, like reddit, seem to be filled with very optimistic threads. Threads where people unironically talk about 5e fixing quadratic wizards and the benefits of bounded accuracy. These players tend to be happy with Next's streamlined combat mechanics and general ease of use, and the most heavily upvoted comments are bullish on the prospects for Next.

The problem is they don't allow negative comments. I've been permanently ejected from two forums for posting comments that critique 5E without breaking any of their 'no edition warring' rules. I posted many of the things that I've seen in this thread with a very factual mathematical look at the game, and they still asked me not to post, something about being negative.

Personally that's what's wrong with our culture right now. No one relizes that negativity has an actual purpose.

"My house is on fire, put it out quick!"
"Quit, being so negative."


In threads like this one, on a "specific" forum dedicated to RPGs with the 5e discussion segregated in a single on-going discussion, negative comments predominate. On the one hand, these guys have a point; 5e doesn't seem very exciting or innovative, and while their refined tastes make them hard to please, their doubts aren't without merit. On the other hand, these threads have all turned into pretty gross echo chambers at this point; having followed this thread for awhile, I see that most people with positive impressions just dip in for a moment, while the posters with highly negative impressions stay around to really make their position clear.

This forum allows negative opinions, and therefore shows what many people actually think. Those 'positive' people leave quickly because they realize their posts can be torn to shreds and no amount of spamming the report button will help them as long as everyone follows the rules.


Maybe the most balanced approach can be found on WotC or EN World's forums, but then you're wading into circuitous threads of insanity, especially at WotC. EN World, for what it's worth, seems iffy on the whole enterprise but largely interested in checking out the books.

Which is a really long way of saying that there isn't really a "consensus" view on 5e yet, or at least not one that's durable on more than one forum.

WotC and EnWorld are the two that asked me to leave for posting critiques of 5E.

As far as I'm concerned if you are unable to post your opinion in a polite non-profane way, then the forum you are posting on is worth zero, because that is what forums are for, to discuss things (positive and negative).


New Legends&Lore (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140303), warlock this time. Fewer spells than wizard and sorc, at-wills, and it doesn't even have spell levels.

Also, Rule-of-three (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20140228) specifies that metamagic is sorcerer only thing, and it's done through sorcery points.

Yep, totally broken because the warlock casts all its spells at the maximum level. So they can only cast fireball 3 times a day right? Well guess what, that's 3 10d6 fireballs. At this point I don't think they are doing any math at all.

(fake quote)Mearls "Its not the math that's important, its the feel. We want the warlock to feel like it can blast anything because it bargained for its powers for its soul. So we've just stopped doing the math altogether and went with an entirely emotional approach to the game."

Why is metamagic a sorcerer only thing? In at least 2 editions its been a Wizard thing and not a sorcerer thing. What 'feel' are they trying to capture here, because it sure isn't 1E, 2E, or 4E.


Ultimately the only way to know is by looking at sales figures a year from now. Sure, there's a large silent group of people who will just buy 5E and play it. There's also a large silent group who will stay with their current system, whatever that is. There's no way of knowing in advance which group is bigger.

However:

It is important to realize that solid math and game balance do not sell games. Basically all the popular games in their time (2E, 3E, 4E, but also e.g. White Wolf) have some pretty obvious flaws in balance, but none of that stopped them from becoming popular. So it doesn't surprise me that there are positive threads about 5E on other forums; the majority of players simply don't find math or balance all that important, or find that a good DM will be able to evade these issues.

Speaking for me personally, while math issues may be a pet peeve of mine, I could probably fix those with half a page of house rules; the main reason why I'm not going to buy 5E is because it just doesn't bring anything new to the table. I'm not so much looking for reasons to dislike 5E and falling over the math, but I'm looking for reasons to buy 5E and not finding them. If its main selling points are being easy to learn and having fast combat resolution, well, I've already got games that do that anyway. I'm not going to buy an expensive book just because it has a D&D logo on the cover.

Solid math and balance influences the 'feel' of the game. If you don't believe me, play a session of 5E where the Fighter can only use daggers and the Wizard can cast any spell they know at-will. That right there will change up the 'feel' of the game real quick.

The problem is, without severly limiting spell casters it'll take quite a bit more than a page or two to fix the math. As it is they have a near 100% chance to turn any encounter into a mop up in 2-3 rounds by level 10. At level 5 they have a 60%-70% chance of turning any given encounter into a mop up with a single spell.

That really changes the way the game feels. I understand that most people don't like critiquing the math or don't know its significance, but the math is like the street you are driving on when you get into your car. You can either drive on a smooth street and get where you are going and enjoy yourself, or you can drive on a street filled with potholes and gaps so that you are constantly stressed trying to keep your car in one peice, your choice.

I also agree with your last sentence. I think the D&D name has run out of brand recognition. Anyone who recognizes it now, understands that they need to make sure the game is something they want to play before they buy it. I don't think there are many people left that will buy it just because it has the D&D logo on it.


Oh yeah, I would say the over-under is 1.5 years though.

However, when they give wizards metamagic what I would like to see is the following.

Academic Metamagic: When the wizard scribes a spell in their spell book they may add a metamagic effect on the spell. This metamagic spell is considered an entirely new spell and must be scribed at a higher level determined by level of the metamagic effect.

Silent Spells: +1 Spell Level
Still Spell: +1 Spell Level
Empower Spell: +2 Spell Level

So a Wizard could have burning hands in their spell book. However they can't apply the Empower Metamagic to that spell, they must scribe in a higher level slot in their spell book "Empowered Burning Hands".

They wouldn't need to know Burning Hands to scribe Empowered Burning Hands.

This gives Wizards more options but doesn't take away from the sorcerer. The Wizards really has to give up something in order to use metamagic.

I'd rather they stick with the flexibility of the wizard if they prep and allow them to apply the metamagic to any spell they want, but only allow it to be prepped on one spell per day and not cost anything. That way they are still the masters of preparation.


This thread is depressing. I want to be optimistic about 5E. I'm tired of second guessing why WoTC is doing something and just accepting what is done and playing the bloody game.

Head on over to EnWorld. They ask people to leave who post 'negative' posts. You would fit in well there.

For the rest of us, we'll keep our heads out of the sand and view things in a critical light so we know what's going on. Keep in mind negativity has a purpose or it would have been eliminated long ago.


To be fair, there are quite a few good things to be said about 5e; most of them have to do with the speed and ease of play.

The balance is also markedly superior vis a vis 3.5 for at least the first 5-10 levels or so, and the differences in power between the classes isn't as great overall.

The speed and ease of play are an illusion. Its built on the 3E chassis and once they get the main books out and start pumping out supplements it will become just as hard to use as 3.5E is.

Being slightly more balanced than 3.5 is not a selling point when many of us wanted it to be more balanced than 4E.


Possibly not. But it doesn't need more than a dozen spells either. If you want more than that you need to spread things around a bit rather than having one class gluttonously gorging on dozens of special abilities (i.e. spells) and other classes (fighter, rogue) having very few and only being able to do things Commoners can do slightly better.

{sarcasm}So you truly beleive being able to stand watch is NOT a supernatural special ability?{/sarcasm}


Backtracking a bit ... It's weird, but being here makes me more excited about the game through some weird psychological trick. So many folks here are down on it for either (1) reasons that show no understanding of the playtest packets, (2) no actual playtest with recent packets, or (3) what I consider completely batcrap reasons, that I seem positively bullish in comparison.

And I end up thinking, "Wow, now I'm looking forward to this!"

Hahahahahahahhahahhhaaaaahahahahahahhahahhahah...

Oh, you were serious? Oh, um... ok. Well first off I haven't seen a single post in this thread that indicates a misunderstanding of the play test packets. We've all seen the most recent public play test packets and several that are in the private play test, attest to the validity of our concerns. What you consider crap reasons the rest of us consider deal breakers. Go read http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/ for some insight into why that is.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Go read http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/ for some insight into why that is. I had read this article before you linked it. I have to admit, I don't see how it is directly relevant to Next, unless there are some specific nuggets in the playtest packets that contradict what is being said there.

[obryn]

I'm mostly upset with it for lacking interesting options for mundanes. Sure there are some viable options, but they lack versatility and still amount to "I attack" as the only action you can take. With Pathfinder getting a ToB inspired supplement in the next few months or so, I really can't come up with a reason to buy 5E anymore.
Yeah, I'm with you completely.

e: Except for the Pathfinder bit. :smallbiggrin: I'm getting plenty of what I'm looking for out of martial characters in 4e.


WotC and EnWorld are the two that asked me to leave for posting critiques of 5E.
...
Head on over to EnWorld. They ask people to leave who post 'negative' posts. You would fit in well there.
I always find it hilarious when people think the opinions in their posts is what gets them banned from places like ENWorld. I haven't been sunshine and roses about Next on ENWorld, either. And yet I manage to remain. The WotC boards have tons of people who just don't like what Next is providing, and they manage to stick around, too.

If you're getting banned from several boards with different staff, there is a common factor that's not related to what flavors of elfgame you like. :smallwink:


Hahahahahahahhahahhhaaaaahahahahahahhahahhahah...

Oh, you were serious? Oh, um... ok. Well first off I haven't seen a single post in this thread that indicates a misunderstanding of the play test packets. We've all seen the most recent public play test packets and several that are in the private play test, attest to the validity of our concerns. What you consider crap reasons the rest of us consider deal breakers. Go read http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/ for some insight into why that is.
I'm familiar with that article, yep, though I don't know the relevance here. :smallsmile:

And I share a lot of similar concerns re: Next. But you're new to this incarnation of the thread, and haven't read through such GAME BREAKING concerns as a few hundred 1st-level Fighters attacking Asmodeus with bows which something something bounded accuracy. A few complaints in the past few threads were from all the way back in the ... May? ... packet, too.

So it gets silly, is what I'm saying. It's frequently an echo chamber.

I think there are real, actual problems with Next and it doesn't look great. See above, re: boring Fighters. But the crazy histrionics that this thread gets into are just over the top.

[Felhammer]

Except they were in the development process. You know, where you're supposed to go back and fix things.


They aren't supposed to do anything. It is their game after all, they can do with it what they want. They can choose to act on issues or not. Their call. If you look at it from a business perspective - one of the most finely tuned RPGs out there, 4E, was fairly unsuccessful (for a game bearing the D&D name) while a game that was horribly broken (3.x) was massively popular. They are probably leaning towards a more 3.x feel for their first outing, then fix issues later on.

It definitely is not the best tactic to take but it is popular (video game companies will often quietly fire a playtester if he discovers a problem that the designers and developers do not want to fix).

[captpike]

They aren't supposed to do anything. It is their game after all, they can do with it what they want. They can choose to act on issues or not. Their call. If you look at it from a business perspective - one of the most finely tuned RPGs out there, 4E, was fairly unsuccessful (for a game bearing the D&D name) while a game that was horribly broken (3.x) was massively popular. They are probably leaning towards a more 3.x feel for their first outing, then fix issues later on.

It definitely is not the best tactic to take but it is popular (video game companies will often quietly fire a playtester if he discovers a problem that the designers and developers do not want to fix).

4e was massively popular, the core books were best sellers. by any reasonable estimation it was successful. the problem was WoTC comparied it to magic.

the problem is that balance is not something that can be slapped on later, if you don't get your foundation right you cant ever make the game balanced.

its why you cant make a 3.x game balanced, the problems are so inherit in the system that you would have to scrap enough that you could no longer call it 3.x. (hence the need for 4e)

[Kurald Galain]

4e was massively popular, the core books were best sellers. by any reasonable estimation it was successful.

Which explains why WOTC canceled several of 4E's product lines, attempted a new version of the books as an attemped revival, and quietly started working on 5E :smallbiggrin:

[captpike]

Which explains why WOTC canceled several of 4E's product lines, attempted a new version of the books as an attemped revival, and quietly started working on 5E :smallbiggrin:

4e core books were on several best seller lists for a long time, it WAS the most popular TTRPG before essentials (and they broke their own rules for the system)

they started worked on my 5e because they shot themselves in the foot with essentials, people who liked 4e at best were uninterested in the line, and those who they wanted to pull in (3.x and 2e fans) were not interested either. it was a failing in knowing their market, not in game design.

they shot 4e in the head well before its time, but it was dead and they had no choice but to start work on 5e.
now if only they had people who in fact know what they were doing...

[Reverent-One]

Which explains why WOTC canceled several of 4E's product lines, attempted a new version of the books as an attemped revival, and quietly started working on 5E :smallbiggrin:

You mean like how they quietly started using 3.5 products to test mechanics for a new edition before finally cancelling it to release 4e explains how successful 3.5 was? :smallwink:

[Kurald Galain]

4e core books were on several best seller lists for a long time,
It's not hard to be the best seller if there's no serious competition in the market. As soon as WOTC's competition got their book threadmill going, they started outselling D&D.


You mean like how they quietly started using 3.5 products to test mechanics for a new edition before finally cancelling it to release 4e explains how successful 3.5 was? :smallwink:
We'll just have to see if a third party will pick up publication of 4E and outsell WOTC in two years :smallbiggrin:

[Reverent-One]

It's not hard to be the best seller if there's no serious competition in the market. As soon as WOTC's competition got their book threadmill going, they started outselling D&D.


We'll just have to see if a third party will pick up publication of 4E and outsell WOTC in two years :smallbiggrin:

Ah, the "outselling" arguement based on a partial segement of sales avenues while ignoring some major ones (most notably, D&D insider subscriptions). Another 400K a month, to use a lower estimate for money from subscribers from that time period, for a service without the cost of actually making physical goods offsets a lot of physical books sales.

[Kurald Galain]

Ah, the "outselling" arguement
Yes; we were talking about book sales, not overall revenue. I'm not the one who brought up "bestsellers", but ongoing subscriptions clearly aren't "sells".

[Reverent-One]

Yes; we were talking about book sales, not overall revenue. I'm not the one who brought up "bestsellers", but ongoing subscriptions clearly aren't "sells".

Right, because online subscriptions for the same material that is in the books is a totally different thing and wouldn't reduce the physical sales at all...oh wait, it would, and thus make any argument based on comparing performance between just physical sales totally worthless.

[Kurald Galain]

You're trying to compare the growth of Paizo (i.e. its book sales) with the size of WOTCD&D (i.e. its subscription count). That doesn't work.

So yes, it's very relevant that the current bestseller in tabletop RPGs is Paizo, and has been for the past three or four years. That explains why WOTC is now mostly aiming at this audience; we'll have to see how much they can manage to win back.

[SiuiS]

Fighter is stuck with a shovel.

Make it a camp shovel and we're golden.


This thread is depressing. I want to be optimistic about 5E. I'm tired of second guessing why WoTC is doing something and just accepting what is done and playing the bloody game.

Then do that. There were some nice ideas in there that just don't work with that core system.


Because Magic.

No, really, because magic. The game's rules are all geared towards what non-magic things do - so they deal with stuff like AC, hit points, skill target numbers, etc. If you break those rules, then it has to be because magic. Spells are just player fiat tokens which let you ignore/bypass parts of the rules.

If the Fighter got to break those rules, it would have to be because he was doing magic. But Fighters are defined, in part, by their inability to do magic, and therefore cannot spend fiat tokens to break rules, so here we are.

The above paragraphs are not meant as an endorsement of this philosophy. :smallbiggrin:thats a fine enough concept; just give the fighter some smegging magic when they need it. Call it a day. "Waah waah fighting doesn't use magic" said no fantasy character ever.



its why you cant make a 3.x game balanced, the problems are so inherit in the system that you would have to scrap enough that you could no longer call it 3.x. (hence the need for 4e)

You can certainly balance a 3.x game. You just can't give that balanced game to a group which works utterly differently and expect it to work.


Which explains why WOTC canceled several of 4E's product lines, attempted a new version of the books as an attemped revival, and quietly started working on 5E :smallbiggrin:

Yes, actually. If you don't quote mine and take the entire idea instead of cutting out parts, it directly does explain it in a nonironic manner.

[Reverent-One]

You're trying to compare the growth of Paizo (i.e. its book sales) with the size of WOTCD&D (i.e. its subscription count). That doesn't work.

So yes, it's very relevant that the current bestseller in tabletop RPGs is Paizo, and has been for the past three or four years. That explains why WOTC is now mostly aiming at this audience; we'll have to see how much they can manage to win back.

As you said, it isn't hard being the bestseller if there's no competion on the market, which is and has recently been the case due to WOTC not making new books.

[Felhammer]

4e was massively popular, the core books were best sellers. by any reasonable estimation it was successful. the problem was WoTC comparied it to magic.


D&D was a 30 million dollar a year brand at the height of the 3.x era, an era where almost every other RPG company was making material compatible with D&D AND there was virtually no meaningful competition from other companies. There's no way a (mostly) closed system like 4E, which was released in an economic downturn and amidst very steep competition, could top that. Perhaps if WotC had its digital offerings ready to go from day 1 they could have succeeded. Instead they dropped the ball.

If 4E were truly the pinnacle of sales, then the entire last year of its production run would not have been abbreviated (or outright canceled). WotC abandoned 4E because it wasn't successful enough in the long term. That doesn't mean 4E is a bad game, just that it simply was not performing well enough to justify its existence to a big company like Hasbro.

There are many reasons for this and, honestly, I think they can all be summed up with the following:

- It changed too much too quickly
- It was not open
- Paizo made a new version of D&D for all those people who were holding onto the past
- WotC abandoned the "Living Campaigns" just when Paizo was creating their own version (Encounters were fun but they weren't the same as Living Campaigns)
- Other companies upped their game and created really great products
- The Digital Tools were not quite as amazing as advertised (or non-existent)

4E was successful by most measures except the yardstick Hasbro was using. They definitely had dollar signs in their eyes when they were looking at 4E, which to be fair, was completely reasonable given the potential WotC had in its various digital offerings. Quite sad that it did not pan out (especially the virtual table).


the problem is that balance is not something that can be slapped on later, if you don't get your foundation right you cant ever make the game balanced.

One of the biggest issues right now is that mundanes can't do "cool things". Seems to me you could add those into the game with a Tome of Battle-like supplement. It would be there for those who want it and comfortably ignored for those who don't.

I am not saying it is perfect but it is a viable (and quite likely) solution.

[Whiteagle]

Fighter is stuck with a shovel.
...So the Fighter is the GREATEST CLASS OF ALL TIME?!?!


Make it a camp shovel and we're golden.
NO! A Full-sized Shovel that can be used as a Polearm!
It bashes, it slices, it pierces the Heavens with it's POINT!

[squiggit]

One of the biggest issues right now is that mundanes can't do "cool things". Seems to me you could add those into the game with a Tome of Battle-like supplement. It would be there for those who want it and comfortably ignored for those who don't.


Not being able to do cool things is only one of the issues and as shown by the actual Tome of Battle, giving them some more cool thigns to do doesn't solve the problem.

There's also the added and significantly more problematic issue is that the things mundanes can do, casters do it better anyways.

Being a one trick pony wouldn't be problematic in and of itself if you were actually good at that one trick in the first place. The two problems just compound each other.

[Lokiare]

I had read this article before you linked it. I have to admit, I don't see how it is directly relevant to Next, unless there are some specific nuggets in the playtest packets that contradict what is being said there.

For those that can't see the correlation. 5E caters to the Expression, and Submission parts of fun. It avoids the Sensation, Challenge, and Fantasy parts of fun. If you don't know what I'm talking about go read the article.

So what they are doing is they are swapping out one part of their audience in the hopes of getting another part. The part they are trying to get is pretty well locked up with Paizo, which is just overall a better company (from the D&D side) than WotC. They provide higher quality products, have great customer service, etc...etc...

Heck I love 4E, but even I am tempted to go play Pathfinder because of Paizo.4


I always find it hilarious when people think the opinions in their posts is what gets them banned from places like ENWorld. I haven't been sunshine and roses about Next on ENWorld, either. And yet I manage to remain. The WotC boards have tons of people who just don't like what Next is providing, and they manage to stick around, too.

I always find it hilarious when people assume those in power are always perfect and impartial and have no bad motivations.

Before I recieved any kind of warnings or bans they asked me to stop posting stuff critical of 5E, they didn't mention any rules that I were breaking. Only when I didn't stop did they ban me. At that point I decided since their forums weren't fulfilling the basic function of a forum (to have a discussion) I would just leave. So I posted the PM from the moderator and left. I don't even know if they gave me another ban or apologized.


If you're getting banned from several boards with different staff, there is a common factor that's not related to what flavors of elfgame you like. :smallwink:

You mean 2 in 1 year? yeah. That's enough info to make a correlation. I got banned from WotC specifically for "We can terminate any account we want without reason." They literally pointed to that clause in their terms of use.

On EnWorld I got my ban for telling people I couldn't respond to their posts because the mods asked me not to discuss 5E and they called that 'discussing moderation'.

So take from that what you will. Personally I haven't been modded here while following the rules, so this might be a half way decent forum. We'll see.


I'm familiar with that article, yep, though I don't know the relevance here. :smallsmile:

See above post. :smallsmile:


And I share a lot of similar concerns re: Next. But you're new to this incarnation of the thread, and haven't read through such GAME BREAKING concerns as a few hundred 1st-level Fighters attacking Asmodeus with bows which something something bounded accuracy. A few complaints in the past few threads were from all the way back in the ... May? ... packet, too.

So it gets silly, is what I'm saying. It's frequently an echo chamber.

I think there are real, actual problems with Next and it doesn't look great. See above, re: boring Fighters. But the crazy histrionics that this thread gets into are just over the top.

Well, looking at what WotC did in the past and what they thought would fly is constructive. I was talking about this particular thread, not the hundreds of millions of posts in previous similarly named threads.

In every post I've made on forums I've pointed out the flaws in 5E and very percisely without edition warring language or insults.


They aren't supposed to do anything. It is their game after all, they can do with it what they want. They can choose to act on issues or not. Their call. If you look at it from a business perspective - one of the most finely tuned RPGs out there, 4E, was fairly unsuccessful (for a game bearing the D&D name) while a game that was horribly broken (3.x) was massively popular. They are probably leaning towards a more 3.x feel for their first outing, then fix issues later on.

It definitely is not the best tactic to take but it is popular (video game companies will often quietly fire a playtester if he discovers a problem that the designers and developers do not want to fix).

I never claimed WotC was smart or knew what they were doing. That's just assumed by too many people in these discussions. Experienced game designers (I have a B.S in Game Software Development, but am not myself extremely experienced) have pointed out that WotC seems to be flailing with their play test and don't appear to know what they are doing. Because of my training I can spot what they are talking about and thanks to articles like the Angry DM's article. I can quantify where they make their mistakes to the 3rd decimal place.(HHGttG reference).

As they've shown before, you can't really lay 4E on top of 3.5E and expect it to be balanced or work properly. You also can't balance 3.5E without ripping out the core and changing over 75% of the game.

The thing is the popularity of 4E and 3.5E weren't based on whether they were balanced or not. Much of the hate thrown at 4E boils down to how they changed the settings, the cosmology, how they formatted the powers, how they put everyone on the same progression for their powers, etc...etc... very rarely does it actually come down to 'balance'. Many people claim 'balance' but that's because they equate balance with 4E. When you get them to explain details you find out it has little or nothing to do with balance itself, but rather its the things I listed above. Reading that article I posted the link to would help enlighten people and help them express what they like and don't like better.


As you said, it isn't hard being the bestseller if there's no competion on the market, which is and has recently been the case due to WOTC not making new books.

Not to mention WotC according to those same reports has been in the number 2 slot even after they stopped selling new products. I'd say that's a huge accomplishment.

Also there's the fact that Paizo is simply a better company than WotC. They retain their customers because of their superior products, customer service, and general honest business practices. Something that WotC lacks. I personally think Paizo is successful because of their business practices in a market where the former leader was guilty of just about everything a business can do to alienate their customers: being dishonest, baiting and switching, putting formerly free things behind paywalls, etc...etc...

4E was vety successful until WotC started pulling those kinds of tactics, then people (me included) just decided not to support them, and I'm a fan of 4E. I stopped buying their books because of how they acted.

[neonchameleon]

You'll get different answers from different people. The key to understanding the failure of 5E can be found in this article http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

Care to explain? They're trying to do a lot at once - and I can think of several RPGs that succeed at seven at once (eight if you replace sensory with aesthetic).


The problem is they don't allow negative comments. I've been permanently ejected from two forums for posting comments that critique 5E without breaking any of their 'no edition warring' rules.

I'm still allowed at ENWorld and I've been pretty negative about it. (And probably at the WotC boards - I just haven't posted there since before Pun-Pun). It ain't what you say - it's the way that you say it.


Personally that's what's wrong with our culture right now. No one relizes that negativity has an actual purpose.

"My house is on fire, put it out quick!"
"Quit, being so negative."

More like "Stop phoning the fire brigade. That's the stove and that's the fireplace. There is meant to be fire in both of them sometimes."


Why is metamagic a sorcerer only thing? In at least 2 editions its been a Wizard thing and not a sorcerer thing.

1: No it hasn't. The wizard couldn't by the rules change spells on the fly unlike the Sorceror. And that is the true secret to metamagic - changing the spells when you need to rather than preparing slightly different ones.

2: Because the wizard is a mutant archetype unless you're looking at 4e or oD&D - and even there it gets bad. "Can learn hundreds of spells" is quite a big schtick on its own. Being adaptable after learning should be the sorceror's field; fewer spells but able to use them in more ways.


Head on over to EnWorld. They ask people to leave who post 'negative' posts. You would fit in well there.

I've posted plenty of negative stuff about Next at ENWorld.


D&D was a 30 million dollar a year brand at the height of the 3.x era, an era where almost every other RPG company was making material compatible with D&D AND there was virtually no meaningful competition from other companies. There's no way a (mostly) closed system like 4E, which was released in an economic downturn and amidst very steep competition, could top that. Perhaps if WotC had its digital offerings ready to go from day 1 they could have succeeded. Instead they dropped the ball.

The problem 4e had wasn't the amount of money it made. It was (according to Dancey) that it didn't meet its target. Its target wasn't $30 million/year. It was $50 million/year. It was profitable so far as we can tell (the income from D&D Insider alone was significant and had low-ish costs so was largely profit). But there was an arbitrary line in the sand from Hasbro saying "You need to make $50 million a year - in other words you need to be half as successful again as 3.5 if we're to keep you as a core brand". That's the scale against which 4e failed.


4E was successful by most measures except the yardstick Hasbro was using. They definitely had dollar signs in their eyes when they were looking at 4E, which to be fair, was completely reasonable given the potential WotC had in its various digital offerings. Quite sad that it did not pan out (especially the virtual table).

That involved a murder/suicide :(


One of the biggest issues right now is that mundanes can't do "cool things".

This is and always has been missing the issue. The huge issue for D&D is and has always been that mundanes can't do mundane things. They aren't armed with swords - they are armed with nerf bats. When a mundane fighter can take the wizard through the back of the throat with a thrown dagger or sharpened steel before the wizard is two syllables into their spell they will reach mundane standards.

Hit points are a system to allow cinematic duels by nerfing the damage swords do. The problem is quite simply that all "mundane" characters are actually cinematic - but only in a way that makes them less competent at what they are meant to contribute.

[Lokiare]

Not being able to do cool things is only one of the issues and as shown by the actual Tome of Battle, giving them some more cool thigns to do doesn't solve the problem.

There's also the added and significantly more problematic issue is that the things mundanes can do, casters do it better anyways.

Being a one trick pony wouldn't be problematic in and of itself if you were actually good at that one trick in the first place. The two problems just compound each other.

{sarcasm}Wait, are you saying a one trick pony that can reliably trip anything in the game is not the equal of someone that can alter the fundamental structure of the universe in excess of 30+ times per day?{/sarcasm}

Yes, I agree. There were many more problems with 3.5E's balance than 'options' for the mundanes.

[Kurald Galain]

4E was vety successful until WotC started pulling those kinds of tactics, then people (me included) just decided not to support them, and I'm a fan of 4E. I stopped buying their books because of how they acted.

Yep. It's clearly not the case that WOTC sold less 4E books because they stopped making them. Rather, WOTC stopped making 4E books because their sales were getting overtaken by Pathfinder.

[obryn]

I always find it hilarious when people assume those in power are always perfect and impartial and have no bad motivations.

Before I recieved any kind of warnings or bans they asked me to stop posting stuff critical of 5E, they didn't mention any rules that I were breaking. Only when I didn't stop did they ban me. At that point I decided since their forums weren't fulfilling the basic function of a forum (to have a discussion) I would just leave. So I posted the PM from the moderator and left. I don't even know if they gave me another ban or apologized.
...
You mean 2 in 1 year? yeah. That's enough info to make a correlation. I got banned from WotC specifically for "We can terminate any account we want without reason." They literally pointed to that clause in their terms of use
On EnWorld I got my ban for telling people I couldn't respond to their posts because the mods asked me not to discuss 5E and they called that 'discussing moderation'.

So take from that what you will. Personally I haven't been modded here while following the rules, so this might be a half way decent forum. We'll see.
Amazingly enough, I still manage to stick around despite being much more down on Next over there than I am here. So, as he mentioned, does neonchameleon. I mean, last post you went off on me for not being down on Next enough. There's a point where you're edition warring against a game that doesn't even exist yet.

But this really isn't the "talk about Lokiare's posting style" thread, so I'll drop this one here.

[Morty]

One of the biggest issues right now is that mundanes can't do "cool things". Seems to me you could add those into the game with a Tome of Battle-like supplement. It would be there for those who want it and comfortably ignored for those who don't.

I am not saying it is perfect but it is a viable (and quite likely) solution.

So in order for D&D Next to be a game I'd be remotely interested in I'll have to purchase a splatbook that will come out God knows when and that not every GM will allow. Why should I play it instead of a game that has actual options for all characters built in from the start?

[Lokiare]

Care to explain? They're trying to do a lot at once - and I can think of several RPGs that succeed at seven at once (eight if you replace sensory with aesthetic).

Already did, read the article and then read my post. Its pretty clear.


I'm still allowed at ENWorld and I've been pretty negative about it. (And probably at the WotC boards - I just haven't posted there since before Pun-Pun). It ain't what you say - it's the way that you say it.

I don't know what to tell you. I'm probably perma banned or I would PM you the PM's I received from the moderators and the email I received from WotC (I don't think I still have it). Its pretty clear they wanted me to quit talking negatively about 5E. WotC I have no clue what went on there since I apparently didn't break any rules.


More like "Stop phoning the fire brigade. That's the stove and that's the fireplace. There is meant to be fire in both of them sometimes."

See, this is where you need to read the article again. For me the whole house is on fire. For you its just a little log in the fireplace. Regardless, we are both right, and it spells doom for 5E if they don't get us both thinking its a log in the fireplace.


1: No it hasn't. The wizard couldn't by the rules change spells on the fly unlike the Sorceror. And that is the true secret to metamagic - changing the spells when you need to rather than preparing slightly different ones.

Metamagic was introduced in the 3E PHB as a feat that allowed a Wizard to use a higher spell slot to cast a spell with added modifiers. It also allowed Sorcerer's to do the same thing. That's just the difference between Wizards and Sorcerers, not a definition of metamagic.


2: Because the wizard is a mutant archetype unless you're looking at 4e or oD&D - and even there it gets bad. "Can learn hundreds of spells" is quite a big schtick on its own. Being adaptable after learning should be the sorceror's field; fewer spells but able to use them in more ways.

Can learn a number of spells equal to their intelligence modifier (or whatever it was in 2E) 3E was the mutant when they took off all the limiters to the casters and didn't lower their power at all. In 4E you get a much tighter limit on the spells known and in 2E and 1E you also had a tight limit.

Just being able to cast a spell they know in 3-5 different ways should be enough for sorcerers. Wizard's having to prepare the spell as a metamagic spell should be enough of a limit on them.


The problem 4e had wasn't the amount of money it made. It was (according to Dancey) that it didn't meet its target. Its target wasn't $30 million/year. It was $50 million/year. It was profitable so far as we can tell (the income from D&D Insider alone was significant and had low-ish costs so was largely profit). But there was an arbitrary line in the sand from Hasbro saying "You need to make $50 million a year - in other words you need to be half as successful again as 3.5 if we're to keep you as a core brand". That's the scale against which 4e failed.

Yes, I agree with this, but after that was dropped, and they put out essentials they still hemorrhaged customers because of their behavior.


That involved a murder/suicide :(

Yes, that's sad and all, but at worst it should have delayed the project by a year, not 3-4. That's what is called bad management and bad business sense.


This is and always has been missing the issue. The huge issue for D&D is and has always been that mundanes can't do mundane things. They aren't armed with swords - they are armed with nerf bats. When a mundane fighter can take the wizard through the back of the throat with a thrown dagger or sharpened steel before the wizard is two syllables into their spell they will reach mundane standards.

Hit points are a system to allow cinematic duels by nerfing the damage swords do. The problem is quite simply that all "mundane" characters are actually cinematic - but only in a way that makes them less competent at what they are meant to contribute.

I agree. They need to get rid of the nerf bats on mundanes. What would it cost them to get 1 attack per round per every other level? Then you wouldn't have to throw in all that other stuff to pump up their DPR. You could allow them to bull rush one guy, shift, charge another. Then swing at all adjacent enemies all in one round and cleave another guy and they still wouldn't match up to what a caster can bring to the table. Heck I'd encourage special modes of movement like the Fighter teleport (where they jump over the battlefield). I'd allow them to push multiple enemies around if they have something that would allow it like a polearm or a spear. Basically anything with a long handle. Maybe give them an aura:

Deadly Aura
You whirl your weapon around in a deadly pattern keeping enemies at bay.
Effect: You have an aura that extends to the reach of your melee weapon. You can make an attack of opportunity against any creature entering or starting its turn in the aura. You get a number of these opportunity attacks equal to 1/2 your level minimum 1. While you have this aura active you have disadvantage on your normal attacks (not including the opportunity attacks this aura grants).

See its not hard to come up with things that make mundanes interesting. They just don't seem to care or want to try...

[Reverent-One]

Yep. It's clearly not the case that WOTC sold less 4E books because they stopped making them. Rather, WOTC stopped making 4E books because their sales were getting overtaken by Pathfinder.

If physical books sales are the most important metric in keeping a edition going and digital options don't count in those considerations, why would they cannabalize their book sales with those digitial offerings? If they're not the most important metric and digital options do count, why are you so obsessed with focusing soley on them?

The point that has been made multiple times in this thread, that Hasbro had incredibly high requirements independent of WoTC vs Paizo physical book sales comparisons because of different business cultures (in which D&D is small potatoes compared to other divisions such as Magic) makes far more sense as being a determining factor in how Hasbro handled 4e. Do you really that Paizo (a company similarly small potatoes compared to Hasbro) being successful is the main thing the Hasbro worried about?

[SiuiS]

...
NO! A Full-sized Shovel that can be used as a Polearm!
It bashes, it slices, it pierces the Heavens with it's POINT!

You've obviously not been well versed in the camp shovel, which is the Swiss army tool of shovels, being an axe, a shovel, a pick, a staff, a frying pan, a spear and more. It's fantastic!

[Lokiare]

Some more ways they could make mundanes equal with non-mundanes:

Rogues could get a bonus to stealth, thievery, and disable device(open locks, disarm traps or whatever they call them now) equal to 1/2 their level. They could get a bonus to anything that has to do with deception like using bluff to feint in combat. They could give them a pretty good chance to instantly kill something with a single hit if it is unaware of them. For instance why not give them 3x damage on a sneak attack at 1st and go up from there. Then they can flat out kill anything which takes 2 rounds to set up for (one for the stealth/distraction and the second to make the attack) other than Legendary (solo) and Mythic (elite) monsters. Better yet why not allow them to multiply their damage times the number of rounds they sit and study their opponents while stealthed? That would mean they might get a good hit in on a boss monster and kill it, but it would take 3-4 rounds to set up.

Rangers should get a terrain feature like they do with the creature feature. Then give them the ability to dominate in their chosen environment. Something like advantage on all checks that deal directly with their environment like tracking, finding secret doors, traveling, etc...etc...

Fighters should get stances and maneuvers (if they want, you can also give them the choice of some flat bonuses like extra attacks or +X to attack and +Y to damage).

Monks could get combos that when performed in a certain order successfully deal more and more damage like +1[w] damage for each step. Certain moves could be chained with certain other moves. Some moves couldn't be used at all except after the first successful attack with a chain move. So if they did 3 successful moves in a row they would deal 1[w] + 2[w] + 3[w] damage. A miss or a different target would reset the combo.

Paladins could have auras that they empower in different ways.

I could go on and on and on, but WotC won't listen and they won't learn from the looks on things.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The part they are trying to get is pretty well locked up with Paizo, which is just overall a better company (from the D&D side) than WotC. They provide higher quality products, have great customer service, etc...etc...

Heck I love 4E, but even I am tempted to go play Pathfinder because of Paizo.Let me just say that this is probably a case where the grass always looks greener from the other side. Paizo is an alright company, but they've taken a very conservative approach to class design, rarely implementing the lessons learned with 3.5.

Also, their errata policy is ironically outdated and generally terrible.

[Whiteagle]

You've obviously not been well versed in the camp shovel, which is the Swiss army tool of shovels, being an axe, a shovel, a pick, a staff, a frying pan, a spear and more. It's fantastic!
...Wait, what Shovels CAN'T you do all that with?

[Surrealistik]

The thing is the popularity of 4E and 3.5E weren't based on whether they were balanced or not. Much of the hate thrown at 4E boils down to how they changed the settings, the cosmology, how they formatted the powers, how they put everyone on the same progression for their powers, etc...etc... very rarely does it actually come down to 'balance'. Many people claim 'balance' but that's because they equate balance with 4E. When you get them to explain details you find out it has little or nothing to do with balance itself, but rather its the things I listed above.

Microcosmic as it may be, in my case balance (which includes class progression as a sub-component) was _definitely_ a major selling point of 4E to me and my tabletop gaming group alongside the relatively streamlined mechanics and rule structuring/formatting; for these reasons we stopped playing the horridly broken 3.5 and never looked back, nor did Pathfinder even tempt us. Cosmology and setting were tertiary motives for taking it up at best.

[Lokiare]

Let me just say that this is probably a case where the grass always looks greener from the other side.

Paizo never pulled something behind a paywall. They didn't make promises they couldn't keep. They are much better even if they make a worse product, because they don't do the shady business practices that WotC deals in.

[obryn]

Microcosmic as it may be, in my case balance (which includes class progression as a sub-component) was _definitely_ a major selling point of 4E to me and my tabletop gaming group alongside the relatively streamlined mechanics and rule structuring/formatting; for these reasons we stopped playing the horridly broken 3.5 and never looked back, nor did Pathfinder even tempt us. Cosmology and setting were tertiary motives for taking it up at best.
Ditto, here. I had an Arcana Evolved game where a pair of casters took the whole game over. Add that to my prep burden, and I was well ready for a refinement of the game when 4e came around. I'd mostly already quit 3.5 at that point in favor of SWSE, WFRP2e, and a few others.

[Scowling Dragon]

Strangely enough, I have played tons of better balanced games, and games that I would say are straight up superior to D&D 3e....But I never found a game as fun to play as 3e.

I'l put it straight up: I think 3es success is akin to the success of the Ninja Turtles in the 80s. It hit some kind of magical spot. Where it should not make any sense why it succeeds.....But it succeeds so well....

Its fun and exciting, and its horribly unbalanced, and Casters can destroy anything and mundanes are pretty screwed.....But it never feels like an issue to me.

I guess thats where WOTC's struggle comes from. How do you follow up a game that seems to defy logic?

Like If I pitched the TMNT (The 80s kids version) in a world that never had it and told you it would be a HUGE world-spanning success would you believe me?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Paizo never pulled something behind a paywall. They didn't make promises they couldn't keep. They are much better even if they make a worse product, because they don't do the shady business practices that WotC deals in.I'd rather pay for the superior product, and paywalls don't inherently both me. It's hard to trace any shady business practices back to WotC because Hasbro stands over them.

[Lokiare]

Microcosmic as it may be, in my case balance (which includes class progression as a sub-component) was _definitely_ a major selling point of 4E to me and my tabletop gaming group alongside the relatively streamlined mechanics and rule structuring/formatting; for these reasons we stopped playing the horridly broken 3.5 and never looked back, nor did Pathfinder even tempt us. Cosmology and setting were tertiary motives for taking it up at best.

People like you and me seek out Challenge (from the article I linked) while others seek out Fantasy and Expression. Which is something that 5E fails to do. So you can have balance as long as it doesn't mess with the consistency of the world or the ability to express themselves. The problem is 5E doesn't do that in the least. It is not balanced. It is a very traditional game, which feeds into Fantasy because for many people the game world doesn't make sense unless it plays like an earlier edition.

The solution would be to allow traditional classes right alongside non-traditional classes (or sub-classes) You could allow a vancian Wizard to play right next to a 4E Wizard with no problems. As long as they were balanced. To make a balanced Vancian Wizard you'd have to cut the number of spell slots and reduce the effectiveness of spells as you gain more slots and levels. So that 1st level spells would be effective 100% of the time but by the time you hit level 6 spells they would be effective 10% of the time or less. This could be accomplished easily with a little bit of math and saving throw DC's based on the spell itself rather than on the caster. You would want to do this so that by time the Wizard is casting a daily spell every round of every combat they would be just as effective as they were at 1st level.

WotC is unlikely to do this though.

[Pex]

That's how 4e was leading up to its release too. And hell I remember more than a few people reacting negatively to 3e when it was new too (either because of some rules nuance or design issue or because there was no OD&D 3).

What I'm curious to see is whether or not we'll get a bunch of 4e grognards pushing a third party company into making a "this is totally not 4e guys" game that makes all the mistakes 4e did but still gets rabidly defended by its fans because "WOTC threw us under the bus with their new edition" and that's all they have left outside trying to homebrew which is messy, time consuming and hard to agree upon.

Yeah, how dare people prefer a particular edition and praise it to kingdom come to irk people who hate that edition with a passion they just cannot let it go and can't help themselves but to bash it to kingdom come.

[Seerow]

I'd rather pay for the superior product, and paywalls don't inherently both me. It's hard to trace any shady business practices back to WotC because Hasbro stands over them.

I also don't see any problems with having a paywall. It's a different business model than is standard for the industry, but not one that is inherently bad or shady. Especially when new material is being produced constantly.

The DDI model was actually something I liked most about 4e when I played it. Sure, if it weren't for that I'd probably own a lot more books today. But I don't play the game today, so that means relatively little. On the other hand, I probably would have spent several hundred dollars during that time period. Instead we had a subscription split 5 ways over the period of two years, it wound up costing us about 30 bucks each, which was a pretty good deal to have access to material from every book and magazine article printed during that period.


edit: That's not to say that "Free" isn't cheaper than that. But just because Paizo has seen success in opening their material up for free does not mean it is bad business practice for another company to charge for their material.

[Lokiare]

Strangely enough, I have played tons of better balanced games, and games that I would say are straight up superior to D&D 3e....But I never found a game as fun to play as 3e.

I'l put it straight up: I think 3es success is akin to the success of the Ninja Turtles in the 80s. It hit some kind of magical spot. Where it should not make any sense why it succeeds.....But it succeeds so well....

Its fun and exciting, and its horribly unbalanced, and Casters can destroy anything and mundanes are pretty screwed.....But it never feels like an issue to me.

I guess thats where WOTC's struggle comes from. How do you follow up a game that seems to defy logic?

Like If I pitched the TMNT (The 80s kids version) in a world that never had it and told you it would be a HUGE world-spanning success would you believe me?

That's because balance has no bearing on fun unless you are a Challenge type player (from the article I linked). Regardless of balance or lack of balance you have fun in the game because you like one of the other 8 types of fun that D&D provides.

In 3.5E they created an immersive world that mostly made sense. So many players that enjoy a consistent world (Fantasy from the article) or like a good story line over anything else (Narrative from the article) loved 3.5E. Those that liked a game that is challenging but not impossible to win were turned off by the random death from dice syndrome that mid to high 3.5E turned into.

The main problem is WotC isn't making a game for everyone. They are making a game for a small group of past players that they may or may not get while just about assuredly losing a large chunk of players they currently have.

[Lokiare]

I also don't see any problems with having a paywall. It's a different business model than is standard for the industry, but not one that is inherently bad or shady. Especially when new material is being produced constantly.

The DDI model was actually something I liked most about 4e when I played it. Sure, if it weren't for that I'd probably own a lot more books today. But I don't play the game today, so that means relatively little. On the other hand, I probably would have spent several hundred dollars during that time period. Instead we had a subscription split 5 ways over the period of two years, it wound up costing us about 30 bucks each, which was a pretty good deal to have access to material from every book and magazine article printed during that period.

edit: That's not to say that "Free" isn't cheaper than that. But just because Paizo has seen success in opening their material up for free does not mean it is bad business practice for another company to charge for their material.

Point = Missed

Its not that they had a paywall. Its that they took formerly free stuff and shoved it behind that paywall after it was freely available for months or even years. They also kept promising us that their tools would be available at launch, then a month out, then 3 months out, then 'soon' which is now profanity if used on the WotC forums as in "you can go soon yourself." Kind of like "Fighters can go imagination themselves".

Edit: Did anyone else catch the Warlocks ability to cast all their daily spells at maximum level? That is going to break 5E over the Warlocks knee.

[SiuiS]

...Wait, what Shovels CAN'T you do all that with?

Most shovels can't do that. They don't have the weight and balance, or the sturdiness, or the proper planing. Remember, even a club can cut something if you swing it fast enough; we aren't discussing possibility, so much as probability and ease of use. The camp shovel is designed for all that and so does it better. A yard shovel is not and so does not.


People like you and me seek out Challenge (from the article I linked)

Link again? I never saw one.


I also don't see any problems with having a paywall. It's a different business model than is standard for the industry, but not one that is inherently bad or shady. Especially when new material is being produced constantly.

Word.

We discussed this at some point prior, didn't we? If D&D moved to a primarily Digital model with monthly and yearly Digests of material released after the fact in hard-bound, it would be an easy to use system. Just don't burn a bunch of resources on GUIs that aren't needed.

You also get the added bonus of 'stuff designed for computer use works better ona. Computer than stuff designed for book use and retrofitted for computers", which I believe was DDI's primary failing.


Point = Missed

Its not that they had a paywall. Its that they took formerly free stuff and shoved it behind that paywall after it was freely available for months or even years. They also kept promising us that their tools would be available at launch, then a month out, then 3 months out, then 'soon' which is now profanity if used on the WotC forums as in "you can go soon yourself." Kind of like "Fighters can go imagination themselves"

That's because of the tragedy involved. I know that if I had a colleague die in a murder auicide that set out business project back indefinitely that I, too, would just start ISP banning people who didn't care.

WotC is a company. They literally cannot say "we had a setback because of [legitimate reason]", they must continue presenting a good face. Clients need to have the good graces to keep up on the news (murder suicide) and read between the lines and not hold a company which must lie to your face in this situation to it's word.

[neonchameleon]

Already did, read the article and then read my post. Its pretty clear.

Given that off the top of my head I can think of games that do at least six of the eight (Apocalypse World and the best hacks spring to mind) with the sensory pleasure and submission being the two questionable ones, your comment isn't even of the sort "Differnent people like different things".


Metamagic was introduced in the 3E PHB as a feat that allowed a Wizard to use a higher spell slot to cast a spell with added modifiers. It also allowed Sorcerer's to do the same thing. That's just the difference between Wizards and Sorcerers, not a definition of metamagic.

Nope. Metamagic was introduced in 3.0 as feats that allowed a wizard to prepare a variant spell. On the other hand it was introduced as feats that allowed sorcerors to change their spells on the fly. Metamagic has always belonged to sorcerors rather than wizards (unless you count those really irritating metamagic rods). In 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder metamagic was a sorceror and spontaneous caster tool first and foremost. Wizards had no more mastery of metamagic than clerics or druids.


That's because balance has no bearing on fun unless you are a Challenge type player (from the article I linked). Regardless of balance or lack of balance you have fun in the game because you like one of the other 8 types of fun that D&D provides.

This is flat wrong. Balance ruins expression type players. If I want to be a good thief I play a wizard or bard in 3e because the rogue is not fit for purpose. It also can shatter narrative (here's how the story should work).

The only people lack of balance helps is people who appreciate subjugation.


In 3.5E they created an immersive world that mostly made sense.

Nope.

In 3.5 they created a set of rules that were good enough that they didn't break immersion until you examined them too hard. That isn't to say that the rules are immersive. The world is only consistent in that you have such things as a 3.5 Standard Climbable Tree. Or, of course, a Tippyverse. 3.5 is hard on narrative players as well because wizard spells shatter narrative.

Of course good enough works. And most people don't examine deeply.

[Kurald Galain]

Guys? Metamagic was introduced in the 2E Tome of Magic, and is available to all wizards. 2E doesn't have sorcerers.

[Talakeal]

Guys? Metamagic was introduced in the 2E Tome of Magic, and is available to all wizards. 2E doesn't have sorcerers.


This.

Also, didn't third edition explicitly nerf sorcerer metamagic use by making it take longer to cast such a spell, meaning that metamagics such as quicker were wizard only?

[obryn]

Guys? Metamagic was introduced in the 2E Tome of Magic, and is available to all wizards. 2E doesn't have sorcerers.
Yes, but they were spells.


This.

Also, didn't third edition explicitly nerf sorcerer metamagic use by making it take longer to cast such a spell, meaning that metamagics such as quicker were wizard only?
Yes; they could still do it on the fly, but that was "balanced" by making them full-round actions. This of course causes a paradox with Quicken Spell, but...

But why does it matter again? If Sorcerers are now the "metamagic mans" in Next, what's wrong with that? Rogues weren't the damage guys before 3e, and Bards weren't a full 1-?? class until 2e. Classes change over time.

[Kurald Galain]

But why does it matter again? If Sorcerers are now the "metamagic mans" in Next, what's wrong with that? Rogues weren't the damage guys before 3e, and Bards weren't a full 1-?? class until 2e. Classes change over time.
I agree. As I was arguing earlier in the thread, there should definitely be a bigger difference between wizards and sorcs (and warlocks and psions) than "they cast the exact same spells but with vancian casting/spontaneous casting/unlimited casting/spell points".

[Joe the Rat]

I agree. As I was arguing earlier in the thread, there should definitely be a bigger difference between wizards and sorcs (and warlocks and psions) than "they cast the exact same spells but with vancian casting/spontaneous casting/unlimited casting/spell points".

If they hold to their different spell lists (wiz only spells, sorc only spells, etc.), it's a step in the right direction. But this may be an illusory difference, if spell research remains in play. Anything not on your class list could be "invented" by an enterprising arcanist.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If they hold to their different spell lists (wiz only spells, sorc only spells, etc.), it's a step in the right direction. But this may be an illusory difference, if spell research remains in play. Anything not on your class list could be "invented" by an enterprising arcanist.

Perhaps make spell research a high level class feature? But you can only make so many spells because it takes years and such... So for in game it takes 1 year per spell level to create a spell. Maybe starting at 10th level you can start spell research... Maybe even at level 16?

[Joe the Rat]

Either that or a blanket ban on certain spells - like how mages can't learn/create cure spells...

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Either that or a blanket ban on certain spells - like how mages can't learn/create cure spells...

Sorcerers can in 3.5... I'm not sure why a Wizard couldn't learn it as a Necromancy Spell (where the god dang cure/inflict spells for clerics should be in the first place!!!!).

I'm not a fan of blanket bans or specific spell list... That is like saying that a person who writes with their left hand can never learn to write with their right hand... Which it may take way more effort but you will be able to at least sign your name.

Edit:

Giving Sorcerers and Wizards different spell list is an extremely lazy way of making them different. If this + prepared/spontaneous casting is the only difference I will be extremely dissapointed .

[obryn]

Giving Sorcerers and Wizards different spell list is an extremely lazy way of making them different. If this + prepared/spontaneous casting is the only difference I will be extremely dissapointed .
IMO? Keep Wizards as Wizards, but there's no such thing as a "generalist" Wizard. You have a limited subset of spells, no matter what.

Then use the 4e Elementalist as the model for the Sorcerer. Big, flashy, blasty spells, spammed over and over. Go ahead and sneak bloodlines in if you care, but make it so Sorcerers are as easy to run as Fighters.

[captpike]

Perhaps make spell research a high level class feature? But you can only make so many spells because it takes years and such... So for in game it takes 1 year per spell level to create a spell. Maybe starting at 10th level you can start spell research... Maybe even at level 16?

if you did this then every time you started as lv10+ as a wizard you would have elves who spent 200yrs getting every possible spell.

[Kurald Galain]

So for in game it takes 1 year per spell level to create a spell.
That simply means you can't ever create spells in-game, because you'll never have that much downtime. A better idea would be that you can research spells, but only of a few levels below your maximum. For instance if you can cast 5th, you can research 1st level spells only; once you can cast 6th, you can research 2nd levels too.


Giving Sorcerers and Wizards different spell list is an extremely lazy way of making them different.
Not necessarily. If the lists are themed, then it can work pretty well. For example, restrict a wizard to conjuration and necromancy spells, a sorcerer to evocation, give enchantment and illusion to the psion, and add a witch class that does transmutation and divination (and all classes can protect or dispel things, making abjuration the global school). It fits all their respective archetypes well enough.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

IMO? Keep Wizards as Wizards, but there's no such thing as a "generalist" Wizard. You have a limited subset of spells, no matter what.

Then use the 4e Elementalist as the model for the Sorcerer. Big, flashy, blasty spells, spammed over and over. Go ahead and sneak bloodlines in if you care, but make it so Sorcerers are as easy to run as Fighters.

I like this. Because there are no generalist wizards, having a generalist wizard just can't be explained with why they can't create a spell not on their list.

But with every mage being specialized, even before subclasses (or because of) then you have a mage that is limited in the same way as the mundanes.

I would say...

Wizard (Mage)

Beguiler: Primary School (Illusion), Secondary (Enchantment)
Warmage: Primary School (Evocation), Secondary School (Divination)
Dread Necromancer: Primary School (Necromancy), Secondary School (Transmutation)
Incantrix: Primary School (Abjuration), Secondary School (Conjuration)

Give them a choice of a third school. Primary school up to 9th level, secondary school up to 6th level, and tertiary school up to 3rd level. Each spell level must contain a spell of your primary school first before adding secondary and tertiary school spells.

Edit: Allow learning spells of X level within your area of expertise. However your spell book can only contain so much power and two spell books can't get near each other (boom). Essentially make sure you limit the number of spells a wizard can own in their book.

Also I've been thinking... Bard should be a subclass of the Fighter along with the Paladin.

[Morty]

IMO? Keep Wizards as Wizards, but there's no such thing as a "generalist" Wizard. You have a limited subset of spells, no matter what.

Then use the 4e Elementalist as the model for the Sorcerer. Big, flashy, blasty spells, spammed over and over. Go ahead and sneak bloodlines in if you care, but make it so Sorcerers are as easy to run as Fighters.

I agree with this, more or less. But how would you differentiate between a wizard who happens to specialize in energy damage spells and a sorcerer?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Just found this over at the wotc forums
http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4060361

I really really like this, these could be put into a maneuver system that all mundanes can choose from. Can only know so many but... This could have potential.

[obryn]

I agree with this, more or less. But how would you differentiate between a wizard who happens to specialize in energy damage spells and a sorcerer?
Well, one idea is scaling back the wizard's access to energy damage spells. :smallsmile: Frequency of use, "special effects," etc. are some other ways to handle it. If one of your guys is doing stuff at-will and the other needs to prepare, that's at least a small differential. IMO, the Sorcerer in this case wouldn't even be casting "spells" as such, at all.

I couldn't have mistaken an Elementalist for a normal Sorcerer in 4e, so I don't think it's that massive a goal. :smallsmile:

[Lokiare]

Most shovels can't do that. They don't have the weight and balance, or the sturdiness, or the proper planing. Remember, even a club can cut something if you swing it fast enough; we aren't discussing possibility, so much as probability and ease of use. The camp shovel is designed for all that and so does it better. A yard shovel is not and so does not.

Link again? I never saw one.

http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

Its based on a study done by some game developers. Very insightful stuff.


We discussed this at some point prior, didn't we? If D&D moved to a primarily Digital model with monthly and yearly Digests of material released after the fact in hard-bound, it would be an easy to use system. Just don't burn a bunch of resources on GUIs that aren't needed.

You also get the added bonus of 'stuff designed for computer use works better one. Computer than stuff designed for book use and retrofitted for computers", which I believe was DDI's primary failing.

DDi's main failing was having WotC pick a 'friend' company to do it instead of a competent one.


That's because of the tragedy involved. I know that if I had a colleague die in a murder suicide that set out business project back indefinitely that I, too, would just start ISP banning people who didn't care.

WotC is a company. They literally cannot say "we had a setback because of [legitimate reason]", they must continue presenting a good face. Clients need to have the good graces to keep up on the news (murder suicide) and read between the lines and not hold a company which must lie to your face in this situation to it's word.

Yes, but they can start the project back up with a different company and get something out within a year. Heck I've seen one programmer living in their families basement working on weekends put out the kind of stuff WotC promised in less than six months. Its not like they were making a AAA video game. Just a character creator that lets you pick a few options from a list and a VTT that uses 3D instead of flat images. There are 3D game engines you can set up and get working in no time to get those kinds of things going and they don't even cost anything (Irrlicht is one if you are interested).

Yes, the tragedy should have delayed the project by a year. No it shouldn't have delayed the project by 2+ years and produced a very unfriendly software app.


Given that off the top of my head I can think of games that do at least six of the eight (Apocalypse World and the best hacks spring to mind) with the sensory pleasure and submission being the two questionable ones, your comment isn't even of the sort "Different people like different things".

Except we are talking about 5E which doesn't do half of those things.


Nope. Metamagic was introduced in 3.0 as feats that allowed a wizard to prepare a variant spell. On the other hand it was introduced as feats that allowed sorcerer to change their spells on the fly. Metamagic has always belonged to sorcerer rather than wizards (unless you count those really irritating metamagic rods). In 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder metamagic was a sorcerer and spontaneous caster tool first and foremost. Wizards had no more mastery of metamagic than clerics or druids.

Its the same feat. It simply worked with both Sorcerers and Wizards. You keep conflating the difference between Wizards and Sorcerers as some kind of dividing line in metamagic. It isn't. Metamagic works with any kind of magic. Sorcerer spontaneously cast, and therefore can spontaneously change their spells. Metamagic is just as much a Wizard thing if not more.


This is flat wrong. Balance ruins expression type players. If I want to be a good thief I play a wizard or bard in 3e because the rogue is not fit for purpose. It also can shatter narrative (here's how the story should work).

The only people lack of balance helps is people who appreciate subjugation.

I was trying to be nice about it.


Nope.

In 3.5 they created a set of rules that were good enough that they didn't break immersion until you examined them too hard. That isn't to say that the rules are immersive. The world is only consistent in that you have such things as a 3.5 Standard Climbable Tree. Or, of course, a Tippyverse. 3.5 is hard on narrative players as well because wizard spells shatter narrative.

Of course good enough works. And most people don't examine deeply.

Yes, but part of that is the idea that the world works properly only if it follows the rules of a specific edition. This is how tradition feeds into Fantasy. For instance it boggles someones mind if a Wizard isn't vancian. Even though outside of D&D most Wizards are pretty much at-will.

[neonchameleon]

Except we are talking about 5E which doesn't do half of those things.

Yes it does. It just does most of them badly.


Its the same feat.

It's the same feat but has a different effect. If we're talking metamagic points we're talking ability to change things on the fly rather than prepare what is essentially a different spell in a different spell slot.

Wizard metamagic = more spells. Sorceror metamagic = more options at the time of casting. The difference isn't trivial.

[NotAnAardvark]

I'm not quite sure how turning sorcerers into a fundamentally unique class with their own unique set of tools and options is the "lazy" solution when compared to the "wizards but slightly different" model.

[Oracle_Hunter]

To be fair, there are quite a few good things to be said about 5e; most of them have to do with the speed and ease of play.
Yes, this is what I've heard from everyone who has enjoyed it but 5e's central flaw is that its "ease of play" does not come from clear and concise rules but from not having rules at all.

I think one of my 5e-liking friends ("Batman") said it best: he enjoys games where he has to understand the rules instead of understanding the DM.
The paucity of (useful) rules in the public playtest document means that 5e adventures require you to understand the DM to figure out the Logic of the Universe rather than rely on rules printed on paper. Batman is able to figure out what he can and can't do in other games by looking at the rules and relying on them; he can anticipate how the world works in advance and adjust along the way. But in 5e he either has to tie up the DM by asking "mother may I" questions (and risk a misunderstanding of sentiment) or hope he has correctly judged his DM's mood and intentions on a given day.

As an example, Batman plays a Rogue. He really liked having the ability to set up traps on the battlefield and use those to control the battlefield. But in practice he realized that (1) it is exhausting to free-form "improvise" traps in the middle of combat where you have to play 20-Questions with the DM and (2) the lack of rules means that any trap he does is going to be less effective than actually attacking. Likewise he is frustrated that Magic lets people do so much stuff which Skills/Mundane Class Powers don't. For example, the "forge identity" LV 9 Rogue ability which is strictly worse than the low-level Wizard spell "Disguise Person." But that's a side point.
IMHO, a company as flush with $$$ as WotC should be able to produce a game that has some unique selling point. Fantasy Flight has cornered the market on "IP Games" (e.g. Rogue Trader, Edge of Empire), White Wolf has urban horror on lockdown, and what does WotC have? They don't monopolize Heroic Fantasy anymore (Pathfinder, but also Burning Wheel) so what exactly are they selling now aside from the name "Dungeons & Dragons?"

[Pex]

Nope. Metamagic was introduced in 3.0 as feats that allowed a wizard to prepare a variant spell. On the other hand it was introduced as feats that allowed sorcerors to change their spells on the fly. Metamagic has always belonged to sorcerors rather than wizards (unless you count those really irritating metamagic rods). In 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder metamagic was a sorceror and spontaneous caster tool first and foremost. Wizards had no more mastery of metamagic than clerics or druids.



While feats are a 3E concept, metamagic existed before it. 2E had a small number of spells that altered other spells. There were spells Extend I and Extend II that works like Expend Spell feat. You cast a spell then next round cast Extend I. Extend II was for higher level spells. There was the spell Vocalize that then allowed you to cast spells silently. Even the infamous Persistent Spell had a 2e spell counterpart courtesy of the Player's Options series, though it did work a little bit differently.

[Lord Raziere]

Well, one idea is scaling back the wizard's access to energy damage spells. :smallsmile: Frequency of use, "special effects," etc. are some other ways to handle it. If one of your guys is doing stuff at-will and the other needs to prepare, that's at least a small differential. IMO, the Sorcerer in this case wouldn't even be casting "spells" as such, at all.

I couldn't have mistaken an Elementalist for a normal Sorcerer in 4e, so I don't think it's that massive a goal. :smallsmile:

yea, if I were designing the sorcerer and wizard classes, the sorcerer would be the show blast-everything/blunt magical force class.

the wizard would be more like the guy who uses magic, but the effects aren't as visible.

like a sorcerer would open a door by conjuring a boulder that smashes it open.

a wizard just goes up to the lock and with a touch, it moves into the unlocked position

it would all depend on how subtle or obvious you want your magic to be. like Gandalf and Harry Dresden.

[Lokiare]

Wait so nobody caught that the Warlock will be able to cast all of its daily spells at maximum level? Hello 4x Fire Ball of 10d6 per day.

Then they get lower level spells at will. Whose idea was that?

The only thing I can conclude at this point is they've thrown all pretenses of using math and balance out the window.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Wait so nobody caught that the Warlock will be able to cast all of its daily spells at maximum level? Hello 4x Fire Ball of 10d6 per day.

Then they get lower level spells at will. Whose idea was that?

The only thing I can conclude at this point is they've thrown all pretenses of using math and balance out the window.If all they do is damage, then them doing a whole bunch of that probably isn't imbalanced.

[captpike]

If all they do is damage, then them doing a whole bunch of that probably isn't imbalanced.

either it will be enough to one or two shot things, or it will be worthless because damage is worthless.

either is bad for the game

[Jacob.Tyr]

If all they do is damage, then them doing a whole bunch of that probably isn't imbalanced.

At one point in the playtest just casting magic missile over and over again was a better damage option than anything available to non-casters. Granted, if all you did was cast magic missile you wouldn't be doing other stuff with your spells, but it isn't like non-casters are doing anything but "attack" anyway.

[Just to Browse]

Wait so nobody caught that the Warlock will be able to cast all of its daily spells at maximum level? Hello 4x Fire Ball of 10d6 per day.

Then they get lower level spells at will. Whose idea was that?

The only thing I can conclude at this point is they've thrown all pretenses of using math and balance out the window.

Level-appropriate abilities usable only 4 times per day, and level-inappropriate abilities which aren't useful beyond buffs and toolbox effects at-will?

You're right. That sounds pretty weak.

[Lokiare]

Level-appropriate abilities usable only 4 times per day, and level-inappropriate abilities which aren't useful beyond buffs and toolbox effects at-will?

You're right. That sounds pretty weak.

So you haven't read the play test I take it?

There are 1st level spells that are useful right up to level 20 (in a 1st level slot).

There are spells that are limited to 7th level and above because the Wizard can only cast one of these per day. If the sorcerer can cast things like Evard's Tentacles 4x a day at max level, that's auto defeating every encounter in an average day.

If they can cast hold person at-will, then the game is well and truly broken.

[Squirrel_Dude]

either it will be enough to one or two shot things, or it will be worthless because damage is worthless.

either is bad for the gameIf damage output could only fall between one of those two extremes than there would never be a good RPG damage system.

[captpike]

If damage could only fall between one of those two extremes than there would never be a good RPG.

in a well build game sure, but if you have a reality bending wizard and you then make a warlock and try to balance it by giving them more damage then those are the only two things that can happen.

[Just to Browse]

{{scrubbed}}

[SiuiS]

Guys? Metamagic was introduced in the 2E Tome of Magic, and is available to all wizards. 2E doesn't have sorcerers.

thank you.


If they hold to their different spell lists (wiz only spells, sorc only spells, etc.), it's a step in the right direction. But this may be an illusory difference, if spell research remains in play. Anything not on your class list could be "invented" by an enterprising arcanist.

Unless your DM has the ovaries god gave her, in which case she looks at the track record of spell research having always been at DM discretion since inception back in the 20th century and says "no, your wizard cannot trample into warlock/sorcerer/bard/cleric territory".


Sorcerers can in 3.5... I'm not sure why a Wizard couldn't learn it as a Necromancy Spell (where the god dang cure/inflict spells for clerics should be in the first place!!!!).

[Tangent] if WotC had the gonad fortitude to follow through on a damned decision this would actually be okay.

The PHB dropped and it had a very clear metagame conceit and implied setting. Necromancy was tied to negative energy. Negative energy was the energy of evil and death; it was the energy of dark gods, master demons, fell devils, and wicked corpses too vile to truly die. Positive energy was the energy of health, piousness, righteousness and wholesomeness.

That could have worked. That could have been fine. If they had stuck to tier guns and built the core conceits through the metagame.


Holy crap, I forgot that they put up the warlock spell list when they released the L&L article, we should totally look at that to make sure those spells are there and....

Oh wait, you made up something instead of relying on any kind of facts! You nearly got me, you silly goose!

Hahaha snort~

[Joe the Rat]

Unless your DM has the ovaries god gave her, in which case she looks at the track record of spell research having always been at DM discretion since inception back in the 20th century and says "no, your wizard cannot trample into warlock/sorcerer/bard/cleric territory".

Wait, you're suggesting that a player should be limited in the crazy shenanigans they want to pull in their quest for Ultimate Power? Are you sure you're post-3rd ed? :smallwink:

I suppose it really is a non-issue. Given their track record, WotC will end up releasing wizard versions of sorcerer-only spells (and vice versa) in later supplements.

[1337 b4k4]

YFor example, the "forge identity" LV 9 Rogue ability which is strictly worse than the low-level Wizard spell "Disguise Person." But that's a side point.

In what way? The identity forge ability requires 1 week and 25 gp to establish an entirely separate identity, including contacts. Thereafter, every time you adopt your other identity all other creatures believe that identity, no save, no check, forever or "until given a good reason not to". The only catch is that you can't use someone else's identity (that is, you can't take the identity of the king)

Additionally, at level 13 you gain the "imposter" ability to allow you to mimic another person in such a way that your ruse is "indiscernible to the casual observer" and even for those that suspect something is wrong, you still have advantage on all the checks. And again, this is infinite in duration.

By comparison, "Disguise Self" lasts for exactly 1 hour, doesn't hold up to physical inspections at all, and can be seen though with a successful Wis check.

The best thing Disguise Self has going for it is that it's instantaneous, but if I'm trying to infiltrate the castle party and steal the king's crown, I'd much prefer the established identity of the external security captain than the 1 hour disguise as a guard that requires me to carefully avoid ever touching another person or having them touch me.

[SiuiS]

Wait, you're suggesting that a player should be limited in the crazy shenanigans they want to pull in their quest for Ultimate Power? Are you sure you're post-3rd ed? :smallwink:

I suppose it really is a non-issue. Given their track record, WotC will end up releasing wizard versions of sorcerer-only spells (and vice versa) in later supplements.

Well, no. I still hold the complete Necromancer's handbook – one of the few that specifically says Players Do Not Read – is one of the best books for the game ever. I've internalized the base rules for my games enough that I wing just about everything. I ad lib Class powers because I would rather a player say "I want to be a fighter who shoots energy from my sword like link!" Than deal with them workig out the right race/class/flaw/feat combo to get it and also collapse the game under the strain. I've stopped using characters that screwed up the DMs plans, and sometimes I've used characters that screw up the DMs plans because the DM was a pillock and deserved it. I'm very firmly 2.5 in my beliefs, but I like what 4e stood for, even if it fell short of its own goals; that this is a game of mutual companionship and fun.

I'm an adult. I even act like it sometimes! I'm going on thirty. My wife is pregnant and fit to burst. I ration my time between mindless drudgery to pay bills and the simple but wasteful joys that make life worth living. My time is precious. I'm a narcissist, too, so every minute you (figurative you) spend wasting my time is far more costly than every hour you diddle away on your own. It takes honest to goddess effort to get three or four people to a single location every week for a handful of hours to play; the logistics involved is literally the kind of stuff management gets paid for. And I do it every damn week. I will not stand for everything grinding to a halt because of piddling issues like "I want to have my cake and also eat my cake" in a game where that's not the point.

I'm in a game with two remaining big players, both Tier 1, and this is post-Henderson. The characters are somewhere around level 35, with a slew of templates and HD and a few divine ranks. They are trying to unmake creation. I'm also in a game where a template and a feat combind weird to make my shapeshifter too strong, so I got rid of the feat. Because this all makes sense for those respective games.

If it is important to Next that sorcerers and wizards not have the same spells, the. You have two choices; either your wizard learning sorcerer spells is plot relevant and will involve RP gates you have to pass through in order to succeed, or it's not happening at all. You want the Sorc only spell, play a sorc, or play a game where that difference doesn't matter.

[obryn]

{{scrubbed}}
I see the next thread title here.

D&D 5e XVII: We're just making stuff up now instead of relying on facts

[Jacob.Tyr]

I see the next thread title here.

D&D 5e XVII: We're just making stuff up now instead of relying on facts
Based on the way this thread is going, WotC should just make D&D a free-form game. Even when discussing the rules people make **** up.

[Tanuki Tales]

Has anyone went through the effort yet to do a breakdown comparison between 5th edition in its current state as compared to either 3.X or 4th edition?

[obryn]

Has anyone went through the effort yet to do a breakdown comparison between 5th edition in its current state as compared to either 3.X or 4th edition?
I don't know if that's a worthwhile way to spend time, with the actual game released in about 3 months (and a final game a few months after that). What's more, the closed playtest seems to have very different stuff than the open one did.

[SiuiS]

I don't know if that's a worthwhile way to spend time, with the actual game released in about 3 months (and a final game a few months after that). What's more, the closed playtest seems to have very different stuff than the open one did.

Aye. Actual content, even~

[Kurald Galain]

Has anyone went through the effort yet to do a breakdown comparison between 5th edition in its current state as compared to either 3.X or 4th edition?

To my knowledge, no. However, I'm really curious how you would envision such a comparison.

[Lokiare]

Yes it does. It just does most of them badly.

Well you can force all of the ways of fun into any given edition of D&D, however as you say they will be done badly or rely entirely on the DM to mangle the rules to get them in there. Some don't have a problem with that, I however want a game that supports Challenge and Expression with a good dose of Fantasy. I don't want to have to fight with it, to get that.


It's the same feat but has a different effect. If we're talking metamagic points we're talking ability to change things on the fly rather than prepare what is essentially a different spell in a different spell slot.

Wizard metamagic = more spells. Sorceror metamagic = more options at the time of casting. The difference isn't trivial.

Yes, that's what I've been saying for awhile now. Metamagic just reinforces each classes strong points. For Wizards its being prepared for everything. For Sorcerers its having flexibility on the fly. Neighter is more powerful than the other.


Yes, this is what I've heard from everyone who has enjoyed it but 5e's central flaw is that its "ease of play" does not come from clear and concise rules but from not having rules at all.

I think one of my 5e-liking friends ("Batman") said it best: he enjoys games where he has to understand the rules instead of understanding the DM.
The paucity of (useful) rules in the public playtest document means that 5e adventures require you to understand the DM to figure out the Logic of the Universe rather than rely on rules printed on paper. Batman is able to figure out what he can and can't do in other games by looking at the rules and relying on them; he can anticipate how the world works in advance and adjust along the way. But in 5e he either has to tie up the DM by asking "mother may I" questions (and risk a misunderstanding of sentiment) or hope he has correctly judged his DM's mood and intentions on a given day.

As an example, Batman plays a Rogue. He really liked having the ability to set up traps on the battlefield and use those to control the battlefield. But in practice he realized that (1) it is exhausting to free-form "improvise" traps in the middle of combat where you have to play 20-Questions with the DM and (2) the lack of rules means that any trap he does is going to be less effective than actually attacking. Likewise he is frustrated that Magic lets people do so much stuff which Skills/Mundane Class Powers don't. For example, the "forge identity" LV 9 Rogue ability which is strictly worse than the low-level Wizard spell "Disguise Person." But that's a side point.
IMHO, a company as flush with $$$ as WotC should be able to produce a game that has some unique selling point. Fantasy Flight has cornered the market on "IP Games" (e.g. Rogue Trader, Edge of Empire), White Wolf has urban horror on lockdown, and what does WotC have? They don't monopolize Heroic Fantasy anymore (Pathfinder, but also Burning Wheel) so what exactly are they selling now aside from the name "Dungeons & Dragons?"

I agree. I have players that like reliability. If a rule, feat, power, spell, etc...etc... says something they should expect it to work that way in the game. The surprises should come from the story, not from the rules adjudication from the DM.

That's about all they are selling now (the name D&D), and many people aren't going to buy it. 3E fans are going to pore over and try out 5E before buying it lest it turn into another 4E. 4E fans are going to pore over it lest it resemble the play test too much. Both are going to choose not to purchase it because there are superior products available.

My prediction is that the first few months of release will see a lot of sales, but then interest in 5E will drop off like a cliff, and we'll see 6E on the horizon in 2 years.


If all they do is damage, then them doing a whole bunch of that probably isn't imbalanced.

If all they do is damage, they will be taking the Fighter's thing and doing it better and more often. If they can deal massive damage once per encounter (assuming the play tests 4 encounters per day and 4 spell slots) over a large area, then they will overshadow the Fighter and really every other class in the game, except the Wizard who bypasses hit points all together and simply takes things out of play 60% to 80% of the time each time they cast a daily spell.


To my knowledge, no. However, I'm really curious how you would envision such a comparison.

They've done the comparison over on the WotC forums. It turns out its more balanced than 3.5E and a lot less balanced than 4E. Of course there is a certain math guy over there that blanks out when you mention save or die and save or suck spells. He just can't calculate them into the math. He also assumes creatures bunch up for the fighter, but not for the casters. So his assumptions are way off, hoewever his math is sound for the most part. So if you take his math and apply it to more reasonable assumptions you find that 5E is not even close to being balanced with the casters dominating combat, exploration, and socialization. With the exception of standing watch, that is squarely dominated by the Fighter.

[Kurald Galain]

They've done the comparison over on the WotC forums. It turns out its more balanced than 3.5E and a lot less balanced than 4E.
Please share the link?

Also, I think there's more to a comparison between the various editions than pointing out which one is most balanced.

[Squirrel_Dude]

If all they do is damage, they will be taking the Fighter's thing and doing it better and more often. If they can deal massive damage once per encounter (assuming the play tests 4 encounters per day and 4 spell slots) over a large area, then they will overshadow the Fighter and really every other class in the game, except the Wizard who bypasses hit points all together and simply takes things out of play 60% to 80% of the time each time they cast a daily spell.That's a problem birthed by fighter and stereotypical mundane class design in general, not from this hypothetical Warlock doing lots of damage.

[Tanuki Tales]

Please share the link?

Also, I think there's more to a comparison between the various editions than pointing out which one is most balanced.

I affirm with both statements. I was also thinking of comparison between roles, game expectations, versatility and flexibility of the system, narrative outlets and tools and things like that.

[Joe the Rat]

My prediction is that the first few months of release will see a lot of sales, but then interest in 5E will drop off like a cliff, and we'll see 6E on the horizon in 2 years.I'm a bit more optimistic. But I also expect 6e before 2020. Wizards could produce the most perfect version, some sort of Platonic Ideal D&D, and they'd still be making core changes within in a few years' time.

[obryn]

Regardless of how much I like what I've seen personally, I think it will be more successful and longer-lived than that. I predict it will be the #1 game on release, and keep that spot regardless of its merits for quite some time.

[Lokiare]

Please share the link?

Also, I think there's more to a comparison between the various editions than pointing out which one is most balanced.

There you go http://community.wizards.com/forums/98651 its all over there. If you need help finding the multiple threads, try asking someone with access to their forums or using a search engine (I can't suggest using their search because it is inferior to just using www.startpage.com/ with 'site:community.wizards.com' in the search.). There are a number of threads and they are relatively easy to find.


That's a problem birthed by fighter and stereotypical mundane class design in general, not from this hypothetical Warlock doing lots of damage.

I agree completely. I wouldn't mind if a fighter in 5E could dash up to an orc stab it, and while it is bent over holding its insides in roll over its back to knock down the three goblins behind it. Then twirl their blade around and hit the three kobolds next to them. Then knock an arrow out of the air aimed at the Wizard or Rogue in the back row. All in one round, all at level one. If we got that I wouldn't mind at all if the Warlock could cast fireball 3x a day at spell level 6 or whatever. Unfortunately we don't have that so we have to compare everything to the least effective class in the game (the other classes at least have utility out of combat to make up for their lack of combat proficiency), and what happens is that as each class is added they seem to get more and more powerful leaving classes like the fighter in the dust.


I affirm with both statements. I was also thinking of comparison between roles, game expectations, versatility and flexibility of the system, narrative outlets and tools and things like that.

See above.


I'm a bit more optimistic. But I also expect 6e before 2020. Wizards could produce the most perfect version, some sort of Platonic Ideal D&D, and they'd still be making core changes within in a few years' time.

Read this article http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/ and then compare it to 5E. It doesn't matter if they manage to make the perfect game that has elements of Fantasy in it, if they miss all the other parts of fun, they will lose market share and fail to sell.

Then there's the whole idea that they need to actually market outside the TTRPG market and go mainstream with D&D to get people interested. Like a D&D tv show, commercial ads on prime time TV, etc...etc... a good old fashioned infomercial.


Regardless of how much I like what I've seen personally, I think it will be more successful and longer-lived than that. I predict it will be the #1 game on release, and keep that spot regardless of its merits for quite some time.

Yes, but my predictions are based on past experience and scientific understanding of how people experience fun (see the article linked above). What is yours based on?

[Talderas]

Well you can force all of the ways of fun into any given edition of D&D, however as you say they will be done badly or rely entirely on the DM to mangle the rules to get them in there. Some don't have a problem with that, I however want a game that supports Challenge and Expression with a good dose of Fantasy. I don't want to have to fight with it, to get that.

Balance in a game tend to decrease the opportunities for challenge. This board has proven time and time again that the inherent unbalanced nature of 3.5 provides different scales of challenge.

The problem with 3.5 wasn't that it was unbalanced. The problem was with the delta in the balance.

--


I agree. I have players that like reliability. If a rule, feat, power, spell, etc...etc... says something they should expect it to work that way in the game. The surprises should come from the story, not from the rules adjudication from the DM.

That's about all they are selling now (the name D&D), and many people aren't going to buy it. 3E fans are going to pore over and try out 5E before buying it lest it turn into another 4E. 4E fans are going to pore over it lest it resemble the play test too much. Both are going to choose not to purchase it because there are superior products available.

My prediction is that the first few months of release will see a lot of sales, but then interest in 5E will drop off like a cliff, and we'll see 6E on the horizon in 2 years.

Your prediction assumes that the primary demographic of Next is current D&D players. I think current D&D players are not the primary demographic mostly because they're bringing in MtG testers for playtesting (MtG is a stupidly easily accessible game) as well as how 4E was labeled a failure for failing to make its sales goals. The sales goals failure is the bigger reason I believe the target audience for Next is players that have never touched D&D before. If you set aggressive sales goals you have to pick up a larger customer base to accomplish it.

If you want a larger customer based for a P&P RPG system, where do you look? There's two demographics and the first is pen and paper players who aren't playing D&D. This is probably also not a primary target demographic because they're just as likely to be playing another system because of the setting or style that D&D just simply doesn't replicate (Shadowrun, White Wolf, etc). So the most likely demographic they're attempting to target with Next is people who don't play pen and paper RPGs. A more simple and easier to pick up and play ruleset is going to greatly aid in getting new customers into the genre of pen and paper.

[Lokiare]

Balance in a game tend to decrease the opportunities for challenge. This board has proven time and time again that the inherent unbalanced nature of 3.5 provides different scales of challenge.

The problem with 3.5 wasn't that it was unbalanced. The problem was with the delta in the balance.

--



Your prediction assumes that the primary demographic of Next is current D&D players. I think current D&D players are not the primary demographic mostly because they're bringing in MtG testers for playtesting (MtG is a stupidly easily accessible game) as well as how 4E was labeled a failure for failing to make its sales goals. The sales goals failure is the bigger reason I believe the target audience for Next is players that have never touched D&D before. If you set aggressive sales goals you have to pick up a larger customer base to accomplish it.

If you want a larger customer based for a P&P RPG system, where do you look? There's two demographics and the first is pen and paper players who aren't playing D&D. This is probably also not a primary target demographic because they're just as likely to be playing another system because of the setting or style that D&D just simply doesn't replicate (Shadowrun, White Wolf, etc). So the most likely demographic they're attempting to target with Next is people who don't play pen and paper RPGs. A more simple and easier to pick up and play ruleset is going to greatly aid in getting new customers into the genre of pen and paper.

Unfortunately 5E is neither simple nor easier to pick up. In fact many people had questions about the neo-vancian system spell casters had as well as questions about various sub-classes. Also all TTRPGs are more complex than a medium complexity board game. This means they need to dumb the game down quite a bit more before they can even think about grabbing an entirely new market segment, and then there is also the whole no marketing outside the TTRPG industry problem they seem to be stuck in.

Edit: Balance in a game does not decrease challenge. It makes the challenge known rather than random. Which is why those that like Challenge gravitate toward games like 4E where its not the random roll of a dice that can make you lose, but rather your choices and which options you exercise.

[Joe the Rat]

Read this article http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/ and then compare it to 5E. It doesn't matter if they manage to make the perfect game that has elements of Fantasy in it, if they miss all the other parts of fun, they will lose market share and fail to sell.Yes, there is that article.
I'm interpreting this as regarding my feel on how it will play out. And no, I don't think 5e will meet all of these to the same degrees - assuming that we don't have some sort of extra Challenge-facilitating elements that have yet to see the light of day, and they don't hammer out more of the Balance, and so forth. I just think that if they can pull it together a bit better, they'll be able to run with it for a while.

And then, success or no, Wizards will change it.

[Lokiare]

Yes, there is that article.
I'm interpreting this as regarding my feel on how it will play out. And no, I don't think 5e will meet all of these to the same degrees - assuming that we don't have some sort of extra Challenge-facilitating elements that have yet to see the light of day, and they don't hammer out more of the Balance, and so forth. I just think that if they can pull it together a bit better, they'll be able to run with it for a while.

And then, success or no, Wizards will change it.

That's the thing though. They have to hit all eight types of fun, and hit them hard, or various groups of players just won't be interested. They'll lose market share to other games that do and 5E will be shelved in a shorter time than 4E (which had a reboot to keep it going for another year or two) and we'll be onto 5E.

There's also the fact that the trend for the time between new editions gets shorter and shorter. If 5E follows all those before it, then it'll be 2-3 years max.

Also the problem that no one addressed is the shrinking fan base. Each year we lose more and more people to other more accessible and more widely advertised forms of entertainment. This isn't the 70's anymore where we don't have any competition and word of mouth is the best form of advertising.

This is the 10's where the best form of advertising is social networks and televisions commercials, where high technology reigns and 5E hasn't even announced if it will be compatible with some low end technology never mind actually trying to compete with other forms of media. We should at least be able to access the information digitally and never have to pick up a pencil, paper, and dice if we choose.

From my guesstimation (based on the facts available) I don't see it doing half as good as 4E or 3.5E.

[Cavelcade]

That's the thing though. They have to hit all eight types of fun, and hit them hard, or various groups of players just won't be interested.

That's actually not true at all. Ignoring the mostly subjective arguments otherwise presented to do with the success or otherwise of D&D next this is flat out wrong - what they need to do is convince people they've hit them, not actually hit them. And I don't mean people on fora, discussing in depth the math and other aspects - I mean people who will look at it and try and get a 'feel' for what they think it will play out as and will then decide to give it a go. And they don't even have to hit them all - just the ones that the majority of the target market (which we can't guess at) are interested in.

[Felhammer]

Also the problem that no one addressed is the shrinking fan base. Each year we lose more and more people to other more accessible and more widely advertised forms of entertainment. This isn't the 70's anymore where we don't have any competition and word of mouth is the best form of advertising.

This is the 10's where the best form of advertising is social networks and televisions commercials, where high technology reigns and 5E hasn't even announced if it will be compatible with some low end technology never mind actually trying to compete with other forms of media. We should at least be able to access the information digitally and never have to pick up a pencil, paper, and dice if we choose.

Actually companies don't have to do much in terms of advertising anymore because fans are doing an amazing job of it all by their lonesome. YouTube and Twitch are littered with videos of people playing RPGs. There are people who actually make a living by recording their play sessions and posting them to various sites. Beyond community driven showcases, celebrity games are also becoming a huge deal. Thousands of people follow the adventures of Acquisitions Incorporated, many of whom were only tangentially aware of what roleplaying was and are now avid fans of the hobby.

No one knows how many role players there are in the world but I would be willing to bet there are far more now than there were 10 years ago. The difference between now and then is that we do not see existence of groups because they have diffused across the internet and are no longer just playing D&D. The hobby has expanded to include thousands of different games and, now, the infrastructure exists for people to find groups who want to play those niche games. Ten years ago if I wanted to play game X, I would have to go and find people IRL to play. It is hard enough making a group that wants to play D&D, let alone some obscure game. Via the magic o the internet, I can find a group to play with in a matter of hours (if you know where to look).

Check out this forum's Play By Post games - there are over 450 active* games. I live in a decently sized city and I highly doubt that there are 450 active IRL games in my area. This forum is just one of thousands just like it spread out across the internet.

The new people being brought into the hobby are also far more casual than the grognards of yesteryear. They don't have the desire or inclination to go online and debate why they like their favorite game. They don't feel the need to justify their fun to others (the way so many older/established gamers do). They like what they like and don't care what other people have to say about it.


*Active being a post made in the IC in the last week.

[obryn]

Yes, but my predictions are based on past experience and scientific understanding of how people experience fun (see the article linked above). What is yours based on?
No it's not. It's based on underpants gnome logic.

Step 1: Post an article
Step 2: ????
Step 3: D&D Next is a failure!

[TuggyNE]

This isn't the 70's anymore where we don't have any competition and word of mouth is the best form of advertising.

This is the 10's where the best form of advertising is social networks

One of these things is surprisingly exactly like the other. :smallconfused:

[1337 b4k4]

Yes, but my predictions are based on past experience and scientific understanding of how people experience fun (see the article linked above). What is yours based on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26D

Seriously, it sounds glib, but D&D's history, by your own admission is evidence against you*. D&D has routinely failed to hit at least one if not multiple of those types of "fun" and yet it has been and continues to be the gold standard for TTRPGs. Yes, some of that is brand name and some of it is inertia, but a lot of it is also that D&D is "good enough" and has its entire history and back catalog. In fact, D&D has so much history that it has shaped how we view fantasy in games (see prior discussion on generic fantasy). Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to be said about understanding what people are looking for in your game, and there's plenty to be said about games that specifically target certain types of fun, but for a very large majority of people, a game that can provide (or be roughly pounded into providing) all those types of fun, even if not done well, will in many ways beat out games that successfully and fully provide one or two types of fun.

I think you're also missing how important the "fellowship" type of fun is to TTRPGs. I would wager most people get together to play TTRPGs for the social aspect, every other form of "fun" that D&D can provide is secondary to that and as long as everyone is having enough of their chosen type of fun and getting the quality dosing of social fun that D&D provides, then D&D will remain a popular game, no matter how little if successfully handles the other fun. You personally may find "challenge"** fun to be the best, but I sincerely doubt most TTRPG players do.

* Personally, I think your statement that D&D fails at providing most of those types of "fun" or provides them poorly is just wrong. D&D hits on almost all of those points of fun, and does so quite well. That isn't to say that some games don't do some fun better, or that D&D's ability to hit those types hasn't waxed and waned over the years, but at least part of D&D's staying power is that it really does include all of those types of fun, in sufficient quantities that most people never look elsewhere.

** Incidentally, I take extreme exception to the article's framing of "challenge" fun as solely about the rules and power gaming / munchkin / min-max / roll-playing. I dare you to read about any of the great megadungeons from early D&D times, of the games Gygax used to run and tell me that those don't satisfy a desire for "challenge" fun. It might be a different "challenge" than picking the right feats list, but it's still a challenge in it's own right.

[Jacob.Tyr]

No it's not. It's based on underpants gnome logic.

Step 1: Post an article
Step 2: ????
Step 3: D&D Next is a failure!

Honestly at this point I'm wondering if he wrote the article or if he's getting some sort of kickback for posting that link.

We get it. Someone did a biased pseudo science analysis of RPGs and came up with a result. Great. Moving on!

I like the idea of sorcs being the metamagic users, it actually helps them stand out now that wizards are basically spontaneous in what spells they use in what slots. Honestly I hope metamagic stays baked into the sorc class and never comes outside from there.

[Lokiare]

That's actually not true at all. Ignoring the mostly subjective arguments otherwise presented to do with the success or otherwise of D&D next this is flat out wrong - what they need to do is convince people they've hit them, not actually hit them. And I don't mean people on fora, discussing in depth the math and other aspects - I mean people who will look at it and try and get a 'feel' for what they think it will play out as and will then decide to give it a go. And they don't even have to hit them all - just the ones that the majority of the target market (which we can't guess at) are interested in.

That might have been true in the past but most people aren't just going to put money down on 5E sight unseen. They are going to get reviews sneak peaks, or pick it up from a friend or in the store and check it out before buying it. The last few editions have worn out the D&D brand name to the point that it has no TTRPG value left. If they are banking on the D&D name, they will definitely fail.


Actually companies don't have to do much in terms of advertising anymore because fans are doing an amazing job of it all by their lonesome. YouTube and Twitch are littered with videos of people playing RPGs. There are people who actually make a living by recording their play sessions and posting them to various sites. Beyond community driven showcases, celebrity games are also becoming a huge deal. Thousands of people follow the adventures of Acquisitions Incorporated, many of whom were only tangentially aware of what roleplaying was and are now avid fans of the hobby.

This only advertises to those that are already into TTRPGs or that are into the few celebrities that play TTRPGs. I tried to watch the games you mention and I'm either bored to death or appalled what with all the profanity and corpse humping that goes on. I can't imagine someone from outside the TTRPG market seeing one of those games and wanting anything to do with D&D after that.


No one knows how many role players there are in the world but I would be willing to bet there are far more now than there were 10 years ago. The difference between now and then is that we do not see existence of groups because they have diffused across the internet and are no longer just playing D&D. The hobby has expanded to include thousands of different games and, now, the infrastructure exists for people to find groups who want to play those niche games. Ten years ago if I wanted to play game X, I would have to go and find people IRL to play. It is hard enough making a group that wants to play D&D, let alone some obscure game. Via the magic o the internet, I can find a group to play with in a matter of hours (if you know where to look).

It doesn't matter how many 'role players' are out there. It matters how many are willing to put money down. If only the DMs buy books for most groups then 100,000 players suddenly turns into 20,000 buyers. So it doesn't matter how many play, only how many buy.


Check out this forum's Play By Post games - there are over 450 active* games. I live in a decently sized city and I highly doubt that there are 450 active IRL games in my area. This forum is just one of thousands just like it spread out across the internet.

The new people being brought into the hobby are also far more casual than the grognards of yesteryear. They don't have the desire or inclination to go online and debate why they like their favorite game. They don't feel the need to justify their fun to others (the way so many older/established gamers do). They like what they like and don't care what other people have to say about it.


*Active being a post made in the IC in the last week.

The problem with the 'vocal minority' argument is that you don't know. The fora could be representative of the populace at large, or it might not. Short of surveying both groups you can't know. Its a non-argument really. :)

Many people will simply look at the game, say 'its not for me' and move on without posting a single post on a forum. The only reliable metric we have is sales.


No it's not. It's based on underpants gnome logic.

Step 1: Post an article
Step 2: ????
Step 3: D&D Next is a failure!

No it goes more like this:

1. Scientific quantification of fun
2. Past edition lifecycle
3. 5E will last 2-3 years.

See, logic does work! :)


One of these things is surprisingly exactly like the other. :smallconfused:

No word of mouth was slow and generally didn't have a negative connotation. Social networks spread info at the speed of the network. So a judgement on 5E will likely be rendered in the first few days over social media when it took almost a year for the judgement to be rendered on 2E with traditional word of mouth. More people are communicating with fewer words and you can get opinions from all over the world in just a few seconds.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%26D

Seriously, it sounds glib, but D&D's history, by your own admission is evidence against you*. D&D has routinely failed to hit at least one if not multiple of those types of "fun" and yet it has been and continues to be the gold standard for TTRPGs. Yes, some of that is brand name and some of it is inertia, but a lot of it is also that D&D is "good enough" and has its entire history and back catalog. In fact, D&D has so much history that it has shaped how we view fantasy in games (see prior discussion on generic fantasy). Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to be said about understanding what people are looking for in your game, and there's plenty to be said about games that specifically target certain types of fun, but for a very large majority of people, a game that can provide (or be roughly pounded into providing) all those types of fun, even if not done well, will in many ways beat out games that successfully and fully provide one or two types of fun.

I like this one better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons

Where it actually shows a chart with the years.
1E 1977-88 = 11 years.
2E 1989-99 = 10 years.
3E 2000-2007 = 7 years.
4E 2008-2011 = 4 years.
5e 2014-??? = (estimated 2-3 years)

The problem is for most of D&D's history it really hasn't had any good competition. It had a few TTRPGs and some badly put together video games and low budget television shows and movies, but it really hasn't up until the last 5-10 years had any real competition. Nowadays we have complex 3D video games and MMO's, a new high budget movie comes out nearly every week, social media itself vies for our time as well as our money. Many TTRPG's are starting to compete as we see with Pathfinder. D&D has some competition and has been betting on its brand name for way too long. That's one of the reasons why Essentials failed. They were betting on the brand and a little nastalgia to bring back the non-4E players and instead as soon as they picked it up and flipped it over and saw 4E on it they put it right back on the shelf. Then people that were enjoying 4E picked it up read it and put it back. Now they are trying to make a game based almost entirely on nastalgia that plays similar to older editions that have been streamlined. Its only going to appeal to a segment of the fan base because of their methods. Without outside advertising its not going to reach very many outside the TTRPG market.


I think you're also missing how important the "fellowship" type of fun is to TTRPGs. I would wager most people get together to play TTRPGs for the social aspect, every other form of "fun" that D&D can provide is secondary to that and as long as everyone is having enough of their chosen type of fun and getting the quality dosing of social fun that D&D provides, then D&D will remain a popular game, no matter how little if successfully handles the other fun. You personally may find "challenge"** fun to be the best, but I sincerely doubt most TTRPG players do.

They have any other game for that, heck you can have the fellowship playing board games. In other words that's not tied to D&D or even TTRPGs. If the rest of their friends play D&D they'll play it. If the group plays Pathfinder, they'll play that. The only way a company can aim for the Fellowship type of fun is to corner the market so that most people play their game.

I, and many others, find "Challenge" to be the best kind of fun, with the randomness and reliance on the DM, many people don't feel 5E has the Challenge factor and therefore won't buy it. The same way some people loved the Fantasy part of D&D more than any other and rejected 4E where it had inconsistencies in the story because of the rules.

They should be working toward making a game that allows all 8 types of fun, but they seem to be failing to do that.


* Personally, I think your statement that D&D fails at providing most of those types of "fun" or provides them poorly is just wrong. D&D hits on almost all of those points of fun, and does so quite well. That isn't to say that some games don't do some fun better, or that D&D's ability to hit those types hasn't waxed and waned over the years, but at least part of D&D's staying power is that it really does include all of those types of fun, in sufficient quantities that most people never look elsewhere.

This is incorrect. Pathfinder proves this. Pathfinder hit the Fantasy and Expression types of fun a lot better than 4E did and therefore they raked in all the fans that like that while WotC alienated 4E fans with Essentials, which allowed Paizo to take the lead. 4E hits the Challenge and Sensation type of fun and was as successful as 3.5E up until they started to alienate their 4E fans.
The problem is 5E doesn't hit the Sensation or Challenge types of fun, just ask around. So it won't be as successful because Pathfinder already provides the kinds of fun 5E is aiming for and they do it in a much more friendly non-shady business environment.


** Incidentally, I take extreme exception to the article's framing of "challenge" fun as solely about the rules and power gaming / munchkin / min-max / roll-playing. I dare you to read about any of the great megadungeons from early D&D times, of the games Gygax used to run and tell me that those don't satisfy a desire for "challenge" fun. It might be a different "challenge" than picking the right feats list, but it's still a challenge in it's own right.


Challenge isn't the right word. Its the word they chose to describe the idea that your choices are more important than random dice rolls or impressing the DM. You could rename it Mechanical Playability if you want or any number of names. It might be better as a Fair Challenge based on Player agency, but that's a real long name. By the way, its not the Angry DM using the word Challenge to describe that, its the original authors that did that. He's just describing how it applies to TTRPGs.

Most of those megadungeons were grind fests where you brought a stack of character sheets and were lucky to survive through an entire session, or they were based on story rather than mechanics. For the most part they were also about what you call 'munchkin', but which those of us that like a fair mechanical challenge call 'optimized' something many of us beleive shouldn't be required to be traded out for character concept. We should get to roll play and role play at the same time, not have to pick one over the other.


Honestly at this point I'm wondering if he wrote the article or if he's getting some sort of kickback for posting that link.

Nope, just doing my part to end the editon wars. When people realize that different editions of D&D hit different fun areas and no one is actually wrong when they say their preffered edition is best, then we can start having constructive conversations about the games future.


We get it. Someone did a biased pseudo science analysis of RPGs and came up with a result. Great. Moving on!

Nope sorry. Someone did an article using science to describe aspects of fun. Someone else took that article and applied it to TTRPGs specifically. No pseudo-science involved at any level, just logic and experience.


I like the idea of sorcs being the metamagic users, it actually helps them stand out now that wizards are basically spontaneous in what spells they use in what slots. Honestly I hope metamagic stays baked into the sorc class and never comes outside from there.

I'd rather they look at the flavor of the 4E sorcerers and Wizards and realize that they are completely different classes and should look and work completely differently. They were onto the right track with the original sorcerer and warlock, but then they tacked the Wizards spells onto it and ruined it by thinking gish means to be half as powerful on any given round as a Wizard or Fighter, when it just means you are as powerful as both but have a synergy between martial and magic.

If they are going to make them more than a sub-class of Wizard they need to make them have their own system of magic. Something like they learn an element, spell shape, or condition each level and can spend spell points to add an element, spell shape, or condition. Then spend more points to make it harder to resist, larger, last longer, or whatever. That would be worth a new class. Not some slightly tweaked Wizard like we have now. Throwing 'Points' on a Wizard does not make it a Sorcerer.

[Jacob.Tyr]

What I find funny about the "science" they used is that despite the original paper listing 8 types of fun, it actually give examples that include 9 types of fun. Hard science this is not.

It isn't science, it is game design theory. There is no testing of it, no proving anything, it is only a hypothesis. Based on experience and logic, sure, but that doesn't fly in science.

What is your analysis regarding the levels of "fun" provided in each of the... 21 spheres (not 8 at this point, based on updates to the theory) and each edition of DnD that is getting you your predictions? How many replicates of players for each edition do you have, over what time frames? What is the correlation between these replicates and how they interact with the success of each version? How are you controlling for market saturation of other products?

[obryn]

No it goes more like this:

1. Scientific quantification of fun
2. Past edition lifecycle
3. 5E will last 2-3 years.

See, logic does work! :)
No; you're not setting up an argument there. You're assembling disparate facts (and some outright wrong stuff!) and claiming causal, predictive relationships.


The problem is for most of D&D's history it really hasn't had any good competition.
Oh really. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade)

[NotAnAardvark]

3E, 3.5, and 4e were supposed to completely flop too.

I'll pass on the pseudoscience.


Though I agree the game will only last for 2-3 years, not because of some armchair designer's nonsensical ramblings about "types of fun" but because of Hasbro's business policies.

[Turalisj]

Oh really. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade)

Vampire goes for a different sort of players. I know people who love DnD but don't care about Vampire. Meanwhile, I also know people who love Vampire but don't care about DnD.

It's like saying Munchkin is MtG's biggest competition. They're similar games, but appeal to different players.

[SiuiS]

Yes, but my predictions are based on past experience and scientific understanding of how people experience fun (see the article linked above). What is yours based on?

No no, none of that. If you're going to present your opinion as science, you need to show your work in a concrete manner. The only difference between your opinion and his? You posted an article which was an opinion of a different article that was an MDA paper. That's not science: that's someone said someone said something, I agree, so I'm right.


One of these things is surprisingly exactly like the other. :smallconfused:

You hush. We don't truck with your sense or open communication protocols round these here parts, partner!



No it goes more like this:

1. Scientific quantification of fun
2. Past edition lifecycle
3. 5E will last 2-3 years.

See, logic does work! :)

That isn't logic. Please stop being glib and actually discuss stuff. Claiming a logical progression does not and CAN NOT grant you some form of authority or respectability in this context. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=331213) Logic means it follows a progression. Clear and accurate logic can and frequently does produce wrong, incorrect and or misleading results.


Science and Logic are not weapons to wield against people. They are not badges of authority. They are accepted frameworks for transmission of accurate data and frankly your trying ride their coat tails rather than being clear, open and relying on the merits of your argument is diminishing the value of both as institutions. Knock it off.



I like this one better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons

Where it actually shows a chart with the years.
1E 1977-88 = 11 years.
2E 1989-99 = 10 years.
3E 2000-2007 = 7 years.
4E 2008-2011 = 4 years.
5e 2014-??? = (estimated 2-3 years)

The problem is for most of D&D's history it really hasn't had any good competition.

Your data is inaccurate. It leaves out two important facts: one, dungeons and dragons ran concurrent with advanced dugeons and dragons, was it's own competition and had many other games out there besides. Two, the cut off points might be print, but not play, and not purchase. People are still clamouring for these games and books; 1e was rereleased recently to acclaim. 2e is frequently sold via digital medium. 3e is still the most popular version if only by lieu of both breadth and length. A company's decision spurred by backwards goals != success of a system on user end.

[Lord Raziere]

Vampire goes for a different sort of players. I know people who love DnD but don't care about Vampire. Meanwhile, I also know people who love Vampire but don't care about DnD.

It's like saying Munchkin is MtG's biggest competition. They're similar games, but appeal to different players.

I wonder what it says about me that I find both games dislikable, and that I only willing to play DnD because its relatively decent in comparison to Vampire?

but yeah, trying to compare Vampire and DnD is like trying to compare gritty shooters as competition to Mario or something.

[squiggit]

but yeah, trying to compare Vampire and DnD is like trying to compare gritty shooters as competition to Mario or something.

Not really. It's more like... comparing two games in the same genre that have been generally competing with each other for years.

[Lord Raziere]

Not really. It's more like... comparing two games in the same genre that have been generally competing with each other for years.

Um no?

DnD and Vampire are about as different as night and day. DnD is pretty much a medieval fantasy pastiche of every single mythological and fantasy story ever, playing heroes fighting monsters from wizards to bards to fighters and so on, about being a wandering hero unattached to anything doing great deeds.

Vampire is all about being the monster, giving personality and depth to what is normally a thing you kill with a stake, while seeing how long you can go before you lose your humanity in the middle of the modern day, and of course, solving problems in ways other than fighting, its all about being within a supernatural society and culture.

counterexamples of either don't really matter, since you can use systems for things other than what they were intended for, but that doesn't mean that is what those systems are about.

the only way you could get more different is if you started looking for sci-fi rpgs, which is like, the entire other half of rpgs, that aren't universal systems or general superheroes.

[Knaight]

the only way you could get more different is if you started looking for sci-fi rpgs, which is like, the entire other half of rpgs, that aren't universal systems or general superheroes.

Yeah, no. You're looking entirely within fairly traditional RPGs and treating them as if they are the entirety of it - there are much more divergent things than just sci-fi RPGs. Take Fiasco, which is a statless, GMless one shot storytellnig game where the dice are used to create characters, connect characters, and eventually send them to their doom. Take Microscope, an RPG in which the entire concept of a player character is utter nonsense, focused on building a timeline through describing eras, describing periods within these eras, and playing out short scenes within said periods. So on and so forth. Whether Vampire and D&D are even the same genre is debatable, mostly because genre gets really weird within board game and RPG contexts (in that board games and RPGs are usually just treated as genres and there aren't near-universally understood categories within them), but they are much closer to each other than to a number of other RPGs.

[Just to Browse]

So you haven't read the play test I take it?

There are 1st level spells that are useful right up to level 20 (in a 1st level slot).

There are spells that are limited to 7th level and above because the Wizard can only cast one of these per day. If the sorcerer can cast things like Evard's Tentacles 4x a day at max level, that's auto defeating every encounter in an average day.

If they can cast hold person at-will, then the game is well and truly broken.

There is no warlock spell list. No warlock spell list has been written. You cannot make claims about the spells on a list that does not exist.

[Felhammer]

This only advertises to those that are already into TTRPGs or that are into the few celebrities that play TTRPGs. I tried to watch the games you mention and I'm either bored to death or appalled what with all the profanity and corpse humping that goes on. I can't imagine someone from outside the TTRPG market seeing one of those games and wanting anything to do with D&D after that.

Actually, it advertises to a broad spectrum of people because many channels post videos about D&D but are otherwise centrally focused on something else (Wargaming, Nerd stuff, Board games, Video Games, etc.).

There is a great diversity of games presented online, just as in real life. Some games are funny, others raunchy still others combat intensive. Salt to taste. You may not like x playstyle but there are people who will disagree with you.

A point you made earlier was about advertising on Prime Time TV. That is a useless waste of money as the majority of people watching prime time TV would never in a million years be tempted to play an RPG. Successful advertisers know where to put there money. In this case, it happens to be blogs and webcomics.

The guys over at Penny Arcade make the most successful webcomic in the industry. They have spent a decade cultivating a community of like minded nerds. When they post a link in their blog post, it can actually crash the linked in website due to the sudden volume of traffic.

If you have your heart set on prime time TV, then a better use of your money would be product placement, or better yet, actually getting characters in a show to play an RPG. They have done it in Big Bang a few times and then there's that classic episode of Dexter's Lab. Sadly, that kind of product placement/advertising is too expensive and/or rare to rely on.



It doesn't matter how many 'role players' are out there. It matters how many are willing to put money down. If only the DMs buy books for most groups then 100,000 players suddenly turns into 20,000 buyers. So it doesn't matter how many play, only how many buy.

Actually it does matter, quite a bit actually. The hobby has always had a minority of players who purchase little if anything. The fact that they play bulks up group size and thus sustains the group through the long haul. Even a kid who fills a seat is helping to perpetuate the hobby, and thus giving those who do purchase books a reason to continue to do so. Without groups, why bother buying products?



The problem with the 'vocal minority' argument is that you don't know. The fora could be representative of the populace at large, or it might not. Short of surveying both groups you can't know. Its a non-argument really. :)

I believe you mean "silent majority", not vocal minority. We here posting in this thread are the vocal minority. :)





Where it actually shows a chart with the years.
1E 1977-88 = 11 years.
2E 1989-99 = 10 years.
3E 2000-2007 = 7 years.
4E 2008-2011 = 4 years.
5e 2014-??? = (estimated 2-3 years)

Just about every game with multiple editions has seen a marked decline in the lifespan of said editions. However, the bottom rung for edition changes seems to be about 4 years. The exception seems to be if the new edition is a simple revision of the current edition. Even then, the market *really* dislikes it.






The problem is for most of D&D's history it really hasn't had any good competition. It had a few TTRPGs and some badly put together video games and low budget television shows and movies, but it really hasn't up until the last 5-10 years had any real competition. Nowadays we have complex 3D video games and MMO's, a new high budget movie comes out nearly every week, social media itself vies for our time as well as our money. Many TTRPG's are starting to compete as we see with Pathfinder. D&D has some competition and has been betting on its brand name for way too long.

Actually, video games have been an issue ever since they first started to make RPG(-like) games. The ability to get the same story without the hassle of getting a group together is a huge draw. This was only made worse by MMOs, especially Everquest.


That's one of the reasons why Essentials failed. They were betting on the brand and a little nastalgia to bring back the non-4E players and instead as soon as they picked it up and flipped it over and saw 4E on it they put it right back on the shelf. Then people that were enjoying 4E picked it up read it and put it back. Now they are trying to make a game based almost entirely on nastalgia that plays similar to older editions that have been streamlined. Its only going to appeal to a segment of the fan base because of their methods. Without outside advertising its not going to reach very many outside the TTRPG market.

Essentials did not fail. It was quite successful. The issue was that it wasn't successful enough (like 4E in general). Essentials was a last minute patch made to salvage the edition before Hasbro's bean counters came down and demanded a new edition.




They should be working toward making a game that allows all 8 types of fun, but they seem to be failing to do that.

With an RPG, everything comes down to the DM. If s/he is terrible, the experience will be terrible regardless of what you are playing. Conversely, if the DM is amazing, s/he can turn a turd of a game into one of the most amazing experiences you've ever had.

Magic has its own system of defining players' preferences and playstyles. You should read into it, since you like scientific(-ish) categorizations. (Article (https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr258)1, Article 2 (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr278)).


This is incorrect. Pathfinder proves this. Pathfinder hit the Fantasy and Expression types of fun a lot better than 4E did and therefore they raked in all the fans that like that while WotC alienated 4E fans with Essentials, which allowed Paizo to take the lead. 4E hits the Challenge and Sensation type of fun and was as successful as 3.5E up until they started to alienate their 4E fans.

There are other reasons for Paizo's success as well that don't go with your list of 8. WotC basically backed out of the "Living" Campaigns right around that time, which was just when Paizo was pushing their Society. What WotC failed to realize is that the market had shifted under 3.x's tenure away from the grognards of old and towards a more casual fanbase. Casuals prefer to maximize fun and minimize work, which means pre-made adventures are very meaningful and important for them. One of the tenants for the creation of the OGL was so that WotC could farm the low-selling adventure making business off on other companies, so WotC could instead focus on high profit supplements.

Beyond that, WotC's own subscription based digital tools likely messed with their sales as a significant portion of the fan-base askew-ed most books and instead focused on digital content. This is both a benefit and a deficit. WotC brings in a very consistent and reliable revenue stream but at the same time looses out on sales of real products, which causes their numbers to appear deflated.

Some may say Paizo does the same thing but I would argue that they are two different situations since WotC focuses on, essentially, spamming the market with supplements and charges for their digital access. This makes people disinclined to buy lots of IRL stuff since a) they will not be able to keep up and b) they are already giving WotC money. Paizo on the other hand releases less than a handful of supplements a year and (is forced to) give all the rules away for free. Most people want to own books and can afford Paizo's since there are less of them and they are not handing Paizo money already for access. To boil the point down, their differing business models push consumers to behave differently.

Back to the point at hand, it is very difficult to claim Paizo is hitting your list of 8 better than 4E because there are so many other variables that go into the success of failure of an RPG.

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, no. You're looking entirely within fairly traditional RPGs and treating them as if they are the entirety of it - there are much more divergent things than just sci-fi RPGs. Take Fiasco, which is a statless, GMless one shot storytellnig game where the dice are used to create characters, connect characters, and eventually send them to their doom. Take Microscope, an RPG in which the entire concept of a player character is utter nonsense, focused on building a timeline through describing eras, describing periods within these eras, and playing out short scenes within said periods. So on and so forth. Whether Vampire and D&D are even the same genre is debatable, mostly because genre gets really weird within board game and RPG contexts (in that board games and RPGs are usually just treated as genres and there aren't near-universally understood categories within them), but they are much closer to each other than to a number of other RPGs.

systems, I'm not talking about systems, I'm talking about roleplaying. not some weird abstract systems.

urban horror is very different from medieval fantasy. Exalted is closer, A Song of Ice and Fire is closer to DnD than Vampire, Anima Beyond Fantasy is closer, heck, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying is closer, there are tons of things that compete with DnD for its niche, but Vampire is not one of them.

I mean, I've actually talked to Vampire players? they don't see Vampire as similar to DnD. you try to apply the logic of DnD to Vampire and they will say your missing the point and being a combat-player, and if you try to apply the logic of Vampire to DnD your going to get groans for being a thespian roleplayer. the roleplaying styles of the two games are not compatible. and I'd hesitate to even call the games you just listed as roleplaying, as I'm also a writer, and I can tell you: writing and roleplaying are not the same.

writing involves being control of everything, of logically figuring out every action and how it all connects, so that when it is all set in motion the story turns out in a way that you cannot imagine it happening any other way, while surprising people at the same time.

roleplaying is about improvisation, about being ready to adapt, about taking risks. it may be a story but your not in full control, and you have to be ready to be fluid and willing to be flexible about how it turns out. true for both the player and the GM.

the stuff you listed sound more like writing games than roleplaying games. they're not RPG's by way of thinking, so don't try expanding the definition, renders it meaningless. at a certain point, something is just not an RPG anymore.

back to what I really want to talk about, and not this diversion I do not care for:

as I was saying, Vampire players and DnD players are very different, and their methods are goals are completely opposite. you may say they are similar, but I wouldn't put them in the same group and expect them to play nice ok? they are shooting for completely different things, even if the systems are similar to your point of view. DnD and Vampire do not compete, because if they did, they would possess the same roleplaying mentality, and they don't. I've talked with both enough to know a DnD 3.5 optimizer wouldn't get along with a Vampire guy who plays his character to eventually fall to a tragic end of his humanity. one's playing to win, one's playing to tell a story, these are not roleplaying games that shooting for the same kind of player, or even competing. these are roleplaying games that want nothing to do with each other.

they don't even want to compete, they want to stay away from each other as far away as possible, they want to live in separate worlds. because their playstyles are mutually incompatible. on Vampire's end? it was an intentional part of the design. they fill completely different niches, don't act as if they are somehow similar for some abstract reason, or just because you've seen some obscure indie game that decides to be even more wildly different than that. you might say you have a wider perspective or something, but that just means you see how its relatively similar compared to something even less similar on a wider focus and lose sight of the fine details that really differentiate them in so many ways up close. don't apply a zoom out fallacy or whatever to my argument please.

[BWR]

as I was saying, Vampire players and DnD players are very different, and their methods are goals are completely opposite. yo
*snip*.

Having played both (and having friends who've played both), I find this an odd claim.
The basic assumptions of the two games are a different, but you will always find some group of Vampire playesr who've played murderhobos as bad as any D&D party. Some D&D games are full of intense roleplaying and improvisation social maneuvering, and entire sessions go without combat or rolling a single die.
Some players can play both, and enjoy both and don't have any sort of problems reconciling the two games.

[Lord Raziere]

Having played both (and having friends who've played both), I find this an odd claim.
The basic assumptions of the two games are a different, but you will always find some group of Vampire playesr who've played murderhobos as bad as any D&D party. Some D&D games are full of intense roleplaying and improvisation social maneuvering, and entire sessions go without combat or rolling a single die.
Some players can play both, and enjoy both and don't have any sort of problems reconciling the two games.

some people are more adaptable than others. your probably blessed with people who can actually be flexible and change to new conditions.

[SiuiS]

Having played both (and having friends who've played both), I find this an odd claim.
The basic assumptions of the two games are a different, but you will always find some group of Vampire playesr who've played murderhobos as bad as any D&D party. Some D&D games are full of intense roleplaying and improvisation social maneuvering, and entire sessions go without combat or rolling a single die.
Some players can play both, and enjoy both and don't have any sort of problems reconciling the two games.

People playing murderhobo in WoD is just as likely to be "D&D players picked up a different system" as it is to be an independent phenomenon. Similarly, all this RP nonsense that has crept into the logistic delving battle sim game over the last forty years? That's as much people hearing about other games, story games, and bringing that in and teaching it to others.

I'm being tongue in cheek a bit, but over all I see Raziere's point. Vampire (and the world of darkness in general) is designed to create a specific game. You don't have to use it that way, but you don't have to use a screwdriver to turn screws either. You could probably hammer the screw in with a screw driver just fine if you shift your technique.

[Delta]

Just about every game with multiple editions has seen a marked decline in the lifespan of said editions.

Not true. Shadowrun had it quite the other way around, with only 3 years between SR1 and 2, and now 8 years between 4 and 5. Exalted has had 5 years between 1 and 2, and now 8 years between 2 and 3 (being optimistic about Ex3 getting done this year...)

Vampire? 2nd Ed came out less than 2 years after 1st, and then it was 6 years until Revised (over a decade until V20 if you want to count that...)

GURPS went through 3 editions within 3 years of its release, then over a decade until GURPS4 which is now a decade old as well.

Same in foreign markets, german DSA has had successively longer periods between editions with its 5th one coming out this year.

If anything, it's the other way round, the majority of RPGs I can think of is having longer and longer edition lifetimes, with the only exceptions being cases where a new edition bombs hard or publishers getting into financial trouble.

[Talderas]

Unfortunately 5E is neither simple nor easier to pick up. In fact many people had questions about the neo-vancian system spell casters had as well as questions about various sub-classes. Also all TTRPGs are more complex than a medium complexity board game. This means they need to dumb the game down quite a bit more before they can even think about grabbing an entirely new market segment, and then there is also the whole no marketing outside the TTRPG industry problem they seem to be stuck in.

Compared to 3.5e, 5e is greatly simplifier and easy to pick up. It's also the simplest ruleset I've looked at for a RPG system that isn't freeform so they're definitely heading in the right direction for that. For comparison, I would say that the 5e ruleset from the playtest packet was about as complex in totality as the hacking/technomancer rules from Shadowrun 4e.


Edit: Balance in a game does not decrease challenge. It makes the challenge known rather than random. Which is why those that like Challenge gravitate toward games like 4E where its not the random roll of a dice that can make you lose, but rather your choices and which options you exercise.

I didn't say it decreases challenge. I said it decreases challenge opportunities and that is an entirely true statement. When options are inherently weaker, which is a sign that a system is providing players with choice, then there is challenge opportunities created. It's not challenge based on a random factor. It's challenge based on a known inherently weaker option.

--


Whether Vampire and D&D are even the same genre is debatable, mostly because genre gets really weird within board game and RPG contexts (in that board games and RPGs are usually just treated as genres and there aren't near-universally understood categories within them), but they are much closer to each other than to a number of other RPGs.

There's two ways to use genre in TTRPGS. The first is to use it to describe the type of setting the rules are meant to capture. In this case D&D (high fantasy) is drastically different from Vampire (horror). The second is to subdivide based on how the rules pan out. In this case, you would find D&D is closer to Warhammer 40k than Vampire because D&D focuses on the grid and distance and uses rules to describe how most interactions occur. WH40K uses rulers and template for dealing with combat while Vampire has no such similar mechanisms to either of the games and is far more freeform.

[BWR]

People playing murderhobo in WoD is just as likely to be "D&D players picked up a different system" as it is to be an independent phenomenon. Similarly, all this RP nonsense that has crept into the logistic delving battle sim game over the last forty years? That's as much people hearing about other games, story games, and bringing that in and teaching it to others.

I'm being tongue in cheek a bit, but over all I see Raziere's point. Vampire (and the world of darkness in general) is designed to create a specific game. You don't have to use it that way, but you don't have to use a screwdriver to turn screws either. You could probably hammer the screw in with a screw driver just fine if you shift your technique.

I agree that the games are made differently and expected to be played differently. I just took issue with Raziere's claim that players of one are significantly different than players of the other.

[Tehnar]

Compared to 3.5e, 5e is greatly simplifier and easy to pick up. It's also the simplest ruleset I've looked at for a RPG system that isn't freeform so they're definitely heading in the right direction for that. For comparison, I would say that the 5e ruleset from the playtest packet was about as complex in totality as the hacking/technomancer rules from Shadowrun 4e.


Shadowrun 4e hacking is stupid. Not only is it complicated, often you don't have a systematic approach to hacking. Probably the only mechanic that comes close to SR4 hacking is grappling in 3.5 and that is much easier to resolve.


The problem with 5e's mechanic is that they just don't work, at their very base. Single roll d20+ability modifier vs static DC is a terrible system if your range of modifiers is tiny compared to the spread of d20. Its basically the same resolution mechanic as a coin flip.

That is terrible for a rules heavy system, which even 5e is. Such a system works for systems more focused on storytelling, because mechanics aside they also provide a lot of setting information. DnD does not.




So its no wonder the most prevalent attitude regarding 5e is disinterest.

[obryn]

Vampire goes for a different sort of players. I know people who love DnD but don't care about Vampire. Meanwhile, I also know people who love Vampire but don't care about DnD.

It's like saying Munchkin is MtG's biggest competition. They're similar games, but appeal to different players.
I know this is just one of MANY posts in this same vein, but I was responding to Lokiare's outright wrong claim that D&D has never faced actual competition until now.

Am I honestly the only one who remembers White Wolf's domination of the RPG world in the 90's? It bled gamers from the nearly-monolithic AD&D 2e for the better part of a decade. There were smaller companies that also competed - FASA was a very close third, with Earthdawn, Battletech, and Shadowrun all being extremely popular. I know my own group abandoned AD&D for Earthdawn back in the day.

And if it wasn't Vampire doing the bleeding (har!), it was Magic: The Gathering, which was frequently considered to be the death knell for D&D back then, as groups all over split up and started playing cards instead. Very different kind of game, but similar population of players.

I'm not talking about today - yes, Vampire players aren't all D&D players. 25 years ago, however, they were ... until they became Vampire players. :smallsmile:


The problem with 5e's mechanic is that they just don't work, at their very base. Single roll d20+ability modifier vs static DC is a terrible system if your range of modifiers is tiny compared to the spread of d20. Its basically the same resolution mechanic as a coin flip.
This is a bit glib. There are situations where going outside the RNG's range are good - like areas of total competence or total incompetence.

However, not all situations are best handled through ignoring the RNG. In fact, I'd say that if your modifiers and target numbers are usually so far off the RNG that the die's range is no longer relevant, that's a sign of a mechanic that just doesn't work.

If you take combat, the d20 itself is fairly swingy. What's not swingy are hit points and damage rolls. Even if the mechanic were a straight up unmodified coin flip for attacks, hit points and damage rolls would remain relevant for combat resolution. In this specific context, it makes perfectly good sense to keep the d20 modifiers and target numbers closely bounded.

It's everything else that gets hairy, like non-combat action resolution. I think it was, what, DC 25 to climb a slippery rope? Making it nearly impossible even for highly-trained rogues and rangers? That's where bounded accuracy breaks down - places of total competence or incompetence.

[1337 b4k4]

It doesn't matter how many 'role players' are out there. It matters how many are willing to put money down. If only the DMs buy books for most groups then 100,000 players suddenly turns into 20,000 buyers. So it doesn't matter how many play, only how many buy.

Actually, the number of players does matter. It's a supply and demand problem. Any particular table can only support so many players. The more players the more demand for GMs. The more demand for GMs, the more GMs there will be, the more books will be sold.



I like this one better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons

Where it actually shows a chart with the years.
1E 1977-88 = 11 years.
2E 1989-99 = 10 years.
3E 2000-2007 = 7 years.
4E 2008-2011 = 4 years.
5e 2014-??? = (estimated 2-3 years)


As has been pointed out, you're conflating production runs with success of the game. For example, 3e actually has continued to be successful for 14 years, as Pathfinder is 3e, just under a different publisher.



They have any other game for that, heck you can have the fellowship playing board games. In other words that's not tied to D&D or even TTRPGs. If the rest of their friends play D&D they'll play it. If the group plays Pathfinder, they'll play that. The only way a company can aim for the Fellowship type of fun is to corner the market so that most people play their game.

And it turns out, D&D does pretty much that. Seriously, even people outside the hobby know what D&D is. It is the gateway drug and most players at least START with D&D if not play it with some regularity. D&D is the RPG most people play.



I, and many others, find "Challenge" to be the best kind of fun, with the randomness and reliance on the DM, many people don't feel 5E has the Challenge factor and therefore won't buy it.

Again, you are incorrectly limiting "Challenge" to mechanics manipulation.



They should be working toward making a game that allows all 8 types of fun, but they seem to be failing to do that.

How so?



This is incorrect. Pathfinder proves this. Pathfinder hit the Fantasy and Expression types of fun a lot better than 4E did and therefore they raked in all the fans that like that while WotC alienated 4E fans with Essentials, which allowed Paizo to take the lead. 4E hits the Challenge and Sensation type of fun and was as successful as 3.5E up until they started to alienate their 4E fans.

So despite your statement just a moment ago that D&D should try to do "all the funs", by your own analysis, doing "all the funs" has been a bad move for D&D as when they shifted 4e to include more types of fun, they started losing their customer base?



The problem is 5E doesn't hit the Sensation or Challenge types of fun, just ask around. So it won't be as successful because Pathfinder already provides the kinds of fun 5E is aiming for and they do it in a much more friendly non-shady business environment.

A) Only under your (IMHO incorrect) interpretations of those types of fun
B) Business environment is irrelevant.



Challenge isn't the right word. Its the word they chose to describe the idea that your choices are more important than random dice rolls or impressing the DM. You could rename it Mechanical Playability if you want or any number of names. It might be better as a Fair Challenge based on Player agency, but that's a real long name. By the way, its not the Angry DM using the word Challenge to describe that, its the original authors that did that. He's just describing how it applies to TTRPGs.

I realize it wasn't the original authors that incorrectly narrowed down the definition of challenge fun. That was, as you point out, the Angry DM and now you. You've both artificially limited the scope of challenge fun to one type of challenge fun, your type. Or put another way, as was pointed out earlier, there is much more than a mere 8 types of fun.



Most of those megadungeons were grind fests where you brought a stack of character sheets and were lucky to survive through an entire session, or they were based on story rather than mechanics. For the most part they were also about what you call 'munchkin', but which those of us that like a fair mechanical challenge call 'optimized' something many of us beleive shouldn't be required to be traded out for character concept. We should get to roll play and role play at the same time, not have to pick one over the other.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the type of game being played and how the game was played, brought about by a series of stereotypes and lack of knowledge. I suggest you do some science and start researching, starting with primary sources (many are still alive and still take questions). To start you on your path, consider the idea that in those early games, one challenge was to not roll the dice at all. In early editions, if you as a player were rolling dice, it means something was likely to go very badly for you.

[Morty]

This is a bit glib. There are situations where going outside the RNG's range are good - like areas of total competence or total incompetence.

However, not all situations are best handled through ignoring the RNG. In fact, I'd say that if your modifiers and target numbers are usually so far off the RNG that the die's range is no longer relevant, that's a sign of a mechanic that just doesn't work.

If you take combat, the d20 itself is fairly swingy. What's not swingy are hit points and damage rolls. Even if the mechanic were a straight up unmodified coin flip for attacks, hit points and damage rolls would remain relevant for combat resolution. In this specific context, it makes perfectly good sense to keep the d20 modifiers and target numbers closely bounded.

It's everything else that gets hairy, like non-combat action resolution. I think it was, what, DC 25 to climb a slippery rope? Making it nearly impossible even for highly-trained rogues and rangers? That's where bounded accuracy breaks down - places of total competence or incompetence.

I still think that bounded accuracy is, at its basic, a good idea. But you can't just slap it on the d20 skeleton and expect it to work well, which is what WotC has done throughout all the playtests.

Mind you, I also think that hit points, damage and other such values are just as in need of being curbed, if not more. They fly off the scale just as much as bonuses to rolls do.

And yeah, it's likely that D&D Next will be successful simply because it has the D&D brand on the cover, thus being the alpha and omega of RPG experience for a lot of people. It's very unfortunate, but that's the way it goes.

[neonchameleon]

systems, I'm not talking about systems, I'm talking about roleplaying. not some weird abstract systems.

urban horror is very different from medieval fantasy. Exalted is closer, A Song of Ice and Fire is closer to DnD than Vampire, Anima Beyond Fantasy is closer, heck, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying is closer, there are tons of things that compete with DnD for its niche, but Vampire is not one of them.

Both are arcane books with complex and abstract rules that regulate people sitting round a table acting out power fantasies. They are both rules and splatbook and build intensive, use obscure dice, and a very powerful GM.


I mean, I've actually talked to Vampire players? they don't see Vampire as similar to DnD.

Have you ever talked to Arsenal fans? They don't see Arsenal as similar to Manchester United. This doesn't prevent them both being English Premier League football clubs with a long and successful history and a red strip.

Most of us have played both Vampire and D&D. And by the standards of e.g. Fiasco, let alone freeform roleplaying or improv drama they might as well be the same game.


you try to apply the logic of DnD to Vampire and they will say your missing the point and being a combat-player, and if you try to apply the logic of Vampire to DnD your going to get groans for being a thespian roleplayer.

And you try wearing orange in the wrong street in Belfast and you're going to get beaten up. You're confusing tribal markings for differences. I've run high grade thespery in D&D and organized a military coup in Vampire. The two are in my experience only ever objected to either because you aren't following the logic of the characters or you've run into a bunch of pretentious tossers who don't want you doing something precisely because it reminds them of their rival game.


and I'd hesitate to even call the games you just listed as roleplaying,

That's your issue. I could say the same about D&D myself, and that freeform live action is the only pure form of roleplaying.


as I'm also a writer, and I can tell you: writing and roleplaying are not the same.

Indeed.


writing involves being control of everything, of logically figuring out every action and how it all connects, so that when it is all set in motion the story turns out in a way that you cannot imagine it happening any other way, while surprising people at the same time.

I write as well. My characters occasionally stage revolts. Things don't always happen the way I plan. And this is good. My characters are deeper than my plots can be. I tried to write the way you described, and it did not work for me.


the stuff you listed sound more like writing games than roleplaying games. they're not RPG's by way of thinking, so don't try expanding the definition, renders it meaningless. at a certain point, something is just not an RPG anymore.

Freeform LARP all the way!


as I was saying, Vampire players and DnD players are very different,

Nope. Some players are different.


and their methods are goals are completely opposite.

Their methods are almost identical. Their goals are to have an entertaining session with friends while pretending to be either an elf or a vampire.


you may say they are similar, but I wouldn't put them in the same group and expect them to play nice ok?

Depends on the people. I wouldn't put fans of two rival football teams into the same bar and necessarily expect them to play nice. This doesn't make them terribly different for all they protest.


I've talked with both enough to know a DnD 3.5 optimizer wouldn't get along with a Vampire guy who plays his character to eventually fall to a tragic end of his humanity.

And I've played with enough of both to know that both are extreme cases among the roleplaying community or either sub-community. 5% tops. I've also seen an epic Paladin Fall in D&D, and played vampires that geared up with flamethrowers and machine guns and proceeded to destroy Camarilla and Sabbat alike.

Vampire/oWoD is third only to D&D 3.X and RIFTS in how friendly the system is to min-maxing. And D&D has had an extremely strong strand of wanting story since Dragonlance in 1984 - and this was dominant in 2e.

[Lord Raziere]

I agree that the games are made differently and expected to be played differently. I just took issue with Raziere's claim that players of one are significantly different than players of the other.

They seem very different to me.

I mean take Emperor Tippy. forum celebrity, knows 3.5 rules real well, hashes out an entire world based on a strict RAW interpretation of everything, creates something that is considered (by lots of people that aren't me, cause I myself don't like that sort of thing) as something valuable and such and so on. y'know, makes this strange universe where powerful archmages rule everything with Wish and circle of teleportation.

now put him in Vampire. I doubt he would do so well in that fandom. I mean sure, there are optimizers in other games, but no other game possesses the optimization culture to the degree that DnD does. no other game has it in such great quantities, to the point where creating a world that in any normal game, would be considered breaking the entire game and how its supposed to work and have it be celebrated. I cannot stress enough how different that is from other RPG's.

or, steering away from optimization, lets look at the moral side of things. In DnD, vampire is always some form of evil, in Vampire it never actually says your evil, it says whether or not you still have enough humanity, and its up to you to determine whether or not your evil because of it, sure you may say they are both moral systems, but one is meant to be an objective standard on how everyone is judged, while the other is intended to be more subjective and provoke conflicts about the moral ambiguity of what your doing, even Nwod's Morality Trait is measuring the moral standards of modern society and how much you are willing to cling to it than any actual objective morality of everything.

or heck, just the fact that DnD is about choosing Race/Class/Alignment, and that Vampire is about choosing Clan/Covenant/Disciplines is indicative of how different they are, a Vampire player is only playing a vampire in a society of vampires, secret and full of politics. sure they can be murderhobos in it, but...the effects of doing so are going to be different than how it goes down in DnD, where being murderhobo is the accepted, expected gig the populace expects of adventurers, whereas Vampire has a society and that society has rules and won't tolerate those players doing those things, so the GM either starts ignoring the settings entirely, or the GM plays them as appropriate and the plays have to react differently to the consequences of their murderhobo antics depending on the setting, so even if both groups are murderhobos, they are two different flavors of murderhobo, because the DnD murderhobo is probably an accepted part of society doing their job, enjoying mead and barmaids when they are not out killing things. a Vampire murderhobo is probably in hiding from all the other vampires, playing guerrilla war against the status quo and generally being as paranoid as possible.

Edit:


Most of us have played both Vampire and D&D. And by the standards of e.g. Fiasco, let alone freeform roleplaying or improv drama they might as well be the same game.



Sir? Sir? Sir? I'm talking about day and night on Earth. You seem to be talking about Pluto. While I acknowledge your right that the planet Pluto is far more different than both Day and Night on Earth, pluto is not relevant to talking about how Day and Night are different on Earth. again, please stop with the zoom out fallacy, because I'm trying to talk about how day and night are different, while your busy saying "no they're not, they're the same compared to the rest of the Solar system" and its freaking annoying because the rest of the Solar system has nothing to do with how day and night are different on Earth! Which is what I am talking about!

[SiuiS]

I agree that the games are made differently and expected to be played differently. I just took issue with Raziere's claim that players of one are significantly different than players of the other.

Yeah. But there comes a time when we have to look at the message and ignore the stationary. At the heart of it, he's right – "D&D players" are different from "Vampire players". The names happen to have less to do with which game is played and more to do with which system maps closest to the desired play format, sure, but that's a simple issue of taking a description and thinking it's prescriptive and causal.

You are saying that it is an important distinction that players of dungeons and dragons who like dungeon bashing murder hobo games are not dungeon bashing murder hobo games because they play D&D, they instead play D&D because it fits their game desires. Raziere'a basic position is that which is chicken and which is egg doesnt matter, only that the correlation exists and a heuristic maxim can be derived from it so long as you recognize it is indeed a rule of thumb.


I still think that bounded accuracy is, at its basic, a good idea. But you can't just slap it on the d20 skeleton and expect it to work well, which is what WotC has done throughout all the playtests.

Mind you, I also think that hit points, damage and other such values are just as in need of being curbed, if not more. They fly off the scale just as much as bonuses to rolls do.

And yeah, it's likely that D&D Next will be successful simply because it has the D&D brand on the cover, thus being the alpha and omega of RPG experience for a lot of people. It's very unfortunate, but that's the way it goes.

"There are no bad ideas, simply bad execution". Yeah. About right. Hopefully the math will be corrected like they say.

[Scowling Dragon]

They seem very different to me.

Il throw my ten cents in:

Their not. I have played both, and they both have roleplaying aspects and min maxing grind aspects.
To be honest I find the way you talk about everything kinda elitist and snobbish.

"Fwa fwa fwa, D&D is all about the grind and killing, and its played by numbskulls that just like min maxing, whilst VAMPIRE is all about intrigue and smarts and shadows and intelligence"

D&D has 9 different alignments with mechanics based of of your alignments, Vampire has Humanity on a scale of 1-10 with mechanics based of of your humanity level.

In D&D I can pick to be the Mage, Barbarian, or Ninja in Vampire I can pick the Tremere, Brujah, or Some assasin clan.

[Lord Raziere]

whoa whoa whoa. hold it right there, Scowl.

I'm not saying that one gamer of one type of game is more intelligent than the other.

optimization and fighting requires a lot of smarts. warfare isn't something for idiots who charge in shouting "LEEROY JENKINS!!!" with barbarian maybe being an exception, and even then you'd probably do better with an wizard flying around laughing maniacally while blasting enemies with fire and proclaiming that your invincible, and even that sort of requires you to know that a wizard is so powerful that even the least powerful and optimal school of magic is better than entire classes.

and heck, Tippyverse could not come from a guy who charges in first like a berserker and kills things, or be loved by a bunch of people who just want a fight.

Edit: as for the differences well....if DnD is inherently a war game, Vampire is inherently a social game, as well as pretty much all of WoD in some manner, less about small-scale warfare and more about making deals and being within a society.

[Morty]

"There are no bad ideas, simply bad execution". Yeah. About right. Hopefully the math will be corrected like they say.

I don't really agree with this saying, but in this case it fits. And it's not really about math, I think. What's needed for bounded accuracy to work in a game that allows for a wide range of competence are abilities which grant advantage (in the general sense, not the actual mechanic) without relying on numerical bonuses. We haven't seen much of that in the playtest documents and blogs.

[BWR]

No one is denying that there extremes in both camps. I've run across them myself. People have preferences; no one is disputing this. It's just the idea that the differences are pronounced enough that you make grand sweeping statements about D&D players vs. Vampire players, or any game vs. any other game. The differences are not so great that I have noticed any real difference between players apart from "I like X better".
Munchkiny powergamers will act the same no matter which system and people who are more concerned with roleplaying in a setting rather than winning the game will do so no matter which system or setting they use.

[Felhammer]

Not true. Shadowrun had it quite the other way around, with only 3 years between SR1 and 2, and now 8 years between 4 and 5. Exalted has had 5 years between 1 and 2, and now 8 years between 2 and 3 (being optimistic about Ex3 getting done this year...)

Vampire? 2nd Ed came out less than 2 years after 1st, and then it was 6 years until Revised (over a decade until V20 if you want to count that...)

GURPS went through 3 editions within 3 years of its release, then over a decade until GURPS4 which is now a decade old as well.

Same in foreign markets, german DSA has had successively longer periods between editions with its 5th one coming out this year.

If anything, it's the other way round, the majority of RPGs I can think of is having longer and longer edition lifetimes, with the only exceptions being cases where a new edition bombs hard or publishers getting into financial trouble.

I suppose I was thinking of other kinds of games rather than just RPGs. Looks like D&D is the odd man out.

[1337 b4k4]

I don't really agree with this saying, but in this case it fits. And it's not really about math, I think. What's needed for bounded accuracy to work in a game that allows for a wide range of competence are abilities which grant advantage (in the general sense, not the actual mechanic) without relying on numerical bonuses. We haven't seen much of that in the playtest documents and blogs.

It also needs more than binary pass fail. Not to continue harping on Dungeon World here, but it works for an example. DW's mechanic is 2d6 + ATR with <=6 being a negative outcome (but not necessarily failure), 7-9 being a neutral outcome (usually you get what you want, but at a price) and >= 10 being a complete success, you're max possible bonus is +3 with an 18 attribute. That means even with a max attribute, you're still only getting everything you want a mere 60% of the time, and you're still having a negative outcome 8% of the time. The difference is, DW doesn't encourage binary pass fail. Even in the play examples on a 6-, they have examples of where you still get what you want, but things have gotten much worse (like a monster that didn't exist in the DMs original plan is there is now, so for example, you pick the lock to the king's bedchambers, and where as before it was going to be empty, now the king's trusty hounds are sleeping soundly just inside the door ... what do you do?)

Unfortunately, for something like this to work in D&D you need one of two things:

A chart of results for every skill, or at the least a description in each skill as to where the non binary options should fall

or

A whole lot more trust in your DM than some players appear willing to have

D&D Next appears to be banking on option 2, but sadly do not (in the playtest) have much in the way of encouraging non binary results. The end result is that many people are uncomfortable with how bounded accuracy is going to play out.


I suppose I was thinking of other kinds of games rather than just RPGs. Looks like D&D is the odd man out.

It's worth noting that D&D has been on a sort of bell curve for edition frequency. I mean, sure we talk about 1e and 2e and their long terms, but basic D&D was a constantly changing creature 74, 77, 81, 83 and depending on your opinion of RC vs BECMI, 91.

[Talderas]

Unfortunately, for something like this to work in D&D you need one of two things:

A chart of results for every skill, or at the least a description in each skill as to where the non binary options should fall

or

A whole lot more trust in your DM than some players appear willing to have

D&D Next appears to be banking on option 2, but sadly do not (in the playtest) have much in the way of encouraging non binary results. The end result is that many people are uncomfortable with how bounded accuracy is going to play out.

That's kind of interesting, as a statement on D&D players, because other systems do use non-binary outcomes and rely on #2 to resolve them. 4th Edition Shadowrun, for instance, had at least five outcomes with the potential for two other outcomes (Critical Glitch, Faliure, Glitch, Success, Critical Succes). However the effects of each of those is almost entirely left to the GM.

[Morty]

It also needs more than binary pass fail. Not to continue harping on Dungeon World here, but it works for an example. DW's mechanic is 2d6 + ATR with <=6 being a negative outcome (but not necessarily failure), 7-9 being a neutral outcome (usually you get what you want, but at a price) and >= 10 being a complete success, you're max possible bonus is +3 with an 18 attribute. That means even with a max attribute, you're still only getting everything you want a mere 60% of the time, and you're still having a negative outcome 8% of the time. The difference is, DW doesn't encourage binary pass fail. Even in the play examples on a 6-, they have examples of where you still get what you want, but things have gotten much worse (like a monster that didn't exist in the DMs original plan is there is now, so for example, you pick the lock to the king's bedchambers, and where as before it was going to be empty, now the king's trusty hounds are sleeping soundly just inside the door ... what do you do?)

Unfortunately, for something like this to work in D&D you need one of two things:

A chart of results for every skill, or at the least a description in each skill as to where the non binary options should fall

or

A whole lot more trust in your DM than some players appear willing to have

D&D Next appears to be banking on option 2, but sadly do not (in the playtest) have much in the way of encouraging non binary results. The end result is that many people are uncomfortable with how bounded accuracy is going to play out.


Oh yeah, I definitely agree. d20's swinginess calls for non-binary results and degrees of success and failure, and bounded accuracy makes it even more useful.

[SiuiS]

I don't really agree with this saying, but in this case it fits. And it's not really about math, I think. What's needed for bounded accuracy to work in a game that allows for a wide range of competence are abilities which grant advantage (in the general sense, not the actual mechanic) without relying on numerical bonuses. We haven't seen much of that in the playtest documents and blogs.

I would think that, technically speaking, something like "does math apply" is still a rule about math. But yes, simply tweaking numbers will not fix anything.

[neonchameleon]

They seem very different to me.

I mean take Emperor Tippy. forum celebrity, knows 3.5 rules real well, hashes out an entire world based on a strict RAW interpretation of everything, creates something that is considered (by lots of people that aren't me, cause I myself don't like that sort of thing) as something valuable and such and so on. y'know, makes this strange universe where powerful archmages rule everything with Wish and circle of teleportation.

now put him in Vampire. I doubt he would do so well in that fandom. I mean sure, there are optimizers in other games, but no other game possesses the optimization culture to the degree that DnD does.

This culture being so strong for what it's worth isn't D&D. It's D&D 3.0 and 3.5 - not even Pathfinder. But even then it's very hardcore fans only. And Emperor Tippy is so far as I know not even heard of anywhere outside the Giant in the Playground forums. Hell, Frank Trollman (who's done much the same thing with his "Tome of Awesome" and the Wish economy) is more widely known. And people have been playing this sort of game since early 3.0 when someone took a look in the DMG and what you could buy from settlements of a given size and asked "How many chickens in Greyhawk?"


no other game has it in such great quantities, to the point where creating a world that in any normal game, would be considered breaking the entire game and how its supposed to work and have it be celebrated. I cannot stress enough how different that is from other RPG's.

Oh please! I've seen far more atypical worlds in GURPS or Fate and no one has complained. You put your finger on one reason D&D is weird, but miss what's underlying it. That reason is most games are designed either for only one world or to be generic. You don't do world building in Vampire. You play in the World of Darkness. You do do world building in GURPS or Fate - but the object in both is to get the rules to match the world rather than force the world to follow the rules. As far as I know only D&D 3.X and a collection of Fantasy Heartbreakers claim to both be role playing games and rules for how the world works, rather than descriptions of it.


lets look at the moral side of things. In DnD, vampire is always some form of evil, in Vampire it never actually says your evil, it says whether or not you still have enough humanity, and its up to you to determine whether or not your evil because of it, sure you may say they are both moral systems, but one is meant to be an objective standard on how everyone is judged, while the other is intended to be more subjective and provoke conflicts about the moral ambiguity of what your doing, even Nwod's Morality Trait is measuring the moral standards of modern society and how much you are willing to cling to it than any actual objective morality of everything.

Hint: People have been playing Vampires in D&D ever since Sir Fang in about 1972. Vampire as a class predates the Cleric (the very first cleric being based on Van Helsing and brought into the game as a homebrew because Sir Fang was getting too powerful). So although the books may claim vampires are evil (and murderhobos aren't), players have been ignoring that in D&D throughout.

As for WoD? You're claiming it's pure shades of grey morality? And nothing like the Nephandi or the Black Spiral Dancers is on a "shoot on sight" list?


or heck, just the fact that DnD is about choosing Race/Class/Alignment, and that Vampire is about choosing Clan/Covenant/Disciplines is indicative of how different they are,

Was that statement meant to be ironic?


a Vampire player is only playing a vampire in a society of vampires, secret and full of politics. sure they can be murderhobos in it, but...the effects of doing so are going to be different than how it goes down in DnD,

Vampire has Sabbat and Anarch campaigns, D&D has Birthright and political campaigns. For that matter I've heard that the plans for Vampire involved playing as Anarchs rather than part of the Camarilla and that's why they were only scetched out.


where being murderhobo is the accepted, expected gig the populace expects of adventurers, whereas Vampire has a society and that society has rules and won't tolerate those players doing those things

I've yet to see a game of D&D that tolerated the populace murderhoboing inside city limits unless you were on a commission (normally to the sewers). Or a game of Vampire where if you walked into a Sabbat base you didn't murderhobo. Neither of these involves ignoring the setting. Both games have places where you're within the law and places where you're outside it, and you behave differently. The only difference is that a greater proportion of the average D&D game happens in the wilderness or down dungeons and therefore in the areas marked as outside the law.


Sir? Sir? Sir? I'm talking about day and night on Earth. You seem to be talking about Pluto. While I acknowledge your right that the planet Pluto is far more different than both Day and Night on Earth, pluto is not relevant to talking about how Day and Night are different on Earth. again, please stop with the zoom out fallacy, because I'm trying to talk about how day and night are different, while your busy saying "no they're not, they're the same compared to the rest of the Solar system" and its freaking annoying because the rest of the Solar system has nothing to do with how day and night are different on Earth! Which is what I am talking about!

You aren't talking about night and day on earth. You are talking about night and day in an underground bunker somewhere in Nebraska. Now I accept that if you were only used to an underground bunker somewhere in Nebraska you might mistake that for the planet earth. But that and the position of the lightswitch doesn't make it so.

You aren't even talking about differences between roleplayers of the two systems. You are talking about the differences between the self-images of hardcore fans.

And then you get odd cases like me. I play D&D because I enjoy it. I almost never play Vampire because if you use the rules the experience is almost exactly that of badly played D&D with a slightly different coat of paint. The rules do not lead to the experience they claim. I like the experience promised by Vampire - but if I want it delivered I'm going to break out Monsterhearts, Fate, or especially My Life With Master for the gothic horror fall arc.

[neonchameleon]

That's kind of interesting, as a statement on D&D players, because other systems do use non-binary outcomes and rely on #2 to resolve them. 4th Edition Shadowrun, for instance, had at least five outcomes with the potential for two other outcomes (Critical Glitch, Faliure, Glitch, Success, Critical Succes). However the effects of each of those is almost entirely left to the GM.

Interestingly, a lot of modern systems also use non-binary systems and don't rely on the DM most of the time. Or at least constrain them or give most of the options to the players. Star Wars: Edge of Empire. WFRP 3e. Leverage. Anything Powered by the Apocalypse (Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Monsterhearts, Monster of the Week, etc.)

[SiuiS]

D&D has a very strong DM and Rules fiat thing going, yeah. Very much a mother may I system. It's actually a shock for most players to realize that they don't ask the DM if there is a stump to tie a rope to, they just declare they are tying a rope to a stump and it's fine.


Also, folks, we've already cleared up what he meant, do we really need to nitpick how it was said and whether it offends our sensibilities or whether we can make a technically correct refutation?

[Knaight]

systems, I'm not talking about systems, I'm talking about roleplaying. not some weird abstract systems.

urban horror is very different from medieval fantasy. Exalted is closer, A Song of Ice and Fire is closer to DnD than Vampire, Anima Beyond Fantasy is closer, heck, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying is closer, there are tons of things that compete with DnD for its niche, but Vampire is not one of them.

I mean, I've actually talked to Vampire players? they don't see Vampire as similar to DnD. you try to apply the logic of DnD to Vampire and they will say your missing the point and being a combat-player, and if you try to apply the logic of Vampire to DnD your going to get groans for being a thespian roleplayer. the roleplaying styles of the two games are not compatible. and I'd hesitate to even call the games you just listed as roleplaying, as I'm also a writer, and I can tell you: writing and roleplaying are not the same.

Both of those games involve playing roles, and interacting with other players who are also playing rolls. They are both just highly dialog focused, and Microscope has an outside structure around the playing of roles different than that of other role playing games. Calling Fiasco a writing game is completely ridiculous, as every single scene it has is a quick bit of role playing between two people.

As for having actually talked to Vampire players, I've played Vampire. I've also played Werewolf. Both of them are roughly equivalent to D&D in my personal list of preferred RPGs (which isn't actually that high). Sure, the genre is different if you look entirely at the literary genre, but mechanics do matter here. I somehow doubt that most of the D&D fanbase (or the Vampire fanbase, for that matter) would be all that enthused by a free form game in the same literary genre. On the other hand, we have things like the ORE system. It powers two superhero games, one horror game, one political fantasy game, one modern heist/comedy of errors game, and whatever the heck Monsters and Other Childish Things is. There's significant overlap in the fan bases here, because the mechanics are similar, despite dramatic changes to the themes of the game and even how they play - Nemesis is one of those games that will end with a bunch of characters dead, insane, or living the rest of their lives as hollow, unfeeling husks. They'll go down fighting, sure, but they'll go down. REIGN is a game that could end with them as high and powerful leaders of an infant kingdom they founded, with one of them as an actual king. But because of the mechanics, these games share player bases.

The Vampire players I've met who consider Vampire and D&D dramatically different usually have a few things in common. Most of them have only played WoD and D&D. Most of the rest have played WoD, D&D, GURPS, Traveller, and other such very traditional systems. People I've met who have actually played Shock: Social Science Fiction, or Freemarket, or Fiasco, or Microscope, or even freaking Paranoia consider the two games similar. It's almost like the same people are capable of playing multiple different games multiple different ways, and thus creating a lot more competition than you seem to think exists.

[Morty]

D&D has a very strong DM and Rules fiat thing going, yeah. Very much a mother may I system. It's actually a shock for most players to realize that they don't ask the DM if there is a stump to tie a rope to, they just declare they are tying a rope to a stump and it's fine.


Except when magic is involved, of course. If it is, you just expend your magic juice and things happen.

[obryn]

Oh yeah, for all its vaunted claims and the system's name - both born in the 90's, when they weren't totally inaccurate - "Storyteller" is an extremely "trad" game. It tries to run game-as-simulation much the same way most other 90's games did, has a boatload of crunchy mechanics, and for all its claims otherwise, an astonishingly large portion of its rules are about how vampires kill things.


Except when magic is involved, of course. If it is, you just expend your magic juice and things happen.
Ahhh, magic. Fiat tokens in spellbook form, giving some classes the capability to make declarations about the game world and keeping it away from others. That's the D&D "real feels" right there, man.

[Felhammer]

That's kind of interesting, as a statement on D&D players, because other systems do use non-binary outcomes and rely on #2 to resolve them. 4th Edition Shadowrun, for instance, had at least five outcomes with the potential for two other outcomes (Critical Glitch, Faliure, Glitch, Success, Critical Succes). However the effects of each of those is almost entirely left to the GM.

Star Wars: Edge of the Empire is similar in that it uses non-numerical dice to determine the gradient of success or failure and the peripheral happenings of the action. The system is much more exhilarating (IMO) than the binary nature of D&D's yes/no system.

[Lord Raziere]

Both of those games involve playing roles, and interacting with other players who are also playing rolls. They are both just highly dialog focused, and Microscope has an outside structure around the playing of roles different than that of other role playing games. Calling Fiasco a writing game is completely ridiculous, as every single scene it has is a quick bit of role playing between two people.

As for having actually talked to Vampire players, I've played Vampire. I've also played Werewolf. Both of them are roughly equivalent to D&D in my personal list of preferred RPGs (which isn't actually that high). Sure, the genre is different if you look entirely at the literary genre, but mechanics do matter here. I somehow doubt that most of the D&D fanbase (or the Vampire fanbase, for that matter) would be all that enthused by a free form game in the same literary genre. On the other hand, we have things like the ORE system. It powers two superhero games, one horror game, one political fantasy game, one modern heist/comedy of errors game, and whatever the heck Monsters and Other Childish Things is. There's significant overlap in the fan bases here, because the mechanics are similar, despite dramatic changes to the themes of the game and even how they play - Nemesis is one of those games that will end with a bunch of characters dead, insane, or living the rest of their lives as hollow, unfeeling husks. They'll go down fighting, sure, but they'll go down. REIGN is a game that could end with them as high and powerful leaders of an infant kingdom they founded, with one of them as an actual king. But because of the mechanics, these games share player bases.

The Vampire players I've met who consider Vampire and D&D dramatically different usually have a few things in common. Most of them have only played WoD and D&D. Most of the rest have played WoD, D&D, GURPS, Traveller, and other such very traditional systems. People I've met who have actually played Shock: Social Science Fiction, or Freemarket, or Fiasco, or Microscope, or even freaking Paranoia consider the two games similar. It's almost like the same people are capable of playing multiple different games multiple different ways, and thus creating a lot more competition than you seem to think exists.

Dude, I play mostly freeform stuff, if anything I come from farther out than Pluto, rules wise.

your ignoring the trees for the forest. whatever indie systems that make you think they are similar, are only widening your viewpoint, putting them under a bigger lens that makes finer details smaller and inaccurate to your point of view, when you need to acknowledge that all systems are very different from one another, your just coming from the viewpoint of the most wildly different ones yet, and judging things made from a different era on your standards.

they are not similar because of abstract rules nonsense that is universal to any rpg except the ones that deliberately decide to be different for the sake of being different, because I really do not see why I would actually play anything you list.

to you, maybe its similar, but to me, a freeformer who has lots of rpg books, they don't look similar to me and I use even less rules than you so.....something is strange there.

that and I don't particularly care for hipster creep kind of stuff like this, because the edge is always growing and expanding while things that used to be the edge gets absorbed into the mainstream, and what used to be considered different and new becomes old and samey to the edge, or the hipsters who explore the edge. when really, they never became more samey, they were always different, its just that after a while, people wanted something even MORE different and so gone farther out than people previously explored, then looked back and erroneously think its the same because of a new perspective.

your not realizing that they were always the same, your looking back at things from a distance while exploring a new frontier that makes them seem the same, while being too lazy to explore them deeper and really delve into all their details and figure out HOW they different, rather than just putting them under an umbrella and dismissing them as the same because you the new thing says they are.

why I bet someday that some guy will say to you how all those systems are all the same as DnD compared to their new system and you'll feel just the same as I do now. more difference does not make other different things more the same. :smallsigh:

[Lokiare]

What I find funny about the "science"

they used is that despite the original paper listing 8 types of

fun, it actually give examples that include 9 types of fun. Hard

science this is not.

It isn't science, it is game design theory. There is no testing of

it, no proving anything, it is only a hypothesis. Based on

experience and logic, sure, but that doesn't fly in science.



Actually, you would be right, except its widely adopted and appears

to WORK. Its as scientific as newtons gravity theories, where they

are generally correct, but could be more accurate. In other words

its fit for the purpose of these discussions as a tested scientific

theory, kind of like the theory of evolution, not proven or

provable, but accepted as science by many scientists. If evolution

is science then the original paper which puts forth a theory of fun

is science, until someone actually proves it wrong.


What is your analysis regarding the levels of "fun" provided

in each of the... 21 spheres (not 8 at this point, based on updates

to the theory) and each edition of DnD that is getting you your

predictions? How many replicates of players for each edition do

you have, over what time frames? What is the correlation between

these replicates and how they interact with the success of each

version? How are you controlling for market saturation of other

products?

When others expanded on the 8 what they really did is just make

sub-categories that fall under the 8. They clarified a bit, but

didn't actually change the theory.


No; you're not setting up an argument there.

You're assembling disparate facts (and some outright wrong stuff!)

and claiming causal, predictive relationships.

Yes, when multiple facts coincide you can make a prediction based

on those facts. Especially if those facts are repeated multiple

times such as the multiple editions getting shorter and shorter

each time. That's 4 facts that line up providing the ability to

estimate the lifetime of the next edition. However that prediction

is my opinion and isn't completely accurate. However it lines up

with the facts.


Oh

really. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire:_The_Masquerade)

This was already answered. They are different kinds of fun. Having

only played V:tM once, I would guess the fun is mainly Expression

and Narrative, where early D&D is more Fantasy and Discovery.

Meaning they didn't really compete as they were at cross purposes

to each other, they simply attracted different players.


3E, 3.5, and 4e were supposed to

completely flop too.

I'll pass on the pseudoscience.

Except by modern metrics (see the theory of evolution and germ

theory) they are science. As long as you put a theory out there and

it doesn't get proven false by a test of some kind, then its

considered science.


Though I agree the game will only last for 2-3 years, not

because of some armchair designer's nonsensical ramblings about

"types of fun" but because of Hasbro's business policies.

I completely agree with the business policies part. There will

either be a new edition in 2-3 years or they will lay the D&D

department off and call 5E the 'eternal D&D' and never print

another supplement or product for 5-10 years.


No no, none of that. If you're going to

present your opinion as science, you need to show your work in a

concrete manner. The only difference between your opinion and his?

You posted an article which was an opinion of a different article

that was an MDA paper. That's not science: that's someone said

someone said something, I agree, so I'm right.

See above. By all modern metrics a theory that's been tested (in

the market) and not been disproven is science now.


That isn't logic. Please stop being glib and actually

discuss stuff. Claiming a logical progression does not and CAN NOT

grant you some form of authority or respectability in this

context. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?

t=331213) Logic means it follows a progression. Clear and

accurate logic can and frequently does produce wrong, incorrect and

or misleading results.

So 4 related facts that follow each other and a scientific theory

that isn't contradicted by those facts (or contradicted at all as

far as I can tell) is not a logical progression? Hrm... maybe you

need to review what logic is. Here let me help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic


Science and Logic are not weapons to wield against people.

They are not badges of authority. They are accepted frameworks for

transmission of accurate data and frankly your trying ride their

coat tails rather than being clear, open and relying on the merits

of your argument is diminishing the value of both as institutions.

Knock it off.

Logic is a weapon to wield against arguments that are not sound to

break them apart and allow the furthering of discussion. I have not

used logic (or any posts really) to attack an individual, only a

faulty position. I don't claim any authority except that which is

logic itself which can be used by anyone to further a discussion.

In fact if you and others used a little more logic in the

discussion you might prove me wrong, however if you keep using

emotional arguments you'll simply mire the discussion further. I'm

not unreasonable. I do change my mind, however I only change my

mind if facts, numbers, or quotes are provided. I don't change my

mind when people use arguments like "You're wrong because I'm

having an emotion." which is what most of the counterarguments to

my posts amount to. Frankly your emotional response which amounts

to "stop using logic to prove us wrong because it makes me mad and

not like logic" is more amusing than convincing.


Your data is inaccurate. It leaves out two important facts:

one, dungeons and dragons ran concurrent with advanced dugeons and

dragons, was it's own competition and had many other games out

there besides. Two, the cut off points might be print, but not

play, and not purchase. People are still clamouring for

these games and books; 1e was rereleased recently to acclaim. 2e is

frequently sold via digital medium. 3e is still the most popular

version if only by lieu of both breadth and length. A company's

decision spurred by backwards goals != success of a system on user

end.

Yes, it ran concurrent. You can count those edition cycles too and

come up with similar diminishing returns on the time frame as well.

Since we are talking about when a business stops producing new

content for an edition. I think its valid to look at their past

printing of new content for an edition. In context it makes perfect

sense.


There is no warlock spell list.

No warlock spell list has been written. You cannot make claims

about the spells on a list that does not exist.

There have been articles that say all the casters will use spells

from the same lists and they've said warlocks will get spells (as

opposed to invocations). So I'm just inferring what is reasonable

from the articles. I could be completely wrong, but based on the

facts my assumptions are reasonable.


Actually, it advertises to a broad

spectrum of people because many channels post videos about D&D but

are otherwise centrally focused on something else (Wargaming, Nerd

stuff, Board games, Video Games, etc.).

There is a great diversity of games presented online, just as in

real life. Some games are funny, others raunchy still others combat

intensive. Salt to taste. You may not like x playstyle but there

are people who will disagree with you.

A point you made earlier was about advertising on Prime Time TV.

That is a useless waste of money as the majority of people watching

prime time TV would never in a million years be tempted to play an

RPG. Successful advertisers know where to put there money. In this

case, it happens to be blogs and webcomics.

I disagree, but at least you are making fact filled arguments. I

think TV advertising (and movie trailer in the theater advertising)

would work too. There are many people that simply don't know that

D&D exists as anything other than a video game, no matter how far

spread it is.


The guys over at Penny Arcade make the most successful

webcomic in the industry. They have spent a decade cultivating a

community of like minded nerds. When they post a link in their blog

post, it can actually crash the linked in website due to the sudden

volume of traffic.

Yes, the key words are "like minded" meaning they have already been

exposed to the RPG nerd culture. We want to get a whole new

demographic not continue to saturate the existing demographic. What

if we pulled in middle aged women like video games did? That would

double the profits for RPGS. I'm saying they should aim at another

demographic that doesn't currently know about TTRPGs.


If you have your heart set on prime time TV, then a better

use of your money would be product placement, or better yet,

actually getting characters in a show to play an RPG. They have

done it in Big Bang a few times and then there's that classic

episode of Dexter's Lab. Sadly, that kind of product

placement/advertising is too expensive and/or rare to rely on.



Yes, and TV advertising is most effective when it is advertising a

product that the watcher has never seen before or was unaware of.

Ads for coke and pepsi are money wasters because everyone already

knows about them and has formed their opinions. However the first

commerical space flights will be money well spent.


Actually it does matter, quite a bit actually. The hobby has

always had a minority of players who purchase little if anything.

The fact that they play bulks up group size and thus sustains the

group through the long haul. Even a kid who fills a seat is helping

to perpetuate the hobby, and thus giving those who do purchase

books a reason to continue to do so. Without groups, why bother

buying products?

I can see the logic in that so it does matter, but does it matter

more than the people that buy most of the stuff? So does it matter

half as much though? That's a question for WotC bean counters.


I believe you mean "silent majority", not vocal minority. We

here posting in this thread are the vocal minority. :)

Its both and it doesn't matter. You can't prove either way that we

are or aren't representative of the masses. its likely that at

times we are representative and at times we aren't. Its one of

those faulty correlation things.


Essentials did not fail. It was quite successful. The issue

was that it wasn't successful enough (like 4E in general).

Essentials was a last minute patch made to salvage the edition

before Hasbro's bean counters came down and demanded a new

edition.

I agree that both 4E and Essentials were relatively successful and

that the main sales goals are what tanked 4E, but Essentials was

not as successful as 4E. Pre-Essentials lasted a good 2+ years,

then Essentials came out and was on the decline after less than a

year. Its likely that 4E fans rushed out and grabbed the Essentials

starter books and then realized they didn't like it and didn't

purchase future books.


With an RPG, everything comes down to the DM. If s/he is

terrible, the experience will be terrible regardless of what you

are playing. Conversely, if the DM is amazing, s/he can turn a turd

of a game into one of the most amazing experiences you've ever

had.

A DM can make or break a game if they are exceptionally bad or

exceptionally good, but there are quite a few middle of the road

DMs that the system makes or breaks the experience. While its true

DMs can cram the different types of fun into any game (like a 1E

game using TotM instead of the suggested minis giving the game less

of a Sensation feel and more of a Narrative feel), the game itself

is geared toward certain types of fun. Early editions were geared

toward one kind of fun while 3E and 4E were geared toward different

types of fun. Its not a zero sum game, but a 'Is it worth fighting

the system to get my kind of fun' and for a lot of people the

answer is usually 'no' because there are other things out there

that provide the kind of fun we look for, and sometimes they are

easier to use.


Magic has its own system of defining players' preferences

and playstyles. You should read into it, since you like scientific

(-ish) categorizations.

(Article (https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?

x=mtgcom/daily/mr258)1,

Article 2 (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?

x=mtgcom/daily/mr278)).

Yes, but has it been tested in other industries and found to be

successful and accurate like the 8 kinds of fun article (the one

the linked author quotes)? If so I'll take a look, but its likely

to be very MtG specific if it hasn't.


There are other reasons for Paizo's success as well that

don't go with your list of 8. WotC basically backed out of the

"Living" Campaigns right around that time, which was just when

Paizo was pushing their Society. What WotC failed to realize is

that the market had shifted under 3.x's tenure away from the

grognards of old and towards a more casual fanbase. Casuals prefer

to maximize fun and minimize work, which means pre-made adventures

are very meaningful and important for them. One of the tenants for

the creation of the OGL was so that WotC could farm the low-selling

adventure making business off on other companies, so WotC could

instead focus on high profit supplements.

Actually that's the Fellowship kind of fun and the Submission kind

of fun (casuals=Submission and events=Fellowship)


Beyond that, WotC's own subscription based digital tools

likely messed with their sales as a significant portion of the

fan-base askew-ed most books and instead focused on digital

content. This is both a benefit and a deficit. WotC brings in a

very consistent and reliable revenue stream but at the same time

looses out on sales of real products, which causes their numbers to

appear deflated.

We don't know if WotC counted that in with the IcV reports or not.

If they didn't they likely dominated the market.


Some may say Paizo does the same thing but I would argue

that they are two different situations since WotC focuses on,

essentially, spamming the market with supplements and charges for

their digital access. This makes people disinclined to buy lots of

IRL stuff since a) they will not be able to keep up and b) they are

already giving WotC money. Paizo on the other hand releases less

than a handful of supplements a year and (is forced to) give all

the rules away for free. Most people want to own books and can

afford Paizo's since there are less of them and they are not

handing Paizo money already for access. To boil the point down,

their differing business models push consumers to behave

differently.

That falls into the difference between Challenge and Narrative.

Paizo chose the Narrative path and WotC chose the Challenge path.


Back to the point at hand, it is very difficult to claim

Paizo is hitting your list of 8 better than 4E because there are so

many other variables that go into the success of failure of an

RPG.

Paizo is not hitting all 8. They are hitting 2-3 very well while

WotC with 4E are hitting a different set of 2-3 very well. Two

different markets essentially. Now WotC is trying to go after the

same 2-3 as Paizo while abandoning the 2-3 they used to go after

with 4E.


Compared to 3.5e, 5e is greatly simplifier

and easy to pick up. It's also the simplest ruleset I've looked at

for a RPG system that isn't freeform so they're definitely heading

in the right direction for that. For comparison, I would say that

the 5e ruleset from the playtest packet was about as complex in

totality as the hacking/technomancer rules from Shadowrun 4e.



Its not actually hardly any simpler than 3.5E. Its only simpler in

that most of the complexity has been pushed back to prep time

rather than play time, but they still have all the complexity of

spells and powers unless you play very specific sub-classes. So it

ranges from 80% as complex as 3E to 95% as complex. Opposed to a

mid range board game being 25% as complex as 3E.


I didn't say it decreases challenge. I said it decreases

challenge opportunities and that is an entirely true statement.

When options are inherently weaker, which is a sign that a system

is providing players with choice, then there is challenge

opportunities created. It's not challenge based on a random factor.

It's challenge based on a known inherently weaker option.

Actually it increases the challenge opportunities by making more choices available to overcome any given obstacle and it removes the 'lesser' choice which really isn't a Challenge choice, its more of an Expression choice. Challenge choices are balanced in that they are equally useful. I wouldn't call ivory tower design part of the Challenge fun type. Its more of the Expression fun type.

Anytime you don't have a choice and your character can die or the game can end based on a random die roll that you have little or no input into, it stops being a Challenge and moves toward being a Narrative(story) or Fantasy(consistent world) fun type.


I know this is just one of MANY posts in this

same vein, but I was responding to Lokiare's outright wrong claim

that D&D has never faced actual competition until now.

Am I honestly the only one who remembers White Wolf's domination of

the RPG world in the 90's? It bled gamers from the nearly-

monolithic AD&D 2e for the better part of a decade. There were

smaller companies that also competed - FASA was a very close third,

with Earthdawn, Battletech, and Shadowrun all being extremely

popular. I know my own group abandoned AD&D for Earthdawn back in

the day.

This has been addressed, but I will say TSR stopped putting out products around that time and started suing people so fans ran away for other reasons. I'm not counting the years when there were no new products available. That's not really competition.


And if it wasn't Vampire doing the bleeding (har!), it was Magic:

The Gathering, which was frequently considered to be the death

knell for D&D back then, as groups all over split up and started

playing cards instead. Very different kind of game, but similar

population of players.

I'm not talking about today - yes, Vampire players aren't all D&D

players. 25 years ago, however, they were ... until they became

Vampire players. :smallsmile:

Again, different fun types combined with anecdotal evidence. Nothing factual here.


This is a bit glib. There are situations where going outside the

RNG's range are good - like areas of total competence or total

incompetence.

However, not all situations are best handled through ignoring the

RNG. In fact, I'd say that if your modifiers and target numbers are

usually so far off the RNG that the die's range is no longer

relevant, that's a sign of a mechanic that just doesn't

work.

If you take combat, the d20 itself is fairly swingy. What's not

swingy are hit points and damage rolls. Even if the mechanic were a

straight up unmodified coin flip for attacks, hit points and damage

rolls would remain relevant for combat resolution. In this specific

context, it makes perfectly good sense to keep the d20 modifiers

and target numbers closely bounded.

This falls under the category of different fun types too. If you enjoy consistent worlds or a good story then you like when the dice determine your fate rather than your actions. When a medusa gazes at your character they turn to stone, that's just consistency with mythology. For those that like a winnable challenge that is based on action, a medusa that gives you two saving throws which can be affected by you or your allies is a much better representative for the game.

So they would need to come up with alternate mechanics that allow for swingy and non-swingy mechanics like allowing as an option all character to add their con score to their hp at first level or having alternate definitions for gaze attacks where one is a coin flip and the other is a progression.


It's everything else that gets hairy, like non-combat action

resolution. I think it was, what, DC 25 to climb a slippery rope?

Making it nearly impossible even for highly-trained rogues and

rangers? That's where bounded accuracy breaks down - places

of total competence or incompetence.

There was a joke going around at one point that went something like this:

After the defeat of asmodeus demon prince of hades the level 20 party stops for a rest:
"I'm glad that we didn't run into any metal doors that were locked or slippery ropes or the world would have ended."


Actually, the number of players does

matter. It's a supply and demand problem. Any particular table can

only support so many players. The more players the more demand for

GMs. The more demand for GMs, the more GMs there will be, the more

books will be sold.

I already conceded that this matters above.


As has been pointed out, you're conflating production runs with

success of the game. For example, 3e actually has continued to be

successful for 14 years, as Pathfinder is 3e, just under a

different publisher.

No, actually I addressed this above too. I was talking about WotC continuing to support the edition. With the OGL 3E will always get support. 4E and 5E won't fare this well as they will have specific GSL like documents that can be pulled at a moments notice and don't allow a lot of the game to be copied.


And it turns out, D&D does pretty much that. Seriously, even people

outside the hobby know what D&D is. It is the gateway drug and most

players at least START with D&D if not play it with some

regularity. D&D is the RPG most people play.

Outside of the TTRPG demographic hardly anyone has heard of D&D and those that have think its a video game or a movie. It is the most well known TTRPG to the TTRPG fan base. It is the most likely game someone will pick up, but it is not so well known that you can ask random people on the street what it is and get a general consensus that its a TTRPG.


Again, you are incorrectly limiting "Challenge" to mechanics

manipulation.

Again, I'm just going by the definition given in the articles I linked. I'm not talking about the dictionary definition. I'm talking about the idea that the game is fair and allows for a chance to 'win' against obstacles that come into play through player choice.


So despite your statement just a moment ago that D&D should try to

do "all the funs", by your own analysis, doing "all the funs" has

been a bad move for D&D as when they shifted 4e to include more

types of fun, they started losing their customer base?

You need to re-read my posts. I said early editions before 4E did 2-3 types of fun and 4E did 2-3 completely different types of fun, and 5E is trying to do the fun types that paizo has locked down with Pathfinder. Its a losing proposition all around.


A) Only under your (IMHO incorrect) interpretations of those types

of fun
B) Business environment is irrelevant.

The article I linked has several paragraphs for each type of fun, they are very clear. If you go back and read it you would understand that I am using those descriptions rather than a dictionary definition. Let's be clear you aren't arguing against me here. You are arguing against a scientific document that has been tested in multiple industries and held up to scrutiny. Have fun with that.

Business environment is not irrelevant. Many people are starting to take notice of their buying power to make the world a better place and steer companies in their decisions. I personally try to buy things local and made in america to try to stop the economic hemmoraging that's going on here. Many others have similar views. I don't buy products from corporations that do bad things in other countries (like pharmaceutical companies that like to test their products on 3rd world countries where the rules are non-existent). Business environment has everything to do with how many people purchase products.


I realize it wasn't the original authors that incorrectly narrowed

down the definition of challenge fun. That was, as you point out,

the Angry DM and now you. You've both artificially limited the

scope of challenge fun to one type of challenge fun, your type. Or

put another way, as was pointed out earlier, there is much more

than a mere 8 types of fun.

Try reading the original article. You'll find the Angry DM did it justice when applying it to TTRPGs. Its you who are trying to cram a dictionary definition of fun into a scientific analasys that uses the word differently.


A fundamental misunderstanding of the type of game being played and

how the game was played, brought about by a series of stereotypes

and lack of knowledge. I suggest you do some science and start

researching, starting with primary sources (many are still alive

and still take questions). To start you on your path, consider the

idea that in those early games, one challenge was to not roll the

dice at all. In early editions, if you as a player were rolling

dice, it means something was likely to go very badly for you.



I came in at early 2E so I already know what you are talking about. I'm talking about the modern editions that is less reliant on Discovery and Fantasy and more reliant on mechanics and Challenge.

[obryn]

Yes, when multiple facts coincide you can make a prediction based

on those facts. Especially if those facts are repeated multiple

times such as the multiple editions getting shorter and shorter

each time. That's 4 facts that line up providing the ability to

estimate the lifetime of the next edition. However that prediction

is my opinion and isn't completely accurate. However it lines up

with the facts.
No; you need to demonstrate the logical connections and causal relationships between your facts. Correlation is no causation. In the case of shorter editions, I challenge you to come up with three alternate explanations, as an exercise. Call it your homework.


This was already answered. They are different kinds of fun. Having

only played V:tM once, I would guess the fun is mainly Expression

and Narrative, where early D&D is more Fantasy and Discovery.

Meaning they didn't really compete as they were at cross purposes

to each other, they simply attracted different players.
No; this shows your lack of understanding of the very article you're citing. VtM drew players from D&D. So did MtG. So did Earthdawn and other games. They were the same customers.

[1337 b4k4]

Outside of the TTRPG demographic hardly anyone has heard of D&D and those that have think its a video game or a movie. It is the most well known TTRPG to the TTRPG fan base. It is the most likely game someone will pick up, but it is not so well known that you can ask random people on the street what it is and get a general consensus that its a TTRPG.

This is absolutely wrong. D&D is well known as a pop culture item. Go anywhere and tell people that you're going to be getting together a game of Traveller, V:tM, Fiasco or Mouse Guard and most people will look at you like you're nuts. Tell them you're getting together a game of D&D and at the very least they'll have a basic idea of what you're doing. Or to put it another way, GURPS never got a write up in TIME (http://entertainment.time.com/2008/03/05/what_dd_did_for_tv/)



Again, I'm just going by the definition given in the articles I linked. I'm not talking about the dictionary definition. I'm talking about the idea that the game is fair and allows for a chance to 'win' against obstacles that come into play through player choice.

...

The article I linked has several paragraphs for each type of fun, they are very clear. If you go back and read it you would understand that I am using those descriptions rather than a dictionary definition. Let's be clear you aren't arguing against me here. You are arguing against a scientific document that has been tested in multiple industries and held up to scrutiny. Have fun with that.



and



Try reading the original article. You'll find the Angry DM did it justice when applying it to TTRPGs. Its you who are trying to cram a dictionary definition of fun into a scientific analasys that uses the word differently.


Maybe I haven't made this clear, I take no particular issue with how the original paper described challenge fun. My issue is with the fact that the Angry DM and by extension you are both artificially restricting "challenge" fun to one very specific interpretation as applied to D&D. This application is limited and incomplete and therefore wrong as a model to apply to TTRPGs as a whole. It has nothing to do with dictionary definitions or any "scientific analysis" it has to do with your poor application of the term to only a subset of what it describes.



Business environment is not irrelevant. Many people are starting to take notice of their buying power to make the world a better place and steer companies in their decisions. I personally try to buy things local and made in america to try to stop the economic hemmoraging that's going on here. Many others have similar views. I don't buy products from corporations that do bad things in other countries (like pharmaceutical companies that like to test their products on 3rd world countries where the rules are non-existent). Business environment has everything to do with how many people purchase products.

No, it has something to do with some people who buy products, but I assure you for the vast majority of D&D purchasers, how WotC conducts their business is way down the list of criteria, just like it is for the vast majority of consumers. It would take some very egregious things for WotCs business practices to even register for most consumers let alone influence their decisions to purchase D&D. Don't forget, us here, on this forum, we're a minority of a minority of a niche.



I came in at early 2E so I already know what you are talking about. I'm talking about the modern editions that is less reliant on Discovery and Fantasy and more reliant on mechanics and Challenge.

So you came in at the very earliest, 15 years after the games I'm describing. Again, I suggest you engage in some of that science and start checking out the primary sources.

[Lokiare]

No; you need to demonstrate the logical connections and causal relationships between your facts. Correlation is no causation. In the case of shorter editions, I challenge you to come up with three alternate explanations, as an exercise. Call it your homework.

Causal relationships:
1. Same game made by the same companies (2 comapnies over quite a few years employing many of the same people.
2. Same fantasy world with only slight alterations in story structure (4E really changed the cosmology but for a lot of people that just didn't matter or was even apparrent).
3. Same structure of products: phb, MM(or MC), DMG, starter set.

Now you need to demonstrate logical disconnections that would cause a discorrelation or as you put it come up with alternate explanations which you really haven't been able to. Business environment and competition only go to support my conclusion so you'll have to come up with others.


No; this shows your lack of understanding of the very article you're citing. VtM drew players from D&D. So did MtG. So did Earthdawn and other games. They were the same customers.

Actually this shows your lack of understanding of the article because peole have different amounts of favor for different kinds of fun. If there were no game that covered the Expression aspect of fun, but did a half decent job at Narrative then most people that like Expression and Narrative would probably gravitate toward that game. Then when a game came out that actually covered Expression better and also covered Narrative well, those people would switch games. That's even if they drew players from D&D. It could have been something as simple as everyone played D&D to death and wanted something different while D&D was not putting out any books.


This is absolutely wrong. D&D is well known as a pop culture item. Go anywhere and tell people that you're going to be getting together a game of Traveller, V:tM, Fiasco or Mouse Guard and most people will look at you like you're nuts. Tell them you're getting together a game of D&D and at the very least they'll have a basic idea of what you're doing. Or to put it another way, GURPS never got a write up in TIME (http://entertainment.time.com/2008/03/05/what_dd_did_for_tv/)

You are claiming a fact here, can you put up a link that proves it? The fact I think you are trying to claim is that D&D as a TTRPG has a house hold name and understanding of what the game essentially is outside of the TTRPG industry. Please show me some emperical evidence this is so.


Maybe I haven't made this clear, I take no particular issue with how the original paper described challenge fun. My issue is with the fact that the Angry DM and by extension you are both artificially restricting "challenge" fun to one very specific interpretation as applied to D&D. This application is limited and incomplete and therefore wrong as a model to apply to TTRPGs as a whole. It has nothing to do with dictionary definitions or any "scientific analysis" it has to do with your poor application of the term to only a subset of what it describes.

Well how about instead of just saying "you're wrong" you point out how the original article describes it and then point out where the angry DM is wrong so that I can review your facts?


No, it has something to do with some people who buy products, but I assure you for the vast majority of D&D purchasers, how WotC conducts their business is way down the list of criteria, just like it is for the vast majority of consumers. It would take some very egregious things for WotCs business practices to even register for most consumers let alone influence their decisions to purchase D&D. Don't forget, us here, on this forum, we're a minority of a minority of a niche.

First we don't know if we are a minority (we are a minority in that we post on forums) when it comes to opinions on TTRPGs. We don't know if the world at large holds our opinions or not. I wish people would stop using this argument because it amounts to an unverified opinion unless someone does quite a bit of polling outside forums and the internet to get us some actual data, and they would have to do it on every subject we discuss. Its not helpful information to any discussion.

Second many people lay the fall of 4E's profitability (not the overall failure to meet unreasonable sales goals, but the decline in sales over the life of 4E) at the feet of the many things WotC did to alienate their fanbase. Things like insulting 3.5E players and their game, failing to live up to their promises, moving things behind paywalls that were formerly free, bait and switching the offline character builder for an online one, etc... etc...
I personally and many others simply stopped supporting them when they started doing that kind of stuff. Now without some kind of survey on the subject neither of us can know if it contributed to 4E's declining sales. That's a fact.


So you came in at the very earliest, 15 years after the games I'm describing. Again, I suggest you engage in some of that science and start checking out the primary sources.

I did and have. I've read articles, talked to players of that age etc...etc... I've already explained that early D&D was more about Fantasy (consistent living world) and Discovery (unveiling new things) than Challenge (ability to overcome challenges through choices in a realiable way). Unless you have some actual facts to dispute this you are wasting our time.

[1337 b4k4]

Well how about instead of just saying "you're wrong" you point out how the original article describes it and then point out where the angry DM is wrong so that I can review your facts?


This is all I have time for for now, and frankly I'm getting a little tired of your game but here are some "facts"

Fact 1 - Original Article: http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf
Fact 2 - Description of "Challenge" fun in the original article: Game as obstacle course
Fact 3 - Non "mechanics manipulation" examples of "challenge" fun from the original article: "For example, challenge is created by things like time pressure and opponent play."
Fact 4 - General description of challenge from Angry DM which I take little exception to :
"Challenge seekers see the game as a series of obstacles to overcome and foes to be defeated. They want to test themselves and win. If they fail, they want to know the failure was fair and next time they will do better. Just keep in mind that challenge seekers aren’t solely about winning combat. They like overcoming obstacles, they like accomplishing goals, and they like to win. Investigations, puzzles, negotiations, chases, hunts, and obstacles are all valid challenges."
Fact 5: In the next two paragraphs, the Angry DM narrows this definition down to specifically interacting with the dice and mechanics manipulation and further narrows it to "fair" challenges. This is where the angry DM goes off the rails and where it goes wrong.
Fact 6: You agree with the angry DM's limited definition and do not appear to accept other possible definitions. You are as wrong as the Angry DM.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Actually, you would be right, except its widely adopted and appears to WORK. Its as scientific as newtons gravity theories, where they are generally correct, but could be more accurate. In other words its fit for the purpose of these discussions as a tested scientific theory, kind of like the theory of evolution, not proven or provable, but accepted as science by many scientists. If evolution is science then the original paper which puts forth a theory of fun is science, until someone actually proves it wrong.

If you somehow think that an opinion piece on a subjective topic with a narrow scope is as scientific as the entire body of work regarding evolution or gravity then I think we're done here.

[obryn]

Causal relationships:
1. Same game made by the same companies (2 comapnies over quite a few years employing many of the same people.
2. Same fantasy world with only slight alterations in story structure (4E really changed the cosmology but for a lot of people that just didn't matter or was even apparrent).
3. Same structure of products: phb, MM(or MC), DMG, starter set.

Now you need to demonstrate logical disconnections that would cause a discorrelation or as you put it come up with alternate explanations which you really haven't been able to. Business environment and competition only go to support my conclusion so you'll have to come up with others.
lolwut

Yeah, you don't know how logic works or what a causal relationship is. I'm done here.

[Lokiare]

This is all I have time for for now, and frankly I'm getting a little tired of your game but here are some "facts"

Fact 1 - Original Article: http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf
Fact 2 - Description of "Challenge" fun in the original article: Game as obstacle course
Fact 3 - Non "mechanics manipulation" examples of "challenge" fun from the original article: "For example, challenge is created by things like time pressure and opponent play."
Fact 4 - General description of challenge from Angry DM which I take little exception to :
"Challenge seekers see the game as a series of obstacles to overcome and foes to be defeated. They want to test themselves and win. If they fail, they want to know the failure was fair and next time they will do better. Just keep in mind that challenge seekers aren’t solely about winning combat. They like overcoming obstacles, they like accomplishing goals, and they like to win. Investigations, puzzles, negotiations, chases, hunts, and obstacles are all valid challenges."
Fact 5: In the next two paragraphs, the Angry DM narrows this definition down to specifically interacting with the dice and mechanics manipulation and further narrows it to "fair" challenges. This is where the angry DM goes off the rails and where it goes wrong.
Fact 6: You agree with the angry DM's limited definition and do not appear to accept other possible definitions. You are as wrong as the Angry DM.

Ok, now we are communicating! No game by the way. I'm deadly serious (well serious anyway). I agree that Challenge isn't only mechanics, but it still implies an ability to win based on player choice and not random chance. With a DM seemingly randomly choosing whether you win or not based on faulty communication being considered as much random chance as anything else and not relying on a players choices, but rather a DM's interpretation of the world which can seem unfair and arbitrary and not at all consistent between tables. An example would be:

DM- "You see a pulsating wall in front of you, what do you do?"
Player- "I touch it."
DM- Rolls some dice "It absorbs you and crunches your bones, your flesh becomes part of the wall. Make a new character."

Which is a likely outcome of having what some consider a rules lite game. As opposed to having a game where rules rather than the DM determine outcomes:

DM- "You see a pulsating wall in front of you, what do you do?"
Player- "I touch it."
DM- Rolls some dice "The wall tries to grab you and succeeds, it begins to pull you in. Make an attempt to break free."
Player- "I use my fey step to teleport out of the walls reach."

The player overcame the obstacle through choices, they could have attempted to attack the wall, teleport out, pull free, etc...etc... after they touched it.

In the other example it was completely random whether the players choices affected the outcome it might come off as more 'realistic' which just means players that like the Fantasy and possibly the Discovery types of fun will like it, but the Challenge player won't because there was no way to avoid the outcome through choices.

Just so you know Time pressure is a mechanical challenge. Its a challenge (in D&D anyway) to use your resources wisely enough to overcome all the obstacles before time runs out. It is resource management. Opponent play is not really present in D&D since the DM is not out to 'defeat' the players. They are there to help the players have fun. At best you can say the DM simulates opponents of varrying difficulty, but they normally do that through the lense of the rules. So in context to D&D, Challenge is almost entirely based on rules play and how they are used.


If you somehow think that an opinion piece on a subjective topic with a narrow scope is as scientific as the entire body of work regarding evolution or gravity then I think we're done here.

This is a theory that has been applied widely in the entertainment industry with good results. There hasn't been a single thing (to my knowledge) that contradicts it or proves it wrong. It follows all the things that make a good scientific theory. Its actually superior to some theories that have been debunked over and over. PM me for more info. I don't think I can say more on the subject without violating some rules.

The key thing here is that it's been used in practice and worked, and never really failed. If you bow out of the discussion that just means you can't actually refute my arguments. I'm ok with you conceding defeat that way.


lolwut

Yeah, you don't know how logic works or what a causal relationship is. I'm done here.

I'm sorry, let me use simpler words: You should try to provide facts that would counter the facts I've provided in order to strengthen your position.

It seems as though you don't understand logic either. Here's a good primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic from there www.startpage.com is your friend.

While we are at it, lets look at causal relationships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Logic

Start with Sufficient Cause and work your way from there.

Keep in mind that I'm speculating based on available facts and not declaring that 5E will absolutely be 2-3 years.

[Felhammer]

I disagree, but at least you are making fact filled arguments. I

think TV advertising (and movie trailer in the theater advertising)

would work too. There are many people that simply don't know that

D&D exists as anything other than a video game, no matter how far

spread it is.




If advertising like that worked, then WoTC would be advertising Magic: The Gathering constantly.

This kind of argument comes up a lot for Comic Books. Many people see the masses going to Comic Book movies and say Disney & Warner Bros. should give a free comic with each movie ticket. They like the movie, so they are bound to like the comic too, right? It makes sense, right? Apparently, the research that the companies have done essentially says that you would turn a pittance of viewers into Comic Book Readers, not even enough to justify the expenditure.



Yes, the key words are "like minded" meaning they have already been

exposed to the RPG nerd culture. We want to get a whole new

demographic not continue to saturate the existing demographic. What

if we pulled in middle aged women like video games did? That would

double the profits for RPGS. I'm saying they should aim at another

demographic that doesn't currently know about TTRPGs.


Until 2008 when they first started their podcasts, they rarely, if ever, brought up PnP RPGs. One of them had never even played until 2008. The community they created was (and still is) based around video games, not RPGs.

You can try to attract a new demographic but the entire industry would have to change to really cater to the new demographic. Comics have been very successful in courting women recently thanks to their focus on female characters, female creators and female-oriented books. The latter is the key element. Most women aren't that interested in Super Hero stuff but they do have a great interest in other genres, genres that can easily be tapped by comic companies (especially smaller ones who take bigger risks).

I do not want to throw around stereotypes but I think it is safe to assume men are more inclined to like the action-heavy, murder hobo genre than women. Courting a new demographic means fundamentally altering your products to make them more appealing to the newcomers. That's really easy with Comics because you simply make a new comic. You can have things like the Walking Dead, Saga, Lazarus, etc. and still have Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. That is vastly more difficult to pull off with RPG companies like WotC (who focus on a small number of key brands).

One great way of tapping new markets is through licensing. Dark heresy has converted gobs of wargamers into Roleplayers simply by virtue of the RPG being about the thing they already love. WotC's Star Wars license performed admirably in this regard. Perhaps it is time for them to make an RPG based off of one of Hasbro's many properties? Regardless, it is a proven method of at least getting people to toy with the idea of trying RPGs.




Yes, and TV advertising is most effective when it is advertising a

product that the watcher has never seen before or was unaware of.

Ads for coke and pepsi are money wasters because everyone already

knows about them and has formed their opinions. However the first

commerical space flights will be money well spent.




Last year, I got hired at a new job. Most of the employees are middle aged women. When I told them I was a roleplayer, they knew what that was (D&D) and the basics of what was involved with the hobby. You'd be surprised how much good that smear campaign back in the 80's was for allowing D&D to penetrate into the pop culture psyche.




I agree that both 4E and Essentials were relatively successful and

that the main sales goals are what tanked 4E, but Essentials was

not as successful as 4E. Pre-Essentials lasted a good 2+ years,

then Essentials came out and was on the decline after less than a

year. Its likely that 4E fans rushed out and grabbed the Essentials

starter books and then realized they didn't like it and didn't

purchase future books.



To be fair, 3.5 was not as successful as 3.0. People don't like mid-stream reboots, regardless of how good or bad the new products are. As a fan of both pre and post-Essentials, I don't see much of a difference. It was only logical that WotC would break away from the AEDU structure and begind fiddling with the system (like they did with Psionics). What doomed Essentials more than anything was the fact that WotC became increasingly erratic in its behavior and, essentially, put the writing on the wall that the game was going to die.



We don't know if WotC counted that in with the IcV reports or not.

If they didn't they likely dominated the market.


The subscriptions would not have been included in the IcV2 reports as they are services, rather than products.

[Ziegander]

{Scrubbed}

[Ziegander]

{Scrubbed}

[Avilan the Grey]

When I grew up, the RPG pool of players was small. On the other hand when I started playing it was so new in this country it wasn't considered nerdy yet, so the bullies at school didn't realize they were supposed to bully roleplayers.

Anyway, my point is that at least for my generation there are no "DnD Players" and "Vampire Players". We play anything and everything, if we like the setting. I personally don't like Vampire much, but that is becasue I quite frankly were over vampires as a trend in 1997 or so.

Right now we are playing DnD Next, because that is what our present DM likes and knows. I have enjoyed Call of Cthulhu very much. I have also played Vampire, Paranoia, Shadow Run...


The problem with 5e's mechanic is that they just don't work, at their very base. Single roll d20+ability modifier vs static DC is a terrible system if your range of modifiers is tiny compared to the spread of d20. Its basically the same resolution mechanic as a coin flip.

That is terrible for a rules heavy system, which even 5e is. Such a system works for systems more focused on storytelling, because mechanics aside they also provide a lot of setting information. DnD does not.

First of all this is obviously opinion, not fact. Having played 5e for several months now... you are just wrong. The mechanics work VERY well.
And the coinflip comment is just weird.

And second... Not sure what your second paragraph means. It sounds like you don't think DM's in DnD provide setting information for some reason?

[Dienekes]

{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}


I deleted my post, because honestly it isn't my place to reprimand either of you. But I'll respond to this bit with something my dad once told me.

When a kid comes storming in shouting, swearing, and acting like a bitch, an adult is the one who responds calmly, rationally, and doesn't lose their temper. Otherwise, they're just as bad as the brat, and no one learns how to behave.

Also, as a fan of your work in homebrew, and as someone I normally agree with when it comes to game design, I'd hate to see you banned because of this. But if you do, good luck.

[Ziegander]

When a kid comes storming in shouting, swearing, and acting like a bitch, an adult is the one who responds calmly, rationally, and doesn't lose their temper. Otherwise, they're just as bad as the brat, and no one learns how to behave.

Well said. I've edited my post to be a bit less offensive, but I stand by the original idea that he needs to leave the information he continues to link alone and stop posting it here as if it is unassailable cosmic truth. It's not. It's not remotely close.

[Waar]

An example would be:

DM- "You see a pulsating wall in front of you, what do you do?"
Player- "I touch it."
DM- Rolls some dice "It absorbs you and crunches your bones, your flesh becomes part of the wall. Make a new character."

Which is a likely outcome of having what some consider a rules lite game. As opposed to having a game where rules rather than the DM determine outcomes:



That sound like a game "where rules rather than the DM determine outcomes", I have yet to encounter a GM that goes all instant Death on the players (maybe in the my next group :smalltongue:), but I have seen game rules which do

[ThirdEmperor]

Hey, thread that's ostensibly about D&D.

I dropped out of the playtest about the time they got rid of martial dice and haven't really found a good summary of what's happened since. Have fighters gotten any nice things to replace the lost dice? Are backgrounds still entirely caster oriented? Do warlocks have more than one thing they can do now?

Oh, and is Asmodeus still laughably easy to kill?

[Knaight]

Last year, I got hired at a new job. Most of the employees are middle aged women. When I told them I was a roleplayer, they knew what they was (D&D) and the basics of what was involved with the hobby. You'd be surprised how much good that smear campaign back in the 80's for allowing D&D to penetrate into the pop culture psyche.

That smear campaign is far and away the best advertising D&D has ever had.

[SiuiS]

Lokiare, I don't know what happened but I cannot read your first response. The formatting. So strange.

My point was, don't say "this is the answer, it's science". Show your work, don't be arrogant, and don't think that saying 'it's science' or 'it's logical' gives you authority somehow.


Causal relationships:
1. Same game made by the same companies (2 comapnies over quite a few years employing many of the same people.
2. Same fantasy world with only slight alterations in story structure (4E really changed the cosmology but for a lot of people that just didn't matter or was even apparrent).
3. Same structure of products: phb, MM(or MC), DMG, starter set.


1. Demonstratably false through the shift of product even within a single line (3.5, let alone 4.0) as well as through te lay-off cycle.
2. Demonstrate your claim of 'didn't matter/wasn't apparent'; this was a keystone of the new product, as seen from prerelease information and specific marketing direction. Your claim has no basis.
3. That 'same structure' is so abstract as to be useless. This means that legend of the five rings, world of darkness, and rifts all are the same game because they too follow the convention of separated books for general play, antagonists and adjudicators. The claim is ridiculous.

All of your claims fall into this self-same pattern. Either you aren't using the same logic and science you claim others need to 'beat you', in which case you don't have the authority to keep insisting on veracity of your views, or you recognize these faults and are just trying to get others to point them out, in which case you aren't discussing in good faith. Either option is bad, and makes one come off as something of a smeghead. I would recommend a cold review; stop for a few day cycles, come back, and reformat your point so you aren't burdened with the inertia of this argument. But for now, the basic premise that D&D will fail because it doesn't hit enough scientific fun points is pretty well scuttled.

[neonchameleon]

An example would be:

DM- "You see a pulsating wall in front of you, what do you do?"
Player- "I touch it."
DM- Rolls some dice "It absorbs you and crunches your bones, your flesh becomes part of the wall. Make a new character."

Which is a likely outcome of having what some consider a rules lite game. As opposed to having a game where rules rather than the DM determine outcomes:

Last time I saw DMing that arbitrary it killed Black Leaf!

As for a likely outcome, nope. It's a likely outcome if and only if the DM doesn't care who has fun - and ignores the guidance provided by literally any rules light RPG I've ever seen.

On the other hand the following exchange can actually be encouraged by a rules fairly heavy game:

DM- "You see a radiant wall in front of you, what do you do?"
Player- "I touch it."
DM- Rolls some dice. "It was a Prismatic Wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticWall.htm). Want to know how many of the colours hit you? Roll up a new character."

And I have seen exchanges like this.

Edit: The core difference between most rules heavy and rules light systems for this sort of behaviour is that in a rules heavy system when told they are being a jerk the GM can point to a page in the rulebook that says they can.

[1337 b4k4]

[Horribly contrived example which confuses player failure and second chances with "challenge" "fairness" or "choice"]

In the other example it was completely random whether the players choices affected the outcome it might come off as more 'realistic' which just means players that like the Fantasy and possibly the Discovery types of fun will like it, but the Challenge player won't because there was no way to avoid the outcome through choices.

So in your first example, the player had no choices with which to overcome the obstacle of the wall? The game has no ten foot poles, no stones on the floor, no henchmen, no lore checks, no sticks and no weapons with which the player can interact with the wall without touching it personally? Additionally there is no way for the player to go around the wall or ignore the wall? You're mistaking "not getting a second chance" with "arbitrary and unfair" and "not having a choice" and you're wrong.

That isn't to say that every time something like that happens in a game, the DM is blameless (first rule of DMing, know your audience, second rule allow your players to make informed choices), but just because the DM didn't allow the player a second chance to escape the danger when they did something stupid doesn't mean it wasn't a valid challenge and doesn't mean the player didn't have any choices with which to avoid the danger. Your complaint is essentially the equivalent of the following scenario:

DM: The creepy stranger accepts your offer to trade and hands you the twisted blood stained dagger and says all you have to do to become permanently invisible is just plunge the dagger into your heart.
Player: I remove my armor and stab myself with the dagger.
DM: The blade slips into your heart and you die, because you just stabbed yourself in the heart with an unknown knife. The stranger cackles gleefully as he takes your gold from your corpse, roll a new character.

The shimmering and pulsing wall is the hint of danger, just like the creepy stranger and the blood soaked dagger is the hint of danger. That you blindly press forward in any case without taking precautions against potential doom is not a lack of choice or a lack of fairness. You still have a responsibility as a player to actually play the game. If you choose to press forward blindly, that is a choice that you have made and a choice that can and will have consequences. Sometimes it might mean you actually become invisible and sometimes it means you walk into a death trap. It is up to you as a player to decide how much you're willing to risk.

Edit
-------

If your DM is a jerk and doesn't allow you to engage with the world and discover things, and purposefully denies your ability to explore the world except by blindly throwing yourself into danger, then yes, you have a valid complaint. But even then, the issue is not with the game per se, it's with how your DM is conducting the game.

[Lokiare]

If advertising like that worked, then WoTC would be advertising Magic: The Gathering constantly.

You mean like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbYOC7y8UQ8 or this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7I71KnRG2Q yeah, they did that and now they are a house hold name and are sold in supermarkets.


This kind of argument comes up a lot for Comic Books. Many people see the masses going to Comic Book movies and say Disney & Warner Bros. should give a free comic with each movie ticket. They like the movie, so they are bound to like the comic too, right? It makes sense, right? Apparently, the research that the companies have done essentially says that you would turn a pittance of viewers into Comic Book Readers, not even enough to justify the expenditure.

That's because everyone already knows what comic books are and whether they like them or not. Many people don't know what D&D and TTRPG's are or whether they like them or not. There is even a group out there that thinks they are one of the moste evil things in the world, more evil than horror movies, explicit music, and countries that mutilate their women. A little infomercial would go a long way. A decent sized movie trailer ad would open some eyes.


Until 2008 when they first started their podcasts, they rarely, if ever, brought up PnP RPGs. One of them had never even played until 2008. The community they created was (and still is) based around video games, not RPGs.

You can try to attract a new demographic but the entire industry would have to change to really cater to the new demographic. Comics have been very successful in courting women recently thanks to their focus on female characters, female creators and female-oriented books. The latter is the key element. Most women aren't that interested in Super Hero stuff but they do have a great interest in other genres, genres that can easily be tapped by comic companies (especially smaller ones who take bigger risks).

You mean like adding a module called "romantic entanglements" to entice women to play? How is that a bad thing?


I do not want to throw around stereotypes but I think it is safe to assume men are more inclined to like the action-heavy, murder hobo genre than women. Courting a new demographic means fundamentally altering your products to make them more appealing to the newcomers. That's really easy with Comics because you simply make a new comic. You can have things like the Walking Dead, Saga, Lazarus, etc. and still have Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. That is vastly more difficult to pull off with RPG companies like WotC (who focus on a small number of key brands).

So a book on court politics and social structures (soap operas) would be out of the question to entice a new demographic?


One great way of tapping new markets is through licensing. Dark heresy has converted gobs of wargamers into Roleplayers simply by virtue of the RPG being about the thing they already love. WotC's Star Wars license performed admirably in this regard. Perhaps it is time for them to make an RPG based off of one of Hasbro's many properties? Regardless, it is a proven method of at least getting people to toy with the idea of trying RPGs.

I agree.


Last year, I got hired at a new job. Most of the employees are middle aged women. When I told them I was a roleplayer, they knew what that was (D&D) and the basics of what was involved with the hobby. You'd be surprised how much good that smear campaign back in the 80's was for allowing D&D to penetrate into the pop culture psyche.

Yep, but if you ask them what it is, they'll tell you devil worship or something similar. Ask them to describe play and they'll talk about summoning demons and human sacrifices. I would say an example of play infomercial would go quite well toward educating people like this on how the game works.


To be fair, 3.5 was not as successful as 3.0. People don't like mid-stream reboots, regardless of how good or bad the new products are. As a fan of both pre and post-Essentials, I don't see much of a difference. It was only logical that WotC would break away from the AEDU structure and begind fiddling with the system (like they did with Psionics). What doomed Essentials more than anything was the fact that WotC became increasingly erratic in its behavior and, essentially, put the writing on the wall that the game was going to die.

It was partially the sudden shift in design, and partially their shady business practices.

Shady might be the wrong word, but I can't think of a polite word that means 'screw over your customers'

It was a decline in the quality of the content as well as a slow down in production. It got to the point where 4E fans were calling for a new edition.


The subscriptions would not have been included in the IcV2 reports as they are services, rather than products.

Then WotC likely stomped Paizo into the ground with their monthly income from subscriptions around $40,000+

The IcV2 reports were quarterly if I remember correctly so WotC made a minimum of $40,000 * 3 = $120,000 just from that.


Well said. I've edited my post to be a bit less offensive, but I stand by the original idea that he needs to leave the information he continues to link alone and stop posting it here as if it is unassailable cosmic truth. It's not. It's not remotely close.

I'm still waiting for someone to try to refute me with facts, numbers, or quotes. I WILL change my mind on a subject, but I require one or more of those things to do it.


That sound like a game "where rules rather than the DM determine outcomes", I have yet to encounter a GM that goes all instant Death on the players (maybe in the my next group :smalltongue:), but I have seen game rules which do

Its a game where the DM HAS to interfere or the randomness of the rules determines the outcome rather than player choice. That example I gave was one I experienced as a player in 2E. Its an actual example. I think maybe I rolled a save instead of the DM rolling an attack, but that's the only difference. You could really replace that example with a basilisk fight and have the same outcome and the same kind of 'fun'.


Lokiare, I don't know what happened but I cannot read your first response. The formatting. So strange.

Ah, so you don't want to respond based on some sentactical issues. Great way to debate.


My point was, don't say "this is the answer, it's science". Show your work, don't be arrogant, and don't think that saying 'it's science' or 'it's logical' gives you authority somehow.

I showed my work. I linked to the article and discussed it. Most of the times I list a fun type I give a breif description of what that fun type is. If you want I can post both the angry DM's article and the original article in full in a quote, but it would probably break the forums. If at some point you don't understand what I'm saying after walls of text, its on you to read the linked articles. I'm not arrogant in the least. That's you inserting emotion into my emotionless posts. If it helps imagine a smily at the end of every sentence in my posts. :). I'm here trying to help people understand why edition wars break out and how to prevent that kind of arguing and have a discussion about 5E that is mutually beneficial. I have no authority, I just require facts, numbers, or quotes to change my mind and mindlessly repeating things like "Your wrong because, emotion X" doesn't help further the discussion. It would help when you make accusations of arrogance if you would point out the exact phrase that caused you to think that, so I can change it to something more neutral in the future. Logic and Science are their own authority. If you want to refute a logical argument you need to use logic. If you want to refute science (even if it is just a likely theory) then you have to use facts and math. Its really that simple.


1. Demonstratably false through the shift of product even within a single line (3.5, let alone 4.0) as well as through te lay-off cycle.

For many there is no difference between anything in 3E. They view it as all approximately the same stuff. For many they view 1E, 2E, and 3E as being relatively the same with some math fixes (reversal of Thac0, etc...etc...). Others see differences within the same books like the divide between fighters and wizards. Looks like we have to chalk this one up to opinion (or basically its irrelevant and can't be tested).


2. Demonstrate your claim of 'didn't matter/wasn't apparent'; this was a keystone of the new product, as seen from prerelease information and specific marketing direction. Your claim has no basis.

Demonstrate that I'm wrong. This is where we need wide ranging polls.


3. That 'same structure' is so abstract as to be useless. This means that legend of the five rings, world of darkness, and rifts all are the same game because they too follow the convention of separated books for general play, antagonists and adjudicators. The claim is ridiculous.

From a sales perspective they are the same and since we are talking about sales it is relevant.


All of your claims fall into this self-same pattern. Either you aren't using the same logic and science you claim others need to 'beat you', in which case you don't have the authority to keep insisting on veracity of your views, or you recognize these faults and are just trying to get others to point them out, in which case you aren't discussing in good faith. Either option is bad, and makes one come off as something of a smeghead. I would recommend a cold review; stop for a few day cycles, come back, and reformat your point so you aren't burdened with the inertia of this argument. But for now, the basic premise that D&D will fail because it doesn't hit enough scientific fun points is pretty well scuttled.

...Or I actually beleive I'm correct and waiting on someone to use facts, numbers, or quotes to show that I am wrong before changing my mind. Here you attribute motivations to me that are not consistent with my posts and are not borne out through examining the discussion. Basically pure speculation and defamation combined with a false paradigm (your either one or the other, but not possibly something else entirely different).

I'm still waiting on someone to actually use facts, numbers, or quotes to 'scuttle' the idea that 5E is not hitting enough fun points and is likely to fail. Please try again, this time using facts, numbers, and/or quotes.


So in your first example, the player had no choices with which to overcome the obstacle of the wall? The game has no ten foot poles, no stones on the floor, no henchmen, no lore checks, no sticks and no weapons with which the player can interact with the wall without touching it personally? Additionally there is no way for the player to go around the wall or ignore the wall? You're mistaking "not getting a second chance" with "arbitrary and unfair" and "not having a choice" and you're wrong.

That isn't to say that every time something like that happens in a game, the DM is blameless (first rule of DMing, know your audience, second rule allow your players to make informed choices), but just because the DM didn't allow the player a second chance to escape the danger when they did something stupid doesn't mean it wasn't a valid challenge and doesn't mean the player didn't have any choices with which to avoid the danger. Your complaint is essentially the equivalent of the following scenario:

DM: The creepy stranger accepts your offer to trade and hands you the twisted blood stained dagger and says all you have to do to become permanently invisible is just plunge the dagger into your heart.
Player: I remove my armor and stab myself with the dagger.
DM: The blade slips into your heart and you die, because you just stabbed yourself in the heart with an unknown knife. The stranger cackles gleefully as he takes your gold from your corpse, roll a new character.

The shimmering and pulsing wall is the hint of danger, just like the creepy stranger and the blood soaked dagger is the hint of danger. That you blindly press forward in any case without taking precautions against potential doom is not a lack of choice or a lack of fairness. You still have a responsibility as a player to actually play the game. If you choose to press forward blindly, that is a choice that you have made and a choice that can and will have consequences. Sometimes it might mean you actually become invisible and sometimes it means you walk into a death trap. It is up to you as a player to decide how much you're willing to risk.

Edit
-------

If your DM is a jerk and doesn't allow you to engage with the world and discover things, and purposefully denies your ability to explore the world except by blindly throwing yourself into danger, then yes, you have a valid complaint. But even then, the issue is not with the game per se, it's with how your DM is conducting the game.

You are missing the point. Say the player did all kinds of exploration stuff and then still decided to touch the wall for whatever reason. It was a difference between the mechanics having an arbitrary random end or the DM intervening to allow the character to survive. Even if the DM intervened, it would be more about the player manipulating the DM than it would be about player choices. Manipulating the DM falls under Expression if I am correct (?). The entire definition of the Challenge type of fun is a winnable situation based on player choices. With there being consistent rules to work within.

Note: Some quotes are spoilered to keep my post size down.

[1337 b4k4]

You are missing the point. Say the player did all kinds of exploration stuff and then still decided to touch the wall for whatever reason. It was a difference between the mechanics having an arbitrary random end or the DM intervening to allow the character to survive. Even if the DM intervened, it would be more about the player manipulating the DM than it would be about player choices.

No, it's all about the player choices. The player chose to explore the wall, and presumably some of that exploration turned up information the player could use. If the player choses to touch the wall anyway after gaining aditional information then they made a choice to expose their character to an unknown danger. This is neither arbitrary nor random, it is in fact the very definition of player agency, where the choices the player makes have a real, measurable and unique impact on the game and the game world. What you're arguing for is second chances. You're arguing for a mechanical system that allows for more intervention points between the warning and the actual consequences of danger.


Manipulating the DM falls under Expression if I am correct (?).

No you're wrong.


The entire definition of the Challenge type of fun is a winnable situation based on player choices. With there being consistent rules to work within.

No it is not. Again you're wrong. Have you even read the original source for the article you keep linking to? Here's a few more facts for you:

The word "consistent" never appears in the original document.
The word "winnable" never appears in the original document.
The word "choices" appears exactly once, in the context of "design choices" not player choices.

So, now that you've been presented with facts, are you prepared to change your mind and admit you're wrong about Challenge?

[Felhammer]

I had a post but then it was lost to the aether.

Suffice of to say, those commercials were not aired on prime time TV. They were put next to Saturday Morning Cartoons.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that people do not know what D&D is. They know what it is in general sense, the way they know what a comic book is in a general sense. Very few still believe it is the dark, occult game that it was portrayed as in the 80's.

Adding "girl friendly" modules isn't enough. You need to fundamentally change how you present the material, in addition to its content (i.e. make a new line).

[Sasaisen]

Edit: The core difference between most rules heavy and rules light systems for this sort of behaviour is that in a rules heavy system when told they are being a jerk the GM can point to a page in the rulebook that says they can.

I just want to chime in, this is exactly wrong. The entire point of having written rules is to generate fairer outcomes for character actions than by GM or player fiat. The core difference between rules heavy and rules light is thus that when the GM is being a jerk (read: not playing by the rules), the players can point to a page in the rulebook to show him how so.

If the rules aren't generating fairer outcomes, then they're bad rules, which are a problem for rules-heavy and rules-light systems alike.

[Felhammer]

I just want to chime in, this is exactly wrong. The entire point of having written rules is to generate fairer outcomes for character actions than by GM or player fiat. The core difference between rules heavy and rules light is thus that when the GM is being a jerk (read: not playing by the rules), the players can point to a page in the rulebook to show him how so.

If the rules aren't generating fairer outcomes, then they're bad rules, which are a problem for rules-heavy and rules-light systems alike.

Rules Heavy games give the group consistent results, not fairer results. Some times they are fairer, other times not. Save or Die spells, for example, are not fair but they are consistent.

[Lokiare]

No, it's all about the player choices. The player chose to explore the wall, and presumably some of that exploration turned up information the player could use. If the player choses to touch the wall anyway after gaining aditional information then they made a choice to expose their character to an unknown danger. This is neither arbitrary nor random, it is in fact the very definition of player agency, where the choices the player makes have a real, measurable and unique impact on the game and the game world. What you're arguing for is second chances. You're arguing for a mechanical system that allows for more intervention points between the warning and the actual consequences of danger.



No you're wrong.



No it is not. Again you're wrong. Have you even read the original source for the article you keep linking to? Here's a few more facts for you:

The word "consistent" never appears in the original document.
The word "winnable" never appears in the original document.
The word "choices" appears exactly once, in the context of "design choices" not player choices.

So, now that you've been presented with facts, are you prepared to change your mind and admit you're wrong about Challenge?

Just to avoid confusion I'm going to post what the original document says about challenge here:


Challenge
Game as obstacle course
...
It is easy to see that supporting adversarial play and clear feedback about who is winning are essential to competitive games. If the player doesn't see a clear winning condition, or feels like they can't possibly win, the game is suddenly a lot less interesting. {In reference to two games that put Challenge as their main fun types}
...
challenge is created by things like time pressure
and opponent play.
...
Reasoning about the player's position and intent should indicate challenge, but promote their overall success.


If I missed any feel free to quote them and we can discuss them.

Now that we've read that. It appears to me the angry DM is exactly right. Game as obstacle course is mechanics, whether they are mechanics written in books or made up on the fly in the DM's head ("If they mention the name of the spy, the NPC will give them the information they seek.").

The game has to be winnable and it has to have a clear winning condition. Just like the angry DM said. So far your refutation isn't looking so good.

Time pressure as I demonstrated earlier is very mechanical. Its not the DM saying 'quick roll the dice, if you don't roll in the next 10 seconds everyone is dead.' Its more about what you do in the rounds, minutes, hours, or days you have alloted and a lot of that is dictated by mechanics. Its a form of resource management.

Opponent play as I've also talked about is simulated by the DM (rarely the DM is the opponent, but that's an entirely different issue). So that is present in all editions. However the mechanics are apparent and clear in only 2 editions 3.5E and 4E. In the other editions the rules are sparse and only in each individual DMs head and not always clear what the winning condition is.

In the wall example the winning condition is surviving, but its not clear to the player what the winning condition is. In the second example I gave about the wall, the player learns the winning condition and has an opportunity to act on it.


I had a post but then it was lost to the aether.

Suffice of to say, those commercials were not aired on prime time TV. They were put next to Saturday Morning Cartoons.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that people do not know what D&D is. They know what it is in general sense, the way they know what a comic book is in a general sense. Very few still believe it is the dark, occult game that it was portrayed as in the 80's.

Adding "girl friendly" modules isn't enough. You need to fundamentally change how you present the material, in addition to its content (i.e. make a new line).

Well, they could air D&D commercials during children's shows and have the same 'nag the parents into buying it' affect. That's a market strategy and it seemed to work well.

I don't believe the world at large knows what D&D is. I've had too many conversations about the game where people ask "What is Dungeongs and Dragons" when I bring it up or mistake it for some kind of devil worship or video game. That's anecdotal and counters your anecdotal evidence, until we see a large sampling survey of the general public, neither one of us will know for sure.

Well to make it more 'girl friendly' they could put unicorns and attractive men on the covers and have the background be pink. I don't care personally. Two different books, one the traditional book and then another for a specific demographic. Whatever works. With things like print on demand getting cheaper and cheaper they could do quite a few different things with the books. They could also change all the pronouns to the feminine and all the examples could include females.

[Lokiare]

Rules Heavy games give the group consistent results, not fairer results. Some times they are fairer, other times not. Save or Die spells, for example, are not fair but they are consistent.

Yes, and its that consistency that people of the Challenge type of fun enjoy. Its the idea that the win condition stays the same from table to table.

[Sasaisen]

Rules Heavy games give the group consistent results, not fairer results. Some times they are fairer, other times not. Save or Die spells, for example, are not fair but they are consistent.

First, I meant "fairer" in multiple senses. Also note the comparative.

Second, disregarding how "fair" you think Save-or-Dies are, are you saying something would be more fair if it was less consistent? :smallconfused:

Let's consider a hypothetical Save-or-Die (though this applies to any action)

PLAYER: I use SoD on monster A.
GM: Monster A is dead.
PLAYER: Cool. On my next turn, I use SoD on monster B.
GM: Nothing happens to Monster B.
PLAYER: Why not?
GM: <reasons>

If, as per a typical rules-heavy game, <reasons> are codified, then even if I don't possess the same amount of information as the GM of the situation (which I never will), I can still predict the likely outcomes of my abilities and make informed choices as a player. I may not know if monster B has a high save, an immunity to the ability, or simply rolled high, but I'm at least aware of the possibility and can factor it in when I decide on that action and on future actions.

If, as per a typical rules-light game, <reasons> are in part or mostly left up to the whim of the GM, then I can do none of that. The success of my action is determined by the mood of the GM and how much of a mind-reader or persuasive I am, and past results are not indicative of future performance.

Consistency is absolutely fairer; just ask the legal system. It baffles me that you would say otherwise.

[Felhammer]

First, I meant "fairer" in multiple senses. Also note the comparative.

Second, disregarding how "fair" you think Save-or-Dies are, are you saying something would be more fair if it was less consistent? :smallconfused:

Let's consider a hypothetical Save-or-Die (though this applies to any action)

PLAYER: I use SoD on monster A.
GM: Monster A is dead.
PLAYER: Cool. On my next turn, I use SoD on monster B.
GM: Nothing happens to Monster B.
PLAYER: Why not?
GM: <reasons>

If, as per a typical rules-heavy game, <reasons> are codified, then even if I don't possess the same amount of information as the GM of the situation (which I never will), I can still predict the likely outcomes of my abilities and make informed choices as a player. I may not know if monster B has a high save, an immunity to the ability, or simply rolled high, but I'm at least aware of the possibility and can factor it in when I decide on that action and on future actions.

If, as per a typical rules-light game, <reasons> are in part or mostly left up to the whim of the GM, then I can do none of that. The success of my action is determined by the mood of the GM and how much of a mind-reader or persuasive I am, and past results are not indicative of future performance.

Consistency is absolutely fairer; just ask the legal system. It baffles me that you would say otherwise.

Because an overabundance of rules have a bad habit of getting in the way of the narrative and the fun.

Let's say I was a Swashbuckler and I wanted to perform that classic jump off a staircase, grab a chandelier and boot the back of the heads of the enemies below!

By the rules this is terrible.

You need to make a standing jump check to reach the chandelier because stairs are difficult terrain. You then need to make some kind of reflex save or acrobatics check to grab the chandelier. You then can only attack one enemy because you moved and attacked. You are attacking with a natural weapon, so your damage is going to be atrociously low. Then you have to wait a whole turn to attack another enemy BUT only one, unless you have a high enough BAB.

Of course this is discounting the fact that you could fail your jump check, fail your "grab the chandelier" check or move more than your base speed allotment, not to mention failing to hit.

Where's the fun in that? It would have been better to just walk down the stairs and stab an enemy with your sword.

That's way less dramatic, way less exciting and entirely boring.

[SiuiS]

Relatedly, an abundance of rules can make some stuff oddly feasible.

Samurai duel: two swordsmen in a field run at each other; they both leap, there is a flash and the sound of ringing steel. Both men land, one, mortally wounded, falls over.

3.5, iaijutsu duel. Both men run on the same initiative count (or pre-initiative). Running denies you your dexterity do both men are flat footed. Movement with a base attack bonus of +1 or greater allows you to draw a weapon while moving. Attacks of opportunity are attack actions. By jumping past each other both men commit to the movement, allowing AoOs while drawing a weapon against a flat-footed opponent, allowing the iaijutsu focus skill to come into play. Whoever rolls highest gets the initiative and also bonus damage.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Because an overabundance of rules have a bad habit of getting in the way of the narrative and the fun.

Let's say I was a Swashbuckler and I wanted to perform that classic jump off a staircase, grab a chandelier and boot the back of the heads of the enemies below!

By the rules this is terrible.

You need to make a standing jump check to reach the chandelier because stairs are difficult terrain. You then need to make some kind of reflex save or acrobatics check to grab the chandelier. You then can only attack one enemy because you moved and attacked. You are attacking with a natural weapon, so your damage is going to be atrociously low. Then you have to wait a whole turn to attack another enemy BUT only one, unless you have a high enough BAB.

Of course this is discounting the fact that you could fail your jump check, fail your "grab the chandelier" check or move more than your base speed allotment, not to mention failing to hit.

Where's the fun in that? It would have been better to just walk down the stairs and stab an enemy with your sword.

That's way less dramatic, way less exciting and entirely boring.

This is one of the huge difference between 2e and 3e... That swashbuckler can do the dramatic chandilier trick easily and without a ton of checks while in 3e you would have to roll so many d20s that it would make your head spin.

[Sasaisen]

-snip-
All of which has nothing to do with the fairness of the rules.

Rules-heavy vs. rules-light isn't a question of how many fiddly modifiers and minutiae you have. It's a question of how many cases the rules cover without having to be patched up by the GM. Every time a case is decided by the GM, regardless of how often it's in your favor, that is taking power out the hands of you as a player. You are not succeeding by your choices, but by his.

Your swashbuckling example can have a multitude of rules apply to it, as per 3.5, or can be covered by a single roll, as per stunt mechanics in many other systems, but by virtue of having rules to it at all it is more fair than if the GM was expected to decide its success on the fly. Even if it's unlikely to succeed and clunky to find out, as it is in this case, you can still rationally decide whether it's worth it.

Now, whether a set of rules achieves the outcomes you want it to, and whether it's worth the time it takes to use, are valid questions, but they are entirely separate questions.

[EDIT]To elaborate, there are some situations, such as diplomacy, where it's extremely hard to write a satisfying set of rules, and freeforming it out with the GM is going to be better than any system you or someone else will likely think of. But unless you have approximately the same amount of in-game power and information as the GM, it will by definition be less fair.

[Just to Browse]

This is one of the huge difference between 2e and 3e... That swashbuckler can do the dramatic chandilier trick easily and without a ton of checks while in 3e you would have to roll so many d20s that it would make your head spin.

Though, conversely, your ability to actually be a chandelier-swinging swashbuckler is highly variable in 2e (where the DM makes up most of the rules) but at least in 3e it's codified.

[Felhammer]

All of which has nothing to do with the fairness of the rules.

Rules-heavy vs. rules-light isn't a question of how many fiddly modifiers and minutiae you have. It's a question of how many cases the rules cover without having to be patched up by the GM. Every time a case is decided by the GM, regardless of how often it's in your favor, that is taking power out the hands of you as a player. You are not succeeding by your choices, but by his.

Your swashbuckling example can have a multitude of rules apply to it, as per 3.5, or can be covered by a single roll, as per stunt mechanics in many other systems, but by virtue of having rules to it at all it is more fair than if the GM was expected to decide its success on the fly. Even if it's unlikely to succeed and clunky to find out, as it is in this case, you can still rationally decide whether it's worth it.

Now, whether a set of rules achieves the outcomes you want it to, and whether it's worth the time it takes to use, are valid questions, but they are entirely separate questions.

[EDIT]To elaborate, there are some situations, such as diplomacy, where it's extremely hard to write a satisfying set of rules, and freeforming it out with the GM is going to be better than any system you or someone else will likely think of. But unless you have approximately the same amount of in-game power and information as the GM, it will by definition be less fair.

You strike me as the kind of gamer who thrives on rules.

Me, I am far more open. I want good story and fun. Rules are merely a conveyance between you and fun. They are only necessary in so far as the group agrees to use them as general guide posts to help funnel our imaginations into a form we can work with at the table.

A D&D Table is not equivalent to a criminal justice system. If it were, then D&D would be woefully inadequate as the system relies far too much on random chance and the arbitrary nature of DM fiat.

I have experienced DM's throwing the rulebook in my face and eliminating my agency as a player far more than I have ever experienced a DM randomly changing rules in a rules-lite game.

Something I don't think you perhaps acknowledge is the fact that in a rules-light game, each player also wears the hat of storyteller. You just don't do that in D&D. In a rules light game I can say, "I pick up the barrel and roll it down the hill at the enemies!" In D&D, I must first ask, "Is there a barrel on the street?" Then I must ask, "Mother, may I please roll the barrel down the hill at the enemies?" Then (assuming the DM agrees), I get to roll the barrel down the hill.

The relationship/dynamic between DM and player is entirely different when comparing a rules heavy to a rules light game.

[squiggit]

Something I don't think you perhaps acknowledge is the fact that in a rules-light game, each player also wears the hat of storyteller. You just don't do that in D&D. In a rules light game I can say, "I pick up the barrel and roll it down the hill at the enemies!" In D&D, I must first ask, "Is there a barrel on the street?" Then I must ask, "Mother, may I please roll the barrel down the hill at the enemies?" Then (assuming the DM agrees), I get to roll the barrel down the hill.

The relationship/dynamic between DM and player is entirely different when comparing a rules heavy to a rules light game.
Even in a game like FATE the GM can just say "lol no there are no barrels" any time he wants. So no, not really.

I've even seen some particularly frustrating FATE GMs take a "I didn't write an environmental aspect for it so it doesn't exist" stance even regarding things that were already established to be in the room.

[Felhammer]

Even in a game like FATE the GM can just say "lol no there are no barrels" any time he wants. So no, not really.

I've even seen some particularly frustrating FATE GMs take a "I didn't write an environmental aspect for it so it doesn't exist" stance even regarding things that were already established to be in the room.

There are bad GMs no matter which system you are playing.

[squiggit]

There are bad GMs no matter which system you are playing.

That was my point. I was objecting to the idea that "arbitrary nature of GM fiat" was less of an issue in a game like FATE. If anything it's far more of an issue (because so much of the game relies on storytelling and fiat). Though it's usually less of a problem because the people who pick up games like FATE in the first place tend to be better at handling stuff like that.

In any case I agree with the original premise that games like D&D are really bad at handling scenarios that need to be dealt with ad hoc. Partially because the rules construct doesn't really handle that sort of thing well (as you pointed out, a bajillion checks) and partially because I've found that D&D is normally such a rules heavy game that a lot of times even fairly experienced players and DMs feel, for lack of a better word, a bit lost when they're in a situation where there are no rules.

Regarding "fairness". I think it's sort of a moot point, the examples described in that argument can really go either way and is more a matter of how good-bad a DM is.

[neonchameleon]

I just want to chime in, this is exactly wrong. The entire point of having written rules is to generate fairer outcomes for character actions than by GM or player fiat. The core difference between rules heavy and rules light is thus that when the GM is being a jerk (read: not playing by the rules), the players can point to a page in the rulebook to show him how so.

Not at all.

Rules heavy generates more predictable outcomes because everyone can point to rules. But there are very few games that prevent the GM saying by the rules "There's an attack wing of dragons swooping down towards you. Two for each of you." (OK, so a lot of games prevent that by simply not having dragons - replace it with two companies of storm troopers). Very few games that prevent an access corridor being lined with complete bull**** like half of Grimtooth's Traps at the same time. The GM gets to control the fictional environment. And you can make that as unfair as you like.

What rules heavy does is gets everyone onto the same page more easily. It means you know much more easily in advance how hard things are. You don't get situations like in multiple separate games that officially use the same rules:

Player A: I want to leap off the balcony, grab the chandelier, swing on it, and use my momentum to deliver a two footed kick to the chest of the wizard.
DM A: Sure. Cool. In fact extra cool! You do so, and because you have more momentum you get +2 to your damage roll.
DM B: *Whistles through their teeth* Great. If you can pull it off. Of course it's not easy. Take -2 to hit.
DM C: Let's break down what you are doing into its component parts. Make me a strength check to jump far enough. Then a dexterity check to grab the chandelier. Then a dexterity check to aim it properly. Then your attack roll.
DM D: The chandelier wasn't designed to take your weight. On a 1-4 the chain snaps. *Rolls a 2* Everyone under the falling chandelier make a save vs breath weapon - you get +2 to your save because you're swinging clear. You end up next to the wizard.
(I could go on - and I've not started to include opportunity attacks yet)

Now the thing here is that none of the DMs in question are deliberately being a jerk to player A. In a very rules light system all the above are defensible approaches to handling what the player is doing. But if the player is expecting DM A and instead has DM C or D then they are going to feel that the DM is a jerk. In a rules heavy system the player will know in advance which of the various possible options the DM will be using, so the risk of miscommunication is much lower.

Of course a good modern rules light system will probably be using challenge-based resolution (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=9609.20;wap2) and the resolution of the chandelier stunt is based on whether it's the position or the attack you want. And there's very little ambiguity there.


If the rules aren't generating fairer outcomes, then they're bad rules, which are a problem for rules-heavy and rules-light systems alike.

I think by that definition the only good rules then belong to Torchbearer and possibly the rest of the Burning Wheel family. But that isn't a good definition of good rules. Good rules are ones which lead to a more enjoyable experience (which is subjective). Fairness is only one angle and not one the rules can do that much about without seriously constraining the role of GM.


I may not know if monster B has a high save, an immunity to the ability, or simply rolled high, but I'm at least aware of the possibility and can factor it in when I decide on that action and on future actions.

If, as per a typical rules-light game, <reasons> are in part or mostly left up to the whim of the GM,

You're making a distinction without a difference there.

The fundamental reason monster B has a high save or immunity is because the GM decided to use a monster there that did. In a typical rules light game the GM can also use a monster with immunities or good ordinary defences, and you can find out through in character research whether the monsters are known for their immunities. And the immunities should be exactly the same in a rules heavy and a rules light game. Both work.


The success of my action is determined by the mood of the GM and how much of a mind-reader or persuasive I am,

Nope. It's determined by the fictional environment. All rules heavy games do is give you a few more handles on the fictional environment the game is set in.


and past results are not indicative of future performance.

If past in character results are not indicative of future performance then your DM isn't bothering with any consistency in the world.


Consistency is absolutely fairer; just ask the legal system.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."

If the DM wants to be unfair, there are almost no rules systems that don't give them a pretext they can use to be unfair. "Your enemies are just that good." Or "There were more of them than you expected".

[Lokiare]

Exactly. Its about which types of fun you like. If you like Discovery you'll probably like to explore a world made in the image of the DMs personal preferences, whether that's a world where swinging on chandeliers are easy or hard or nearly impossible.

If you like a consistent set of rules where you can tell easily what the win condition is and you like an obstacle course type of challenge where if you do the right thing here or choose the right choice there you can make it through to the win condition. Its less about chance and more about skill.

So none of you are incorrect, you only like different types of fun. D&D 1E, 2E, 3E, and 5E provide a specific type of fun 4E provides another. They each provide fun in different amounts for each type.

The main problem is very few games can provide all the different types of fun and draw in a large enough crowd to please a corporate sales goal. Certainly if 5E resembles the play test, it will only appeal to a very specific crowd.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Though, conversely, your ability to actually be a chandelier-swinging swashbuckler is highly variable in 2e (where the DM makes up most of the rules) but at least in 3e it's codified.

Actually with the Fighters Handbook (whatever it's called) there are rules for it and the DM doesn't have to make it up on the spot. There are a lot of mundane abilities that just aren't viable in 3e (disarming for instance) that work pretty well in 2e. In 3e they added a lot of rules for things but sadly they made a lot of restrictions too...

Kinda like if you want to do some battlefield control, in 2e you can choose to throw a knife or shoot an arrow and pin someone to an object/ground. In 3e... I don't think there are rules for that.

I would love to see Next take the 2e stance on abilities. Stop with all the AoO and needing specialize training to do stuff and just make a general rule that applies to maneuvers. They seem to be going this route but who knows what they are really doing.

[squiggit]

So none of you are incorrect, you only like different types of fun. D&D 1E, 2E, 3E, and 5E provide a specific type of fun 4E provides another. They each provide fun in different amounts for each type.


I'm not even sure you should be lumping 1/2 and 3/5 in the same category. They're different in a lot of ways even with the mechanic similiarities simply because of the "hobos trudging through a dungeon" flavor of 1/2 and the much more heroic fantasy tilt of 3/5 (and 4).

[Lokiare]

I'm not even sure you should be lumping 1/2 and 3/5 in the same category. They're different in a lot of ways even with the mechanic similiarities simply because of the "hobos trudging through a dungeon" flavor of 1/2 and the much more heroic fantasy tilt of 3/5 (and 4).

It depends if you were to give each edition a grade based on the 8 types of fun (which could be broken down into even more specialized categories) you might find that depending on the category of fun, different editions were more like each other than others.

It looks like you prefer either Narrative or Fantasy and in that case you would be correct to say that 1,2 and 3,4,5 are in different groups.

If you were to look at them from the position of Sensation, then you might find that 1E and 4E are in the same category and that 2E, 3E, and 5E are in a different category.

It's all a matter of perspective and now that we know how to stop the arguing over which edition is better (because they are all better for different people that like different kinds of fun). We can start to work toward getting a better game that we can all play.

Edit: So let me pose a question, how can 5E be altered to allow for the types of fun it doesn't currently support well?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

On the subject of chandelier-swinging in rules-heavy vs. rules-light systems, I happen to have a handy quote from the last time this exact topic of discussion came up in the previous thread, when someone asked "Can I make a swashbuckling chandelier-swinging halfling more or less easily in 5e than 3e?" and, after a bit of debate about it, I actually looked at the relevant rules and DM guidance for both editions and broke everything down:



I have only one question regarding Next, Is it possible to have a Halfling run up onto a table then run across the table onto a chandlier, swinging on it to bring his weapon down onto a enemy, doing death from above? I think it required a bunch of rolls to get even halfway along in 3.5 and so default to just attacking or something.

Should be. 3.5 would require a jump check if there was no chair, definitely require a jump to the chandelier, and may require tumble or similar to deal with 'rough terrain'. I think next is currently sitting at "describe the action if it's within your movement range" and that's it.

So 3.5 gives 2-3 rolls before actually making the attack roll, but Next only requires the attack roll because it assumes you can move well enough to do stuff. Yep, that's a point for Next, a point against 3.5 if my book.
3e isn't actually as bad at this situation as it's being made out to be, and 5e isn't as good at it as it's being made out to be either.

From a mechanical perspective, in 3e the DC for jumping onto a table is 10 with a running start and jumping 2 feet up is only DC 8, so either run -> jump onto chair -> jump onto table or run -> jump onto table directly would be automatic for a Medium creature if taking 10, and if the bottom of the chandelier is no more than 10 feet above the table then grabbing that, too, is automatic (2 foot jump + 8 foot reach).

The question was about a halfling, though, and it's not automatic for him, requiring at least a +4 Jump modifier (not counting his +2 racial bonus) to achieve the same while taking 10, so it's automatic with training (4 ranks) or prodigious strength (Str 18) or both (2 ranks + 14 Str, etc.) and difficult otherwise...but that's to be expected for a creature slower, shorter, and weaker than a human trying to jump onto something at roughly neck height for him and then grab something twice his height above the ground.

All of this assumes taking 10 is possible, because you're not near enemies or you're making a surprise attack or whatever. If that's not possible, then oh no, you only have a 50% chance, your level 1 barely-trained halfling can't pull off a swashbuckling stunt automatically and you'll have to wait until level 7ish for that. :smallwink:

From a flavor perspective, the bonus for doing this maneuver is a +1 attack for high ground (and possibly ignoring cover if you're jumping over things), so the advantage from doing so is noticeable but not amazing, roughly as good as having special training with a weapon (Weapon Focus); it's not an overwhelming advantage, but there are obvious benefits to doing so. And if you fail to make either the table jump or chandelier jump, there are no penalties except for not getting that high ground bonus, you can just continue on with your action as normal if you have enough movement speed to go around the table.
In 5e, some DMs would let you just flavor your move action appropriately, going by the provided DM guidance of "When a player wants to take an action, it's often appropriate to just let the action succeed." Other DMs would require a check, going by "Ask yourself two questions to aid your decision. Is the action being taken so easy, so free of stress or conflict, or so appropriate to the situation that there should be no chance of failure?" and the aforementioned difficulties a 4-foot-tall halfling would have in jumping onto tables and grabbing chandeliers making it neither "so easy" nor "so free of stress" to make it automatic. Yet other DMs might very well disallow the action entirely, going by "Is the action being taken so inappropriate or impossible that it would never work?" and their opinion that the same aforementioned difficulties make it too hard to bother rolling. And each of those quotes is within two paragraphs of the others in the same DM advice section, so a fourth DM might look at the provided advice, find it unhelpfully contradictory, and determine whether to roll based on some other criteria.

Assuming the DM requires a roll, the DC is...variable. Hmm. Let's go with DC 20, since it would be "beyond the capabilities of most people without aid or exception ability" and would require some amount of luck--or a lot of specialized training." Let's also be charitable and assume our DM doesn't impose disadvantage for such an outlandish stunt. Our 5e halfling can't take 10, so to even have a 50% chance of success he needs a +10 bonus from an 18 Str and some Jumping-related proficiency...and that's at level 20 when he gets his +6 proficiency bonus; a level 1 halfling has at best a 25% chance assuming 18 Str and a proficiency bonus, when a 3e level 1 halfling can do it automatically with a 10 Str and 4 Jump ranks.

...Though it might actually be a trivial task, DC 5, if this halfling is an adventurer (since "an adventurer can almost always succeed automatically on a trivial task"), but that's kind of circular reasoning and requires the DM to deem that such a swashbuckling stunt is indeed trivial for "an adventurer" (which includes bookish wizards and other such unathletic heroes, mind). Or perhaps it's in the middle at DC 15, since "A character with a combination of natural aptitude and specialized training can accomplish a moderate task more often than not," which works for a Jump-proficient halfling with a Str bonus...though even then that gives our halfling only a 50% shot, not great odds.

From a flavor perspective, assuming all of the mechanics work out in the halfling's favor, the advantage you'd get from the maneuver is, well, advantage, since there aren't any other sorts of bonus you get in 5e (barring DM fiat like "you automatically knock him down" or whatever, which can happen in any game). This is the same bonus you get from any other advantageous situation at all, and unlike the high ground bonus in 3e it doesn't stack with other things. So it's a nice bonus, but to get it you could just as easily flank someone or do some other simpler maneuver.

If you fail with these rolls, there's no guidance on how to handle that. You'd probably be allowed to continue on with your action as normal, because what DM would want to discourage you from performing an interesting--
Can you do it? Certainly. Will the attack be mechanically any different than just saying "I move and attack"? Depends on the DM. I would have you make a dexterity check modified by athletics or acrobatics proficiency. Success means advantage on the attack, failure means disadvantage and probably not landing on your feet. The difficulty of the check would depend on how high up that chandelier is, we are talking about a halfling, after all....never mind. :smallamused:

So looking at those two scenarios, at the starting level an average untrained 3e human or an average 3e halfling trained in Jump can accomplish the desired task without a roll and gains a clear benefit from doing so, while an exceptional 5e human or halfling at the absolute peak of mortal ability either automatically succeeds, automatically fails, or has around a 50-50 shot based purely on the DM's whims and/or interpretation of the official guidance and only gets the same benefit he could otherwise gain from a less difficult stunt.

It's all very well and good to portray 3e as a byzantine system that discourages and prevents you from doing Cool Things and 5e as a liberating system that encourages and enables you to do Cool Things, but not only is that not necessarily the case, it's quite possible for 5e to be more restrictive unless you have a very permissive DM.

TL;DR: The "3e is clunky, 5e empowers players" meme is overused and often inaccurate in both directions. It helps to actually look at the rules and guidelines before making any pronouncements one way or the other
The conclusions from that breakdown are twofold. Mechanically, the supposedly clunky, rules-heavy 3e makes it easier than the supposedly streamlined, rules-light 5e due to the particular rules and guidelines involved, so the idea that rules-light = narrative freedom and rules-heavy = barrier to fun is not at all accurate.

From a metagame perspective, it's exactly what neonchameleon said: different DMs will handle this differently, the chances of success will therefore vary game to game, and the risk of miscommunication can lead to one or both parties thinking the other is being a jerk. Thus, the idea that rules-light = wonderful harmonious shared story-telling and rules-heavy = adversarial DM screwing the PCs is not accurate either.

[Scowling Dragon]

Id say the problem with rules light games are more this:

"What does that belt do?"

"Its the Kithslayer of the hiba! +2 too quickness"

"And how about that"

"Its the jume of humbala! +2 too quickness"

Not enough variables to play around with.

[Sasaisen]

FELLHAMMER

You strike me as the kind of gamer who thrives on rules.

Me, I am far more open. I want good story and fun. Rules are merely a conveyance between you and fun. They are only necessary in so far as the group agrees to use them as general guide posts to help funnel our imaginations into a form we can work with at the table.
That's one of the purposes of rules; the other is to resolve conflicts. You do something, another player has something different in mind, how do you work out what happens? I acknowledge that your group may probably is able figure it out with a few words most of the time, but when they can't, what then? How do you guarantee the same will happen in other groups, or when you are with a group with which you are less familiar? With rules.


A D&D Table is not equivalent to a criminal justice system. If it were, then D&D would be woefully inadequate as the system relies far too much on random chance and the arbitrary nature of DM fiat.
Miss the point much? I'm not equivocating the two; I'm using the latter as an illustration for how consistency is fairer.


I have experienced DM's throwing the rulebook in my face and eliminating my agency as a player far more than I have ever experienced a DM randomly changing rules in a rules-lite game.
While I'm sorry for you bad experiences, Rule 0 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rule+0) exists. If a GM wants to cockblock you, he does not need rules to do that because Rule 0 is a thing. From that standpoint, unless you're trying to do something that violates the (presumably previously-agreed-upon) rules, having rules can only help you by giving you something to argue in your favor.

Note that I'm am not advocating rules as adversarial tools; merely that when such a situation as you propose comes up, they are there.


Something I don't think you perhaps acknowledge is the fact that in a rules-light game, each player also wears the hat of storyteller. You just don't do that in D&D. In a rules light game I can say, "I pick up the barrel and roll it down the hill at the enemies!" In D&D, I must first ask, "Is there a barrel on the street?" Then I must ask, "Mother, may I please roll the barrel down the hill at the enemies?" Then (assuming the DM agrees), I get to roll the barrel down the hill.

The relationship/dynamic between DM and player is entirely different when comparing a rules heavy to a rules light game.
None of this has anything to do with whether the game is rules-light or -heavy. A traditional GM-player setup with no or minimal rules is literally nothing but "Mother, may I?" - adding rules is what brings a game further away from that. And you can totally have a rules-heavy game, including D&D, where every player is a GM, even simultaneously. I've done it. Seriously, try it.

NEONCHAMELEON

Not at all.

Rules heavy generates more predictable outcomes because everyone can point to rules. But there are very few games that prevent the GM saying by the rules "There's an attack wing of dragons swooping down towards you. Two for each of you." (OK, so a lot of games prevent that by simply not having dragons - replace it with two companies of storm troopers). Very few games that prevent an access corridor being lined with complete bull**** like half of Grimtooth's Traps at the same time. The GM gets to control the fictional environment. And you can make that as unfair as you like.
Do you realize you're effectively saying that games without rules for what kind of challenges the GM should throw at the players, and how often, can be exploitable and unfair? I don't disagree.


I think by that definition the only good rules then belong to Torchbearer and possibly the rest of the Burning Wheel family. But that isn't a good definition of good rules. Good rules are ones which lead to a more enjoyable experience (which is subjective).I never defined "good rules". All I stated was the bare minimum a rule should meet, and I acknowledge that there are other considerations to be made in my previous post. I'm saying that rules had damn well be better than making **** up, not that they automatically are.


Fairness is only one angle and not one the rules can do that much about without seriously constraining the role of GM.Well, of course. Seriously, the entire point of a rule is to set limits and constraints. This is not a bad thing - creativity thrives when you put it within limits. If the GM is disproportionately affected by rules, that is only because he has that much more power to begin with (and still does after the rule, mind you), and I'm okay with that.


You're making a distinction without a difference there.

The fundamental reason monster B has a high save or immunity is because the GM decided to use a monster there that did. In a typical rules light game the GM can also use a monster with immunities or good ordinary defences, and you can find out through in character research whether the monsters are known for their immunities. And the immunities should be exactly the same in a rules heavy and a rules light game. Both work.
Way to miss the point. In my argument, I'm specifically talking about a single ability interaction. Either that interaction is codified (first paragraph), or it isn't (second paragraph). Since you seem to be saying that codification is better, great. Extend that to the rest of whichever system.


Nope. It's determined by the fictional environment. All rules heavy games do is give you a few more handles on the fictional environment the game is set in.
When how my character interacts with the fictional environment is (in part or in whole) not defined by the rules, who defines it? If the game has a GM, it's usually that guy, and it's up to me as a player to convince him that what I do actually happens. Some are easier or harder to convince, some are convinced by realism or story or appeals to awesomeness, but no matter what I'm still doing things by persuading the GM.

The problem here, as you note earlier, is that if my ability to interact with the world is dependent on my ability to judge and persuade the GM, then that is not going to apply to a different GM. Furthermore, the other players at the table will better or worse than me at persuasion, which will affect their ability to interact with the world when it shouldn't.


If past in character results are not indicative of future performance then your DM isn't bothering with any consistency in the world.
Which is entirely possible. Or maybe he's just having a bad day, and the cultists in the compound we infiltrated at the end of the last session will be more difficult to deal with as a result.


"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
"...and embezzle funds, and insider trade, and..." :smallsigh:


If the DM wants to be unfair, there are almost no rules systems that don't give them a pretext they can use to be unfair. "Your enemies are just that good." Or "There were more of them than you expected".
I completely agree. My stance is that systems with more comprehensive rules mitigate the effects when this is deliberate, or give the players the ability to correct things when it is not.