| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 23:13:14
|
Hello fellow scribes of candlekeep... I have been following some threads about D&D Next at WotC forums... there are hundreds of threads, so this is just a feeling that I have, but a actually fear that dnd next is going to be the last edition they dish out. I can’t really put my finger on it, but there is something in the way people write. Not having played 4th ed, I'm unable to really join in that conversation but I feel I have read more negative comments on that edition than positive, and somehow I fear that be the case also with 5th. Something tells me that they won’t be able to "save" d&d with this. I also believe that they publish a new edition too often. I would not be buying new books if I bought for hundreds of dollars in 2008... and if I did, I would not want to buy books again in 2020...
Without sounding to negative, and with the minimal knowledge I have of d&d next I put forth my prediction... This is the last release we will get.
Im I the only one who believes this or are there others who feel the same way.
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 23:27:46
|
Perhaps Nicolai but I don't think so. It will survive in one form or another for a long time to come. It may move away from PnP to online or consoles, but it will survive. Also, I don't think the FR is going anywhere...it's just too popular and someone will pick it up unless Hasbro refuses to sell the rights (and that's where my fear for the game's future is...that Hasbro will be a bunch of idiots and not allow another company to revive the line).
I don't frequent the WotC boards but I have to agree that I'm tired of the getting new editions. I mentioned in another thread recently that they don't need to do that...they just need to provide 'updated' books from time to time without making radical changes to the game. Bear in mind that part of the problem was the game changing hands and the desire for the new companies to put their 'mark' on the game and its settings and, of course, to make money.
I hate to tell them to be copy cats...but Pathfinder is alive and well and Wizbro really needs to take a page out of their book and not only copy what they are doing...but improve on what they can. We have numerous threads full of ideas on how this can be done. Example, I'm convinced that WotC can improve on what Paizo did with Iconics IF they make the Realms their default setting and use the setting rich lore and abundance of NPCs to make them.
There's so much they could do this thread could easily become a 'how-to' manual for them to follow. They dropped the ball, but I'm convinced they can pick that ball up and score major points with it. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
 |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 23:28:23
|
Hi there indeed was discussion about this topic, 4th was reported to be so flexible that it would be a last Edition, that revisions could be incorporated in that edition.
The only way 5th Edition will be the last Edition would be that at some point in time the product is no longer worth revising and energizing, unless 5th is flexible enough to be expanded by the splat books.
Profit and loss control the future, however I suspect a 6th Edition or at least a 5.5 will occur in 3 to 5 years. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2014 : 23:31:21
|
I've never really cared about rule sets. We tried 3.5, but it was just too much crap to keep track of so we reverted to 2E rules. Maybe 5E will be good, but I don't know, I hope so. There certainly seems to be less stuff to keep track of from my review of my last play packet. And I absolutely loved the Blingdenstone adventure.
The only thing I honestly care about is the Forgotten Realms continuing along. With Ed driving the crazy train of course. :) |
|
|
|
Drustan Dwnhaedan
Learned Scribe
USA
324 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 00:15:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
I've never really cared about rule sets. We tried 3.5, but it was just too much crap to keep track of so we reverted to 2E rules. Maybe 5E will be good, but I don't know, I hope so. There certainly seems to be less stuff to keep track of from my review of my last play packet. And I absolutely loved the Blingdenstone adventure.
The only thing I honestly care about is the Forgotten Realms continuing along. With Ed driving the crazy train of course. :)
I couldn't have said this better myself! (Except for the fact that I liked 3.5. My apologies to all 1e, 2e, and 4e fans.) |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 00:30:47
|
| Bah. By the time my son is old enough to roll his first D20, the edition wars will be raging about how 6E was so much better than 7E, and vice versa. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 00:48:06
|
From my experiences of the last 15 years (spanning 3 and a half editions), I think its too early to tell. To me, it comes down to 2 things: can they properly handle a slower release cycle (in terms of product spamming) and is there going to be a decent OGL? The first one is very important as I felt one of the big contributors to 4e's shorter run was that they cranked out stuff SO fast that it wasnt tested properly AND it left ayers with a "whats left?" Sort of feeling. By 2011 (a mere 3 years after launch) we had over 40 classes, thousands of feats and abilities, and enough errata to make one's head spin. Slowing down the pace, putting out quality and solid products should be their goal.
The second one (a good OGL) is something that sort of is a two-sided sword. On one hand you want people to buy your product and then have to use that to get to other products. However going away from that will instantly give your competition a stronger core to make products that take away revenue. Judging by Paizo's popularity, I think they should bite the bullet and put out a good, albiet smaller and focused, OGL.
Some other considerations: remove the content from insider that allows people to share their accounts with their group. Tell me, is it better for one person (or a group) to split up one $71 account and get EVERY single piece of published material or force the group to buy one $30.00 book? Another reason why I felt 4e didnt meet sales figures was because a good portion of the fan-base would do exactly what I just described. Instead of buying multiple books, one guy would.get a DDI account, have.instant access to EVERYTHING and then share that with his friends. From crafting adventures to character building, it all can easily be done with one $70 account.
Finally, with a simpler core rule-set (in terms of complexity, options, and numbers) D&D should be able to more easy adapt to different modules, settings, and playstyles. They, IMO, have achieved this to a point. No longer are we seeing ACs in the 30-50 range or attack modifiers in the +40-60 ranges. HP are still inflated but I think its on purpose. Lower numbers often means easier math which translates to faster game play. Also, with simpler rules it means other alternative rules can be more easily substituted and maintain relative balance |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 04:53:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Bah. By the time my son is old enough to roll his first D20, the edition wars will be raging about how 6E was so much better than 7E, and vice versa.
quote:
Chronomantic Communique
It all went down hill after 6.67E.
Then the Final Edition War began.
Blazing rage for a thousand thousand centuries as far as my scrying could foresee.
The heat of argument stretched forwards and backwards through time and space until consuming all existence at every point there ever was and ever will be.
The total energy became so great it sparked the inception of D&D itself.
Oh, the paradox.
It must be stopped. D&D must never come to be. Only then could the edition-spawned horrors cease.
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 05:40:29
|
| Hey D&D Next might be 4.1 Edition *EG* |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 12:51:50
|
| I think there will definitely be more editions though hopefully with greater intervals of time between them. D&D aint going nowhere. At least I hope so. |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 16:42:38
|
| Neither do I, but I feel that they could with positive results cater to more, or a wider audience if they started to both rerelease older editions, and even expanded them with more splat books. I for one would like to see some more "secret" or forgotten stuff from pre-ToT... spells feats and items... at least for 3.5 edition... They could do the same with 2nd and 4th with good results. |
Edited by - Nicolai Withander on 22 Jan 2014 16:45:34 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 16:51:12
|
I haven't bothered to read the other posts in this thread (sorry, no offense - it just seems like one of those 'hot topics' I should avoid), but my answer to the Title of the thread is...
It depends.
If D&Dnext is a the greatest thing since sliced orcs, and 5eFR is 'a godsend' - in other words, both are HIGHLY popular - then we will continue to see new editions until the end of time. In that scenario, 9e should be out in about 2 years.
If its not all that popular - and I am NOT saying unpopular - then it WILL be the last edition of D&D, and everything that goes with it. Hasbro will probably just license out the pieces, and make boardgames and what-not from the IPs.
Which would be a DAMN SHAME. 
On the other hand, D&D is not the only game in town... LITERALLY. 'Any port in a storm', and all that. We have a great place to run to now, and they are very welcoming of FR refugees. And if you don't like them, there are many other (smaller) choices out there. Thus, D&D will never truly die - it will always be in our hearts. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 24 Jan 2014 13:07:33 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Dreamstalker
Acolyte
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 20:03:49
|
| Regardless of the D&D IP existing as a pen & paper RPG system, the IP will kick around in some form pretty much until it hits the copyright expiration. Which with further possible but not guaranteed changes could easily outlast us all. Even if D&D Next doesn't perform to Hasbro's needs, I'm sure further editions will exist as a licensed product by some company that can handle pen & paper products at such profit levels. Even if that doesn't happen, the 3.x open gaming content really ensures that the core of D&D will survive as a system with most of the important aspects no matter the corporate standing of the main IP. Forgotten Realms in specific has contractual obligations for its unique IP aspects to remain under the D&D umbrella. I am uncertain if that means there needs to be a pen & paper RPG as I suspect novels and fluff books might fulfill those needs. Fan made content will usually slip past the limits of copyright law in terms of making sure there is updated gaming material for whichever system is popular enough. |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 20:44:13
|
| They could have stopped after 1st edition AD&D and I would have been ok. I think they may finally be realizing that new editions of games do not always equal more players/profits and that it is very easy for people to simply play with the old editions they loved. It isn't like a video game that can a) be beat and b) upgraded with better graphics/more data. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 22:53:15
|
I expect a new edition to roll out every 1d8+2 years. The reprints and “half“ editions (like 3.5E) don‘t really count, in my opinion, they‘re generally just organizational cleanups and another chance to bump D&D books back onto the front shelves for a while.
As long as the current edition generates sufficient revenue to be considered profitable, it will continue to inspire development and eventually grow large/messy/confusing enough to require a new edition release. I expect that 5E will only be the “last“ official edition if the entire D&D brand dies off (or is killed) due to lack of sales.
Having said that, I suspect that - if Wizbro has their way - future D&D products will one day be published exclusively in digital formats, eBooks, and interactive/online subscription content. Sad times, indeed, methinks, when one cannot actually possess a physical book to (ab)use any way desired ... but D&D editions have historically always tried to target and attract the “current“ young gamer niche, new gamers, while (from a business perspective) the existing/older players are always welcome to keep buying into the game but have either been “hooked“ or aren‘t considered much worth servicing. In today‘s world, new (and generally young) players will tend to prefer digital over paper, and thus costly paperprints will contain less and less of the “current“ content (ie, it won‘t “all“ be available in paper, gotta go digital) and probably eventually only be offered as collector pieces. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 22 Jan 2014 22:57:28 |
|
|
|
Dreamstalker
Acolyte
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 23:11:27
|
| Much smaller companies have successfully moved to the Print on Demand model of digital releases, and Paizo has been successful at a co-release format. I see no reason that Hasbro could not do either successfully as well. I would say they have actually been rather adverse to digital distribution of main content. Though I haven't been following WotC for a number of years. Did they restart digital releases of 4E books? Last time I paid heavy attention they were still "looking into possibilities" a good while after pulling digital distribution rights over pirating scares. My impression was they thought of digital distribution was a replacement for magazine style content, not for book style content. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 23:09:04
|
Read through some Candlekeep scrolls involving Realms authors and designers. I can‘t claim to understand the entire print-publishing business models they use, but suffice to say it‘s ugly and complex, seemingly involves too many middle-men who all get their cut, is a logistics nightmare, and offers a surprisingly slim profit/loss margin. Add to this the soulless Hasbro megacorporation which expects certain strict percentages and revenues on their subsidiary D&D “brand“ to meet their locked-contract bottom-line analysis. And it‘s a specialized niche market, too, always filling up with disgruntled ex-fans who often tarnish D&D‘s reputation among their peers.
Agreed, their are much simpler and more profitable business models, and it doesn‘t get a lot simpler than Print On Demand. Leave it to Wizbro brand management executives to find a way to bloat it out in some fashion that doesn‘t cut out anybody‘s kickbacks, to turn a basic publisher-vendor-customer relationship into tabulated indexes and schedules and volumes ... and suddenly it‘s just not going to ever be seen as a viable business model.
Just my armchair opinion, as I said, I really don‘t know the company or the industry. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 23 Jan 2014 23:16:56 |
|
|
|
Dreamstalker
Acolyte
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 23:52:24
|
I am just saying that if they wanted to go "all digital," a Print on Demand license is at least currently a comparably easy jump with relatively similar profit margins as the costs are largely passed on to the customer. Though I could easily see them doing their own internal PoD system, which would be harder to build and could be even more disastrous than their early attempts at digital distribution during early 4E that gave Paizo even more room to steal market share. I suspect Hasbro would just drop doing a tabletop RPG altogether rather than a digital only game without ever considering Print on Demand.
However, there still is no PoD for Dragon and Dungeon which is just shockingly missing a big opportunity in my opinion. I see they have returned to doing all of their books in pdf format on drivethrurpg.com. DDI subscribers already pay quite a bit for the service and coming up with some system for DDI subscribers to by POD issues shouldn't cut into profits if done correctly. At the very least, you would think they would start allowing PoD for classic materials sold on drivethrurpg.com. They are just allowing profits to pass by. I have a good collection of beat up older books but would to replace/supplement what I have. |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2014 : 02:10:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
And it‘s a specialized niche market, too, always filling up with disgruntled ex-fans who often tarnish D&D‘s reputation among their peers.
It's my belief that the worse thing for several brands (be it D&D, books, comics or videogames) are the disgruntled fans that go on crusades to make sure that if they can't enjoy something no one will. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
Edited by - Tanthalas on 24 Jan 2014 02:15:51 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2014 : 05:24:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tanthalas
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
And it‘s a specialized niche market, too, always filling up with disgruntled ex-fans who often tarnish D&D‘s reputation among their peers.
It's my belief that the worse thing for several brands (be it D&D, books, comics or videogames) are the disgruntled fans that go on crusades to make sure that if they can't enjoy something no one will.
But isn't that sort of what we saw with the last 3 edition changes. There were a lot of people who clamored for a revision to the game at the end of TSR/AD&D 2E days and behold, 3E! Then people found multiple ways to completely break that system and create ridiculous things and people cried for change and behold, 4E! Then people found multiple things they didn't like (for whatever reasons they have) and cried for change and behold, 5E?
Some people think that if someone doesn't like said rules or whatever, it's much easier to just keep on playing the editions they DO like and let the later stuff appeal to other people. Others think that the consistent arguing/back-and-forth on the bigger "game" issues promotes a stronger and, possibly, better game overall.
For example, I thought 4E had done a LOT of things well. I felt that classes balanced for the most part. I felt like I had a LOT of interesting things to do on a round-by-round, encounter-by-encounter, day-by-day basis that wasn't purely based on specific classes (as in they all had similar resource management). I felt like the emphasis on combat rules and less on non-combat rules was a step in the right direction because I don't need rules to facilitate role-play. However a lot of people were turned off by these "features". I certainly didn't enjoy the 1-hr long combats to fight a random encounter. I thought perhaps the AEDU system was forced too suddenly. I felt that the amount of options were a bit overwhelming for anyone new coming into the game. Also, a lot of people hated classes being forced into roles with specific and near identical features (sneak attack = hunter's quarry, combat superiority = divine challenge, leaders all gaining a healing-ish feature).
So now we're looking at 5E. What doesn't it have? Long combats. What doesn't it put emphasis on? Encounter-based resources (there are some, but it's not universal). What doesn't it have? Universal power structure that puts Fighters on the same level of wizards in terms of resource management. These are all things people hated about 4E. It does have at-will spellcasting. It does utilize implements. It does provide certain encounter-ish features. It doesn't force roles onto classes (well, less emphasis on it to be exact). It has a lot more flexibility than 4E in terms of multiclassing AND having feats that grant spell-like abilities.
So, it's thrown a lot of the 4E philosophies out the window for a more inclusive game design while retaining certain 4E-isms that casual 4E gameers can recognize and identify with.
For one, I think this might be the last edition because they might be able to appeal to the more general populace of D&D fans of most editions. To illustrate my point, I'll point out some things that D&D:Next does well that helps emulate previous editions feel....
AD&D/2E
• Lower numbers, more simplistic in terms of attempting actions and a much more reliance on DM fiat. If a Fighter wants to Bull Rush an enemy, for example, there are many ways to incorporate this action in terms of the mechanics depending on how the DM wants to adjudicate the situation instead of always referring to page 399 of the PHB, section 4, sub-column B, heading #11 (something 3E was known for) OR not using a specific power (a known dislike from 4E). Also, much more emphasis on flavor and context used in the more natural language rather than complete gamer jargon.
3rd Edition
• Multiclassing rules, albiet with some restrictions, provides the level of character depth and growth that many people grew fond of. Further, it being a totally d20 product in that most of the resolution systems are based off a roll on the d20 for a successful result. The continuation of 3E's Feats, but more focused and providing a greater impact on character options as well as Skills being represented as a strong focus on certain aspect of play.
4th Edition
• While a lot of the stuff many 4E fans loved were basically tossed away, some of the core features that the game promoted from day 1 still remain, in some fashion, with D&D:Next. For starters, at-will spellcasting. One of the core tenants of 4E was that Wizards feel like wizards, and thus had magical that could be used all the time. Self-healing being another, which D&D:Next incorporates with the spending of Hit Die. While it's not as good as a system (IMO) as Healing Surges, it still serves the same basic purpose. Finally, I feel one of the biggest continuances of 4E were the options. The playtest is just a small showing (I think) of the core options that will be later produced with the opening PHB that I think most 4E fans can be happy, in the beginning, with overall. But from the get-go we have over 8 classes with two (or more) sub-classes each, many different races, some even exotic like Tieflings, Dragonborn, and Drow as well as great resources for creating combats (in terms of XP budgets).
So with this one singular edition incorporating MANY different aspects from multiple editions PLUS it being easy for the casual gamer to get into due to the strong, but limited, amount of options at character creation I think it might be a long time before WotC pushes out another edition.
Obviously what concerns us the most here at Candlekeep is their treatment of the Forgotten Realms itself, with all the rules and stuff set aside. And it's extremely important they handle this transition better than the last time. Some I have noticed are already not interested in the next phase of the Realms because they're not rebooting the setting, or cutting out every single piece of 4E-lore we received, or they're not continuing stories that are being told now. Honestly, I think these compromise the smaller portions of the greater FR and D&D fanbase. Simply put, you're not going to please everyone. Nor should they, because the beliefs of the gaming community differ so wildly and there are uncompromising parties on both sides of the issue. The best they can do is appeal to the biggest faction, and I'm going out on a limb in that they know what the numbers of that faction compromise of. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2014 : 23:04:30
|
My summary is a bit simpler: it‘s a game, each new edition is essentially a different game, play whichever one you prefer, use or discard or steal or change rules as required for everyone to have fun playing it.
In any case, WotC has been very public with the 5E development cycle. They are also very conscious of the costly lessons learned from each previous edition. I‘m willing to overlook my dislike of some of their past offerings and give 5E a fair chance - like every other edition it is a separate game which should be judged on its own merits and failings. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2014 : 02:24:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
My summary is a bit simpler: it‘s a game, each new edition is essentially a different game, play whichever one you prefer, use or discard or steal or change rules as required for everyone to have fun playing it.
In any case, WotC has been very public with the 5E development cycle. They are also very conscious of the costly lessons learned from each previous edition. I‘m willing to overlook my dislike of some of their past offerings and give 5E a fair chance - like every other edition it is a separate game which should be judged on its own merits and failings.
I agree that taking rules or stuff from other editions and plugging in your own input to make the game better for everyone is a great idea. But that doesn't necessarily sell books. I think D&D:Next really needs to figure out what it's appeal is and who that is going to appeal to for it to sell well. Going from the playtests, I think they have an idea of who their game is going to appeal to the most, with the hope and desire of it appealing to a broad market of current and past players.
I think they understand that there are just certain people/groups who are so stuck in their ways that they won't get them as customers short of printing out rules for that group/players specific edition. They're probably not going to get the Hard core 4E players who really enjoy the host of options, powers, magic items, and character progression which that edition promotes NOR are they going to get the 3E players who really enjoy the in-depth control one has over almost every nuance of their character, from specific skill ranks, to cherry-picking multiclassing rules to a LARGE focus on simulating the real-world via rules. I don't think they're going to appeal to the nostalgic hard-core 2E players who hold pretty much everything produced by WotC as rubbish or that don't enjoy the codified ways d20 handles things.
Who they're going after are the ones who are casual. The ones who don't think any singular edition is the BEST ever. The ones who don't have the time to put hours upon hours into a campaign. The ones who want quick, easy, but immersive rules. And of course the new gamers, the ones who can look at the rules and pick it up with ease and have a great time in 3 hours that has all the combat, exploration, adventure, intrigue, etc. packed into one. IF they can pull this off and pull in the majority of D&D players, I think it might be the last one with many modular parts. 3E was sort of like this but was also filled with wonky parts and bits that were far more trouble than it was worth. If 5E can be a cleaned up, simpler 3E with 4E trimmings wrapped up in lore and detail similar to AD&D/2E, it could be many many years before we see 6th Edition.
|
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2014 : 05:55:26
|
Actually, 3E/3.5E was the last edition of D&D.
I'll explain why below.
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Or just wait 50 years for the IP to elapse and then release your own version of 3.5
Why wait? Short of using the D&D name and a handful of "product identity" monsters (mind flayers, beholders, etc.) people can and have already produced their version of 3.5E.
Aside from the glut of d20 compatible products.
We have Pathfinder (3.5E with some edits and houserules, essentially).
The OGL has also been extended to a truckload of "retroclones". There are versions of these online offered for free.
- OSRIC (OGL clone of AD&D 1E)
- Swords & Wizardry (approximates OD&D in white box and supplement flavors (WB, Core, Complete) all free online, with B&W art)
- Labyrinth Lord (a take on Basic/Expert OD&D, where demihuman races are race-classes)
- Dark Dungeon (version of Rules Cyclopedia OD&D)
*IMO, you'll find the most support for LL, with S&W close to it, but S&W is picking up the pace as Frog God Games (one of the owners behind Necromancer Games who put out tons of high quality 3E-OGL adventures) is officially supporting it.
These are more or less compatible with the version they aim to emulate. Of course there's a lot of cross-compatibility between each other and all pre-3E versions of D&D anyway.
There are fancier artful versions of the above. There are also other OGL derived games with different flavors, most of these are paid versions with a very slimmed down freeware intro set:
- 13th Age (Archmage Engine): Sort of a slimmed down 4E with some indie narrative elements such as backgrounds as skills. Designed by Jonathan Tweet (3E) and Rob Heinsoo (4E). This is their love letter to D&D plus some of their ideas for a D&D game with modern design concepts.
- Lamentations of the Flame Princess: If D&D had an unholy baby with a library of grindhouse flicks and weird fantasy literature, add in some human sacrifice and tentacled elder beings to taste.
- Adventurer, Conquerer, King: Basic D&D with a bit of clean up and extended plan focused on gaining and ruling kingdoms as the end game.
- Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DCCRPG): The designers took the Appendix N (AD&D 1E list of inspirational readings) and build a game around it. It's if 70s fantasy played a much heavier influence on D&D. Spellcasting is more unpredictable and empowered by enigmatic patrons. Players start play with a handful of 0-level villagers who get winnowed down until the real adventuring group rises to the top.
- Castles & Crusades: Probably the game that jumpstarted the divergence from D&D, while still being D&D-like. It's a slimmed down game that's closer to the flavor of 1E but using most of the terminology of 3E.
- Numenera: Monte Cook's game which he started after leaving the 5E design team, then completed and shipped before 5E set a release date. This may be a glimpse at some of the ideas he had in mind for 5E, but may not have implemented after his departure. Instead of traditional fantasy, the flavor is science fantasy. Bruce Cordell recently signed on to Monte's company after he departed Wizards. He's working on a new game using the same system (Cypher System, still d20 based) called The Strange, seems to deal with parallel realities (also in a sci-fantasy way).
These are some of the big names, and ones with steady product support. Many with 'professional' production (slick & glossy paper, full color, lots of art).
Thus, 3e/3.5E was the last edition of D&D. IMO.
How does 5E fit into this?
It's tricky. Against their business acumen, they should probably drop the GSL thing from 4E.
It sounds crazy but the djinni is out of the bottle. The people who will be "playing D&D" without actually playing D&D will only grow. WotC shouldn't fight it, they should embrace it. Treat the community with respect and see it as a rising tide lifts all ships type of situation. Then ride on top of that wave.
WotC has the resources to be the leader of a growing industry*. If they're willing to take the role seriously they can act as the face and ambassador of tabletop roleplaying games to the wider public.
* Not RPG specific, but tabletop/hobby games (aka board games, card games, etc) is growing at a greater rate than other forms of entertainment***. There's no reason why tabletop RPGs can't experience more growth, but it's not an easy hobby to get into compared to video games (plug & play) or board games (shorter and simpler rules, generally).
Both of those have higher pop culture influence at different ends of the spectrum:
Video games capture the modern zeitgeist (either media tie-ins or forging new IP), the tech-focused media coverage (tech trade shows, major video game expos), graphically-rich, multimedia experience.
Board & card games have a rich heritage/history and cultural significance. Who hasn't heard of Monopoly, Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, Life, Chutes & Ladders, Scrabble, Poker, Go Fish, Bridge, Risk, Stratego, Diplomacy, Pictionary, etc. (Plus there were a lot of board game commercials in the 80s) The eurogames rising faster and faster in popularity are an offshoot of a long line of board games.
So RPGs need more exposure and it could carve a decent sized niche as an alternative to mainstream entertainment like movies and TV (even video games were niche at one point). Wizards is well positioned to do it, if they're up for it.
Otherwise, I'm sure Paizo wouldn't mind. Also, they might not even be in the running, boardgame-centric companies could easily leverage their influence in the board game playing population to jump on this. Mayfair Games produces a bunch of board game bestsellers, they also used to make RPGs. If the market was right, they could again (unlikely perhaps, but could). To say nothing of companies like Fantasy Flight Games, they produce the Warhammer and Star Wars RPGs. Apart from Paizo's PFRPG and WotC's D&D, FFG often has a lock on the 3-5 topselling RPG positions (various versions of Warhammer and Star Wars). If anyone is going to knock one of the big two from the #2 spot, it's probably FFG.
*** The growing strength of board games sales is why we see a push from WotC for D&D board games (Dungeon Command, Wrath of Ashardalon, Castle Ravenloft, Legend of Drizzt, Lords of Waterdeep, Dungeon! revamp).
If any edition will be the final edition, it will likely be as a "board game" similar in form to the Red Box (either OD&D or 4E) or one of the D&D Adventure games that served as an intro set. |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 25 Jan 2014 06:03:54 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
5th edition, the last edition?
