Here comes 5e.

[Random]

I've always thought D&D could use a bit more advertising to grab some general interest.
As it stands, the only people hearing about new products are already rooted into using older products.

All they'd have to do is throw a D&D reference into one of those Hasbro Family Game Night commercials. Then make sure you've got the game stocked at local Wal-Mart stores.

That might help more than new rules, but hey, what do I know about business?

[foxroe]

I'm guessing that WOTC's idea of a Grand Unification of Editions (that's GrUE for short ) will most likely just be a cherry-pick of some rules from older editions, then mortared up with brandy-new stuff, and really not so much a "modular" system.

But we'll see.

[Bargle]

I'm guessing that WOTC's idea of a Grand Unification of Editions (that's GrUE for short ) will most likely just be a cherry-pick of some rules from older editions, then mortared up with brandy-new stuff, and really not so much a "modular" system.

But we'll see.

Are you implying that the OSR and paizo are going to be eaten by a Grue?

[Matthew]

Been looking at some of the Monte Cook articles at WotC out of interest, looks like this one about Customized Complexity is perhaps the most relevant to how they plan to subsume all editions.

[Lilaxe]

If you read the Legends & Lore articles, I think they give away the modular approach they are talking about.

A distinct example is given that if you took the 1E character class layout, and took the basic classes, and turned each class ability into a "power" or "feat" you could have a basic version of the game where people pick up the book and say I will be a fighter because they get these "powers" from the git-go and earn more as they go up in level. These basic classes would look similar to our regular 1E classes we are used too.

Then they would release a book for those who want extra, special, unique, powers which would have the "basic" abilities as well for those who wanted to use them, along with a whole pile of abilities for those who want particular types of characters (i.e. berserker vs. fighter vs barbarian, etc) this is how all types of players could game at the same table - those who just want the basic book, with set abilities per class ala 1E and the build-n-play 3E/4E types would basically be using the same rules, just from different angles.

of course the trick will be to make the "basic" set-piece characters viable versus a build-your-own character.....

[blackprinceofmuncie]

of course the trick will be to make the "basic" set-piece characters viable versus a build-your-own character.....

I think there is a bigger hurdle here than just balancing the options. If you have a system that can deal with the kind of powers present in 4e or the feat abilities present in 3e, it requires a LOT of underlying infrastructure. For example, 4e combat absolutely requires definition of all kinds of "actions": standard action, minor action, free action, move action, immediate actions, interrupt actions. Those are all keywords that players and DM need to comprehend in order for the powers system to work. In order to have a game where a character built with the advanced options and a character built with basic options can coexist, even basic-level players are going to have to deal with underlying rules (beyond the character generation options) that are WAY more complex than most oldschoolers will be comfortable with.

I'm not saying it can't work. I am saying that the L&L articles don't convince me that people at WotC know how to make it work.

[geezerdm]

of course the trick will be to make the "basic" set-piece characters viable versus a build-your-own character.....

I think there is a bigger hurdle here than just balancing the options. If you have a system that can deal with the kind of powers present in 4e or the feat abilities present in 3e, it requires a LOT of underlying infrastructure. For example, 4e combat absolutely requires definition of all kinds of "actions": standard action, minor action, free action, move action, immediate actions, interrupt actions. Those are all keywords that players and DM need to comprehend in order for the powers system to work. In order to have a game where a character built with the advanced options and a character built with basic options can coexist, even basic-level players are going to have to deal with underlying rules (beyond the character generation options) that are WAY more complex than most oldschoolers will be comfortable with.

I'm not saying it can't work. I am saying that the L&L articles don't convince me that people at WotC know how to make it work.

Mike Mearls quote via EN World:

"We plan to continue offering people access to tools like the D&D Character Builder and the D&D Monster Builder to support 4th edition. We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." - Mike Mearls.

Judging from that some,, I don't think a whole lot of 4e is going to make it into 5.

I'm actually expecting something that looks a lot like C&C. With a few interchangeable parts, options, etc.

[Geoffrey]

n practice basically NOBODY played OD&D -- the game didn't become a mainstream (or at least quasi-mainstream - players numbering in the millions rather than the tens of thousands) success until AD&D was released and replaced the wide-open DIY toolbox of OD&D with a specific set of rules and flavor that, while encouraging some degree of creativity and customization around the margins, was largely focused on a unified "shared experience" of everybody being on the same aesthetic and game-philosophical page. And when TSR moved away from that - first changing the flavor in the late-1E era and then opening up the customization "have it your way" aspects in 2E in place of the specific "Gygaxian" vision, the game faltered, and it only recovered in 2000 when the release of 3E was, to a very significant degree, marketed as a return to the style and flavor of 1E (and then faltered again once people realized that under the thin 1E-flavor veneer the actual game was something very different).

Hardcore hobbyist gamers love toolboxes and doing it themselves and picking and choosing between modular elements and crafting their brilliant, unique homebrew. But those type of gamers are a small minority of the game's audience, and an almost inifinitesimally small minority of the game's potential audience. The vast majority of D&D players (and onetime and potential D&D players) want specific feel and flavor - and the feel and flavor they want is peak-era AD&D.

That is very insightful.

[Philotomy Jurament]

n practice basically NOBODY played OD&D -- the game didn't become a mainstream (or at least quasi-mainstream - players numbering in the millions rather than the tens of thousands) success until AD&D was released and replaced the wide-open DIY toolbox of OD&D with a specific set of rules and flavor that, while encouraging some degree of creativity and customization around the margins, was largely focused on a unified "shared experience" of everybody being on the same aesthetic and game-philosophical page. And when TSR moved away from that - first changing the flavor in the late-1E era and then opening up the customization "have it your way" aspects in 2E in place of the specific "Gygaxian" vision, the game faltered, and it only recovered in 2000 when the release of 3E was, to a very significant degree, marketed as a return to the style and flavor of 1E (and then faltered again once people realized that under the thin 1E-flavor veneer the actual game was something very different).

Hardcore hobbyist gamers love toolboxes and doing it themselves and picking and choosing between modular elements and crafting their brilliant, unique homebrew. But those type of gamers are a small minority of the game's audience, and an almost inifinitesimally small minority of the game's potential audience. The vast majority of D&D players (and onetime and potential D&D players) want specific feel and flavor - and the feel and flavor they want is peak-era AD&D.

That is very insightful.

Yeah, that's well put. I've sometimes had people ask me why I refer to AD&D 1e as the "de facto standard for 'this is D&D'" when the main edition I run is original D&D. Trent sums it up better than I've been able to. If I get asked that question again, I'm just going to point them to his post.

[foxroe]

I just want to play D&D. But I don't want it to be a chore.

[WSmith]

I just want to play D&D. But I don't want it to be a chore.

This is how I have been feeling about 4e for the past few months. It was good to test it out and see what it was about. Now I can articulate what I don't like about it. I want to go back to the story. I don't want to have to use minis or battlemats anymore.

[deathanddrek]

I just want to play D&D. But I don't want it to be a chore.

That's it for me. I feel bone-weary the instant discussion of 4e characters and mechanics comes up. Although I've read a lecturer's general advice that boredom/tiredness in a learning environment is more about disengagement and fear. At any rate, I don't want to feel like that for the sake of a new edition.

[Wheggi]

Whoa, I just had a revelation . . .

I don't care about 5E because I'm not going to play it anyway!

HA!

- Wheggi

[bobjester]

Whoa, I just had a revelation . . .

I don't care about 5E because I'm not going to play it anyway!

HA!

- Wheggi

...or in other words: 'meh'.

[deathanddrek]

I'd have that view about 4e too but...

I've got this mate in my group who's a big 4e junkie. He started gaming when 4e was on the shelves, and despite a core of us evangelising AD&D/basic, he likes the shiny.

I feel like I owe it to him, as a close friend, to be a player under his DMing since he's done that for me. At the end of the day I'd still be rolling some dice and I might poach his players in the future.