The State of Dungeons & Dragons: Future

[Greg Tito]

The State of Dungeons & Dragons: Future

Examining the ghosts of RPG past, present and future.

Read Full Article

 

[Craig Ferguson]

To early to talk about 5E? HAHAHA... The official forums have been talking about 5E off and on for over a year. And there are plenty of hints that they're working on the latest version.

 

[LordPsychodin]

I think the biggest problem is he fails to see his success as actually being a success.
I've played every edition. do you know what? I don't want 5th edition to look like 4th edition. But I don't want it to look like 3rd, 2nd, OD&D, basic, OSR clones, or pathfinder. Do you know why this is?

We still have them. having support, modern updates, supplements and more is just not needed. Explicitly, there's only so much you can make that will contribute to a game that is definitely never seen as modular beyond the campaign settings. I owned every single WOTC book under the 3.0 and 3.5 system at one point, and the amount I paid for them made having to toss most away a few weeks ago when I had to move far away with very little showed me just what an awful waste and ridiculous publishing system every single RPG to date has had, and it is perpetual.

People wonder why 4th edition came out and was so different, but the really simple answer may be - could you even *THINK* of ANY kind of concept that needed full WOTC published support you yourself couldn't settle for a homebrew material, that would be worthy of a shiny, expensive source book slot that would need to sell tens to hundreds of thousands of copies to cover the expense of? One of TSR's biggest reasons for going under was releasing so many books that just had a tiny market that only the worst nerds of the hobby would buy because they were collectors or obsessed, not because they were badly designed. They were just bad ideas from inception to rotting on shelves to the games poorly tested materials helped ruin.

It wasn't about balance, or trying to go more mainstream. They might claim they had that as a very high reason for the influence and style of design, and you know what? I think it was a very good thing. I feel 4th edition has been more playable from numbers to the edict that you can re-flavor any mechanic with whatever fluff you like being the next big thing in tabletop games if we could get over the stupidity that is proclaiming dis-associated mechanics are bad. (Rolling dice is the biggest disassociated thing in all of RPGs but only it gets a pass because of tradition and because nerds are stubborn and awful?)

And you know what, even if it wasn't that good, between the PHB and DMG 1, a D&DI subscription, and the 4e rules compendium, even if it was a mistake, they pushed a new method of delivering content that was lighter on my wallet fivefold than any other previous edition, and when I cancel, leaves me without the need to cling to ruined useless tomes like everyone else does on the hope they'll somehow appreciate in value, which they never will.

 

[castlewise]

I think DnD will always be in trouble if success is defined to be a product line that brings in $100 million a year. I play DnD and I don't think that there is enough of an audience for that kind of thing.

 

[kitsuta]

This was a great series of articles, I never really got into D&D and so missed out on most of its history and politics. All I had ever read about it was really basic historical stuff about how it got started, so I loved reading about all the drama that it's been through.

As for where it's going, I don't think pen and paper RPGs have to go the way of model trains - as long as they actually adapt to the realities of most gamers. For me, I had an opportunity to join a D&D game earlier this year, but I wasn't going to be in the same country for long enough. I think a lot of people have similar situations, whether they have to move or they just have made friends across the globe via the internet. If WOTC provides an easy way to run games across long distances, that would remove a lot of barriers to playing.

 

[TJ Johnston]

This has been a great series.

It's been interesting to see what the designers of the game and its competitors think about the whole thing. I like that Mike Mearls sees the problems and is working to correct it.

I think the $100 million dollar mark won't work as well in this hobby, unfortunately. All you need to play the game is a couple of books, so realistically, after you get the core books, there's no reason to buy anything else.

It should be interesting to see how far Wizards has to take the DnD franchise to be as successful as Magic: The Gathering. Will we be roleplaying with cards and booster decks in the future?

 

[The Philistine]

I'm very curious to see how 4th edition translates into video games. Hopefully whatever comes of it, the games will be better than the fare Atari cranked out.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game. "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one.

The swing of it: We already had 3rd Edition D&D for all the "creative" players who wanted to try different combinations (both mechanically and in theme).
Including those who were only being "creative" insofar as it meant bending the system over their knee and breaking it.

But that's what you get with a system designed with that kind of freedom in mind. Giving more power and freedom to the players means it will be that much more difficult to balance (the DM *is* a referee AND storyteller. It's easily the hardest job to do in a tabletop).

Creating something that's challenging without being completely unbeatable/unavoidable is very difficult, and it becomes exponentially moreso when you add more and more books with increasingly more broken classes and feats to the pile.

And for all of the "WoW-ification" of 4E, I actually respect their efforts in bringing the game back down to earth. This also sets 4E apart from 3E, which is a *good* thing.

Though I suppose now WotC's Hasbro taskmasters are hoping for a more generic "One Stop Shop" gaming system that has a wide appeal, all under the banner of tabletop's most recognized franchise name.

Fittingly enough, I think that era has already passed (think "d20 System").

"There's this fear of the bad gaming group, where the game is so good that even playing with a bad gaming group, you'll still have fun."

The result of this philosophy is that, perhaps more than ever before, gamers are playing different games than the official D&D coming out of the Wizards of the Coast. "What D&D faces now with different editions and old school versus new school, and 3.5 versus 4th edition, it's like the comic book conundrum," Mearls said in reference to the differences between Silver Age Captain America versus the plot of the recent Captain America film. "How do we get all these guys back together, so we actually have real communities, not just a bunch of separate smaller communities, that don't really interact in any way?"

If my years of DMing and playing tabletops have taught me anything, it's this: DO NOT try to force conflicting player archetypes together and assume it will work itself out.

By that, I mean do not try to force the Power-Playing Min-max Munchkins, the Storytellers, and the Board Strategists into the same "community" just so you can more easily sell them a "one-size fits all" product via word-of-mouth.

They're at odds not specifically because of your game rules, but because of wildly differing (sometimes directly conflicting) gaming philosophies. You could mix these folks into any other given game and it would likely end in an argument (or worse).

 

[Jeffrey]

"How do we get all these guys back together, so we actually have real communities, not just a bunch of separate smaller communities, that don't really interact in any way?"

I am no designer, and I trust that both Mike and Monte will do their best in designing 5th edition to be as successful as possible. I would like Mike, who asked the question, to consider something: an apology for the things that were said by the old design team and the manner in which those who played previous editions were treated might help scab over a few wounds.

Sure, it's been years. But some of us don't forget.

Best of luck to M&M making D&D at WOTC.

 

[Jerry Sharp]

Very good series of articles. Enjoyed the read. You can count this 40+ year old among those that abadoned D&D when it got away from "1st edition" Advanced D&D. I remember vividly walking away after the train wreck that was Unearthed Arcana.

Thanks for catching me up on the changes

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I'm one of those "rare" individuals in the RPG consumer world who loves new editions of games, it's not like the old editions of games go anywhere after all, and new rules are cool and exciting especially if they feel like different games rather than glorified updates.

 

[camazotz]

This was definitely the best article of the three, and a very interesting look at possibilities for the future. I have lost my faith in Mearls, however, as he seems to me misguided in so many ways these days.

I don't think its fair to equate 4E with the imaginative/unimaginative skew by any means, no matter how much the elitist anti-4E sect would like to think that, but 4E did shuck too many sacred cows for its own sake.

Also, I think that it's actually a good year here in 2012 to announce a 5th edition. Gamers are tired of being stretched out over too many editions of the game, and I think we could use a unifying edition....if WotC doesn't move forward on this, its going to be Pathfinder (not necessarily a bad thing there, either; I win either way, as I am a "pro-game player" who benefits by not jumping on any edition war bandwagons as much as possible).

I'm surprised that it hasn't been brought up or noticed that a major barrier to the consumption side of the hobby is the amount of time it takes to start playing (and how much time it takes just to get anything done). 45 minute combats in 4E are all well and good, but one module for 4E can take weeks or even months for my group to complete. Imagine if we had mechanics that ran more quickly and smoothly (ala AD&D 1st and 2nd edition days)....people coould actually buy a module and play it in a couple sessions, with 10-20 minute combats and a faster story pace; that might actually drive more product sales, I would think, as people would actually "get more" out of modules by being able to enjoy them in shorter but more intense game sessions than the current 4E (and 3.5) models of play, which can usually spend four or five times longer accomplishing exactly the same tasks that were so much quicker in the older editions. But....just a thought.

 

[Danceofmasks]

If my years of DMing and playing tabletops have taught me anything, it's this: DO NOT try to force conflicting player archetypes together and assume it will work itself out.

By that, I mean do not try to force the Power-Playing Min-max Munchkins, the Storytellers, and the Board Strategists into the same "community" just so you can more easily sell them a "one-size fits all" product via word-of-mouth.

They're at odds not specifically because of your game rules, but because of wildly differing (sometimes directly conflicting) gaming philosophies. You could mix these folks into any other given game and it would likely end in an argument (or worse).

I'll have to concur with this, with one caveat.

I can and do play RPGs in a variety of styles, but my approach to 4e is very much as a powergamer.
Heck, I've been quoted as saying, "I don't min-max. 'cos winners don't min."
All I got to say is, don't mix the powergamers with the munchkins. We're not the same group.
Meaning, munchkins look for loopholes to game the system. Powergamers look to be ultra-efficient, but want to win fairly.

An example of munchkin-ing in 3.5e is summoning a colossal giant centipede to jump on your enemies, because "attacking in the most efficient manner" is to deal 160 dice of damage in a 4x4 ('cos the mob is 16 tons). It doesn't even take any damage if the jump is 10 feet off of a wall.

Where, in the same situation, a powergamer would trigger a contingency to cast a haste, then drop a maximised fireball (which is damn hard to resist due to stacked feats on DC and spell penetration), then use the increased movement speed due to haste to get behind cover.

The two groups are actually polar opposites in that .. munchkins will cheat on die rolls ('cos winning is everything). Powergamers will punch people in the mouth for cheating on die rolls ('cos cheating is an insult to having 1337 skills).

Edit:
To clarify with a computer game example, a powergamer in street fighter 4 might have 16,000 battle points 'cos he's good at the game and studies frame data for hours while on the train. A munchkin uses lag-switching and disconnecting to get 16,000 battle points.
Neither player is fun to play against if you're casual, but one of those players can be consulted as an expert on their character, while the other needs a swift kick to the nads.

 

[tendo82]

I think what might spare D&D and its ilk from the fate of model trains is that its core appeal remains alive across the entire face of gaming and culture more generally. Really it's an apples to oranges comparison. Model Trains represent a fascination with an outmoded technology - the train. Nobody rides or sees trains anymore. Dragons, dungeons, friends, Friday night and pizza are alive and well.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the hobby does narrow for those interested in the pure experience of pen, paper and imagination. As boardgames have shown, gamers are looking for a structured and self contained experience. There's a world in a box, a world filled with miniatures, maps and implements like cards and dice. The tangible nature of the fantasy boardgame experience will converge with the world of pen and paper RPGs.

It's happened in reverse already, with examples like Descent. And though Descent focused on a particular aspect of the RPG experience, there are games out that have gone much farther. I recently played Mage Knight and was blown away by it's sublime hodgepodge of card mechanics, world building, player choice and character development. It's obvious inspiration, Magic Realm, is another example.

Currently, what has traditionally been D&D's greatest strength is its Achilles heel. As I said in another post, it's not at all clear what you're buying with D&D. When you buy a boardgame, players know they're buying a complete experience. If WotC is smart, 5th edition D&D will be a hybrid boardgame/pen and paper experience. D&D can't go home again, the OSR ensured that. And why would it? That market is a known quantity and it's well serviced by many other products. Instead of fighting a war of attrition in a staid market, create a new one; change the paradigm once again.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I can and do play RPGs in a variety of styles, but my approach to 4e is very much as a powergamer.
Heck, I've been quoted as saying, "I don't min-max. 'cos winners don't min."
All I got to say is, don't mix the powergamers with the munchkins. We're not the same group.
Meaning, munchkins look for loopholes to game the system. Powergamers look to be ultra-efficiently, but want to win fairly.

Point taken, though too often in my experience, the two cross paths at the common circle I call "griefing".
The sort of person who will do anything and argue anything to attain in-game dominance over everyone, including the DM.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I can and do play RPGs in a variety of styles, but my approach to 4e is very much as a powergamer.
Heck, I've been quoted as saying, "I don't min-max. 'cos winners don't min."
All I got to say is, don't mix the powergamers with the munchkins. We're not the same group.
Meaning, munchkins look for loopholes to game the system. Powergamers look to be ultra-efficiently, but want to win fairly.

Point taken, though too often in my experience, the two cross paths at the common circle I call "griefing".
The sort of person who will do anything and argue anything to attain in-game dominance over everyone, including the DM.

Well, that's only a problem if you mix powergamers with people who don't powergame.
Treat 4e is an extremely complex tactical board game, and you don't have a problem.

 

[Link XL1]

sorry for not reading anyone else's comments, but im just here to say that i've been playing since 3.0 and now i like pathfinder.

peace out girl scout

 

[vxicepickxv]

I'm very curious to see how 4th edition translates into video games. Hopefully whatever comes of it, the games will be better than the fare Atari cranked out.

Hopefully it will be better than what Black Isle cranked out too, but I don't see that happening.

Of course, I still regularly play one of the Atari D&D games, so there is that.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game. "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one.

I feel cold fingers of high leveled undead Nostalgia on my shoulders.
Ah well... Since the days of D&D 4.0 and Warhammer FRP 3.0 mainstream RPGs aren't what they are supposed to be. :|

 

[Nikolaz72]

Mearls admits 4th edition might have gone too far in creating a perfectly balanced game. "We've lost faith of what makes an RPG an RPG," he said, admitting that in trying to please gamers with a limited imagination, 4th edition might have punished those with an active one.

The swing of it: We already had 3rd Edition D&D for all the "creative" players who wanted to try different combinations (both mechanically and in theme).
Including those who were only being "creative" insofar as it meant bending the system over their knee and breaking it.

But that's what you get with a system designed with that kind of freedom in mind. Giving more power and freedom to the players means it will be that much more difficult to balance (the DM *is* a referee AND storyteller. It's easily the hardest job to do in a tabletop).

Creating something that's challenging without being completely unbeatable/unavoidable is very difficult, and it becomes exponentially moreso when you add more and more books with increasingly more broken classes and feats to the pile.

And for all of the "WoW-ification" of 4E, I actually respect their efforts in bringing the game back down to earth. This also sets 4E apart from 3E, which is a *good* thing.

Though I suppose now WotC's Hasbro taskmasters are hoping for a more generic "One Stop Shop" gaming system that has a wide appeal, all under the banner of tabletop's most recognized franchise name.

Fittingly enough, I think that era has already passed (think "d20 System").

"There's this fear of the bad gaming group, where the game is so good that even playing with a bad gaming group, you'll still have fun."

The result of this philosophy is that, perhaps more than ever before, gamers are playing different games than the official D&D coming out of the Wizards of the Coast. "What D&D faces now with different editions and old school versus new school, and 3.5 versus 4th edition, it's like the comic book conundrum," Mearls said in reference to the differences between Silver Age Captain America versus the plot of the recent Captain America film. "How do we get all these guys back together, so we actually have real communities, not just a bunch of separate smaller communities, that don't really interact in any way?"

If my years of DMing and playing tabletops have taught me anything, it's this: DO NOT try to force conflicting player archetypes together and assume it will work itself out.

By that, I mean do not try to force the Power-Playing Min-max Munchkins, the Storytellers, and the Board Strategists into the same "community" just so you can more easily sell them a "one-size fits all" product via word-of-mouth.

They're at odds not specifically because of your game rules, but because of wildly differing (sometimes directly conflicting) gaming philosophies. You could mix these folks into any other given game and it would likely end in an argument (or worse).

Forcing the min-maxer with the roleplayers never worked well... This conflict is one that has been going on for a millenia and will probably continue to plague the RPG world for the next many generations.