Where’er Doth Thou Goeth, Yon Donjonnes & Draggonnes?
February 28th, 2011 by Ed Grabianowski
There is an unavoidable sense that things are changing in the RPG department over at Wizards of the Coast in the last year, an inexorable feeling that Fourth Edition is running out of steam, slouching toward some inevitable finish line where edition partisans have already staked out holy ground. Things are being canceled, departments are being rearranged and new releases are a bit thin on the ground. So it is with some interest that I read today’s article at NewbieDM, in which the author parses recent comments by new D&D brand manager Mike Mearls, and posits a day perhaps not too far off when we won’t have 4E to kick around anymore.
Related posts:
February 28th, 2011 5:28 PM
I like 4e alright, & I liked 3e a lot, but I don’t even feel like WotC is pushing their brand anymore. Board games & cards aren’t things I am totally opposed to– I might not personally use them, but it doesn’t make me mad they exist. That being said, it DOES bother me that WotC seems to be pursuing quick turn-over money grabs instead of nurturing their core audience. Books might not have the highest profit margin, & minis might be a pain in the butt to sculpt & ship, but they are what keep people playing the game. They are the proverbial Goose. You shouldn’t kill it in your race to find the Golden Egg.
Maybe DnD isn’t profitable enough for Hasbro. I understand that. I for one buy gaming books, & gaming minis. If you want my money, that is where it goes. Maybe that isn’t true for everyone…but I hope it is true for enough people that gaming businesses stick around.
I run my game on the White Wolf World of Darkness Storyteller System, & THEY have gone the way of the dodo…or at least, halfway into the night. This is all very distressing. Paizo seems to be doing well, so at least there is that.
February 28th, 2011 5:34 PM
I should note that I would totally be down with a bare bones, stripped down Old School DnD. More roleplaying oriented? Right up my alley. I think 4e introduced good concepts– everyone has a daily, everyone has an at-will– & I have said since day one that 4e makes me excited for a possible 5e.
I still bemoan minis, though. I run a roleplaying heavy WoD game, where minis aren’t even slightly needed by the rules, but they are still FUN, & help you keep track of where people are when the dung hits the fan.
February 28th, 2011 7:26 PM
I too am a 4E fan, but it seems like WOTC has lost sight of their true goals and are being pushed into the “make a large profit or else” corner by Hasbro. (I see several corporations being pushed this direction by shareholders not wanting to give up their lavish lifestyles) I have canceled my DDI membership because everything that I enjoyed about my subscription has been changed and now it is no longer worth my money. I don’t want to see 4E fade out, but from all the signs (no minis, canceling books, moving more and more things to the website subscription) I think it is only a matter of time before the plug is pulled and D&D is either a board game only, or cut entirely from Hasbro’s line.
February 28th, 2011 7:31 PM
I forgot to mention the thrid option, D&D being played online only through the VGT.
February 28th, 2011 7:37 PM
NewbieDM guesses 2014? I think 4e will have served its purpose by then and, if I’m still playing it, I’ll be more than ready to move on to something different, be that 5e or something completely different.
February 28th, 2011 10:23 PM
If they stop making it, I say we create our own edition.
February 28th, 2011 10:55 PM
Actually, I have an idea for a very simple, settingless RPG. I haven’t written anything out yet, but I’m feeling a bit burnt out from endless pages of rules.
March 1st, 2011 12:38 AM
I too am working on a generic, “rules-light” RPG that can be dropped into any genre, I hope to get that one out by summer. (it’s written, but finding art is a pain at the moment with no real budget)
March 1st, 2011 11:01 AM
There is a lot that I like about 4e and a few things that I absolutely hate. Not to name names . . . MAGIC ITEMS . . . but there is definitely something to be said for going backwards a bit for certain game elements.
I personally like detailed rules to be available to me, but in play they do slow things down. I have always relied on judgment calls for that stuff in the past, though recently I have started to feel a little trapped by the rules in 4e.
Combats do flow more smoothly in 4e, a lot more so, and I think that is something that should be a keeper. On the other hand i find myself thinking there are too many options for the players, not just within the individual classes, but in the broad diversity of classes and, even worse, races. And I definitely am not a fan of the cookie cutterish similarity/conformity of the races and classes.
Definitely some things to go back to in the previous editions.
March 1st, 2011 11:14 AM
At some point in the last few weeks, we were playing D&D (and I don’t even remember who was DMing, if it was before or after we switched), but someone wanted to try some kind of crazy move, and the DM said (paraphrased, I don’t recall the exact situation), “Well, it isn’t a bull rush or a charge, so there’s really no way to do that within the combat rules.”
I thought to myself, “Holy shit, we’re not even playing D&D any more.”
March 1st, 2011 11:30 AM
To be clear, I’m not criticizing whoever happened to be DM at the moment. But that’s where the flood of rules has lead us.
March 1st, 2011 11:35 AM
I vaguely recall that though I can’t remember the circumstances either. And if if was me that said it . . . shame on me. My mantra has always been “you can TRY anything.” So whether it was me or not that’s a good impetus to shove rules back into second seat again (at least in some circumstances).
March 1st, 2011 11:50 AM
I think one of the biggest problems with 4e is that there is such a huge variety of character options, anything exceptional you want to do is probably covered by a power in your class or another, a feat or a magic item.
The variety of character options almost limits the options of individual players, and it isn’t even due to a stringent DM, necessarily. I know, as a player, I’ve wanted to do something at times, but I’ve held off because I know there’s an item or feat that lets me do it within the rules so, by posing it as an option, I’d be somehow trying to circumvent the rules.
By having such a widespread variety of possible character options, 4e inadvertently limits players and the DM.
I think the real way to kind of adapt 4e to a creative group is to try to think outside the rules a bit or even adapt them to fit what you want to do.
I don’t know if this is the example Ed is thinking of or not, but the playerss were kind of trapped in a doorway by a huge metal construct. He wanted to slip through the construct’s legs to get past him and crush the face of the enemy leader just beyond. Since the monster was so large, we ruled he could attempt an Acrobatics check to do like a tumble against a Hard DC. If I remember correctly, he rolled poorly enough that he not only fell prone, but he also took an attack of opportunity from the monster.
Now, I know for a fact that there are powers that let you shift through a monster’s square. Actually, Ed’s barbarian might even have one such power, but the shift wasn’t large enough for him to make it the whole way or something. By allowing a skill check with a manageable DC (Ed is trained in Acrobatics, so he had a good chance of succeeding) and repercussions for failure, it added a bit of flavor to the encounter and, if Ed had succeeded, it would have allowed for one of those moments when a character really shines.
The fine line is between adding excitement to an encounter and cheapening the encounter or stepping on other character’s toes. I’m a firm believer in “Adventure Critical” bonuses where the evil cleric of Orcus might get a +5 bonus to avoid falling into the inescapable pit of demon crayfish. But I also think that a player should be able to skip their opportunity attack against him as he rushes by in order to stick his character’s leg out.
March 1st, 2011 12:01 PM
Gavin, I think that might be the instance I was thinking of. And we did work that out, I certainly wasn’t unhappy with the outcome or the ruling. But I just remember the one particular moment of, “The rules don’t let you do that” really struck me. It was just a moment of, “Wow, this game is REALLY different from what I played when I was 14.”
March 1st, 2011 12:29 PM
See, when I was playing ever so long ago as a kid, we tended to follow the rules like gospel. But then as I got a little older, I became more willing to throw out rules in favor of my own judgment. Now I feel like the rules have become more binding again, partially because the mechanics are finely balanced, and partly because we have a multi DM game which sort of requires a certain consistency in the rules adjudication.
March 1st, 2011 3:05 PM
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if 5e’s INITIAL pitch was: Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, Dungeon Master’s Guide…..& Unearthed Arcana? Like, give a chunk of tweaks & optional rules right out of the gate?
March 1st, 2011 3:07 PM
Or, do what Paranoia does and put Rule 0 right on the first page of the DMG.
March 1st, 2011 9:06 PM
But then everyone’d argue the meaning of Rule 0
March 2nd, 2011 2:17 AM
Perhaps the solution is to simply dress up as characters, grab baseball bats, and run around hitting wild animals. Then you’re only limited by the rules of the physical world. You can think of PETA as the evil organization out to stop your progress.
March 2nd, 2011 3:36 AM
I always think of PETA as an evil organization out to stop my progress.