Will 5e Be Successful? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Pex

2014-06-21, 03:02 PM

Oh, I don't know about that. DnD causes fanbase breaking just about every edition release and it survives nonetheless. Personally, I hope it scales back the changes to a more 3rd edition level with better balance, but as I'm still quite happy with 3.5 and don't like 4th at all, I haven't gotten hyped enough about 5th edition to see if that's likely the case. Still, I wouldn't worry too much about the fanbase, on the whole.

1E to 2E wasn't a big deal. You hardly noticed the differences. 2E to 3E was a big deal. There were enough changes some people remained adamant to stick with 2E. However, in 3E's favor was that there was nothing new to D&D for a while before it was made. People were anxious and excited for new stuff. Enough 2E players liked it to keep the excitement going. Aside from niche, players weren't talking about 2E anymore.

3E to 4E was a bigger deal and the breaking point. It figuratively was a Civil War that broke up into multiple civil wars. WOTC dumped on 3E and its fans. The new 4E fans backed them up. The 3E fans remained adamant and vocal about their favorite system. Unlike niche 2E, 3E fans continue to speak about it in droves. Many joined the Pathfinder bandwagon as their system got new support and material. However, there are the mini civil wars. 3E has its own civil war with players who can't help themselves to bash it every time the opportunity arises and cry Tier System. 4E had grumblings until Essentials came out. Since I do not involve myself in 4E I do not know the details, only hearing snippets that such a confrontation is happening.

Of course, all of this is just on these forums which could be a vocal minority. Anecdotal, but my group is sticking with Pathfinder despite the rules lawyer bashing it not being realistic enough. My previous DM of my old group, should he ever decide to run again, prefers Pathfinder as well.

WOTC brought this mess onto themselves. 5E I think has a good shot of wooing the 3E fans who didn't like Pathfinder. They need something new. 5E is familiar enough 3E fans are willing to accept their rules changes to return to the D&D fold and have plausible denial ability they're not playing 3E with someone else's house rules (Pathfinder). Pathfinder fans will stay with their game because they have no reason to switch. They like it, they really, really like it. 4E fans will stay with 4E. They worship "balance" and 5E doesn't have it. The fringe Pathfinder and 4E players who aren't enamored will give 5E a try. Those who bash 3E whenever an opportunity arises, who bash Pathfinder whenever an opportunity arises, who for some reason reject 4E's solution to their quibbles, will give 5E a try. I predict they will soon bash 5E whenever an opportunity arises. Some people are never satisfied and can only find solace in bashing.

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 04:34 PM

Will D&D 5E be successful? Yes. Will it beat out Pathfinder and every other RPG? Yes. Will it hit the arbitrary money targets that Hasbro has set? I have no idea.

captpike

2014-06-21, 04:38 PM

the PHB, DMG and MM will sell well regardless of how good or bad they are. short of misprinting them with blank pages they will do well.

after that...I doubt it. I think it will do very poorly by 3e or 4e standards once they start trying to sell things to people who have the core books and know the flaws of the system.

there are 4 big markets for 5e

in order of importance:
-new players: if you can't get new players you cant grow, it NEEDS to work well for new players.
-4e players: these are the players who are most likely to switch just because a new edition is out, including players 4e living campaign.
-3e/pathfinder: these players have already decided once not to move on, and most already have a game of choice. the only real way I see large numbers of people moving from pathfidner is if 5e out-3e's pathfinder
-pre 3e: these people have already decided at least twice not to move on, I doubt most even know about 5e. again 5e would have to make something better then anything else in the market at what their game of choice does in order to win them over.

Knaight

2014-06-21, 04:39 PM

Will D&D 5E be successful? Yes. Will it beat out Pathfinder and every other RPG? Yes. Will it hit the arbitrary money targets that Hasbro has set? I have no idea.

I'm not sure about it beating out Pathfinder - a three way edition split is very possible, and Pathfinder is pretty huge. That said, I strongly expect it to be successful by any reasonable measure. By Hasbro's requests? I doubt it.

archaeo

2014-06-21, 05:07 PM

I see it doing well with the established D&D crowd, but not bringing in many new players. The rules still seem a bit intimidating for someone entirely new, and the focus seems to be on nostalgia and tradition.

See, whatever else 5e does, I think it's actually really well-suited for new players and WotC is aggressively pushing it at them. It has the leanest core rules in the game's history (Basic) and is giving them away for free. If you take Mearls at his word, the starter set has been designed to teach players and DMs the basics of good TTRPGing via a purposefully didactic adventure setting, and it's dirt cheap. If Project Morningstar ends up being really good, it will also be the first edition to have a baked-in virtual toolset.

I also think WotC hasn't even really begun its mass marketing campaign. So far, we've just seen the company in the mode of selling the game to enthusiasts. Now that the game is actually close to being done, I have little doubt we'll see a huge marketing push; they didn't spend all this money on playtests and designers just to quietly put the things on store shelves. And unlike Pathfinder, WotC has the might of a major multinational corporation. If Hasbro puts forth even a modicum of effort, D&D will be in every mall, in every Wal-mart, in every bookstore.

Yeah, I think it'll do quite well.

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 05:09 PM

I'm not sure about it beating out Pathfinder - a three way edition split is very possible, and Pathfinder is pretty huge. That said, I strongly expect it to be successful by any reasonable measure. By Hasbro's requests? I doubt it.

The whole of Paizo only had a revenue stream of $11.2 million in 2012. They are not really in the same league as D&D. We have been without an official D&D game now for two years, the masses are hungry. There will be a lot of advertising, reviews, a play session recordings as well as thousands of forum posts. 4th Edition was far more controversial than Next and yet it sold like gangbusters. The same will hold true for Next.

The real test will be how well the supplements sell, which never sell as well as the core rulebooks. That will be the proving ground to see if there is a 3 way split, a 2 way split or little of a split at all.

rlc

2014-06-21, 05:12 PM

The only way we could know this right now is if we had a time machine. And, I know if I had one of those, one of the last things I'd be worried about is how much money this game made.

SoC175

2014-06-21, 05:18 PM

The whole of Paizo only had a revenue stream of $11.2 million in 2012. They are not really in the same league as D&D. Even if Pathfinder and 4e together had $20 million and 5e manages to recapture that, it would likely still be too little for Hasbor's expectations.

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 05:32 PM

Even if Pathfinder and 4e together had $20 million and 5e manages to recapture that, it would likely still be too little for Hasbor's expectations.

4E had $12-16 million just from its subscription service. If 5E could easily recapture those numbers (especially if it keeps 4E material around). WotC is also pushing their board games (which are a huge hit), re-introducing Fortune Cards, created a PDF store and are bringing miniatures back into production. The novel side of D&D is going strong with the Sundering leading the charge. They are also making more video games and, just last year, Warner Bros. announced that they had obtained the rights to create D&D movies (which will be the natural choice to fill the gap now that Harry Potter and the Tolkien franchises will have ended in December).

WotC is better off right now than they have been since 2011.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-21, 05:37 PM

4E had $12-16 million just from its subscription service.

Yeah, no. We pretty conclusively disproved those numbers in another thread here. Unless WOTC somehow manages to vastly increase the tabletop RPG market, they can get their customers either by taking them from Paizo (which is hard) or by converting them from 4E (which isn't profitable since they're already customers). It's an uphill battle either way.

But, we as hobbyists and players really shouldn't care about whether or not it's profitable. Once you have the book, you can play it regardless of what the parent company does.

SoC175

2014-06-21, 05:42 PM

WotC is also pushing their board games Did they do anything since Lords of Waterdeep? The more intricate games aka Wrath of Ashardlon seem to be discontinued

, re-introducing Fortune Cards, Haven't heard about that yet, but they were kind of a shelf warmer back then

The novel side of D&D is going strong with the Sundering leading the charge. Actually no. Unfortunately the novel lines release schedule has slowed to a crawl, including the Sundering. I am painfully aware, given that after 16 years I finally catched up to the edge of the release schedule, and now have to wait month inbetween novels (really sad going to there from being used to have a big "yet to read pile" of D&D novels waiting that somehow never seemed to shrink until it was suddenly gone). Over at Candlekeep there are quite a few people also complaining about the slow schedule. Right now we're looking at a gap between releases from the Herald in June to September for Rise of the King.

They are also making more video games and, just last year, Warner Bros. announced that they had obtained the rights to create D&D movies Only to be caught in a law suit with the company "claiming" to truly hold the rights to create D&D movies. That can take a long time to resolve

Reddish Mage

2014-06-21, 05:49 PM

As someone to whom 4e never really caught on, it seems to me that 5e isn't going in the direction of making things as expansive and wide-ranging as 3e was. If that's why people like 3.5/pathfinder I am not surprised if they don't switch

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 05:56 PM

Did they do anything since Lords of Waterdeep? The more intricate games aka Wrath of Ashardlon seem to be discontinued
Haven't heard about that yet, but they were kind of a shelf warmer back then
Actually no. Unfortunately the novel lines release schedule has slowed to a crawl, including the Sundering. I am painfully aware, given that after 16 years I finally catched up to the edge of the release schedule, and now have to wait month inbetween novels (really sad going to there from being used to have a big "yet to read pile" of D&D novels waiting that somehow never seemed to shrink until it was suddenly gone). Over at Candlekeep there are quite a few people also complaining about the slow schedule. Right now we're looking at a gap between releases from the Herald in June to September for Rise of the King.
Only to be caught in a law suit with the company "claiming" to truly hold the rights to create D&D movies. That can take a long time to resolve

Board Games are much more evergreen than RPGs. Right now, I am sure they are holding off because the whole staff is working on Next (and does not want to produce competing projects).

I did not realize the publishing had slowed that much. Wonder why. Seems to me all those books make quite a bit of money, so why slow? Unless... Faerun is supposed to be the default setting for D&D Next. The Sundering is changing everything. They are probably specifically going slow to time the releases around D&D's schedule to help promote the edition (and, more specifically, the new Forgotten Realms Campaign guide). After that, I am sure they will ramp up production again (I am sure the writers are already penning their next few books).

Did not know about the legal wrangling. Makes sense why we have heard little, if anything, on the project. Still, I am sure the big companies will find an agreeable compromise.

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 06:01 PM

Yeah, no. We pretty conclusively disproved those numbers in another thread here. Unless WOTC somehow manages to vastly increase the tabletop RPG market, they can get their customers either by taking them from Paizo (which is hard) or by converting them from 4E (which isn't profitable since they're already customers). It's an uphill battle either way.

But, we as hobbyists and players really shouldn't care about whether or not it's profitable. Once you have the book, you can play it regardless of what the parent company does.

The numbers I have seen for subscribers can easily put it in the 12 million range a year during its peak. I cannot verify those numbers though.

SoC175

2014-06-21, 06:05 PM

After that, I am sure they will ramp up production again (I am sure the writers are already penning their next few books). I hope so. But word from various authors on Candlekeep is that they currently have no contracts, but would certainly be open for some (e.g. Kemp and Byers). At the moment it seems only Slavatore, Greenwood and Evans are still writing for WotC. Of course given the freelance nature of that business this can quickly change. Let's just hope it will

Still, I am sure the big companies will find an agreeable compromise. Let's pray that WB ends up with the sole rights and that other company is just after a "golden handshake" to let go of any claims and rights. The last thing we need is them making a fourth movie

The numbers I have seen for subscribers can easily put it in the 12 million range a year during its peak. I cannot verify those numbers though. Well, whether it's 16, 12 or only 8 million, it's definately a nice solid revenue stream. However we have to take this with a grain of salt, since it most certainly costs them in actual book sales. I for sure did not buy many books because I was getting them with my DDI subscription anyway and thus became picky with which books deserved to be bought in dead tree form

Knaight

2014-06-21, 06:16 PM

But, we as hobbyists and players really shouldn't care about whether or not it's profitable. Once you have the book, you can play it regardless of what the parent company does.

It being profitable will effect what sort of games we see in the future. It will affect the amount of advertising spent on pulling new people into the hobby, which most of us want. We have reasons to care.

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 06:18 PM

I hope so. But word from various authors on Candlekeep is that they currently have no contracts, but would certainly be open for some (e.g. Kemp and Byers). At the moment it seems only Slavatore, Greenwood and Evans are still writing for WotC. Of course given the freelance nature of that business this can quickly change. Let's just hope it will

Let's pray that WB ends up with the sole rights and that other company is just after a "golden handshake" to let go of any claims and rights. The last thing we need is them making a fourth movie
Well, whether it's 16, 12 or only 8 million, it's definately a nice solid revenue stream. However we have to take this with a grain of salt, since it most certainly costs them in actual book sales. I for sure did not buy many books because I was getting them with my DDI subscription anyway and thus became picky with which books deserved to be bought in dead tree form

I am sure they will keep Greenwood and Salvatore on contract, since they basically print money. Evans is popular right now. I have no had a chance to read Kemp's or Byers' Sundering novels. Where they weak/bad/poor? Perhaps there is a reason for their lack of contracts?

EDIT: I am sure this is one of the reasons why Salvatore is pushing his own RPG and worlds again.

I wish there was good data on how much WotC lost by people just subscribing vs. people just buying books. That would definitely be an interesting read. I can't imagine WotC not preferring, on some level, the consistent nature of the subscription model to the wildly fluctuating up and down nature of print book sales.

Also at issue with 4E was the fact that Borders was caving in at about the same time. I know I only paid full price for 3 of my non-essentials 4E rule books, the rest were purchased for 30-40% off.

It being profitable will effect what sort of games we see in the future. It will affect the amount of advertising spent on pulling new people into the hobby, which most of us want. We have reasons to care.

Agreed. D&D being profitable is good for the whole industry, the same way having a more diverse, less monopolized market is good for the whole industry as well.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-21, 07:36 PM

I believe it will be successful in my area. I love the test packet and am very happy with the mechanics behind the system. All of the gamers I play with are also equally impressed. We have no complaints about any part of it.

As far as other places? I'm betting it will do much better than many of the posters here think it will, and certainly better than they want it to. This however is only my opinion. Take it or ignore it as you will

obryn

2014-06-21, 07:48 PM

But, we as hobbyists and players really shouldn't care about whether or not it's profitable. Once you have the book, you can play it regardless of what the parent company does.
I dunno, you seem to have kind of a vested interest in using it to keep 'score' based on your arguments in another thread, and the paragraph I snipped immediately above this one, so...

Anyway, yes, 5e will be a success. I think it will do just fine, and attract plenty of people from various fanbases. I think the final game will make a lot more sense once we see all the pieces put together, and while I may not love it myself, that means nothing. I mean, I think Pathfinder is terrible, but it seems to be doing just fine.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-21, 11:03 PM

I dunno, you seem to have kind of a vested interest in using it to keep 'score' based on your arguments in another thread, and the paragraph I snipped immediately above this one, so...

Anyway, yes, 5e will be a success. I think it will do just fine, and attract plenty of people from various fanbases. I think the final game will make a lot more sense once we see all the pieces put together, and while I may not love it myself, that means nothing. I mean, I think Pathfinder is terrible, but it seems to be doing just fine.

Pathfinder is terrible (as a game it has nothing to really call its own except the terrible CMD/CMB system), but their adventures and add-ons (item/condition cards and battle maps) are top notch and worth buying.

I really think the only thing really keeping Pathfinder going is the fact that their adventures are so damn fun. Without them there would be no reason to use the pathfinder system over 3.5 or any other system out there. Heck the absolutely only reason I play pathfinder over 3.5 is because my current group plays pathfinder... And 3/4ths of us are actually 4e fans playing Pathfinder because we are friends of the DM.

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 11:21 PM

Pathfinder is terrible (as a game it has nothing to really call its own except the terrible CMD/CMB system), but their adventures and add-ons (item/condition cards and battle maps) are top notch and worth buying.

I really think the only thing really keeping Pathfinder going is the fact that their adventures are so damn fun. Without them there would be no reason to use the pathfinder system over 3.5 or any other system out there. Heck the absolutely only reason I play pathfinder over 3.5 is because my current group plays pathfinder... And 3/4ths of us are actually 4e fans playing Pathfinder because we are friends of the DM.

This is the model D&D seems to be going in as well. I remember Mike Mearls talking about how D&D should be creating the books that really excite people (i.e. adventures and campaign books), rather than solely making more player-focused books. Which is ironic because it is the opposite of the model WotC took with 3.x (being that they wanted to focus on the lucrative splat books and allow other companies to produce adventures). I think it speaks to how different the market is 14 years on.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-22, 03:25 AM

I really think the only thing really keeping Pathfinder going is the fact that their adventures are so damn fun.

Precisely. That strikes me as a strong indication that most players care much more about the story and background material than about the rules. I believe that 5E's success will depend primarily on how good its first big adventure arc (HOTDQ) is, and much less on how good its ruleset is.

The Mormegil

2014-06-22, 05:39 AM

So from what I'm reading here it doesn't seem like many Pathfinder players want to switch. I'm pretty much sure 4E players won't switch - the edition wasn't even remotely marketed towards them at all. The game might be... nice. But I don't think they are aiming at roleplayers at all with it.

Let me explain. Boardgaming is getting huge. Videogames are already pretty profitable if you have a good IP. WotC has already declared they have a huge portion of their D&D team not working on the game. What they really want to sell is the settings, the lore, the common ground. They want to sell "Lords of Waterdeep the Board Game" ten times over. They want people to pay them to work with their world and their products. They have a product that is basically the common ground for most modern fantasy, even more so than LotR. People expect D&D tropes in fantasy settings by now. So what they really want to sell... is not this game. I believe that traces of this can be found in their marketing decisions and their development focus. They even went free to play with basic D&D. They don't want to sell us the rules for another game - we already have plenty of them, the market is likely almost saturated. They want to sell us apps that help DMs, board games, videogames, settings, books, a shared fantasy world experience, and lots of merchandise. They even planned to call the game "Dungeons and Dragons" without mentioning the edition - think about what you put on a t-shirt. If it was a t-shirt with "D&D 5E", not many people would buy it, but it's a "Dungeons & Dragons" t-shirt and regardless of your favorite edition you might very well want to buy it. Also, by having lots of videogames and board games about D&D being produced, you extend the reach and your potential audience. You can easily see more people getting into RPGs through the basic D&D they have for free on their site for everybody that comes looking for their favorite videogame title. And they can probably make a profit off of royalties too.

So in the end, I believe the edition will be a huge success because it's not a new D&D edition, it's the set up for a huge marketing program that will lead to massive profit on many different (and completely unrelated to the system) fronts.

Morty

2014-06-22, 07:20 AM

Hard to say. On the one hand, it's going to have the D&D brand on the cover, thus making it the alpha and omega of tabletop experience for many people. On the other hand, it's going to directly compete with Pathfinder for the same part of the D&D fanbase.

Ballbo Big'Uns

2014-06-22, 01:43 PM

WOTC brought this mess onto themselves. 5E I think has a good shot of wooing the 3E fans who didn't like Pathfinder. They need something new. 5E is familiar enough 3E fans are willing to accept their rules changes to return to the D&D fold and have plausible denial ability they're not playing 3E with someone else's house rules (Pathfinder). Pathfinder fans will stay with their game because they have no reason to switch. They like it, they really, really like it. 4E fans will stay with 4E. They worship "balance" and 5E doesn't have it. The fringe Pathfinder and 4E players who aren't enamored will give 5E a try. Those who bash 3E whenever an opportunity arises, who bash Pathfinder whenever an opportunity arises, who for some reason reject 4E's solution to their quibbles, will give 5E a try. I predict they will soon bash 5E whenever an opportunity arises. Some people are never satisfied and can only find solace in bashing.

Most D&D players are casual gamers and aren't particularly attached to any set of rules. It's the GM's and the more vocal players who decide what the group plays or does not play.

I don't think D&D5 will be as successful as 4E or Pathfinder, because the game needs to target the vocal players and the GM's in order to reclaim the throne, but it's targeted at more casual gamers.

I suspect that 5E will win over many holdovers still playing 3.x, but are ready for something more updated and streamlined.

The design of D&D5 veered off in the opposite direction from where most 4E fans would want the game to go, so the game won't see a lot of conversion from that pool.

Pathfinder and OSR games are ideological stances as much as they are rules systems, so 5E won't draw much from that market either.

D&D5 appeals to new gamers, but they don't just go out to the store and buy their first RPG...they get indoctrinated into existing groups more often than not.

For the record, I personally like 5E a lot. It's a lot closer to my ideal D&D than any other version, and I hope that it absolutely crushes the competition and becomes the undisputed king of the mountain, but I just don't think that's very likely.

pwykersotz

2014-06-22, 02:08 PM

Most D&D players are casual gamers and aren't particularly attached to any set of rules. It's the GM's and the more vocal players who decide what the group plays or does not play.

I don't think D&D5 will be as successful as 4E or Pathfinder, because the game needs to target the vocal players and the GM's in order to reclaim the throne, but it's targeted at more casual gamers.

I suspect that 5E will win over many holdovers still playing 3.x, but are ready for something more updated and streamlined.

The design of D&D5 veered off in the opposite direction from where most 4E fans would want the game to go, so the game won't see a lot of conversion from that pool.

Pathfinder and OSR games are ideological stances as much as they are rules systems, so 5E won't draw much from that market either.

D&D5 appeals to new gamers, but they don't just go out to the store and buy their first RPG...they get indoctrinated into existing groups more often than not.

For the record, I personally like 5E a lot. It's a lot closer to my ideal D&D than any other version, and I hope that it absolutely crushes the competition and becomes the undisputed king of the mountain, but I just don't think that's very likely.

I am one of those 3.5 holdouts who is swayed by the shiny new product. Contrary to what you mention though, I am the GM, and if I want to switch, about 20 of my friends and acquaintances will switch.

I can't speak to the potential success overall, but 5e has a great shot of becoming the new version at my table. Almost everything I hear is an improvement.

Ballbo Big'Uns

2014-06-22, 03:47 PM

I am one of those 3.5 holdouts who is swayed by the shiny new product. Contrary to what you mention though, I am the GM, and if I want to switch, about 20 of my friends and acquaintances will switch.

I can't speak to the potential success overall, but 5e has a great shot of becoming the new version at my table. Almost everything I hear is an improvement.

That's precisely what I'm saying, though. As the GM, you're one of the primary opinion-makers of your group, and what you want to play is what gets played. Most others probably aren't invested enough in a particular rules system for it to matter to them. Therefore, YOU are the primary consumer within your circles that WotC needs to target in order to win them over.

Likewise, other circles have one or two guys just like you that act as the opinion-makers for the rest of the group, and they are the ones who largely decide what gets played at the table. These are the people who WotC needs to convince for the game to be adopted by the majority of players.

The reason why I do not hold out as much hope, is because the opinion-makers of each group are the people with the most investment in particular rules and systems. What they are looking for specifically is minutiae, so a simplified game might not be as much of a selling point as wotc thinks it is, even though that's precisely what hooked me.

Felhammer

2014-06-22, 09:28 PM

Most others probably aren't invested enough in a particular rules system for it to matter to them. Therefore, YOU are the primary consumer within your circles that WotC needs to target in order to win them over.

Outside of the casual player who buys little if any actual product, this has been the exact opposite of my experience. I know people who will outright refuse to play a given system of various an a sundry reasons (monetarily invested in another system, dislike the rules of a given system or have a level of system mastery (and disinterest in re-learning such things) that makes them dislike the idea of switching).

I agree a DM's preference for a system is a powerful voice but rarely have I ever seen that voice matter more than the other people at a given table, especially if they have a form a tight-knit group.

The reason why I do not hold out as much hope, is because the opinion-makers of each group are the people with the most investment in particular rules and systems. What they are looking for specifically is minutiae, so a simplified game might not be as much of a selling point as wotc thinks it is, even though that's precisely what hooked me.

Excepting the lingering problem of monetary investment, the simplicity of D&D's new edition IS a great selling point because you can take that simple core and graft on all the rules you desire to create the system you really desire (or an amalgam of it). The system, at its base, does not force unneeded rules upon you, rather it begs you to add more.

Morty

2014-06-23, 07:45 AM

Psyren

2014-06-23, 09:02 AM

I really think the only thing really keeping Pathfinder going is the fact that their adventures are so damn fun. Without them there would be no reason to use the pathfinder system over 3.5 or any other system out there.

If this were even remotely true they'd have given up on crunch books to just make more APs. But oh look, we're getting ACG in a few months so clearly the crunch is still making money. Plus they owe us another NPC Codex and Bestiary. None of those are APs.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-23, 09:03 AM

That's what WotC promise. Whether or not it will really work that way, or remain a simplistic and shallow system is another question altogether. Given their definition of what constitutes a complex option, I wouldn't expect much.

Ha, yeah the complex fighter was soooo tough to understand :smallsigh:

I'm hoping a lot of what they have been doing/saying over the last couples years have been a huge bluff to throw people off their trail.

Ballbo Big'Uns

2014-06-23, 11:18 AM

Outside of the casual player who buys little if any actual product, this has been the exact opposite of my experience. I know people who will outright refuse to play a given system of various an a sundry reasons (monetarily invested in another system, dislike the rules of a given system or have a level of system mastery (and disinterest in re-learning such things) that makes them dislike the idea of switching).

I agree a DM's preference for a system is a powerful voice but rarely have I ever seen that voice matter more than the other people at a given table, especially if they have a form a tight-knit group.

What can I say? My experience has been the opposite.

Casual players don't engage with the game when they're not playing. They don't spend a lot of time tweaking characters, they don't buy splat books, they don't post on gaming forums and they're not heavily invested in one system or another...why would they be? They play what their friends play because the social aspect of the game is the most important to them.

GM's are the ones who put all of the work into a game, so they largely decide what they run. I have never seen a GM running a game that he/she doesn't like for very long. I have seen groups that rotate GM's who each like different systems though.

Excepting the lingering problem of monetary investment, the simplicity of D&D's new edition IS a great selling point because you can take that simple core and graft on all the rules you desire to create the system you really desire (or an amalgam of it). The system, at its base, does not force unneeded rules upon you, rather it begs you to add more.

Yes I intend to hack the hell out of D&D Basic when it becomes available.

Knaight

2014-06-23, 02:47 PM

Ha, yeah the complex fighter was soooo tough to understand :smallsigh:

Tough to understand is a terrible design goal. Things can be complex without being obtuse, and while I'd argue the complex fighter wasn't, I'd point towards that as a better goal. Look at chess - the rules aren't that complicated, they're really straightforward, and it's a very deep game with a lot of complexity.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-23, 03:28 PM

Tough to understand is a terrible design goal. Things can be complex without being obtuse, and while I'd argue the complex fighter wasn't, I'd point towards that as a better goal. Look at chess - the rules aren't that complicated, they're really straightforward, and it's a very deep game with a lot of complexity.

I was more making fun of how they think complex = hard to understand, I typed weirdly.

I worked on multiple fighters that have endurance dice, can be high or low fantasy, and yet simple to use.

DrBurr

2014-06-23, 11:43 PM

Im probably one of the few 4e players who'll switch. Truth be told I can't report on the voice of 4th players other than what I read. I'm one of those guys who walked into a Barnes & Noble one day and said "Dungeons & Dragons? Why not" bought a PHB then pulled together a gaming group.

But personally what sells me on this system is the idea of modules, I'm willing to try any system and if this game can deliver a customizable experience to resolve my issues with 4th edition it'll probably become my groups main game. So far I've loved the deadliness of the playtest and the simplicity and I eagerly await basic D&D so I can see how the finished product works.

The game will be successful no matter where it draws its player base from, if it becomes the Market leader or fails to meet Hasbro's ridiculous standards remains to be seen.

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 05:46 AM

obryn

2014-06-24, 06:54 AM

Their 'modules' so far have consisted of tiny things that have little impact on the game. If you are expecting the modules to save 5E, then you will be disappointed. If you enjoy it despite the modules, then you might like the game.
Given that the entire DMG is about rules modules, you're being cynical again. I disliking a system, but holy cow, at least be honest.

Just yesterday, from WotC_Trevor over on ENWorld...

We basically had that discussion. This can be handled in two easy ways. One, the DM says "Hey, don't do that. It's cheesy." Which is my personal approach. The intent is that this is a fighter's second wind using the colloquial term, not the fighter mechanic name), shrugging off injuries in the midst of the action. Someone trying to use while I'm DMing outside of that context gets an eyeroll and a quick ask that they not try to do that again.

But for those who want something more firm, there are options in the DMG that will change how healing works, so I assume one or more of those will touch on how Second Wind for fighters works.

It's really important to note that there's all sorts of bits and nobs in this version of D&D to make it your own, to run the game at your table the way you want to. The way you play isn't wrong as long as you and your table are having fun, and the rules we've put together support that. Yes, some things are assumed for the base game either because it was straight forward, a defining feature of D&D, and/or because we had great feedback on a particular rule or feature during the playtest. But if you don't like something that's in the core of the game, the tools are there for you to change it so you can have the experience you want. That was the whole point, and I think the team has done an amazing job of combining that mix of basic rules, adjustable complexity and modular options so that people can make the game or campaign they want to play.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356053-Should-the-Fighter-s-quot-Second-Wind-quot-ability-grant-temporary-HP-instead-of-regular-HP/page12#ixzz35YZyTNnU
Also of note, there's going to be a VP/WP module in the DMG.

Morty

2014-06-24, 07:37 AM

archaeo

2014-06-24, 08:09 AM

While I don't agree with Lokiare's... style of argumentation, shall we say, I'm certainly sceptical about the modules, given what we've seen so far. I will be pleasantly surprised if they turn out better than the packages and Mearls' blogs suggested.

Has anyone from WotC brought up the term "module" lately? Trevor's comment mentions "bits and nobs [sic]," but that sounds much more like the DMG will be suggesting rules tweaks instead of offering huge chunks of rules to replace parts of the core system.

I think we'll just have to wait for the hype train to start rolling on the DMG to get a really good sense of what they mean when they talk about a "hacker's guide" to D&D. But I think you also have to give WotC some good faith credit here; whatever the company's previous sins, I think they really are trying hard to make an edition of D&D that each player can make into his or her own favorite game, and that's a cool goal to be pursuing.

Which, uh, sort of answers the thread's question in the best way that can be done right now: if WotC actually meets its design goals for 5e, it'll be a huge success.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-24, 08:27 AM

Has anyone from WotC brought up the term "module" lately?
No, I don't think so. And remember that the DMG also has to contain almost all of the magic items, helpful pointers on encounter design and world building, and that rules for e.g. aerial or underwater combat are traditionally found in the DMG. That doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for modules.

obryn

2014-06-24, 08:40 AM

Has anyone from WotC brought up the term "module" lately? Trevor's comment mentions "bits and nobs [sic]," but that sounds much more like the DMG will be suggesting rules tweaks instead of offering huge chunks of rules to replace parts of the core system.
Time will tell, I suppose. I read Trevor's post as clearly stating that WotC understands people want different things out of the game. And it looks like they have a desire to let them tweak it to a version they prefer.

Morty

2014-06-24, 08:43 AM

Which, uh, sort of answers the thread's question in the best way that can be done right now: if WotC actually meets its design goals for 5e, it'll be a huge success.

That is true - if 5e is all WotC says it will be, it will be a success. But my "good faith credit" for the designers, as you phrased it, was rather exhausted by months of what appeared to be a very direction-less design process with strange priorities. So I'm doing my best not to assume anything, but I'm also not expecting much.

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 09:02 AM

Which, uh, sort of answers the thread's question in the best way that can be done right now: if WotC actually meets its design goals for 5e, it'll be a huge success.

If people would bother reading the L&L articles they put out every few weeks, you would have a detailed description of what they think 'modules' are. They are slight tweaks to rules. That's it.

If 5E met its design goals, I'd be an instant fan promoting it everywhere. Unfortunately unless all the articles, interviews, live streams, and play test packets were all trolling by Mearls and 5E is completely different from all of that, its an impossibility at this point.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-24, 09:12 AM

"If the game was good then I would be promoting it!"
"I'm not promoting it"
Therefore
"The game is no good"

Logic! :smallbiggrin:

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 09:20 AM

"If the game was good then I would be promoting it!"
"I'm not promoting it"
Therefore
"The game is no good"

Logic! :smallbiggrin:

False logic, and a straw man to boot.

I never said the game was good or bad. I said if they kept their promises one of which is 'a game for all play styles from all editions'. If they did that, I'd be extremely happy.

Felhammer

2014-06-24, 12:55 PM

If people would bother reading the L&L articles they put out every few weeks, you would have a detailed description of what they think 'modules' are. They are slight tweaks to rules. That's it.

If 5E met its design goals, I'd be an instant fan promoting it everywhere. Unfortunately unless all the articles, interviews, live streams, and play test packets were all trolling by Mearls and 5E is completely different from all of that, its an impossibility at this point.

Mike Mearls talked about using the wound and vitality system like the one from Star Wars d20 being in the DMG. That is hardly a tweak.

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 01:52 PM

Mike Mearls talked about using the wound and vitality system like the one from Star Wars d20 being in the DMG. That is hardly a tweak.

When did he say that? I must have missed an article.

Felhammer

2014-06-24, 02:34 PM

When did he say that? I must have missed an article.

He mentioned it in the Unboxing video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9pBZTyQ-iA) from yesterday. It starts around 48:48. :smallsmile:

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 04:01 PM

He mentioned it in the Unboxing video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9pBZTyQ-iA) from yesterday. It starts around 48:48. :smallsmile:

I'm not familiar with that system, can you explain it please?

Felhammer

2014-06-24, 04:20 PM

I'm not familiar with that system, can you explain it please?

Basically your HP is divided into two separate tracks - Vitality and Wounds. Vitality measures attacks that graze or glance you, while Wounds represent attacks that actually physically hurt you. Vitality is a buffer and must be completely eliminated before enemies get to attack your wounds. You have a large amount of Vitality Points, while a tiny amount of Wound Points. Vitality Points regenerate 1 per hour but Wound Points are 1 per night.

If you take 1 point of Wound Damage, then you are fatigued. Any time you take damage to your Wound Points, you must make a Fort Save or be stunned for x amount of rounds. Once you hit 0 wounds (there are no negative Wound Points), you are dying and must make a Fort Save. Fail, and you die. Succeed by a little and nothing changes, succeed by a medium amount and you remain unconscious but stabilize, succeed by a lot and you become conscious but remain disabled.

da_chicken

2014-06-24, 04:44 PM

I'm not familiar with that system, can you explain it please?

You wouldn't like it. It's more "fantasy Vietnam".

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 05:53 PM

Basically your HP is divided into two separate tracks - Vitality and Wounds. Vitality measures attacks that graze or glance you, while Wounds represent attacks that actually physically hurt you. Vitality is a buffer and must be completely eliminated before enemies get to attack your wounds. You have a large amount of Vitality Points, while a tiny amount of Wound Points. Vitality Points regenerate 1 per hour but Wound Points are 1 per night.

If you take 1 point of Wound Damage, then you are fatigued. Any time you take damage to your Wound Points, you must make a Fort Save or be stunned for x amount of rounds. Once you hit 0 wounds (there are no negative Wound Points), you are dying and must make a Fort Save. Fail, and you die. Succeed by a little and nothing changes, succeed by a medium amount and you remain unconscious but stabilize, succeed by a lot and you become conscious but remain disabled.

You wouldn't like it. It's more "fantasy Vietnam".

Eh, I don't care. As long as its not the default option I've got no problem with it. So its possible they realized that 5E without massive changes would not be for everyone, except of course people who don't like the fantasy vietnam play style are getting stuck on the back of the bus (or in the DMG if you will) like second class citizens.

emeraldstreak

2014-06-24, 06:05 PM

You wouldn't like it. It's more "fantasy Vietnam".

5e is not fantasy vietnam

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 06:10 PM

5e is not fantasy vietnam

5E is very deadly. At any given level a single character can be felled by a lucky crit or two. The dice carry more weight than player decisions (unless those decisions involve avoiding combat altogether).:smallsmile:

Felhammer

2014-06-24, 06:23 PM

5E is very deadly. At any given level a single character can be felled by a lucky crit or two. The dice carry more weight than player decisions (unless those decisions involve avoiding combat altogether).:smallsmile:

Avoiding combat is a legitimate tactic, so is forcing the enemy to fight in a venue that favors you. If you gave all players max HP at every level and their constitution score at first level, that would go a long way to mitigating the easy death problem. :smallsmile:

emeraldstreak

2014-06-24, 06:57 PM

5E is very deadly. At any given level a single character can be felled by a lucky crit or two. The dice carry more weight than player decisions (unless those decisions involve avoiding combat altogether).:smallsmile:

It's not deadly. We've ran all adventures and never lost a PC.

The answer that eludes you is in your own words above.

When my group first took a look at the rules, it became obvious that if we played the way we used to in previous editions our characters would die. Why? Because monsters could, and would crit us eventually.

But instead of resigning to death, we revised our "tanking". We based it on, in order of priority:

1) Resistance and similar effects that halve damage

2) Hit points

3) AC

That's the secret to surviving 5e. Drop any notion that AC alone can protect you and focus on damage halvers and hit points.

da_chicken

2014-06-24, 08:17 PM

5e is not fantasy vietnam

I don't think so, either. "Fantasy Vietnam" is the term Lokiare uses to describe combat where PCs might die due to luck or, well, die due to anything other than improper builds or tactics. I assume he wants D&D to be primarily a skill-based game. Wounds/vitality is generally considered more dangerous, so I'm sure he'd hate it.

captpike

2014-06-24, 09:29 PM

Felhammer

2014-06-24, 09:37 PM

but it should be a tactic that the players chose to make, not one that the system tells them to make.

also keep in mind that because of the ridicules number of defenses you have (7) its not possible to have them all good, or even ok. you WILL run into creatures that attack your back save, or your AC if that is bad. it is not possible to have a PC with good overall defense anymore.

That is not a bad thing. That adds variety to the game. It makes players think about how best to approach an enemy and where best to fight him. This is not an edition where you can just faceroll your way to victory. :smallsmile:

captpike

2014-06-24, 09:49 PM

That is not a bad thing. That adds variety to the game. It makes players think about how best to approach an enemy and where best to fight him. This is not an edition where you can just faceroll your way to victory. :smallsmile:

it does the opposite though. if you see an enemy you avoid, if you cant avoid you fight. that happens every time you see an enemy. there is no other playstyle, everyone would play that way or they would lose PCs left and right.

what if I want to play a combat heavy game where I don't need 3 PCs per 6 sessions? the game should support more then that one playstyle.

4e game you a choice, you could avoid if you wanted to, or you could fight. the DM could give you hard fight after hard fight, or he could give you easy fights. you lack such choices in a fantasy Vietnam style system.

Envyus

2014-06-24, 10:43 PM

it does the opposite though. if you see an enemy you avoid, if you cant avoid you fight. that happens every time you see an enemy. there is no other playstyle, everyone would play that way or they would lose PCs left and right.

what if I want to play a combat heavy game where I don't need 3 PCs per 6 sessions? the game should support more then that one playstyle.

4e game you a choice, you could avoid if you wanted to, or you could fight. the DM could give you hard fight after hard fight, or he could give you easy fights. you lack such choices in a fantasy Vietnam style system.

Emerald Streak just said he never lost a PC. Your overreacting.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-24, 10:45 PM

captpike

2014-06-24, 11:26 PM

Give me other options then. You seem awfully knowledgeable about other playstyles. At least enough to label a couple. What I am not seeing is representation of other playstyles in your arguments. I hear "Vietnam, rocket tag, and obstacle course" alot. But all of these seem to revolve around combat. So lets examine combat in other playstyles.

Give me an option where players meet monsters where they don't either avoid or fight it.

I'll pick the monster: Carrion Crawler.

Alright, there is your monster. Now give me a scenario/playstyle using this monster that doesn't involve fighting or avoiding this creature?

You are not allowed to present a playstyle that disregards this monster. It must be included in your proposed playstyle.

you seam to be confused.

my point is that I want players to be given a choice, to fight or flee of their own volition. if the game is super lethal and one or two crits can kill you then the only option is to flee, if you get into the habit of fighting then you will be dead before too long.

my playstyle would be one where the DM (even if he is new to D&D) can quickly and easily make any fight any difficulty he wants, from easy but worth doing, to hard but not highly likely to kill anyone to very hard but high chance of PC death, but small chance of TPK.

I want my DM To be in total control of how hard a fight is. it also lets him show growth in having creatures that were hard 5 levels ago are now pushovers.

with the worst creature never being able to knock anyone out with less then 2-3 hits (not to say that has to mean 2-3 standard actions), anything less and he could just knock the wizard out without a fight.

Envyus

2014-06-25, 02:07 AM

I want my DM To be in total control of how hard a fight is. it also lets him show growth in having creatures that were hard 5 levels ago are now pushovers.

with the worst creature never being able to knock anyone out with less then 2-3 hits (not to say that has to mean 2-3 standard actions), anything less and he could just knock the wizard out without a fight.

Don't play low level then.

Also I don't think creatures that were hard 5 levels ago should be pushovers. They should still be a threat just not as much as they used to be.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-25, 08:35 AM

you seam to be confused.

my point is that I want players to be given a choice, to fight or flee of their own volition. if the game is super lethal and one or two crits can kill you then the only option is to flee, if you get into the habit of fighting then you will be dead before too long.

my playstyle would be one where the DM (even if he is new to D&D) can quickly and easily make any fight any difficulty he wants, from easy but worth doing, to hard but not highly likely to kill anyone to very hard but high chance of PC death, but small chance of TPK.

I want my DM To be in total control of how hard a fight is. it also lets him show growth in having creatures that were hard 5 levels ago are now pushovers.

with the worst creature never being able to knock anyone out with less then 2-3 hits (not to say that has to mean 2-3 standard actions), anything less and he could just knock the wizard out without a fight.

I think we have a difference in opinion of what a play style is, which lies at the heart of our disagreement.

I classify play style this way:
Gothic - full of dark dangerous shadows and supernatural threats.
Noir - Mysteries with questionable allies and information that leads to dead ends, and occasional carriage chases.
Heroic - Heroes fighting the giant monsters to save the little boy put up to be its sacrifice.
Fantasy - Wizards secreted away in towers calling on dark powers to accomplish their nefarious ends and the knights who challenge them.
Fantasypunk - Flying airships, teleportation platforms from city to city, trains that run on elemental engines
Dungeon Delve - find the secret labrynth of the Wizard Iz and overcome its traps and dangers to recover the Staff of Brilliant Wit.

These are examples of what I think of when I read "play style".

From your example above, I believe you are talking about the job of the DM. And it sounds to me like you just want to turn to page X, look something up and go. Basically not doing any of the prep work yourself. Which is fine, DM'ing is sometimes a pain. We all know this. By the sounds of it, 4e took all of the work out of your hands, and you like that. Which is awesome for you. I on the other hand, have a vastly different opinion.

I rather like having to take some time to figure out how to challenge my players. And if I'm accidentally heavy handed when the dice start falling, there is nothing preventing me from suddenly and discreetly changing things round to round to make the fight easier or not.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-25, 10:08 AM

From your example above, I believe you are talking about the job of the DM. And it sounds to me like you just want to turn to page X, look something up and go. Basically not doing any of the prep work yourself. Which is fine, DM'ing is sometimes a pain. We all know this. By the sounds of it, 4e took all of the work out of your hands, and you like that. Which is awesome for you. I on the other hand, have a vastly different opinion.

I rather like having to take some time to figure out how to challenge my players. And if I'm accidentally heavy handed when the dice start falling, there is nothing preventing me from suddenly and discreetly changing things round to round to make the fight easier or not.

The thing is, it's not like 4e eliminated this problem either. I ran plenty of sessions where I wound up dropping a power or leaving out an enemy or changing how an environment effect worked on the fly because the end result was something that was kicking the players butts due to bad luck and dice rolls.

Millennium

2014-06-25, 01:33 PM

4e game you a choice, you could avoid if you wanted to, or you could fight. the DM could give you hard fight after hard fight, or he could give you easy fights. you lack such choices in a fantasy Vietnam style system.
That has everything to do with DM style, and nothing to do with the system.

Lokiare

2014-06-25, 02:33 PM

Avoiding combat is a legitimate tactic, so is forcing the enemy to fight in a venue that favors you. If you gave all players max HP at every level and their constitution score at first level, that would go a long way to mitigating the easy death problem. :smallsmile:

Yes, it would. That along with about 10 more pages of house rules is what I'm going to have to use with 5E in order to play with the obstacle course style of play.

It's not deadly. We've ran all adventures and never lost a PC.

The answer that eludes you is in your own words above.

When my group first took a look at the rules, it became obvious that if we played the way we used to in previous editions our characters would die. Why? Because monsters could, and would crit us eventually.

But instead of resigning to death, we revised our "tanking". We based it on, in order of priority:

1) Resistance and similar effects that halve damage

2) Hit points

3) AC

That's the secret to surviving 5e. Drop any notion that AC alone can protect you and focus on damage halvers and hit points.

Wow, Min/Max away the problem? Well that really narrows down the choices. Everyone has to take Resistance feats and class features in order to survive. Wizards can only memorize Stone Skin and other defensive spells. Monks can only pick damage reducing paths and maneuvers.

I think we have a difference in opinion of what a play style is, which lies at the heart of our disagreement.

I classify play style this way:
Gothic - full of dark dangerous shadows and supernatural threats.
Noir - Mysteries with questionable allies and information that leads to dead ends, and occasional carriage chases.
Heroic - Heroes fighting the giant monsters to save the little boy put up to be its sacrifice.
Fantasy - Wizards secreted away in towers calling on dark powers to accomplish their nefarious ends and the knights who challenge them.
Fantasypunk - Flying airships, teleportation platforms from city to city, trains that run on elemental engines
Dungeon Delve - find the secret labrynth of the Wizard Iz and overcome its traps and dangers to recover the Staff of Brilliant Wit.

These are examples of what I think of when I read "play style".

From your example above, I believe you are talking about the job of the DM. And it sounds to me like you just want to turn to page X, look something up and go. Basically not doing any of the prep work yourself. Which is fine, DM'ing is sometimes a pain. We all know this. By the sounds of it, 4e took all of the work out of your hands, and you like that. Which is awesome for you. I on the other hand, have a vastly different opinion.

I rather like having to take some time to figure out how to challenge my players. And if I'm accidentally heavy handed when the dice start falling, there is nothing preventing me from suddenly and discreetly changing things round to round to make the fight easier or not.

We call those settings and environments. You can have the fantasy vietnam play style in any of those settings and you can have the 4E obstacle course play style (I call it mythic or heroic) in any of those settings.

captpike

2014-06-25, 02:46 PM

I think we have a difference in opinion of what a play style is, which lies at the heart of our disagreement.

I classify play style this way:
Gothic - full of dark dangerous shadows and supernatural threats.
Noir - Mysteries with questionable allies and information that leads to dead ends, and occasional carriage chases.
Heroic - Heroes fighting the giant monsters to save the little boy put up to be its sacrifice.
Fantasy - Wizards secreted away in towers calling on dark powers to accomplish their nefarious ends and the knights who challenge them.
Fantasypunk - Flying airships, teleportation platforms from city to city, trains that run on elemental engines
Dungeon Delve - find the secret labrynth of the Wizard Iz and overcome its traps and dangers to recover the Staff of Brilliant Wit.

These are examples of what I think of when I read "play style".

From your example above, I believe you are talking about the job of the DM. And it sounds to me like you just want to turn to page X, look something up and go. Basically not doing any of the prep work yourself. Which is fine, DM'ing is sometimes a pain. We all know this. By the sounds of it, 4e took all of the work out of your hands, and you like that. Which is awesome for you. I on the other hand, have a vastly different opinion.

I rather like having to take some time to figure out how to challenge my players. And if I'm accidentally heavy handed when the dice start falling, there is nothing preventing me from suddenly and discreetly changing things round to round to make the fight easier or not.

that kind of thing only works if the DM is very good, and has lots of time to spare. neither of which are good assumtions

I don't want to have to change things mid-combat every combat because its impossible to know how hard a fight will be until its fought. that is a sign of a broken system.

if 5e is made well it will allow a great many playstyles and settings to work. being able to know how hard fights are before they start is a key to that. without that you can't make a choice between grim and gritty and heroic, the system tells you.

what specifically does a game that tells you how hard each fight will be stop you from doing?

That has everything to do with DM style, and nothing to do with the system.

that is only true if the game is made well enough to give you choices, if the game is full of save or dies, two hit kills and such then the DM could easily kill you in an "easy" fight or you could stomp a "hard" fight.

that is why the system needs a simple to use way to tell how hard fights are.

Don't play low level then.

Also I don't think creatures that were hard 5 levels ago should be pushovers. They should still be a threat just not as much as they used to be.

then why even have levels? the point of the level system is to show growth, to show that the creatures you fought before are pushovers now, there was a time when you had trouble killing a small time warlord, now anything less then a demigod is not worth worrying about

Fwiffo86

2014-06-25, 03:16 PM

that kind of thing only works if the DM is very good, and has lots of time to spare. neither of which are good assumtions

I don't want to have to change things mid-combat every combat because its impossible to know how hard a fight will be until its fought. that is a sign of a broken system.

Or very poor DM skills.

if 5e is made well it will allow a great many playstyles and settings to work. being able to know how hard fights are before they start is a key to that. without that you can't make a choice between grim and gritty and heroic, the system tells you.

Knowing how hard an encounter is up to the DM. They are the one's who build it. If the DM lacks the skill to evaluate an encounter vs. his players, he lacks the skill to run the game. Since you cannot realistically build a series of stat blocks that accounts for every character with every build with every possible equipment load out, its the job of the DM to figure this out based on his characters. Not the system.

what specifically does a game that tells you how hard each fight will be stop you from doing?

Making decisions for yourself and your players. It's the system's way, or its the highway.

that is only true if the game is made well enough to give you choices, if the game is full of save or dies, two hit kills and such then the DM could easily kill you in an "easy" fight or you could stomp a "hard" fight.

Again, this is DM skill. The options are there to be used or not. If you don't want your players dealing with "Save or Die" scenarios, then don't pit them against them. The game is already full of choices. There are thousands of choices to be made. It's the DM's job to know their players, and what they can handle.

then why even have levels? the point of the level system is to show growth, to show that the creatures you fought before are pushovers now, there was a time when you had trouble killing a small time warlord, now anything less then a demigod is not worth worrying about

Who says you need them? Don't like the rule? Don't use it? I can easily see taking the level system out. Give training times for the abilities they can learn (class abilities of later levels), and let them spend game time learning them. Figure out your HP scheme and your done.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-25, 03:19 PM

We call those settings and environments. You can have the fantasy vietnam play style in any of those settings and you can have the 4E obstacle course play style (I call it mythic or heroic) in any of those settings.

That's fair. I can see that view.

Can you explain in greater detail obstacle course play. It sounds to me like, get from point A to point B. And can you use a reference other than 4e? I have little to no experience with that system. I'm happy with explanations of any other edition though.

Lokiare

2014-06-25, 03:53 PM

That's fair. I can see that view.

Can you explain in greater detail obstacle course play. It sounds to me like, get from point A to point B. And can you use a reference other than 4e? I have little to no experience with that system. I'm happy with explanations of any other edition though.

Obstacle course play is from http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

Basically its tied to the players choices deciding how the game goes instead of random occurrences. In this kind of fun if a character dies the response from the players should be along the lines of "I should have done X at Y time." or "I would have survived if you used Z power/spell/item when A did B." in fantasy vietnam games you hear "Well I was just unlucky that time, if it hadn't hit or crit me we would have won."

Random occurrences can shape the environment or even the outcome, but the main factor has to be player choices and tactics. It also has to include a recognizable win condition for whatever challenge is in place. The idea is that the game hinges on the skill level of the players rather than the luck of the dice.

For instance if you've ever played any of the Dark/Demon Souls games, they are known as very difficult and unforgiving, but almost nothing in the game is random. Its entirely based on player skill. They give you clear win conditions by showing you the enemies health bars and repeating what happens after each boss fight.

Knaight

2014-06-25, 03:53 PM

then why even have levels? the point of the level system is to show growth, to show that the creatures you fought before are pushovers now, there was a time when you had trouble killing a small time warlord, now anything less then a demigod is not worth worrying about
The point of a level system is for characters to get better in a particular way. The actual amount of that is absolutely irrelevant. A level system could easily go from a fighter type having trouble fighting one city guard to a fighter type having trouble fighting three city guards, and that's not actually an issue. It's a bit overly compacted for the type of game D&D is (and the 5e level system encompasses a far broader expanse of power than that), but it's still using the level system as intended.

Really, the main idea is one of sequential power growth within defined paths, where you get A then B then C, as opposed to just buying what you want when you want with experience. Going from warlord to demigod is a D&D trope, not a leveling system one.

That has everything to do with DM style, and nothing to do with the system.
The system plays into this in a big way. Some systems are specifically made so that combat is dangerous, where even a civilian might get lucky and kill someone with a lucky shot. Some systems are specifically made so that combat is deterministic, and if you're better, you win. Most are somewhere in between, with a pretty big bloc where combat is always dangerous because of the chance of a fluke, and a pretty big bloc where the characters can just overpower foes that aren't good enough with no risk.

These are also both useful for different designs. In some games fighting is supposed to be a bad idea, and the existence of any of it is a sign that something somewhere went horribly wrong. In other games, the entire point is to jump from fight to fight, and the rest of it is basically an excuse to keep the violence going. These design goals warrant different combat systems, which often means different game systems entirely.

captpike

2014-06-25, 03:56 PM

Or very poor DM skills.

the game needs to work for new DMs as well as one who have been DMing for 20 years.

part of that is having a way to easily and quickly tell how hard fights are without having to take a wild guess

Knowing how hard an encounter is up to the DM. They are the one's who build it. If the DM lacks the skill to evaluate an encounter vs. his players, he lacks the skill to run the game. Since you cannot realistically build a series of stat blocks that accounts for every character with every build with every possible equipment load out, its the job of the DM to figure this out based on his characters. Not the system.

again the system needs to work for ALL DMs not just ones who have been doing it for 20 years

nor should the DM have to know the ins and outs of every build for every PC.

you cant make a perfect system but you can get close, it should be easy to tell if a fight is going to be hard or easy ect

Making decisions for yourself and your players. It's the system's way, or its the highway.

...........are you even reading what I wrote? if so I suggest you read it again

I said I want a way to tell how hard fights are, that is the system giving me the choice. if I don't want to do that I can just ignore the XP chart.

what you want is no guidance at all, where if the system says all fights must be hard, they are. where only the best of DMs can decide how hard fights are, and even they must know every PC's build well.

Again, this is DM skill. The options are there to be used or not. If you don't want your players dealing with "Save or Die" scenarios, then don't pit them against them. The game is already full of choices. There are thousands of choices to be made. It's the DM's job to know their players, and what they can handle.

save or dies can be taken out yes, so long as you have something to replace them with.

the basic math for health, healing and damage is different, that would be very hard to change and if you did it could easily mean you would have to re-do all the MM stats

Who says you need them? Don't like the rule? Don't use it? I can easily see taking the level system out. Give training times for the abilities they can learn (class abilities of later levels), and let them spend game time learning them. Figure out your HP scheme and your done.

hmm what do we call a system where you increase your training, ability's, hp and such at certain times...

sounds like a very complicated way to do what the system does now, except your not calling it a level system.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-25, 04:03 PM

captpike

2014-06-25, 04:07 PM

Bear in mind Lokiare gave you his specific implementation of "Challenge" fun, which if you read the paper he links you to says nothing at all about whether (or how) randomness plays a factor in that type of fun. In it's most basic form, "Challenge" fun (what Lokiare refers to as Obstacle Course Fun) is about having and overcoming obstacles as the method of fun. In the paper they use "The Sims" as a game that's largely without "Challenge" fun. A flight sim would also be a good example. But note that you can have "Challenge" fun in any edition of D&D as all that is required is having obstacles to overcome and overcoming those obstacles is part of the fun.

it also means not having I-Win buttons. its not a challenge if the wizard just wins every fight with a spell.

it also means that everyone needs a way to help, you cant have a tier system like 3e because anything that would challenge a tier 1 or 2 would be impossible to fight as a tier 4 or less.

it also means the game needs ways for the DM to set up fights that he knows the difficulty of, so you don't want into a TPK you had no way to avoid, nor a fight that is so easy it was not worth getting out dice for.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-25, 04:15 PM

it also means not having I-Win buttons. its not a challenge if the wizard just wins every fight with a spell.

it also means that everyone needs a way to help, you cant have a tier system like 3e because anything that would challenge a tier 1 or 2 would be impossible to fight as a tier 4 or less.

it also means the game needs ways for the DM to set up fights that he knows the difficulty of, so you don't want into a TPK you had no way to avoid, nor a fight that is so easy it was not worth getting out dice for.

None of this has anything to do with a game system allowing or supporting "challenge" fun. Game balance is entirely separate from whether that game emphasizes challenge fun. For example, a game of mini-golf is challenge fun, no matter how good or bad the other players around you are. That isn't to say that it can't have an effect. As you point out, if all of your players are there for "challenge" fun and all of them are playing commoners and one is playing a wizard, it is unlikely (though again, still possible depending on how combat focused your game is) for the commoner players to be able to interact with the challenges and therefore overcome them. On the other hand, if you're running a political intrigue game, you can still have plenty of challenge fun, and it doesn't matter that the wizard ends every combat in the first round.

In short, don't confuse the type of game you are playing, with the type of fun a game allows.

captpike

2014-06-25, 04:27 PM

None of this has anything to do with a game system allowing or supporting "challenge" fun. Game balance is entirely separate from whether that game emphasizes challenge fun. For example, a game of mini-golf is challenge fun, no matter how good or bad the other players around you are. That isn't to say that it can't have an effect. As you point out, if all of your players are there for "challenge" fun and all of them are playing commoners and one is playing a wizard, it is unlikely (though again, still possible depending on how combat focused your game is) for the commoner players to be able to interact with the challenges and therefore overcome them. On the other hand, if you're running a political intrigue game, you can still have plenty of challenge fun, and it doesn't matter that the wizard ends every combat in the first round.

In short, don't confuse the type of game you are playing, with the type of fun a game allows.

that is quite possible the worse analogy I have ever read.

when playing mini golf you playing against the coarse, if everyone else makes a hole in one your still have to get it in. in D&D if the wizard kills everything then the encounter is done.

I am talking about combat because that is what is more important for the system to define well, the other stuff you can make up as you go, but combat needs to work well out of the box or it will never work well.

its not a challenge when there is in fact no challenge. when a wizard ends the encounter with one spell there is no challenge. when your fighting a creature that can kill you with a glance, and that you can hardly touch there is no challenge.

as much as a trope as it has become, I think its time has come again angel summoner and BMX bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw). neither of the people would ever be challenged. they would either easily deal with any problem, be ignored or be killed. game balance is what makes sure that you have interesting problems to deal with.

Knaight

2014-06-25, 04:34 PM

hmm what do we call a system where you increase your training, ability's, hp and such at certain times...

sounds like a very complicated way to do what the system does now, except your not calling it a level system.

The vast majority of systems, most of which aren't level based. GURPS in particular fits that, with it operating on actual in game training time to a pretty major extent. Plenty of them are also just as simple as level systems. The thing about level systems is that they operate off of a distinct ladder system, in which one moves up a level, gains whatever is at that level (usually several things at once), and moves on. The big other way is that you get experience, then just buy things with it, from skill increases to new abilities. The typical hybrid is that you get experience, then just buy things with it, but there's some sort of ranking that determines what is available to you - generally there are 3-5 of these rankings total, whereas that's pretty small for an actual level system.

Pex

2014-06-25, 09:26 PM

emeraldstreak

2014-06-26, 02:13 AM

@Lokiare

Every system has some core defining principles. For 5E it's that monster crits happen often (no confirmation roll) and do a lot of damage relative to PC hit points. One in 20 encounters will open with a monster crit (~ once per adventure), and one in 400 with monster double crit (~ once per campaign).

That's a core feature of the system. Addressing core system features with your character choices is common sense.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-26, 03:08 AM

It is a good thing to show monsters that were tough 5 levels ago to be push overs these 5 levels later. It's nostalgia within the campaign. It's an appreciation of what you have accomplished.

I agree, but in 5E this won't happen due to the miracles of BA (except if the DM fiats it, of course).

archaeo

2014-06-26, 05:02 AM

The minor point still stands. It is a good thing to show monsters that were tough 5 levels ago to be push overs these 5 levels later. It's nostalgia within the campaign. It's an appreciation of what you have accomplished. It is just plain fun for once in a while to have a combat that is a cakewalk. Just as when the party was 1st level there were monsters and npcs much higher level than them, now they are much higher level than other monsters and npcs, some being those same ones they faced when they were 1st level.

I think supporting this mechanically, however, isn't really necessary to achieve what you're saying.

In many ways, I think this is a bit of a video game trope, where developers had an incentive to a) reuse monster assets but b) needed to make them continually relevant. Developers also c) only have so much in space/resources/time to create monsters, so sometimes reuse becomes necessary. In lots of games, enemies just continue being relevant because they're always dangerous; in others, especially those where you become mechanically more powerful over the game, dropping them in these "power nostalgia" moments (or routing the character through previous areas to accomplish this same feat) manages it nicely as well.

D&D gives the DM a toolset without any of these limitations. If you want to set up a moment where the PCs revel in how powerful they become, there are any number of ways to accomplish it, from simply roleplaying the monsters as being too afraid to even face the high-level PCs to designing an encounter around the PCs succeeding handily. Bounded accuracy has several advantages; losing the ability to bluntly show the PCs how powerful they are via what's likely to be a mechanically useless encounter instead of weaving the PC's power level into the story more directly seems like a fair trade-off.

obryn

2014-06-26, 08:06 AM

I agree, but in 5E this won't happen due to the miracles of BA (except if the DM fiats it, of course).
You're overstating it. A group of 8 goblins is a challenge at 1st level, but those same 8 goblins would be pushovers (not necessarily ignorable, but nevertheless pushovers) at 6th.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-26, 08:16 AM

1337 b4k4

2014-06-26, 09:15 AM

that is quite possible the worse analogy I have ever read.

Then you clearly don't read much. I mean, if you prefer, I could compare WotC to Hitler.

when playing mini golf you playing against the coarse, if everyone else makes a hole in one your still have to get it in. in D&D if the wizard kills everything then the encounter is done.

Which I was pointing out, is only an issue if your obstacles are individual encounters. The point I'm trying to get across is your particular version of fun, where in each encounter is its own self contained obstacle to be over come is not the full breadth of "challenge" fun. You are mistaking your specific play style for a type of fun. They're not the same thing.

its not a challenge when there is in fact no challenge. when a wizard ends the encounter with one spell there is no challenge.

Again, see above.

when your fighting a creature that can kill you with a glance, and that you can hardly touch there is no challenge.

Only if you narrowly define your challenge as "defeating a monster using only the basic mechanics available in the combat subsystem of the game. In short, you are again conflating play style with type of fun. Alternatively, if the challenge is defeating a monster that you can not take on in a head to head fight, then that is still a challenge and an obstacle to be overcome. That you don't enjoy that particular play style in no way makes it any less valid or any less of a "challenge" type fun.

game balance is what makes sure that you have interesting problems to deal with.

And yet, for 30 some years, D&D was less "balanced" than it was in 4e, and people still had interesting problems to deal with.

It's not a challenge if the players can't fail either. All of your arguments for equality sound more like "I have a greater than 5% chance to fail! No, that must be broken. Or - If I make a bad decision I should have a safety net, so I don't get myself killed, cause otherwise its broken"

Eh, again, like Captpike, you're conflating a play style with a type of fun. A play style where in the players can always succeed, just perhaps not optimally has no particular bearing on whether the game supports or promotes "challenge" fun. The only thing "challenge" fun is about is having obstacles to overcome and overcoming those obstacles. Most games have some element of this, but certain games (like the Sims, flight sims and even mine craft) de-emphasize (or even don't have any) "challenge" aspects in favor of other aspects (like "discovery" or "sensory")

Fwiffo86

2014-06-26, 09:52 AM

Eh, again, like Captpike, you're conflating a play style with a type of fun. A play style where in the players can always succeed, just perhaps not optimally has no particular bearing on whether the game supports or promotes "challenge" fun. The only thing "challenge" fun is about is having obstacles to overcome and overcoming those obstacles. Most games have some element of this, but certain games (like the Sims, flight sims and even mine craft) de-emphasize (or even don't have any) "challenge" aspects in favor of other aspects (like "discovery" or "sensory")

*snickers* I was agreeing with you. I find that a balanced game in all situations is boring. There is no challenge to the characters. If they face a band of ogres, or a medusa, and the danger is exactly the same, there is no reason for characters to deviate from their typical tactics of smash face till it stops moving.

I completely agree that a "monster that can kill you with a glance" requires out of the box thinking. Yes, its unbalanced because the melees can't just run up an hit it, putting focus on ranged or trap builders. But that is the point. Some unbalance is needed so that the individual classes and characters can have time to shine and feel heroic. It doesn't matter the "play style" or the genre. The basic system needs unbalance to highlight heroic actions and plans.

Taking away the unbalance and mitigating everything to the same level no matter the class/monster/feat/spell means you only need one tool to get any job done. Where is the fun in that?

Lokiare

2014-06-26, 11:41 AM

It's not a challenge if the players can't fail either. All of your arguments for equality sound more like "I have a greater than 5% chance to fail! No, that must be broken. Or - If I make a bad decision I should have a safety net, so I don't get myself killed, cause otherwise its broken"

Nope, please stop dictating peoples opinions to them. If you don't understand their opinions, just ask for clarification. No need to use hyperbole and insults.

Then you clearly don't read much. I mean, if you prefer, I could compare WotC to Hitler.

Never happened. What was compared was people relying entirely on unreasonable hope, instead of action. Something we see here nearly every day ("surely WotC will fix that by time 5E comes out.").

Which I was pointing out, is only an issue if your obstacles are individual encounters. The point I'm trying to get across is your particular version of fun, where in each encounter is its own self contained obstacle to be over come is not the full breadth of "challenge" fun. You are mistaking your specific play style for a type of fun. They're not the same thing.

Actually, they are the same thing. Its just that we view each challenge as a separate obstacle course to be overcome. While others view entire encounters as a challenge to be overcome. In those cases they are relying on one fun type for the overarching game (challenge) and another (exploration/realism/expression) for the other parts. However if you bother to examine how 4E plays then you would realize each encounter is set up as a series of obstacles that must be overcome. So people that enjoyed 4E will likely think how we do, that each encounter is an obstacle course in itself.

Only if you narrowly define your challenge as "defeating a monster using only the basic mechanics available in the combat subsystem of the game. In short, you are again conflating play style with type of fun. Alternatively, if the challenge is defeating a monster that you can not take on in a head to head fight, then that is still a challenge and an obstacle to be overcome. That you don't enjoy that particular play style in no way makes it any less valid or any less of a "challenge" type fun.

Play style is defined by the type of fun you derive from it. Its nearly synonymous. Its also not just the basic mechanics, but improvisation (in a balanced system) in games like 4E that add to the challenge type of fun, because the results of improvisation don't rely on near complete randomness (what the DM had for breakfast or whether they had a fight with their girlfriend that day), they rely on set rules. DC's are set, damage is listed by level, etc...etc... So you can try anything you want, as long as it has a clear win goal and 4E's improvisation does, while 5E's improvisation doesn't. Part of it is knowing the chance of success or failure and being able to make an informed decision based on that information.

And yet, for 30 some years, D&D was less "balanced" than it was in 4e, and people still had interesting problems to deal with.

I love it when people use this argument. Its so easy to refute. Stone tablets worked fine for hundreds if not thousands of years, people still wrote poetry and epic stories, why don't you use that today? Why don't you do spreadsheets in permanent ink on graphing paper? Why don't you walk everywhere instead of getting a cab, driving, or flying. The answer is things improve over time.

Eh, again, like Captpike, you're conflating a play style with a type of fun. A play style where in the players can always succeed, just perhaps not optimally has no particular bearing on whether the game supports or promotes "challenge" fun. The only thing "challenge" fun is about is having obstacles to overcome and overcoming those obstacles. Most games have some element of this, but certain games (like the Sims, flight sims and even mine craft) de-emphasize (or even don't have any) "challenge" aspects in favor of other aspects (like "discovery" or "sensory")

Not even close. A play style is informed by the fun it produces. If the play style is not fun you stop using it and go to another play style. They are so interrelated that you can't separate them. The play style by the way isn't 'where players always succeed.' that's just an insulting meme that people keep throwing around. The play style is fun as an obstacle course where the win conditions are known and the players choices matter more than random occurrences. There are no instant wins, there are no single dice rolls that the players fates ride on. Things are spelled out clearly and directly enough that players know what is the win condition and what is the fail condition for each and every piece of the system (including each individual feat). In the case of arcane archer the 'win' and 'lose' conditions aren't spelled out clearly. You are left to guess, do math, or experience which is which.

*snickers* I was agreeing with you. I find that a balanced game in all situations is boring. There is no challenge to the characters. If they face a band of ogres, or a medusa, and the danger is exactly the same, there is no reason for characters to deviate from their typical tactics of smash face till it stops moving.

I completely agree that a "monster that can kill you with a glance" requires out of the box thinking. Yes, its unbalanced because the melees can't just run up an hit it, putting focus on ranged or trap builders. But that is the point. Some unbalance is needed so that the individual classes and characters can have time to shine and feel heroic. It doesn't matter the "play style" or the genre. The basic system needs unbalance to highlight heroic actions and plans.

Taking away the unbalance and mitigating everything to the same level no matter the class/monster/feat/spell means you only need one tool to get any job done. Where is the fun in that?

Yep, this is another meme. 4E was balanced, 4E was homogenized, therefore balance is homogenized. Except of course when its not. homogenization is only one form of balance. You can make a balanced 3E game. I hear some of the OSR games are way more balanced because they cut out the top 10+ levels. Looking at the play test there are some balanced things that are completely different such as the Heavy Armor Mastery feat and the Heavy Weapon Master feat. Both perform wildly different functions, yet they are about equally useful.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-26, 12:10 PM

Actually, they are the same thing. Its just that we view each challenge as a separate obstacle course to be overcome. While others view entire encounters as a challenge to be overcome. In those cases they are relying on one fun type for the overarching game (challenge) and another (exploration/realism/expression) for the other parts. However if you bother to examine how 4E plays then you would realize each encounter is set up as a series of obstacles that must be overcome. So people that enjoyed 4E will likely think how we do, that each encounter is an obstacle course in itself.

So then they aren't the same thing. As you note, it's possible to play the game two different ways and in both ways, have "challenge" fun. Therefore, playstyle != type of fun. Yes they are related, and I've never said otherwise.

Part of it is knowing the chance of success or failure and being able to make an informed decision based on that information.

Knowing the chance of success or failure does not require you to know those chances days or weeks in advance. If I drop the players into the holy grail temple from Indiana Jones, there's still a clear challenge, still a clear win condition and still clear chances for success or failure. Heck, even if as a DM I provide a new set of chances of failure for every skill and attack each and every encounter, you still know those chances and have the ability to make informed decisions, it's just that each encounter is more self contained than they were previously. I have never advocated that DMs should withhold information from their players which the characters would both reasonably know and are necessary to make informed decisions.

I love it when people use this argument. Its so easy to refute. Stone tablets worked fine for hundreds if not thousands of years, people still wrote poetry and epic stories, why don't you use that today? Why don't you do spreadsheets in permanent ink on graphing paper? Why don't you walk everywhere instead of getting a cab, driving, or flying. The answer is things improve over time.

The problem is, no one argues that you can't carve in stones and do spreadsheets on graph paper. Captpike is arguing that you can't have interesting situations without 4e. Regardless of how easy or hard it is to do relative to 4e, that statement is clearly false. It's those "facts" you like to go on about. It is a fact that you can have interesting encounters and decisions in versions of D&D that aren't 4e.

Not even close. A play style is informed by the fun it produces. If the play style is not fun you stop using it and go to another play style. They are so interrelated that you can't separate them.

Both 4e's "every encounter is a self contained challenge" and Call of Cthulu's "solve the mystery of the deranged cult" and Traveller's "meet you ship's mortgage payment this month" are all forms of "challenge" type fun. They're also 3 very different play styles. Yes, playstyles and type of fun are related, but they are distinct things, and conflating them does nothing to further your argument.

Lokiare

2014-06-26, 12:26 PM

So then they aren't the same thing. As you note, it's possible to play the game two different ways and in both ways, have "challenge" fun. Therefore, playstyle != type of fun. Yes they are related, and I've never said otherwise.

Play style is inextricably linked to the type of fun. The play style defines what kind of fun you have. If you are playing 3.5E you are likely having challenge fun only in a broad overarching campaign level sense, and realistic/exploration fun in each individual encounter. Whereas in 4E you are likely having challenge type fun throughout. Its more granular than you are making out.

Knowing the chance of success or failure does not require you to know those chances days or weeks in advance. If I drop the players into the holy grail temple from Indiana Jones, there's still a clear challenge, still a clear win condition and still clear chances for success or failure. Heck, even if as a DM I provide a new set of chances of failure for every skill and attack each and every encounter, you still know those chances and have the ability to make informed decisions, it's just that each encounter is more self contained than they were previously. I have never advocated that DMs should withhold information from their players which the characters would both reasonably know and are necessary to make informed decisions.

You have to know the chances enough ahead of time to make an informed decision. In the case of arcane archer player in the other thread, they did not know the chances ahead of time until after they fired 2-3 arrows and realized their chances had gone down dramatically.

The problem is, no one argues that you can't carve in stones and do spreadsheets on graph paper. Captpike is arguing that you can't have interesting situations without 4e. Regardless of how easy or hard it is to do relative to 4e, that statement is clearly false. It's those "facts" you like to go on about. It is a fact that you can have interesting encounters and decisions in versions of D&D that aren't 4e.

You are exaggerating again. They never said or even implied that. They implied that its easier in 4E because of the games structure and rules makes it easier.

Both 4e's "every encounter is a self contained challenge" and Call of Cthulu's "solve the mystery of the deranged cult" and Traveller's "meet you ship's mortgage payment this month" are all forms of "challenge" type fun. They're also 3 very different play styles. Yes, playstyles and type of fun are related, but they are distinct things, and conflating them does nothing to further your argument.

Actually solve the mystery isn't challenge fun. Its exploration fun. Meet your ship's mortgage payment can be challenge fun if you know ahead of time what the win conditions are for how to get the money, but its not necessarily played out like that.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-26, 12:48 PM

Play style is inextricably linked to the type of fun. The play style defines what kind of fun you have. If you are playing 3.5E you are likely having challenge fun only in a broad overarching campaign level sense, and realistic/exploration fun in each individual encounter. Whereas in 4E you are likely having challenge type fun throughout. Its more granular than you are making out.

I've said nothing about granularity, just that the same fun is possible with different playstyles. I'm glad we agree on this issue.

You have to know the chances enough ahead of time to make an informed decision. In the case of arcane archer player in the other thread, they did not know the chances ahead of time until after they fired 2-3 arrows and realized their chances had gone down dramatically.

So what part was hidden from the player ahead of time? They knew how ranged attacks work yes? They knew how their spells worked yes? They know what the english language words "resolve the spells effects" mean right? What was hidden? Why couldn't they make the informed choice ahead of time? And don't tell me they need to do math. It doesn't take any math beyond a 5th grade level to know that replacing "guaranteed hit" with "chance of miss" reduces your chances of getting the effect you want.

You are exaggerating again. They never said or even implied that. They implied that its easier in 4E because of the games structure and rules makes it easier.

Captpike said:

game balance is what makes sure that you have interesting problems to deal with.

In a discussion on whether you can have "challenge" fun outside of 4e's specific implementation. Captpike has previously stated he believes that 3e is unbalanced. If game balance is what makes sure that you have interesting problems to deal with, then by implication, lack of game balance prevents that from occurring. Since 3e is unbalanced, Captpike appears to believe that having interesting problems to deal with is not possible in 3e.

Actually solve the mystery isn't challenge fun. Its exploration fun. Meet your ship's mortgage payment can be challenge fun if you know ahead of time what the win conditions are for how to get the money, but its not necessarily played out like that.

The point, that you keep purposefully ignoring is that "challenge fun" is possible in multiple different play styles. Whether or not that play style is the one that is dominant is irrelevant.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-26, 01:14 PM

Yep, this is another meme. 4E was balanced, 4E was homogenized, therefore balance is homogenized. Except of course when its not. homogenization is only one form of balance. You can make a balanced 3E game. I hear some of the OSR games are way more balanced because they cut out the top 10+ levels. Looking at the play test there are some balanced things that are completely different such as the Heavy Armor Mastery feat and the Heavy Weapon Master feat. Both perform wildly different functions, yet they are about equally useful.

You are welcome to think what you want about my comment. But it has nothing to do with MEMEs. Nor did I say anything about 4e. I was commenting on my belief that making everything balanced (as in everything has equal value, and equal versatility) removes the capability of classes to shine, for characters to feel special, and for players to have time in the spotlight.

I would recommend you stop thinking every statement is an attack on 4e and pay attention to the essence of what is being said. I am not attacking you. I am not attacking your favored edition. I am stating my opinion. You are free to disagree. You are free to say you disagree. Stop putting words in other peoples mouths to attempt to make you sound more validated in your own opinions.

Millennium

2014-06-26, 01:17 PM

The point, that you keep purposefully ignoring is that "challenge fun" is possible in multiple different play styles. Whether or not that play style is the one that is dominant is irrelevant.
But for people like this, it isn't irrelevant. In fact, I dare say that its dominance is the most important thing. It's why you hear cries of D&D somehow "narrowing" its focus by making that style non-dominant, when the focus is in fact broadening.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-26, 01:21 PM

[QUOTE=1337 b4k4;17685087

In a discussion on whether you can have "challenge" fun outside of 4e's specific implementation. Captpike has previously stated he believes that 3e is unbalanced. If game balance is what makes sure that you have interesting problems to deal with, then by implication, lack of game balance prevents that from occurring. Since 3e is unbalanced, Captpike appears to believe that having interesting problems to deal with is not possible in 3e.
[/QUOTE]

This is one of the many reasons I can't really pay attention to him anymore, it is to the point that he isn't even entertaining anymore. I can take trolls, crazy, or jerks if they are entertaining but once they pass that line of unentertaining... I can't seriously pay attention to them anymore.

I hate the pathfinder system and I know it is vastly unbalanced. But I play with a group I like because they are a fun group to play with. I guess I've been mistaken about the challenges and interesting problems we have ran across...

Good thing I'm cleared up now!

Knaight

2014-06-26, 03:00 PM

The minor point still stands. It is a good thing to show monsters that were tough 5 levels ago to be push overs these 5 levels later. It's nostalgia within the campaign. It's an appreciation of what you have accomplished. It is just plain fun for once in a while to have a combat that is a cakewalk. Just as when the party was 1st level there were monsters and npcs much higher level than them, now they are much higher level than other monsters and npcs, some being those same ones they faced when they were 1st level.

I'd disagree with this as an overarching principle - it works for some games, not so much for others. For the D&D style in particular it's a valid design goal with an extended legacy, it would never fit, say, Trail of Cthulhu. It's not inextricably tied to the level system.

As for it being just plain fun to have a combat that is a cakewalk, I agree. That doesn't necessarily mean that it should be the same foes because of increased power. Maybe it's a situational thing - the nasty monster who previously ambushed the party in the dead of night, detecting them by scent is found again, led to a tannery with an overpowering scent in the middle of the day, and beat on. Maybe it's just that the opposition happens to not be up to par, because the PCs have been fomenting a rebellion against actual soldiers and fighting military patrols, and they bump into some smugglers and their enforcers. Etc.

captpike

2014-06-26, 04:24 PM

In a discussion on whether you can have "challenge" fun outside of 4e's specific implementation. Captpike has previously stated he believes that 3e is unbalanced. If game balance is what makes sure that you have interesting problems to deal with, then by implication, lack of game balance prevents that from occurring. Since 3e is unbalanced, Captpike appears to believe that having interesting problems to deal with is not possible in 3e.

most of 3e is wildly unbalanced, but there are sections that are balanced enough to have interesting problems, or situations that by sheer chance are interesting because the wizard does not happen to have the right I-Win button memorized.

also when I say "interesting game" I mean "interesting game for everyone" you certainly can have a interesting game for the Tier 1 players if your willing to ignore everyone else.

captpike

2014-06-26, 04:29 PM

You are welcome to think what you want about my comment. But it has nothing to do with MEMEs. Nor did I say anything about 4e. I was commenting on my belief that making everything balanced (as in everything has equal value, and equal versatility) removes the capability of classes to shine, for characters to feel special, and for players to have time in the spotlight.

I would recommend you stop thinking every statement is an attack on 4e and pay attention to the essence of what is being said. I am not attacking you. I am not attacking your favored edition. I am stating my opinion. You are free to disagree. You are free to say you disagree. Stop putting words in other peoples mouths to attempt to make you sound more validated in your own opinions.

it would be easier to do if you did not make wildly inaccurate statements like that.

you can have classes with different strengths in a balanced system. you can and should have different resources (classes, feats, powers ect) do different things, some flexible some not, the goal is for their power to be on level with each other. each class should be as valuable as any other, feats should be equal to each other in power.

so you don't have classes that can do 3 roles (3e wizards), and some that cant do any (3e monk). some feats that can be game changing, and some that are worthless

1337 b4k4

2014-06-26, 04:32 PM

most of 3e is wildly unbalanced, but there are sections that are balanced enough to have interesting problems, or situations that by sheer chance are interesting because the wizard does not happen to have the right I-Win button memorized.

also when I say "interesting game" I mean "interesting game for everyone" you certainly can have a interesting game for the Tier 1 players if your willing to ignore everyone else.

Like I said, if individual combat encounters isn't your primary obstacle, it's perfectly possible to have an interesting game for everyone, even if your wizard "I-Win"'s every combat. It's also worth noting that even despite these so called "I-win" buttons, plenty of people play 3.x or pathfinder, and they do so with multitudes of classes of mixed tiers and they have interesting games for everyone involved. That you don't is perfectly fine, but you're dismissing 30+ years of history simply because your play style doesn't mesh well with the game as written.

captpike

2014-06-26, 04:39 PM

Like I said, if individual combat encounters isn't your primary obstacle, it's perfectly possible to have an interesting game for everyone, even if your wizard "I-Win"'s every combat. It's also worth noting that even despite these so called "I-win" buttons, plenty of people play 3.x or pathfinder, and they do so with multitudes of classes of mixed tiers and they have interesting games for everyone involved. That you don't is perfectly fine, but you're dismissing 30+ years of history simply because your play style doesn't mesh well with the game as written.

the world has moved on, sure we know how to use clay to make tablets to write on but we have paper now so we have no reason to ever use clay again.

in 3e, the social situations have the same problems as combat does, spells>all, charm person, dominate ect.

past low levels in 3e a tier 5 character can only be useful if the high tier players let them be. its like watching a 5 year old "win" a basketball game against his dad.

one way that 3e is commonly "balanced" is by everyone agreeing (either out loud or not) to try to play on the same level. casters don't memorize their better spells, things like that. but its hollow everyone knows that problem the fighters just solved could easily have been solved by the wizard with less risk time or effort.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-26, 05:06 PM

it would be easier to do if you did not make wildly inaccurate statements like that.

you can have classes with different strengths in a balanced system. you can and should have different resources (classes, feats, powers ect) do different things, some flexible some not, the goal is for their power to be on level with each other. each class should be as valuable as any other, feats should be equal to each other in power.

so you don't have classes that can do 3 roles (3e wizards), and some that cant do any (3e monk). some feats that can be game changing, and some that are worthless

we aren't talking about 3e, or 2e, or 4e, or any other edition. We are talking about 5e. You're position that 5e should be a redressed version of 4e for lack of a better term is understood. Balance is system wide, yes. But the problem is, I see very little data provided that shows you understand that. What I see in abundance is "This feat is broken because it makes X less effective", or "They should stick to what they claimed", etc.

I'm sure in a perfect world, Feat X would be no more or less powerful than Feat Y. And to be honest with you, the feats provided when compared to each other... are pretty balanced against each other from my experience with them thus far.

Have you considered dropping your comparisons to other editions, and making decisions based on your actual experience (actually playing it yourself) instead? Are you willing to do that?

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-26, 06:26 PM

we aren't talking about 3e, or 2e, or 4e, or any other edition. We are talking about 5e. You're position that 5e should be a redressed version of 4e for lack of a better term is understood. Balance is system wide, yes. But the problem is, I see very little data provided that shows you understand that. What I see in abundance is "This feat is broken because it makes X less effective", or "They should stick to what they claimed", etc.

I'm sure in a perfect world, Feat X would be no more or less powerful than Feat Y. And to be honest with you, the feats provided when compared to each other... are pretty balanced against each other from my experience with them thus far.

Have you considered dropping your comparisons to other editions, and making decisions based on your actual experience (actually playing it yourself) instead? Are you willing to do that?

You know something, I love 4e. I'm one of the biggest supporters of 4e out there.

But I be damned if even I want to see a redressed 4e. And I would hope that others wouldn't want to see their favorite edition redressed and made into 5e. Because you know what, it wouldn't be 5e, it would be 2.8, 3.7, or 4.8... It would really take something away from the other edition.

Mix and match the best parts of the old and make a new system? Hell yeah. But making a retroclone of one particular system is just " Meh".

captpike

2014-06-26, 06:34 PM

we aren't talking about 3e, or 2e, or 4e, or any other edition. We are talking about 5e. You're position that 5e should be a redressed version of 4e for lack of a better term is understood. Balance is system wide, yes. But the problem is, I see very little data provided that shows you understand that. What I see in abundance is "This feat is broken because it makes X less effective", or "They should stick to what they claimed", etc.

I'm sure in a perfect world, Feat X would be no more or less powerful than Feat Y. And to be honest with you, the feats provided when compared to each other... are pretty balanced against each other from my experience with them thus far.

Have you considered dropping your comparisons to other editions, and making decisions based on your actual experience (actually playing it yourself) instead? Are you willing to do that?

were their stated goals different yes I would, if their goal was "an awesome game different from any before it" then yes I would have to evaluate it solely on its own merits.

but that is not the case, they made it a major goal to have a game that appealed to all major playstyles of past editions. that is what I have to judge them by. anything else would be nonsensical.

I don't want 5e to be a 4.5, I want them to learn from 4e and 3e to make something better, to have a balanced game that can do more then 4e ever could. I just 4e analogies because I am more familiar with that system then any other, and because one of their major goals is to appeal to its playstyle

Envyus

2014-06-26, 11:34 PM

because one of their major goals is to appeal to its playstyle

This is not one of their goals. Their goals are to get the most players they can.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-27, 07:32 AM

the world has moved on, sure we know how to use clay to make tablets to write on but we have paper now so we have no reason to ever use clay again.

Snark Answer: There is if 5 years after the release of your new "paper" writing system, the clay tablet system released by your competitors is outselling you and they give away their base product for free. And even worse, there's this subset of "stone tablet renaissance" people who are not only using stone tablets, but they're making money and waves remaking and selling your older products that you discontinued years ago.

Real Answer: There is if people enjoy and want to write on clay tablets, because we're not talking about convenience or efficient writing systems here, we're talking about games and people having fun. As I've said before, the technical merits of your game don't matter at all if that's not what people want to play, or they don't enjoy playing it as much as the alternatives. Or to put it another way, you view this as paper vs clay tablets, but plenty of people seem to view this as Lego vs Erector Set.

past low levels in 3e a tier 5 character can only be useful if the high tier players let them be. its like watching a 5 year old "win" a basketball game against his dad.

one way that 3e is commonly "balanced" is by everyone agreeing (either out loud or not) to try to play on the same level. casters don't memorize their better spells, things like that. but its hollow everyone knows that problem the fighters just solved could easily have been solved by the wizard with less risk time or effort.

So your assertion is that the only way the past 30 years of D&D history has been possible is because everyone was pandering to fighter players?

Millennium

2014-06-27, 08:28 AM

This is not one of their goals. Their goals are to get the most players they can.
Appealing to the build-centric, kick-in-the-door style of play is part of that. But so is appealing to other styles. This is where the 4e fans get off the boat, because that style -the style that 4e was made to appeal to- isn't really compatible with any other. Drop a door-kicker into a mixed table, and not only will the fun quickly be ruined for everybody, he will be blamed for it. Most of the time, the blame will even be correctly placed, because his actions will be the ones that started the mess.

obryn

2014-06-27, 08:53 AM

Appealing to the build-centric, kick-in-the-door style of play is part of that. But so is appealing to other styles. This is where the 4e fans get off the boat, because that style -the style that 4e was made to appeal to- isn't really compatible with any other. Drop a door-kicker into a mixed table, and not only will the fun quickly be ruined for everybody, he will be blamed for it. Most of the time, the blame will even be correctly placed, because his actions will be the ones that started the mess.
My 4e game is no more kick-down-the-door than any of my other D&D games have been. Which is, "Sometimes, because that can be a lot of fun."

I'm really disappointed this entire subforum has turned into the "Lokiare and captpike Action Hour"

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-27, 09:19 AM

My 4e game is no more kick-down-the-door than any of my other D&D games have been. Which is, "Sometimes, because that can be a lot of fun."

I'm really disappointed this entire subforum has turned into the "Lokiare and captpike Action Hour"

Your first point: +1

Second point...

Which makes me wonder something.

Have those two ever quoted or talked to each other all this time? That's weird right? I mean, you would think that two volatile people would have come to blows or something... I recall everyone else talking with both if them. But not them talkinf to each other. Huh., weird.

Envyus

2014-06-27, 12:51 PM

Have those two ever quoted or talked to each other all this time? That's weird right? I mean, you would think that two volatile people would have come to blows or something... I recall everyone else talking with both if them. But not them talkinf to each other. Huh., weird.

I brought this up weeks ago. Lokiare said that they had argued before and they just happen to share opinions about 5e. Even their rather crazy obsession with math and probability.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-27, 01:02 PM

I brought this up weeks ago. Lokiare said that they had argued before and they just happen to share opinions about 5e. Even their rather crazy obsession with math and probability.

Even if you agreed 100%, it stands to chance that you would conversate with each other at some point.

But no one agrees 100%...

captpike

2014-06-27, 03:41 PM

This is not one of their goals. Their goals are to get the most players they can.

that is not what they said, they said a "game for everyone" which I read as "a game for every major playstyle of the last several editions"

Fwiffo86

2014-06-27, 03:49 PM

that is not what they said, they said a "game for everyone" which I read as "a game for every major playstyle of the last several editions"

Which fundamentally is a way to get the most players. But then... it doesn't say....

which I read as "a game for every major playstyle of the last several editions

How can you want to have feat descriptions be as accurate as possible so you don't have to interpret them, but then liberally interpret this statement in such a way? Everyone knows that 100% is not possible. You can try, but Arkham will get you every time. No reason to have this as your sticking point for the merits of 5e. That just seems like you are being obstinate for no other reason that to be obstinate and attempting to justify it.

Side quote related

"Everyone knows that 100% is not a feasible goal. So some companies aim for say 95%. Now that sounds good right? Well, what if 5% of all airplanes crashed on landing?"

Arzanyos

2014-06-27, 03:51 PM

that is not what they said, they said a "game for everyone" which I read as "a game for every major playstyle of the last several editions"

But that is also not what they said. A more accurate translation would be "A game for as many people as we can possibly con into giving us money because we are a soulless corporate machine, and if we don't get enough money, we'll just lay off all the staff again, and if we do get enough money we'll still lay off all the staff so we can have someone at least halfway competent working on Campaign Setting: Ravnica, which will bleed all of our customers dry! Muahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!" "A game that doesn't alienate a bunch of our target audience.

da_chicken

2014-06-27, 04:09 PM

I assumed it meant "a game with everything from the old editions with the unpopular or divisive parts in 2e, 3e, and 4e taken out."

I was surprise alignment remained until I saw how it worked in the playtest (i.e., only mechanically affecting outsiders, elementals, and undead).

Since 4e was hugely divisive, I expected a lot of that to be gone. We still appear to have races with no ability penalties and 3 save deaths. Monster blocks have some 4e elements, too.

Since 3e ended up hugely broken, I expected a lot of the class system there to be gone. No prestige classes, no feat bloat, less powerful spellcasters.

2e just had bad multiclassing, bad ability mods, bad kits, ability score requirements, and THAC0. Well and some other wonky mechanics like 3/2 attack rates. 1e was even wonkier, and put all the wonkiness in the DMG just to be obtuse.

captpike

2014-06-27, 04:16 PM

Which fundamentally is a way to get the most players. But then... it doesn't say....

How can you want to have feat descriptions be as accurate as possible so you don't have to interpret them, but then liberally interpret this statement in such a way? Everyone knows that 100% is not possible. You can try, but Arkham will get you every time. No reason to have this as your sticking point for the merits of 5e. That just seems like you are being obstinate for no other reason that to be obstinate and attempting to justify it.

I am using their goal to judge their game, what other basis should I use? should I invent a random goal and see if they appeal to that one?

also the thing about goals is that it is often better to aim high and miss, then to aim low and hit. if they aim for every major playstyle but only hit 3 out of 4 they still make an awsome game. if they aim for 1 and hit they made a worse game.

any part of the game has to be specific to work, design goals for games are different.

I assumed it meant "a game with everything from the old editions with the unpopular or divisive parts in 2e, 3e, and 4e taken out."

I was surprise alignment remained until I saw how it worked in the playtest (i.e., only mechanically affecting outsiders, elementals, and undead).

Since 4e was hugely divisive, I expected a lot of that to be gone. We still appear to have races with no ability penalties and 3 save deaths. Monster blocks have some 4e elements, too.

Since 3e ended up hugely broken, I expected a lot of the class system there to be gone. No prestige classes, no feat bloat, less powerful spellcasters.

2e just had bad multiclassing, bad ability mods, bad kits, ability score requirements, and THAC0. Well and some other wonky mechanics like 3/2 attack rates. 1e was even wonkier, and put all the wonkiness in the DMG just to be obtuse.

so you think every part of every edition will be gone? because that is what would happen if you took out every part of every edition that some people disliked.

the parts of 4e that are the most unpopular form people who can't move on are the parts that others love.

if you make a game with a goal of not including anything anyone else will not like all you end up making is a game that no one likes enough to play.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-27, 04:18 PM

Since 3e ended up hugely broken, I expected a lot of the class system there to be gone. No prestige classes, no feat bloat, less powerful spellcasters.

I actually attributed this to 3rd party OGL insanity. While WotC is not by any stretch free of problems, they really can't be blamed for 3rd party power mad creations. Unless you hold them responsible because they went the OGL route.

captpike

2014-06-27, 04:21 PM

I actually attributed this to 3rd party OGL insanity. While WotC is not by any stretch free of problems, they really can't be blamed for 3rd party power mad creations. Unless you hold them responsible because they went the OGL route.

the weakest class (the fighter) and most powerful (druid, wizard, cleric) classes were in the phb1

everything else fell in between those.

Lokiare

2014-06-27, 04:26 PM

I've said nothing about granularity, just that the same fun is possible with different playstyles. I'm glad we agree on this issue.

Exactly, you've left out granularity at all because if one can get a tiny portion of a fun type out of a play style then you proclaim that all play styles can have multiple fun types. When if you read the article I linked, you realize that all play styles provide multiple fun types, but that other fun types can ruin it for some people, and other people enjoy a certain fun type being prevalent. In the case of 5E its predominately the fun type realistic fantasy world, and exploration of the storytellers world, and has very little challenge type fun. In other words that was never in question. You just latched onto it trying to prove me wrong.

So what part was hidden from the player ahead of time? They knew how ranged attacks work yes? They knew how their spells worked yes? They know what the english language words "resolve the spells effects" mean right? What was hidden? Why couldn't they make the informed choice ahead of time? And don't tell me they need to do math. It doesn't take any math beyond a 5th grade level to know that replacing "guaranteed hit" with "chance of miss" reduces your chances of getting the effect you want.

Ok, without math: The feat didn't state or hint that your chances of successfully getting a creature to fail a save goes down quite a bit when you combine single target spells with saves with arrows. Instead it led players to believe that they might take a minor hit to getting enemies to fail saves when combining single target spells with arrows.

In other words the casual player is misled about their chances unless they are extremely experienced or have lots of math skills.

Captpike said:

In a discussion on whether you can have "challenge" fun outside of 4e's specific implementation. Captpike has previously stated he believes that 3e is unbalanced. If game balance is what makes sure that you have interesting problems to deal with, then by implication, lack of game balance prevents that from occurring. Since 3e is unbalanced, Captpike appears to believe that having interesting problems to deal with is not possible in 3e.

The point, that you keep purposefully ignoring is that "challenge fun" is possible in multiple different play styles. Whether or not that play style is the one that is dominant is irrelevant.

Well if that's what they are saying, then I don't agree with Captpike on that. Different people have different fun types and rolling a single dice that your characters life hinges on is fun to some people. Just not to me.

My 4e game is no more kick-down-the-door than any of my other D&D games have been. Which is, "Sometimes, because that can be a lot of fun."

I'm really disappointed this entire subforum has turned into the "Lokiare and captpike Action Hour"

I'm really disappointed this entire subforum likes to single out the opinions of Lokiare and Captpike and make fun of them. Guess we are both disappointed.

Which fundamentally is a way to get the most players. But then... it doesn't say....

How can you want to have feat descriptions be as accurate as possible so you don't have to interpret them, but then liberally interpret this statement in such a way? Everyone knows that 100% is not possible. You can try, but Arkham will get you every time. No reason to have this as your sticking point for the merits of 5e. That just seems like you are being obstinate for no other reason that to be obstinate and attempting to justify it.

Side quote related

Yeah, we live in that world by the way. Companies get away with what is pretty much murder:

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/formula.asp

50% mortality rate for children that use your products. What most people don't understand is companies are all about the money. You might have a good CEO here or a good manager there that will choose to make the right decision over more profitability, but its rare, because those kinds of people get replaced by the other kind that wants to make money.

I don't trust any company. Especially those that in the past have proven themselves unreliable.

But that is also not what they said. A more accurate translation would be "A game for as many people as we can possibly con into giving us money because we are a soulless corporate machine, and if we don't get enough money, we'll just lay off all the staff again, and if we do get enough money we'll still lay off all the staff so we can have someone at least halfway competent working on Campaign Setting: Ravnica, which will bleed all of our customers dry! Muahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!" "A game that doesn't alienate a bunch of our target audience.

It once again amazes me how no one reads the Legend and Lore articles. Mearls repeats over and over that they want to make a game for all play styles and even uses some 4E examples. All throughout the play test even up to a month or two ago, this has been said. I know that some of you are giggling in glee that 4E is dead and your preferred play style is getting catered to again, but please at least read their articles. You might find out WotC is not the angel its telling you it is.

Note: No, I'm not going to look it up for you. Go back and read the last 5-6 Legend and Lore's. You'll find references to it.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-27, 04:46 PM

Yeah, we live in that world by the way. Companies get away with what is pretty much murder:

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/formula.asp

Why did you focus on the 100% not accurate part of my statement instead of this part?

How can you want to have feat descriptions be as accurate as possible so you don't have to interpret them, but then liberally interpret this statement in such a way?

Especially since this is the point of the post? I'm genuinely curious.

Lokiare

2014-06-27, 04:49 PM

Why did you focus on the 100% not accurate part of my statement instead of this part?

Especially since this is the point of the post? I'm genuinely curious.

I pointed out the flawed part of your statement and left the part that was not flawed alone. Why were you expecting something like "that makes sense" or "I agree." or something?

CyberThread

2014-06-27, 04:53 PM

so have you folks figured out yet if it will be succesful

Knaight

2014-06-27, 04:57 PM

the weakest class (the fighter) and most powerful (druid, wizard, cleric) classes were in the phb1

everything else fell in between those.

The fighter is nowhere near the weakest class. The soulknife and CW Samurai, for instance, are significantly weaker. Heck, the soulknife's main class feature is the ability to summon a weapon strong enough to keep them on par with a fighter using a nonmagical weapon with no bonus feats, who doesn't use their last iterative attack (seriously, 3/4 BAB?).

That's not to say that 3.x's imbalance was due to splats or 3rd party stuff. Core is a mess with balance, just not to the point outlined here.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-27, 05:05 PM

I pointed out the flawed part of your statement and left the part that was not flawed alone. Why were you expecting something like "that makes sense" or "I agree." or something?

LOL, I thought it was the opposite. From your link, I thought you were agreeing with my statement about not being able to reach 100%, and were using a dynamic example. Well then... I stand corrected.

Envyus

2014-06-27, 05:07 PM

Yeah, we live in that world by the way. Companies get away with what is pretty much murder:

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/formula.asp

50% mortality rate for children that use your products. What most people don't understand is companies are all about the money. You might have a good CEO here or a good manager there that will choose to make the right decision over more profitability, but its rare, because those kinds of people get replaced by the other kind that wants to make money.

I don't trust any company. Especially those that in the past have proven themselves unreliable.

It once again amazes me how no one reads the Legend and Lore articles. Mearls repeats over and over that they want to make a game for all play styles and even uses some 4E examples. All throughout the play test even up to a month or two ago, this has been said. I know that some of you are giggling in glee that 4E is dead and your preferred play style is getting catered to again, but please at least read their articles. You might find out WotC is not the angel its telling you it is.

Note: No, I'm not going to look it up for you. Go back and read the last 5-6 Legend and Lore's. You'll find references to it.

Ok I don't care if the Baby thing is true or not as it has nothing to do with anything d&d related.

I do read Legends and Lore and so far nothing in it has made it sound as bad as you are saying it is.

Also what the hell is the Angel comment about. The Legends and Lore just explain game details. And once again how did WOTC earn your distrust and prove unreliable to you.

Lokiare

2014-06-27, 05:34 PM

Ok I don't care if the Baby thing is true or not as it has nothing to do with anything d&d related.

I do read Legends and Lore and so far nothing in it has made it sound as bad as you are saying it is.

Also what the hell is the Angel comment about. The Legends and Lore just explain game details. And once again how did WOTC earn your distrust and prove unreliable to you.

* At the end of 3E they insulted 3E fans and 3.5E itself.

* They made promises they didn't keep (no matter the why).

* They lied or were completely silent about many of their releases or failed promises. (a "sorry something bad happened so we are pushing back the release of DDi for a year" would have been perfectly fine. After being asked directly if the new 'DDi tools' would replace the offline tools, Paolo the lead software developer promised that 'the new DDi tools will complement the existing ones', when in fact they replaced them completely.)

* People who bought PDFs could no longer download them https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090407/1130584421.shtml

* In order to use the WotC customer service you had to send an email to WotC telling them their customer support website wasn't working (which they then fixed for your specific account). The only way to find this info was on their forums.

* Forcing anyone with a third party product or fan site into closing down http://geek-related.com/2009/02/09/will-wotc-close-you-down-next/

* They removed content that was formerly free and put it behind a pay wall.

* They have absolutely no idea how to run the electronic side of their business to the point that single individuals were putting out better software working out of their basements on the weekend.

* They received a C&D order from Smiteworks for using their dice animations in their virtual table top presentation. (stealing IP).

* They generally treat their customers as expendable.

There are tons more, those are just the ones off the top of my head.

Arzanyos

2014-06-27, 05:45 PM

Well, when you put it that way... I honestly can't think of a reason why it would not be a good idea to just put the Mtg division in charge of D&D as well. Because they're basically printing money right now.

Envyus

2014-06-27, 06:17 PM

* At the end of 3E they insulted 3E fans and 3.5E itself.

* They made promises they didn't keep (no matter the why).

* They lied or were completely silent about many of their releases or failed promises. (a "sorry something bad happened so we are pushing back the release of DDi for a year" would have been perfectly fine. After being asked directly if the new 'DDi tools' would replace the offline tools, Paolo the lead software developer promised that 'the new DDi tools will complement the existing ones', when in fact they replaced them completely.)

* People who bought PDFs could no longer download them https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090407/1130584421.shtml

* In order to use the WotC customer service you had to send an email to WotC telling them their customer support website wasn't working (which they then fixed for your specific account). The only way to find this info was on their forums.

* Forcing anyone with a third party product or fan site into closing down http://geek-related.com/2009/02/09/will-wotc-close-you-down-next/

* They removed content that was formerly free and put it behind a pay wall.

* They have absolutely no idea how to run the electronic side of their business to the point that single individuals were putting out better software working out of their basements on the weekend.

* They received a C&D order from Smiteworks for using their dice animations in their virtual table top presentation. (stealing IP).

* They generally treat their customers as expendable.

There are tons more, those are just the ones off the top of my head.

Isn't the team responsible for 5e a different team then the guys responsible for this as my question was primarily why you disliked this team. Also everyone makes mistakes or does stupid things they are not alone in this.

Anyway thank you for finally giving me the reasons you dislike them.

russdm

2014-06-27, 07:59 PM

so have you folks figured out yet if it will be successful

If they sell it with free cookies, then it will take off. Personally, I am trying to move away from D&D as a game and looking for other games to play that interest me more.

That said, sadly, I am going to get it anyway because it says D&D on it. Or at least I plan to buy it, but whether it gets played actually will depend, and if I don't end up playing it, then I won't be keeping it.

Lokiare

2014-06-27, 08:45 PM

Isn't the team responsible for 5e a different team then the guys responsible for this as my question was primarily why you disliked this team. Also everyone makes mistakes or does stupid things they are not alone in this.

Anyway thank you for finally giving me the reasons you dislike them.

Many of them were laid off and work for other companies like Paizo now. For the most part it wasn't the writers that did these things, its the Hasbro corporate culture. Though Mearls doesn't appear to understand what made each edition popular so there is that and he was present during most of this being one of the few people that somehow dodged the lay offs.

Pex

2014-06-27, 08:52 PM

Isn't the team responsible for 5e a different team then the guys responsible for this as my question was primarily why you disliked this team. Also everyone makes mistakes or does stupid things they are not alone in this.

Anyway thank you for finally giving me the reasons you dislike them.

Everyone making a mistake is not an excuse to make a mistake and be forgiven, especially considering this "mistake" was on purpose design. Whether they should be forgiven on their own merit is another matter.

obryn

2014-06-27, 10:35 PM

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/formula.asp[/url]

50% mortality rate for children that use your products.
Ahahaha 50% mortality rate? Say what?

Second, this article is the perfect pseudoscience storm. It has one source - another article on a second site. And THAT article has no citations at all. Just a big disclaimer.

da_chicken

2014-06-27, 11:18 PM

I actually attributed this to 3rd party OGL insanity. While WotC is not by any stretch free of problems, they really can't be blamed for 3rd party power mad creations. Unless you hold them responsible because they went the OGL route.

Actually, I blame prestige classes with trivial prerequisites, an abundance of front loaded classes, no real multiclassing penalties, and spellcasting causing tier 1 and tier 2 classes to exist. Those are exacerbated by third party material, but it's more than easy to accomplish with first party books.

archaeo

2014-06-28, 12:51 AM

so have you folks figured out yet if it will be succesful

Not yet. Though we are receiving a master class in player entitlement!

Lokiare

2014-06-28, 09:11 AM

Ahahaha 50% mortality rate? Say what?

Second, this article is the perfect pseudoscience storm. It has one source - another article on a second site. And THAT article has no citations at all. Just a big disclaimer.

From: http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/go/index.php/271/formula-death-rates

"In 2002, the FDA warned that the formula Portagen (manufactured by Mead Johnson Ntritionals) could cause Enterobacter sakazakii infections, which in turn can cause necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, and meningitis – three diseases that cause numerous infant deaths in the USA per year.

In 2003, the soy-based formula “Remedia” was linked to 3 infant deaths in Israel and several others in critical condition. Soy-based formulas have been creating health issues in infants for a number of years, and only recently have studies been conducted revealing how unnecessary and unsafe this protein is for our babies.

In 2008, the FDA found traces of melamine in thousands of samples of popular US infant formulas (Enfamil LIPIL with Iron and Nestle’s “Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with iron”). At least 3 babies have reportedly needlessly died from exposure to this formula alone, leaving another 50,000 infants ill."

etc...etc...

There are also studies that show formula babies become obese more often. But we can pick just about any product made by a corporation and find similar problems such as death rates from normal use. They have to choose what is acceptable death rates from the use of their products and their answer is usually "what is profitable" If they make a profit of +$10,000,000 from using a deadly ingredient and the lawsuits only cost $5,000,000.00 then they will continue to use that.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-28, 11:48 AM

From: http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/go/index.php/271/formula-death-rates

"In 2002, the FDA warned that the formula Portagen (manufactured by Mead Johnson Ntritionals) could cause Enterobacter sakazakii infections, which in turn can cause necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, and meningitis – three diseases that cause numerous infant deaths in the USA per year.

In 2003, the soy-based formula “Remedia” was linked to 3 infant deaths in Israel and several others in critical condition. Soy-based formulas have been creating health issues in infants for a number of years, and only recently have studies been conducted revealing how unnecessary and unsafe this protein is for our babies.

In 2008, the FDA found traces of melamine in thousands of samples of popular US infant formulas (Enfamil LIPIL with Iron and Nestle’s “Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with iron”). At least 3 babies have reportedly needlessly died from exposure to this formula alone, leaving another 50,000 infants ill."

etc...etc...

There are also studies that show formula babies become obese more often. But we can pick just about any product made by a corporation and find similar problems such as death rates from normal use. They have to choose what is acceptable death rates from the use of their products and their answer is usually "what is profitable" If they make a profit of +$10,000,000 from using a deadly ingredient and the lawsuits only cost $5,000,000.00 then they will continue to use that.

Hot damn! I didn't know D&D next leaked more rule leaks! This is so damn awesome thanks for sharing this valuable information!

Seriously? Can stop with this drivel on a D&D forum?

da_chicken

2014-06-28, 12:01 PM

I agree. I also remember the first one. It was a single tainted batch that was recalled.

obryn

2014-06-28, 02:51 PM

From: http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/go/index.php/271/formula-death-rates

"In 2002, the FDA warned that the formula Portagen (manufactured by Mead Johnson Ntritionals) could cause Enterobacter sakazakii infections, which in turn can cause necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, and meningitis – three diseases that cause numerous infant deaths in the USA per year.

In 2003, the soy-based formula “Remedia” was linked to 3 infant deaths in Israel and several others in critical condition. Soy-based formulas have been creating health issues in infants for a number of years, and only recently have studies been conducted revealing how unnecessary and unsafe this protein is for our babies.

In 2008, the FDA found traces of melamine in thousands of samples of popular US infant formulas (Enfamil LIPIL with Iron and Nestle’s “Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with iron”). At least 3 babies have reportedly needlessly died from exposure to this formula alone, leaving another 50,000 infants ill."

etc...etc...

There are also studies that show formula babies become obese more often. But we can pick just about any product made by a corporation and find similar problems such as death rates from normal use. They have to choose what is acceptable death rates from the use of their products and their answer is usually "what is profitable" If they make a profit of +$10,000,000 from using a deadly ingredient and the lawsuits only cost $5,000,000.00 then they will continue to use that.
...and another article with no citations whatsoever. Amazing. You'll just believe anything you read as long as it plays into your preconceived notions, won't you? You're gullible in the guise of being skeptical.

I'm also still not seeing where there's a 50% mortality rate. :smallbiggrin:

Envyus

2014-06-28, 04:02 PM

...and another article with no citations whatsoever. Amazing. You'll just believe anything you read as long as it plays into your preconceived notions, won't you? You're gullible in the guise of being skeptical.

I'm also still not seeing where there's a 50% mortality rate. :smallbiggrin:

Please don't argue with him about this. It has nothing to do with D&D.

obryn

2014-06-28, 04:40 PM

Please don't argue with him about this. It has nothing to do with D&D.
I think it has everything to do with his mindset about D&D.

But yes, it's a derail.

Lokiare

2014-06-29, 03:34 PM

Hot damn! I didn't know D&D next leaked more rule leaks! This is so damn awesome thanks for sharing this valuable information!

Seriously? Can stop with this drivel on a D&D forum?

...and another article with no citations whatsoever. Amazing. You'll just believe anything you read as long as it plays into your preconceived notions, won't you? You're gullible in the guise of being skeptical.

I'm also still not seeing where there's a 50% mortality rate. :smallbiggrin:

Please don't argue with him about this. It has nothing to do with D&D.

I think it has everything to do with his mindset about D&D.

But yes, it's a derail.

I'll quit if everyone else quits. You'll remember I didn't start it, someone else did.

Envyus

2014-06-29, 04:53 PM

I'll quit if everyone else quits. You'll remember I didn't start it, someone else did.

I know you did not start it. It's why I am asked the guy who started it to stop.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-29, 06:10 PM

so have you folks figured out yet if it will be succesful

Please define what you mean by "successful" and what metrics you expect us to be using, otherwise the question is rather meaningless.

Psyren

2014-06-29, 11:24 PM

Please define what you mean by "successful" and what metrics you expect us to be using, otherwise the question is rather meaningless.

I believe he was facetiously referencing the thread title and the fact that people seem to be arguing about everything except said title, rather than actually raising the question himself.

(For the record I agree that the question is meaningless, but then we might have a sensible thread in its place instead! Can't have that! :smalltongue:)

pwykersotz

2014-06-30, 04:19 PM

Please define what you mean by "successful" and what metrics you expect us to be using, otherwise the question is rather meaningless.

The metrics were given in the first post.

Do you imagine D&D Fifth Edition will be a commercial success, according to the standards of Hasbro? Will it become the most commonly played version of D&D? Will it expand the tabletop RPG fanbase?

I see it doing well with the established D&D crowd, but not bringing in many new players. The rules still seem a bit intimidating for someone entirely new, and the focus seems to be on nostalgia and tradition.

I'm going to predict yes by a slim margin. My reasons are vast and nebulous, making it more intuition and guesswork than a studied prediction, but I'll throw it out there for what it's worth.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-30, 04:45 PM

The metrics were given in the first post.
Ok. In that case:

Will be a commercial success, according to the standards of Hasbro? If Hasbro uses the same standards as they did for 4E, absolutely not. However, a more reasonable metric for commercial success is asking will it be profitable? Now we have strong indications that 4E was never profitable, mostly due to its high expenses. 5E may be profitable if either its expenses are substantially lower, or if it gets a substantially larger player base than 4E did. There is little indication of the former, but WOTC seems definitely to be aiming for the latter.

Will it become the most commonly played version of D&D? Highly unlikely. The game seems to give existing players very little reason to switch over, other than "I'm tired of my current game, let's see what the new thing is".

Will it expand the tabletop RPG fanbase? Highly likely. WOTC appears to build and market this game primarily towards new players.

Psyren

2014-06-30, 06:38 PM

Why did 4e have high expenses though? The production values didn't seem any better than PF (and half the art was reused anyway.) Did they release that many more books, or was it something else?

da_chicken

2014-06-30, 08:11 PM

Why did 4e have high expenses though? The production values didn't seem any better than PF (and half the art was reused anyway.) Did they release that many more books, or was it something else?

I would assume it's from the stuff we never saw (virtual table top, better DM tools, PDFs available for all the books you own, etc.) combined with a larger staff (not just to design the game, but to maintain errata, act as community moderators and leads, etc.). Essentially, 4e as proposed was as much a software product as a game rule product. I'm sure they recognized that selling rules is never a long term means of success. That's what D&D Insider was supposed to fix. They brought Dungeon and Dragon back in house for a different format of subscription -- one which they had full control of. I always got the impression that 4e was supposed to be run like how Blizzard runs WoW. I'm not talking about the game being an MMO (although I don't necessarily disagree with that criticism), I mean the game working on a subscription based model with a strong centralized community management and a flexible and agile rules team trying to fix every bug and complaint with the online tools essentially required to keep it all together. A Roleplaying Game as a Service, if you will ("as-a-service" and "cloud" were tremendous buzzwords when 4e was designed and released). Just maintaining the D&D Insider game database was a fairly difficult task that would not be possible without the revenue from the subscriptions of players. PDF piracy, IMO, was a major factor in killing the game early on, and the change in PDF policy was the first in a long line of steps that steadily chipped away at the grand designs of the original 4e. That left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths.

obryn

2014-06-30, 08:42 PM

I don't really trust Ryan Dancey's word on anything, particularly anything WotC-related.

Psyren

2014-06-30, 09:09 PM

I agree with you that the original vision for monetizing 4e was a subscription model centered around DDI.

As far as PDF piracy killing the game though, I'm not sure I agree with that part. Pathfinder's PDFs were and are pretty widely pirated too. Somehow in spite of this, while giving the rules away for free, they managed not just to survive but to thrive.

da_chicken

2014-06-30, 09:20 PM

As far as PDF piracy killing the game though, I'm not sure I agree with that part. Pathfinder's PDFs were and are pretty widely pirated too. Somehow in spite of this, while giving the rules away for free, they managed not just to survive but to thrive.

All I know is that at first you could get a PDF if you bought the book. Then they stopped giving out the PDFs, then they stopped letting people download them even though they had bought the books. The rumor for it at the time was piracy issues, but either way it soured a lot of tongues I think. I admit it's probably pure speculation as the reason, but either way someone at WotC decided PDFs were bad for business and players (including those at my table) felt jilted.

Chainsaw Hobbit

2014-07-01, 12:04 AM

I would really liked to have been able to buy Fourth Edition PDFs when I still played the game heavily. They are more convenient than physical books because of my tablet, and would hopefully have been cheaper because of the nonexistent production and shipping costs. They could just sell them for whatever the profit margin was on the physical books.

The Mormegil

2014-07-01, 06:36 AM

Sploggle1

2014-07-01, 04:58 PM

Chainsaw Hobbit

2014-07-01, 10:30 PM

From what I saw on 5e (I posted a review of the released pages) if you want my personal opinion i would say no. It will be a slightly bigger hit than 4e since it is slightly improved from there but It still is no where near as good as the older versions. I am not only including 3.5 in this (Since most 4e fans think that when i say this) but i am including all from pre dnd to 3.5.

Do you mean mechanically? I really don't understand why it isn't as good.

Every edition has its problems: 4e has combat that drags on for way too long, and feels a bit too game-ey for many people; 3.5 is incredibly broken and has a pretty convoluted rules set; AD&D is a nigh-incomprehensible mess that essentially requires house rules in order to play; and basic D&D is incredibly swingy and lethal to the point where players will routinely have their characters killed by no fault of their own.

5e is still a bit swingy for my tastes, but it fixes most of the problems that I mentioned.

Sploggle1

2014-07-01, 10:41 PM

Do you mean mechanically? I really don't understand why it isn't as good.

Mechanically isn't my issue. The combat, damage, and anything fighting related seems fine. My only complaint is the xp is way to low to level. (Which I can tweak. I'd stick with the 3.5 chart.) The monsters give off to much xp. (Which i can also tweak. I pull from the 2nd edition mm) and what I saw added on some of the classes were a little unnecessary but I could live with that.
The would point me to if I am going to tweak it to be like 3.5 then why update.

Envyus

2014-07-01, 11:09 PM

Mechanically isn't my issue. The combat, damage, and anything fighting related seems fine. My only complaint is the xp is way to low to level. (Which I can tweak. I'd stick with the 3.5 chart.) The monsters give off to much xp. (Which i can also tweak. I pull from the 2nd edition mm) and what I saw added on some of the classes were a little unnecessary but I could live with that.
The would point me to if I am going to tweak it to be like 3.5 then why update.

Well I should point this out. The xp the monsters give is divided among the players. So It's not as much as it looks. Also The first 3 levels are meant to be quick. You can alter the xp chart but I think you should look at the whole chart on the 3rd along with how how much xp is offered compared to that. Pretty much don't change things before you even looked at it.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-02, 05:59 AM

Mechanically isn't my issue. The combat, damage, and anything fighting related seems fine. My only complaint is the xp is way to low to level. (Which I can tweak. I'd stick with the 3.5 chart.) The monsters give off to much xp. (Which i can also tweak. I pull from the 2nd edition mm) and what I saw added on some of the classes were a little unnecessary but I could live with that.
The would point me to if I am going to tweak it to be like 3.5 then why update.

Soooo

Your only problem is with parts of the game in which it is easiest to change?

That's like saying I hate my car because the radio station is preset to new country and I like old rock. It seems like you are grasping for straws in order to complain about something.

PinkysBrain

2014-07-06, 06:15 PM

archaeo

2014-07-06, 07:42 PM

Between optional feats, no powers for the martials, groggy access to magic items, lack of prestige classes/destinies how are they going to sell splat? If they don't sell splat how are they going to sell subscriptions? I doubt selling modules can bring in the same kind of money.

As I've said before, I imagine WotC is going to try to go at this with a DLC model. Don't want the fancy hardbacks? Buy a package of rules, tailor-made for what you want. Druids at $1.99. Tactics module at $9.99. Settling module at $19.99. Adventures at every price range. Sure, they'll still sell paper books, but they'll be free to sell premium books with high margins instead of just-good-enough books at low margins. And if they come up with a clever license, they'll be able to rope homebrewers and third-party publishers alike into their storefront, taking some money off the top.

Personally, I think it's crazy if they don't provide something like this. But Mearls at least has made some startling OGL-favorable statements lately and it's super clear that TPP will be able to publish endless 5e adventures under the existing OGL, so maybe it's just not possible for them to do this. Certainly, we've heard lots of language about focusing on adventures and settings instead of splat books, so expect there to be a big push. 5e is well-timed to be the nostalgia edition, and I imagine WotC will soon be hard at work bringing every setting and property they can get their hands on to a new 5e book.

Regardless, it also seems pretty clear that WotC and Hasbro has come to the conclusion that D&D: The Game is less valuable than D&D: The Brand. Expect to see that angle get pushed hard, especially after this first big batch of rules are released. This is the sort of thing we'll be hearing nothing about now, since it's in the hands of lawyers and marketing directors, but don't be surprised to see D&D coming to TV screens, movie theaters, and gaming consoles near you.

Surrealistik

2014-07-06, 08:24 PM

Speaking as a 4e devotee I probably won't 'switch' to 5e, 4e will remain my DnD system of choice (I do not appreciate 5e's blatant pro-magic/caster bias and imbalances), but I will play it and buy it because it is enjoyable nonetheless as the martial/mundane classes have a host of options and can do interesting things (particularly the Monk, my favourite thus far). Beyond this, it doesn't get nearly as degenerate as 3.5/Pathfinder does in terms of balance. To extrapolate that microcosm, I can see it snapping up the business of a lot of other similar consumers of 4e, so it has at least that going for it.

Further, given that 5e seems to play on several levels to the expectations of 3.5/Pathfinder fans, and indeed was obviously shaped by their demands in a lot of ways during the public and closed playtests, for better or worse, I can definitely see it picking up a fair number of them too.

In short, it will probably be a success and profitable, but as others have mentioned, likely not to the impossible extent that Hasbro is hoping; I very much doubt that it will end up as the most popular DnD system.

da_chicken

2014-07-06, 08:27 PM

5e might be successful as far as finding players ... but I don't quite understand how they think they'll earn money.

Between optional feats, no powers for the martials, groggy access to magic items, lack of prestige classes/destinies how are they going to sell splat? If they don't sell splat how are they going to sell subscriptions? I doubt selling modules can bring in the same kind of money.

2e sold a ton of books just with kits and spells. Kits are essentially the same as paths, and the only difference from Prestige Classes is that you can't cherry pick frontloaded features very easily. I'd also argue that Pathfinder has clued them in to the idea that the adventure is as or more important than the crunch. Just like games sell the console, adventures sell the rules.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-07-07, 07:50 AM

5e, or at least Basic, feels like a game i could actually bring to my mother and brother and say "let's play this," and it wouldn't be as overwhelming or intimidating as them seeing the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. So if that is their goal, to gain fringe players (my mother and brother do play fantasy board games) and regain their base then I think they have a chance.

PinkysBrain

2014-07-07, 11:34 AM

Kits are essentially the same as paths
I disagree, kits have more in common with prestige classes than paths.

and the only difference from Prestige Classes is that you can't cherry pick frontloaded features very easily.
A prestige class is far more transformative ... the closest kin to Paths is PF archetypes obviously.

Like archetypes I find them a tad boring.

Raimun

2014-07-09, 04:22 PM

In short: No.

Longer explanation: Nooo.

Elaborated: It will flop. The rules seem too simplistic and shallow but at the same time are complex enough that it can't be sold as a rules light rpg. People will still buy it moderately because of brand name but I have a hard time seeing it would be even as successful as 4th edition.

Basically, I have a hard time imagining what type of D&D-players would like 5th edition.

3.5/Pathfinder-players will just keep playing 3.5 and/or Pathfinder: "There's a 5th edition now?"

4th edition-players will find this too gritty and devoid of cool powers: "... My 1st level Wizard has less than 20 hp? I might die! No Fireball either!"

AD&D/OD&D-players... oh geez. They'll just find the whole thing too "OP" and/or "videogamey" and come up with houserules that dumb down the special abilities even further: "+D8 to damage? That can't be right. Too OP! Everyone would play Fighter with this! With a gamepad and l33t-speak!"

People who don't play D&D but prefer other rpgs won't start playing with this edition: "Seriously? D&D?"

BRC

2014-07-09, 05:10 PM

I think it could.

From what I've heard of/seen of the rules they're pretty good, and the combination of New Thing+Name Recognition can get them some money out of the gate.

However.

4e Fans are going to react to it the same way 3.5 fans reacted to 4e. It dosn't feel like a new version of the game they know, it feels like a new game with the same name.

3.5/PF fans have been doing their thing for years. 5e is ALSO distinct enough from 3.5 that they will see it as a New Game, rather than The Game They Love Improved. Had 5e come out when 4e did, things would have been different. But 3.5 is still functional and widely played, with Pathfinder providing some support. There isn't much motivation for people to switch.

So, basically DnD is going to be competing against itself regardless. 5e will be competing with both 3.5 and 4e.

That said, I think it can still be successful.

Name Recognition is a powerful thing, a decent number of gamers will buy 5e just to try it out. From what I've seen of it it's a solid system. I think their prime target audience are gamers who have been plugging away on 3.5/PF, want to try something new, but also want the guarantee of quality/availability/ubiquity that comes from the name Dungeons and Dragons.
(Which is not to say Dungeons and Dragons is guaranteed to be good, but like any big-name product you can expect a certain level of professionalism and quality control)
I'm not sure what the definition of "Success" is. I think that 5e could replace 3.5 as the most-played Dungeons and Dragons. I Doubt it's going to explode. It's not going to be for Tabletop games what Spider-Man was for superhero movies.

However, that will only happen if 5e is good enough to generate word of mouth buzz. You need to get a sufficient number of people to evangelize on the part of 5e in order to convince 3.5 players to make the switch.

Pex

2014-07-09, 06:48 PM

3.5/PF fans have been doing their thing for years. 5e is ALSO distinct enough from 3.5 that they will see it as a New Game, rather than The Game They Love Improved. Had 5e come out when 4e did, things would have been different. But 3.5 is still functional and widely played, with Pathfinder providing some support. There isn't much motivation for people to switch.

Interesting point of view. What would have happened had 5E been 4E? Tier System Disciples will complain the Tier System still exists. Others would appreciate the intent to reign in magic power and beef up warrior power and even acknowledge they somewhat succeeded but still inherited some issues of 3E. Die-hard 3E fans will complain about the lower numbers. Fighters Can't Have Nice Things people will complain about the Fighter getting class features that's almost like magic. In other words, nothing really changes much, but would 3E players play the game? Everything else being the same, would Pathfinder be as successful?

As for me, I'd probably go kicking & screaming into this "new 4E", but I would get there. I would give Pathfinder a look see, maybe hoping to find a Pathfinder game, but more than likely 4E because it's D&D. I was with my old group at the time. Knowing my DM's style he would stick to 3E. He easily switched to Pathfinder in reality so there's a good chance he'd switch in this scenario. As for my current group, they prefer Pathfinder in reality and have already decided we're staying, but they weren't so gung-ho 3E back then from what I gather. They even had an AD&D game going. It's a toss-up whether they'd switch to Pathfinder or 4E, though I'll lean Pathfinder.

Anyway, back to reality. I prefer Pathfinder. My group prefers Pathfinder. We're not switching.

BRC

2014-07-09, 07:10 PM

Interesting point of view. What would have happened had 5E been 4E? Tier System Disciples will complain the Tier System still exists. Others would appreciate the intent to reign in magic power and beef up warrior power and even acknowledge they somewhat succeeded but still inherited some issues of 3E. Die-hard 3E fans will complain about the lower numbers. Fighters Can't Have Nice Things people will complain about the Fighter getting class features that's almost like magic. In other words, nothing really changes much, but would 3E players play the game? Everything else being the same, would Pathfinder be as successful?

As for me, I'd probably go kicking & screaming into this "new 4E", but I would get there. I would give Pathfinder a look see, maybe hoping to find a Pathfinder game, but more than likely 4E because it's D&D. I was with my old group at the time. Knowing my DM's style he would stick to 3E. He easily switched to Pathfinder in reality so there's a good chance he'd switch in this scenario. As for my current group, they prefer Pathfinder in reality and have already decided we're staying, but they weren't so gung-ho 3E back then from what I gather. They even had an AD&D game going. It's a toss-up whether they'd switch to Pathfinder or 4E, though I'll lean Pathfinder.

Anyway, back to reality. I prefer Pathfinder. My group prefers Pathfinder. We're not switching.
The thing is, to my understanding, a big reason pathfinder exists is that 4E was such a huge departure from 3.5 that 3.5 Devotees suddenly became a very tappable market.
From what I've seen of 5E, I'm not sure it's enough of a departure from 3.5 to create a market for 3.75.

CyberThread

2014-07-09, 08:02 PM

I think it will do well. They are pushing hard with media promotions. They are driving good business too the game shops according to the ratio sales they get to keep. It is getting strong coverage and reviews that 3.5 and 4.0 never took advantage of.

I think wizard finally got the social media new media side done right. Ontop of that we have an ogl of sorts with official third party makers giving us good content.

Notice non of this covers the system but rather the pubLic perception. I think that is what will make this edition successful.

archaeo

2014-07-09, 08:36 PM

A few other points I thought of:

1) However you want to make assumptions re: the size of the population of forumites discussing 5e vs. the population of total TTRPG players, I think it's relatively safe to hypothesize that people who use forums are also more likely to hold strong opinions about the games they play.

For the GitP forums, at the very least, most of the actual discussion has been driven by those with reservations about the game, whereas I see far more drive-by posts giving positive views, which holds with my general theory that those with grievances have far more reason to keep a discussion alive than those who feel more broadly "optimistic." Take my read on the subject with a grain of salt; while I can easily claim neutrality in the edition wars, I can't claim that I've arrived at my hypothesis with anything like scientific rigor.

2) It's extremely difficult to change someone's mind who has made it up, especially w/r/t product loyalty. 5e is different, but it's not so different that people will regard it as an obvious upgrade. I suspect WotC will have to provide significant added value to the rules in order to get people to switch, and that goes double for forum users who have had their views ossified by years of edition warring, which mainly accomplishes nothing except causing people to believe even more strongly in their point of view.

3) Given the above, plus the generally positive reviews from the gaming press so far, I think it still remains too early to see how 5e really pans out. I think it's clear that the PHB rules alone will do virtually nothing to assuage those who are still on the fence; it sounds like Basic but bigger, instead of Basic but wider, if that makes sense. The MM will almost certainly fail to move the needle, so it's up to the DMG to convince anyone who remains unconvinced.

If that's unsuccessful, and it very well may be if the DMG's dials, knobs, and modules fail to impress, then WotC will have to score home runs in every other department. I still think a homebrew/TTP storefront would be the best way to do this, but in order to really "win," D&D will also need robust digital tools, incredible adventures, and can't-miss events to move product.

Sorry for the wall of text.

obryn

2014-07-10, 09:37 AM

The normally-fairly-groggy io9 had some really good things to say about 5e (http://io9.com/the-d-d-starter-set-is-a-great-way-to-introduce-newbies-1602583516) this morning, and the comments are pretty positive and along the lines of, "Gee, this sounds pretty cool, let's try it."

1337 b4k4

2014-07-10, 09:40 AM

AD&D/OD&D-players... oh geez. They'll just find the whole thing too "OP" and/or "videogamey" and come up with houserules that dumb down the special abilities even further: "+D8 to damage? That can't be right. Too OP! Everyone would play Fighter with this! With a gamepad and l33t-speak!"

So far, the response from the OSR community that I've seen has been very positive, split about 50/50 between "I'm thinking I might just convert" and "It looks good, but unless I need to bring in new players, I won't be switching yet". It's almost like real people aren't strawmen.

Knaight

2014-07-10, 09:41 PM

So far, the response from the OSR community that I've seen has been very positive, split about 50/50 between "I'm thinking I might just convert" and "It looks good, but unless I need to bring in new players, I won't be switching yet". It's almost like real people aren't strawmen.

This is reasonably similar from what I've seen among people who favor later versions of D&D. Though I know fairly few who are actually all that attached, and a lot more who play D&D because it's the most common game.

Stubbazubba

2014-07-11, 12:32 AM

Going waaay back to when this thread was interesting:

Or very poor DM skills.

Knowing how hard an encounter is up to the DM. They are the one's who build it. If the DM lacks the skill to evaluate an encounter vs. his players, he lacks the skill to run the game. Since you cannot realistically build a series of stat blocks that accounts for every character with every build with every possible equipment load out, its the job of the DM to figure this out based on his characters. Not the system.

I hate, I really hate being on captpike's side here, but putting the entirety of figuring out difficulty on the DM instead of the system is not actually a good thing. Even experienced DMs wouldn't turn down a well-constructed system that actually helped them rate the challenges they construct. Most DMs simply don't have the time to gain the system mastery required to grok the entire monster manual instinctively, and making that a requirement for running any game at all would torpedo any and all chance of new player acquisition the game ever had.

Any game is better off doing pretty much as much legwork for the DM as it can. DMs have enough to worry about (creating setting elements, NPCs, plots, adjudicating every single action in the game, etc.) without also requiring them to digest the entire breadth and depth of the game's challenges to create every encounter from scratch in a way that matches their PCs' capabilities. Steep learning curves are never really a good thing in a game, because it serves as a barrier to entry. For 5e, or any game, to succeed, it needs people to adopt it, and that means you want to lower barriers to entry wherever you can. One of the first ones should be the complexity of the DM's job.

the_other_gm

2014-07-11, 07:58 AM

Honestly I have no idea.

I frequent a few different forums, blogs & websites, as well as the local gaming store.

I will also preface this by saying after reading the basic .pdf I was left even more uninterested in the final product. I didn't really care for 5th ed before, but it now seems to be 2nd edition as seen by 3rd edition.

And I already own 2nd, 3rd/path & 4th if I want to play those style of games.

I'm still crossing my fingers that the final product might have something amazing inside, but i'll probably wait for someone in my group to make the initial purchase so i can read over their shoulder/borrow the book.

So to get back to the "will it be successful?" question:

I have no idea.

Some places I frequent have already made their decision: no. They kept up with the playtests and the basic pdf made their worries on some of the design decisions of WotC a bit more real. even if they were to release more classes and races and DM options, it would still mean that they would need to tweak the system to such an extent that it's just too much work to make it playable.

Other places I frequent have already made their decision too: yes. Like the above, they kept up with the information given and as it all aligned with their preferences, they're likely to scoop up the game and all it's products.

Other, other places seem to be on the fence. They don't really have a horse in the race, so to speak. They're playing their games and if 5th ed happens to be something they like, they'll buy it.

I haven't even heard a peep about 5th ed at my FLGS. It's been mentioned a few times, sure, but nothing concrete, just "Yeah, 5th ed's a thing, I guess.". Then again, this is paizo territory and only a few of the guys are big enough TTRPG fans that they might go scouring the net for information on new games. More then a few of us are simply casuals, playing whatever the GM brings to the table.

So I have no idea if 5th ed will be successful. Does 5th ed's success impact me the slightest? not really. I have other games I can play and would prefer to play anyways, but if 5th is the way the group goes, then so be it. I'll probably borrow a book.