Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

5th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons Announced

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the roll-for-fan-support-initiative dept.

Role Playing (Games) 309

New submitter lrsach01 writes "Wizards of the Coast has announced a 'new iteration' of their Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. Early information says the game will be more inclusive, with a basic rule set that 'builds out.' This Spring, WotC will be 'conducting ongoing open playtests with the gaming community to gather feedback on the new iteration of the game as we develop it.'"

cancel ×

309 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

exponential version growth (5, Informative)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38640958)

1974 - First edition
1989 - Second edition
2000 - Third edition
2008 - Forth edition
2012 - Fifth edition

Re:exponential version growth (4, Funny)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38640998)

2013 - SQL edition (based on Forth misspelling)

lazy egghead... (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641844)

yet we're still waiting for the second part of Combinatorial Algorithms...

Re:exponential version growth (3, Interesting)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641028)

And me still playing First Edition. Sheesh. I feel old (but well invested).

Re:exponential version growth (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641120)

Ditto. Do they still use dice or are those too 'old school'?

Re:exponential version growth (5, Funny)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641390)

In my day, we played the Zeroth Edition. In those days we created characters on parchment made from jaguar hides and used dice carved from the femur of a wooly mammoth. By the time I took the wooly mammoth with my trusty spear ("Katharina", I used to call her... although her real name was "Agnes"-- but that's another story), I was dead tired and needed a nap. By the time I woke up, the First Edition was out and I had missed my chance. I blame Richard Nixon, although I suspect James Knox Polk could also be implicated in this disaster.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

wurp (51446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642050)

I have a copy of (most of) 0th edition at home (the "little brown books" that came out before Basic).

And if it's made from animal hide, it's vellum, not parchment.

Re:exponential version growth (5, Interesting)

wurp (51446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641130)

I'm running a 1st edition game for my 16 year old and five of his friends >:-)

Shockingly, somehow one of the major factors in me being derided as a nerd in HS has turned me into "the cool dad" now that my kid's in HS.

Re:exponential version growth (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641310)

And being the cool dad has turned your kids into nerds :-p

Re:exponential version growth (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641492)

As a high-school parent, doing anything that insures your teen's celibacy (like D&D) is advantageous.

Re:exponential version growth (1, Insightful)

gorzek (647352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642012)

I think you missed the memo. Being a nerd is cool now. Turning your kids into nerds means they're gonna get laid more, not less.

Obviously, the solution is to make sure your kids are jocks and as non-nerdy as possible.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641322)

Nerd, no. Devi worshiper, yes :)

I grew up on the game and my best friend bought all the books (1st edition rules, the monster manual, etc) so we played a lot.

The problem was that he wasn't a very good storyteller, so one day, someone made the sly remark for him to start using one of his precooked modules.

And when he did -- it was the most fun we had ever experienced. In retrospect, it was far better than any computer game if have played since. It's pretty awesome that your sixteen year old and his friends can experience it.
           

Re:exponential version growth (0)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641354)

Shockingly, somehow one of the major factors in me being derided as a nerd in HS has turned me into "the cool dad" now that my kid's in HS.

Well, for the record, you're likely still a nerd. ;-)

And, I fear your kid is now a nerd as well ... so him and his friends calling you a cool dad is just nerd worship. I'm sure they're still nerds in school.

I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying that the fact that your kid plays D&D with you now doesn't lessen any of the nerd-ness you exhibited in high-school. ;-)

Re:exponential version growth (1)

wurp (51446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642000)

Oh yeah, I'm a big nerd. But here (Seattle) & now it's apparently more acceptable to be a nerd.

I certainly don't fool myself that I would be cool by the average HSer's standards. (Nor would I want to be.) In fact it quite surprised me to hear my son comment that his friends complained their parents weren't as cool as me ;-)

Re:exponential version growth (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642038)

In fact it quite surprised me to hear my son comment that his friends complained their parents weren't as cool as me ;-)

LOL, enjoy it while it lasts ... that can be fickle as I understand.

But, I guess congrats: kids in high-school rarely think their parents are cool. :-P

Re:exponential version growth (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641410)

I never did get the "rigidity" a lot of AD&D hard core players had in their material - if it wasnt in the book, its not allowed, if it isnt done on a dice role, it isnt allowed etc. I walked away from a lot of groups between the ages of 16 and 22 or so because of that.

Some of the best role playing I have ever done was with a DM who didn't use any books, didnt use any dice, and jotted rough layouts on paper when they were needed - everything came out of his mind, he made the decisions and the story.

So, what I think I am trying to say, is that I agree with you in sticking to the 1st edition - and I hope you stick loosely to it ;)

No kidding (2)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641942)

No kidding.

I for one spent too much time gaming with pinheads, especially pinheads I didn't really like.

Here's a rule I have now about gaming, if you don't want to hang out with the people you game with outside of the game, you shouldn't be gaming with them at all.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641420)

There are a variety of "old school" versions out there that are much cleaner and easier to use than 1st edition, even though they are the equivalent.

You want proof of how messed up 1st edition is? Read the DMG entry about initiative. Especially the part about weapons speeds and how you can get multiple attacks. Something every mage and thief/rogue should use & abuse when it comes up.

I'm not saying 1st edition was bad, I loved it back then, it's just that it had a lot of inconsistencies and complications that needed to be smoothed over or trimmed out. (Or built up in some cases, like skills, it just wasn't sufficient for the non-combat stuff.)

Re:exponential version growth (2)

wurp (51446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641962)

Yeah, I'm definitely not following all of those rules religiously. In fact, initiative is very simplified.

The great things about 1st ed in my opinion is that
* it is more about letting different playstyles have fun rather than pounding all the bumpy bits off of each choice (race, class, etc) until they're all homogeneous for the sake of "balance"
* it explicitly points out that your game is your game. The DM is there to make sure the players are challenged and have fun, and the rules are there to help the DM meet that. If the DM decides that different rules will be more fun for his players, it is not just his right but his obligation to change them.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641232)

And me still playing First Edition. Sheesh. I feel old (but well invested).

First edition? Wouldn't your chits have worn out by now?

Re:exponential version growth (1)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641400)

Unfortunately, I lost my blue-box B2 - Keep on the Borderlands, complete with D&D (not AD&D) Rule Book to the Flood of '93.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641714)

Haha, the Great Septic Pump Fail of '86 took all our D&D, Star Wars and Atari paraphernalia out while we were visiting our dad(divorced).
Mom threw everything out before we returned. Sigh.

Re:exponential version growth (0)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641366)

Bah... You whipper-snappers and your "Advanced" D&D. All the cool kids still play the original unmodified D&D rules.

Well... No. The cool kids play Football. And they can have it. ;)

Re:exponential version growth (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641482)

um... the "editions" suck... too much information, too many rules, not enough creative freedom for DM.

And in my experience, the youngins, exclusively, are the ones with the editions... greybeards always play AD&D

AD&D FTW

AD&D or GTFO

Re:exponential version growth (1)

abe ferlman (205607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641556)

I wanted to start a 1ed game but we couldn't find enough player's handbooks, and ebay wanted too much. I understand they used to sell pdf's of the 1ed books but that practice must have let too many people enjoy the game without buying new books every year because they are no longer available.

Re:exponential version growth (2)

tilante (2547392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641654)

For just that reason, a group of people have re-created 1st edition AD&D under the Open Gaming License: http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/ [knights-n-knaves.com]

Re:exponential version growth (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641820)

Used book stores, the bigger the better. Our local Bookman's [bookmans.com] has many editions, new and originals. I discovered them them in the last 12 months, was so entranced browsing the good old days I forget to look at the price tags.

Re:exponential version growth (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641038)

You forgot edition 3.5, with all new rulebooks in 2003.

Re:exponential version growth (2)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641246)

To be fair, 3.5 fixed a lot of problems with 3rd edition, and is essentially a few rules tweaking with some major class overhaul. 3 and 3.5 are compatible with each other, for the most part. IIRC, the only books that were republished for 3.5 were the PHB, DMG, and MM. None of the supplment books released for 3.0 were reprinted.

And that makes sense. If you make a lot of changes to the core books then running the changes in the new print cycle is a good idea.

Re:exponential version growth (3, Insightful)

chilvence (1210312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641040)

They can only wank people about so much before they get the picture though. I used to love how geeky all the dnd books were, now I wouldn't think twice before pirating them, if I even cared enough to keep up to date with what is so obviously a milking game.

Re:exponential version growth (4, Funny)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641048)

They had to replace the Forth edition. It is an RPG people, RPN has no place in it.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

Gavin Scott (15916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642010)

Don't you mean: RPN in it no place has?

G.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642020)

Yeah, but there's a stack of them lying around.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641100)

Ah, that takes me back. I was such a pathetic nerd as a kid that I used to buy all the D&D guides and modules and read them even though I didn't have any friends to actually play it with. If there were any other kids at my school into D&D back in those early days, they certainly would never have publicly admitted it. I remember watching the movie Taps [wikipedia.org] , and seeing the scene where the cadets are playing D&D and being so jealous that they had other people to play with.

Needless to say, I got my ass kicked a lot as a kid.

Re:exponential version growth (4, Informative)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641196)

Ah, that takes me back. I was such a pathetic nerd as a kid that I used to buy all the D&D guides and modules and read them even though I didn't have any friends to actually play it with. If there were any other kids at my school into D&D back in those early days, they certainly would never have publicly admitted it. I remember watching the movie Taps [wikipedia.org], and seeing the scene where the cadets are playing D&D and being so jealous that they had other people to play with.

Yeah. When other geeks would complain about only having their geek friends at school for company I was always like wow, I'm so jealous of your life. The only place I found fellow geeks was on the local BBS'. Yes, there were a number of us in the same area code but we didn't go to the same schools.

Re:exponential version growth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641604)

This is so hilarious because that's exactly what happened to me. You know what the biggest joke was though? 2 of the most popular kids in my grade school were into D&D as was one of them's brother. My problem? I couldn't afford *ANY* of the books, they wouldn't loan me any, and they said you couldn't play if you didn't as if the books were some form of gospel.

Much like the grandparent I ended up picking them up in junior high/high school just to read (I skipped lunch for much of the first four years of jh/hs) in order to finance my gaming addiction. (2nd ed of D&D and like 4th ed of Battletech/2nd of Mechwarrior). I collected material wherever I could find it, which in those days included KB Toys. I never did figure out where they got all those supplements but they had Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Some Blood Coast thing (which I never did get the money to buy before it disappeared off their shelves.) and even at one point a reprint of the original non-AD&D package, in this really neat oversized box for like 5-10 bucks (Sadly destroyed in the mess of my room over the years.)

I was a year or two into college when 3.0 came out. I picked up copies of the core rulebooks, but was pretty 'MEH' on the rule changes. All the feats crap (while cool in a CRPG) kinda turned me off since it directly messed with too many things that felt canon, between the novels and the plethora of previous supplments. Mechwarrior v3 from FASA did the same thing, breaking every weapon and armor item with no conversion rules (They pretty much said sort it out yourself or have fun buying the new books, most of which never came out and cost anywhere from 10-30 dollars more.) Their's was even worse since it split the rules conversion over the massive encyclopedia project they'd been doing of all the Nations of the Inner Sphere, so now suddenly any new items were only for either 2nd ed or 3rd ed without either duplicated stats or some other way to sort it out.
The West End Games D6 to D20 Star Wars RPG was the final nail in the coffin. They'd lied for a long time about providing conversion capabilities from D6 to whatever the new SWRPG rules were going to be. Instead they literally ripped off D&D and moreover SpellJammer, crammed the rules onto a Star Wars RPG, then wondered why it didn't sell well enough. (Between it and the prequels I was *DONE*)

That was the point at which I lost interest in RPGs. I've still played a few CRPGs over the years, including, amusingly both D&D and D20 SWRPG ones, but honestly the tacky grinding is really overshadowed by skill based grinding in other RPGs. While it didn't make sense in the Pen and Paper world due to the complexity of administration, when you've got a computer doing it for you, it provides a lot more immersive experience when you actually have to train a skill through use rather than 'Oh you killed 20 mobs! Level up! Look at all the new things you learned through murder!' (And yes, I know some games forgoe it, notably DDO, which still has it in limited fashion with 'slayer' quests on most levels.)

Anyhow a bunch of people I know have been recently getting into it, but half are going v4 and the other half v2, and honestly it's such an ancient part of my past I can't see any reason to give it another chance.

Re:exponential version growth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641464)

No little brothers? That's how I got indoctrinated, whether I wanted to or not. The original module called for one more character than they had and I was nominated. Initially hated it b/c we were so inexperienced(us & the characters) and the DM(big bro) was green. Then came The Giants Series and I was sucked in, willingly. My forced inclusion quickly morphed into their reluctance to include me. Damn big brothers and their a55hole friends, lulz.

*this was the early '80's, but big bro & buddies explored modules in order of release.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

futuresheep (531366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641554)

You make me feel very lucky then. A few of my D&D playing friends and I managed to convince a teacher at our middle school to sponsor a D&D club. He didn't care a bit about the game, he just did it because he was a good guy. So we met once a week and played for a few hours after school while he graded papers. It was good fun and one of my favorite memories of school. We even got our nerdy picture in the yearbook. :-)

Re:exponential version growth (2)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641740)

I had people to play with, and believe it or not I may have had more fun reading the rulebooks and sourcebooks. They were pretty fun.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641118)

1970 - Waterfall
2000 - Iterative

Re:exponential version growth (4, Funny)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641206)

1970 - Waterfall

2000 - Iterative

2010 - Agile

Actually this explains exponential version growth quite well.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641346)

Indeed ;)

Re:exponential version growth (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641124)

In that case I'll wait for the 6th edition so they can get the bugs out.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641160)

AD&D still best edition. Things went downhill with 3rd edition and each iteration has just made it worse. Class systems are archaic enough already and if you're going to stick with them you need to make them simple and not try some weird hybrid approach with feats and skills.

Re:exponential version growth (4, Funny)

Biff Stu (654099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641242)

OMG! It's just like Firefox!

Re:exponential version growth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641278)

They have also strategically separated the editions into multiple books (player handbook, DM handbook and I think monster handbook), so that DMs or advanced players can't get away with just one expensive book
I am not old enough to have played 1st/2nd edition, but I believe it used to be a single book.

Re:exponential version growth (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641578)

You would be wrong.

Re:exponential version growth (2)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641288)

I'd say it is pretty obvious why they jumped so rapidly from 4th to 5th. Basically the 3.5 to 4th edition involved too many drastic simplifications to the game. (now admitted I'm a youngin so I can't really say much on 1st to second transition, but I have read over the 2nd ed rules), 2nd to 3rd while adding more rules they also added more in the way of character options, multiclassing etc.. became more streamlined etc... players liked this, 3.5 to 4th... was a rapid reduction of options, multiclassing removed etc... Almost everything was about simplifying concepts, and then there were a few things that I thought had no place in an P&P game, like level restrictions on gear etc... Paizo also didn't like the direction wizards of the coast went, in addition to changing the game, they also scrapped the OGL (Open gaming license Think open source for tabletop, it allowed 3rd parties to release extras). Paizo after being cut from the ability to develop content, developed their own system, pathfinder, based off of the OGL and 3.5 but expanding upon it, and the sales reflected that the market liked it better http://www.geeknative.com/24060/pathfinder-tops-summer-rpg-sales/ [geeknative.com] Pathfinder won more or less every quarter of 2010, WOTC is realizing, that dungeons and dragons can no longer be number 1, via name recognition alone.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641312)

1974 First edition
1989 Second edition
2000 Third edition
2008 Forth edition
2012 Fifth edition

2016 Sixth edition
2020 Seventh Edition
2023 Eighth Edition
2026 Ninth Edition
2029 Tenth Edition

Re:exponential version growth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641444)

15 .. 11 .. 8 .. 4 isn't exponential. Of course at this rate we'll see 6th ed. released in 2012 as well and 7th was actully created 4 years ago but nobody paid attention at the time...

Re:exponential version growth (5, Informative)

tilante (2547392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641506)

Umm, actually...

1974 - Original D&D
1977-9 - First Edition AD&D
1985 - "Unearthed Arcana" - extensive changes and expansions to AD&D - arguably "AD&D 1.5"
1989 - Second Edition AD&D
1995-6 - "Skills & Powers", "Combat & Tactics", "Spells & Magic" - arguably "AD&D 2.5"
2000 - Third Edition AD&D, "A" is dropped for marketing reasons
2003 - 3.5 Edition AD&D
2008 - 4th Edition AD&D
2010-1 - "D&D Essentials" - arguably "AD&D 4.5"

However, during the 80s and early 90s, TSR also kept developing "D&D" as a separate system, separated for legal reasons. This version is often called "Basic D&D".

1977 - First Edition BD&D
1981 - Second Edition BD&D
1983-5 - Third Edition BD&D
1991 - Fourth Edition BD&D

Thus, new D&D rule sets came out the fastest during the late '70s and early '80s, but the average time period between new rule revisions has been 5 years or so. AD&D now moves faster, thanks to the dropping of the "BD&D" line in the '90s. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition AD&D were all announced 2-3 years before they actually came out. I'd expect to see 5th edition actually coming out late in 2013 at earliest.

Re:exponential version growth (5, Funny)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641826)

Why is it reading your post, the voice I hear in my head is the comic book guy from the Simpsons [wikipedia.org] . Just saying.

Re:exponential version growth (1)

tilante (2547392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641904)

As the Pythons might say, "Eh, it's a fair cop." Never actually worked in a comic or gaming store, but I've been "that guy" hanging out in RPG Usenet newsgroups, online discussions, etc. since about 1991.

Re:exponential version growth (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641936)

2008 - Forth edition

The condensed version, or the unabridged?

Re:exponential version growth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642008)

1974 was OD&D, you're missing AD&D 1st Ed. and the "basic D&D".

Re:exponential version growth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38642058)

No, 1974 was the date of the original TSR D&D release, not AD&D.

The AD&D rules first appeared with the Players Handbook in 1977, and the DMG and Monster Manual came in in 78-79.

D&D games before that used a somewhat different rule set (e.g., Elves were a character class).

Nice to see it's still alive (1)

NabisOne (2426710) | more than 2 years ago | (#38640972)

Started playing again recently after a long (15 year) break from gaming, and I have to say it has been a lot of fun.

Re:Nice to see it's still alive (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641146)

Started playing again recently after a long (15 year) break from gaming, and I have to say it has been a lot of fun.

So....how's the divorce going ....

Re:Nice to see it's still alive (5, Funny)

NabisOne (2426710) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641434)

Haha. She is OK with it. Probably because there is no fear of other women being involved....

still dont know 4th (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38640978)

Unfortunately for me, my first 4th edition game starts up next Friday.

I miss.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38640982)

playing my kender :(

Translation. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641060)

Wizards of the Coast has announced they need more money because everyone who plays d&d has already bought all their old books.
So now it's time to obsolete everything again and make them start over.

Re:Translation. (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641222)

What? Do they go through and burn all the books? We're still playing Rolemaster 2nd edition. The latest stuff(Silly System, 3rd and 4th ed) is awful. Sometimes you just gotta stuck with what works

Re:Translation. (1)

Obliterous (466068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641446)

Yeah... This is what I said when 4th ed came out.
Just as true now as it was then.

Just got to forth edition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641076)

Elan, Haley, and Roy just got to 4th edition over the summer!!!

If 4th Ed was "the WoW" clone.... Will this be a Skyrim clone... Just one character that walks around and does stuff.

Re:Just got to forth edition (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641502)

It will be a Magic or Yu Gi Oh clone, complete with card based rules. D&D died after 2nd ed AD&D.

But wait (2)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641108)

I'm just finally mastering the 2nd edition rules.

Re:But wait (4, Funny)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641406)

God forbid you ever try grappling....

Re:But wait (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641738)

I'm just finally mastering the 2nd edition rules.

Tip: If you're a fighter, specialize in darts. First, they're distance weapons. You get 3 attacks per round at first level, and each attack gets your strength damage bonus. (1d3+bonus)x3, plus the ability to spread it out amongst multiple weak enemies, and you can build to 5 attacks per round. Also, since it's a thrown weapon, you get str and dex to-hit bonuses. Beats a fighter with a 2-handed sword easily.

Money (4, Funny)

0101000001001010 (466440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641164)

Don't they realize that the more often they change the ruleset the more often players have to spend money buying new books?

Oh...

I liked 4th ed (1)

vawwyakr (1992390) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641166)

I think despite what many say it is actually quite fun the only real issue is that combat takes way way too long. Fun that there is so much to the tactics and such but annoying when two fights take up an entire nights game.

Re:I liked 4th ed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641686)

That's my big gripe as well.... It's especially maddening. Having not played any of the other editions, are the encounters really much shorter in any other edition?

WoW (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641194)

A lot of people's complaints of 4e is that they basically made a pen and paper version of WoW. Hopefully 5th edition is more like 3.5e which is where they really got D&D right (IMHO IMHO).

Re:WoW (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641830)

A lot of people's complaints of 4e is that they basically made a pen and paper version of WoW. Hopefully 5th edition is more like 3.5e which is where they really got D&D right (IMHO IMHO).

No joke. Just re-release OD&D with a reverse THAC0 and everything'll be cool. Keep it simple!

Pathfinder driven? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641212)

I wonder how much of this revamp is being driven by Pathfinder and the other Open Gaming License games. As with F/OS (second S dropped intentionally) goodness, you can download the Pathfinder rulebooks for free, and only pay for them should you want the nice full-color hardback.

Much easier to get people into a game if they don't have to buy two or three $50 books just to start.

Re:Pathfinder driven? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641262)

That's pretty much exactly where my group is. Further, the rules are easier to work with under Pathfinder than 4th.

Re:Pathfinder driven? (1)

tilante (2547392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642006)

I'm pretty sure that it's being heavily driven by the fact that Pathfinder is now outselling 4th edition D&D. Oh, and by the way, while you'll find the Pathfinder Core PDF on tons of file-sharing sites, the publisher doesn't give it away. A guaranteed-legal copy of the Pathfinder Core PDF is $10, and the paper book is $50. (http://paizo.com/store/v5748btpy88yj)

Market saturation = Time for a new edition (2)

bughunter (10093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641214)

It's a pretty obvious game to the cynical old grognards like me. It started when TSR was sold to WotC, and then WotC was bought out by a megacorp.

Now that Hasbro owns the trademark, all they're interested in is more sales.

My group's been together for over 20 years, and we stopped buying books after 2nd edition. We still play using "2.5 ed" rules, and we don't have any problems finding new members every now and then.

Re:Market saturation = Time for a new edition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641292)

You should give 1st Edition Rolemaster a try, that's what my group of 1st edition AD&Ds all went to, having tried Palladium, Gurps etc. Even got my son and his friends from HS hooked on Rolemaster.

Re:Market saturation = Time for a new edition (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641504)

1st or 2nd. Nothing else exists after that, I'd like to believe

Re:Market saturation = Time for a new edition (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641610)

Halleluya to that!

Re:Market saturation = Time for a new edition (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641804)

I spent a lot of time on second edition, but I greatly enjoyed the release of 3.5 - with some house modifications for ease of play and consistency (like all groups). It removes a lot of the weirdness and balance issues in 2nd (variable XP tables, Bend Bars, Lift Gates, 9 levels of spells for wizards and 7 for clerics, racial limitations on class/level, THAC0, etc.) which I found particularly helpful.

But, like you, I don't feel a need to move from that edition of D&D for a good gaming experience. It fits my needs when running a classic fantasy setting game. 4th Edition didn't have that big of an improvement in the crunch experience (actually, it was a step back in my mind) to warrant bothering with it at all.

And, there's some other very cool systems out there... These days I am far, far more likely to move to a different system entirely if I don't feel the 3.5 ruleset is appropriate for the type of game I'm running. I like the World of Darkness stuff if I'd like to focus more on story yet still have characters statted out well, and for a quick, loose game, Fudge is fantastic.

I'd love to try the Spirit of the Century rule system at some point - it looks very, very cool.

Although in theory you can run any kind of game with any rules system, certain rules systems work better for certain kinds of games.

Ooops, I rambled again. )o:

Yea... NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641248)

I'm sorry, I started playing in 3.5 and got pretty good at the rule set and all the info you had to know about playing certain classes. Then 4.0 came out to completely obsolete the 3.5 books which in some cases allowed for horrible abuses of min-maxing (PunPun anyone?). For all it's maligning, I'm actually perfectly happy playing and DMing 4.0 campaigns. That they're asking us to buy a complete new set of books, campaign guides, and player sheets not 4 years into their new reboot of the system (in which we were promised a full Online DM tool) is still not out, I'm going to re-evaluate my Pencil and Paper RPG game options and probably either stay on 4.0 or go to a system that doesn have the insatiable hunger to up the edition number (and milk the dwindling population for more money).

Re:Yea... NO (1)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641498)

They are asking you nothing. It's your call if you want to buy there product or not. My group never switched to 4th edition as we were really fine with the 3.5.

Modular Design (1)

fallen1 (230220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641268)

Based on a lot of the different articles I have read today from Forbes, NY Times, Escapist Magazine and so on it seems that this version may be going with a GURPS philosophy -- Here is your basic game. You have more than enough information to design characters and play the game. But then...

Oh, you want to play a more miniatures based, combat-oriented style of play? Here is the miniatures rule book/module and here is the epic combat rule book/module and off you go.

Oh, you want to mix magic and psionics in one campaign world you are creating? Well, here is a book for world designing and the rule book/module for psionics.

Oh, you want to play such and such... and so on, and so forth.

I believe they want one basic ruleset so that you can then go with how your play group usually games - from those who are diehard first edition players to those who choose a more MMO style of play. From the role-players who want a much wider creative range to play within to those who say "I want to bash shit in the head" and have to do little creative input into designing your character, I believe Wizards wants to give them the option. All from a single starting point.

I am going to be cautiously optimistic and do both "wait and see" and get my play group into helping test so we can give our feedback. Just some quick background - my play group has played under 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3rd ed, and 3.5 and we are currently running an extended player-designed world and campaign under 2nd edition rules (with house rules/modifications as Gygax intended :-p).

Re:Modular Design (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641392)

Traveler [wikipedia.org] tried a modular approach, and fell apart because of it. 30 different short rule books just didn't do the trick.

Re:Modular Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641490)

Oh, you want to play a more miniatures based, combat-oriented style of play? Here is the miniatures rule book/module and here is the epic combat rule book/module and off you go.

Oh, you want to mix magic and psionics in one campaign world you are creating? Well, here is a book for world designing and the rule book/module for psionics.

And then, of course, the inevitable problem: "Oh, you want to play a minatures-based play style WITH magic and psionics? Enjoy the fact that neither of the rulebooks cover the interaction and/or the combo creates game-breaking idiocy due to side-effects of rules in each interacting."

More importantly, if this was such a hotshit idea, why isn't GURPS selling a fuckton of books?

....not exponential (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641302)

Actually, the equation Edition(Year) is not described by an exponential, but instead rather well by a polynomial:
Edition(Y) = 0.0018684 Y^2 - 7.35 Y + 7223.2, where Y is the year

If we extend the curve, we get the following:
2018 - 6th edition
2023 - 7th edition
2028 - 8th edition
2032 - 9th edition

So we should expect vast growth over the next 20 years! Invest now.

Of course, by the 9th edition out future generations may have fully sentient AI's acting out the roles of in vat-grown bodies on a theme park on the surface of Mars. At least, one could hope...

Old Rules Rule (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641306)

When I play D&D, my friends and I use to original edition hardcover AD&D rule books. The rules are simple, we all know them, and we all know the books well enough to quickly point at the rule if there's disagreement. We do allow combo spells from the original lists to make new ones, cleared in advance or even on the fly if they're straightforward enough. The players & DM are mostly programmers and lawyers, so we're more interested in the role playing and storytelling than in the rules themselves. And the hunkering down in a man-cave all night to act like 14 year olds.

Re:Old Rules Rule (2)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641516)

When I play D&D, my friends and I use to original edition hardcover AD&D rule books. The rules are simple, we all know them, and we all know the books well enough to quickly point at the rule if there's disagreement. We do allow combo spells from the original lists to make new ones, cleared in advance or even on the fly if they're straightforward enough. The players & DM are mostly programmers and lawyers, so we're more interested in the role playing and storytelling than in the rules themselves. And the hunkering down in a man-cave all night to act like 14 year olds.

You're doing it right. But you already knew this.

Sounds fun... (1)

redbeardcanada (1052028) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641422)

This game sounds fun... what system does it run on? I am not sure what d20 is, does anyone know if my iPhone has it?

1 on a d20, fumble it is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641612)

I got a couple 4th edition books and waited to see what all my obsessive gaming friends would do. All they did was bitch that it was boring, all the classes the same, much easier if you had a computer, blah, blah, blah.

So the game I am playing in has harkened back to the "good old days" by playing a 2nd edition game. So much fun! Every class is different, weird quirks, odd rules, overly powerful spells, crazy monsters. It is actually fun. The rules shape the game but they don't, uh, rule it. And there are other options online that we've played with, many rough, some worthy.

Good-bye WoC. I don't need you anymore. All the D&D I care about sits on my shelf as modules I've always owned or bought used dirt cheap. Suck it on your continued corporate money grab while raping D&D for everything you can get.

But is it fun? (1, Insightful)

alexo (9335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641656)

Used to play and DM 1st and 2nd edition a couple of decades ago.
Then life (often spelled with a 'w') happened and I sort of drifted away from it.
I participated in a handful of one-time meetings where they used the 3rd edition (or possibly 3.5) which seemed to be a mostly welcome evolution of the 2nd.
I tried running an adventure for my kids based on 4th edition once but it felt like a completely different system, and not in a good way. More like a computer game.
What's the 5th edition like?

Never could get into D&D but... (1)

MooseDontBounce (989375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38641894)

I'm currently building a nice 6' x 10' gaming table for my Napoleonic & WW2 era miniatures wargames. Just a different branch of the nerd tree.

Dear Hasbro... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641898)

Thanks for taking something fun, pure, and good, and turning it into something that ... isn't. I wish you the best of luck on your new disaster, I mean product. In the mean time, I'll stick with Pathfinder.

What I miss the most from 2nd Ed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641932)

The thing I miss the most - THAC0.

It took years to master figuring it, now that I know it I'm never going with "Base Hit" or what ever they use now!

Terrible 4th ed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38641944)

4th edition = failsauce
WoC is a terrible company, they will probably have this new edition out before the end of 2012. Just look at how often they spin out new sets of MTG. Will be a new D&D edition every 2 years with the way they run things.

Its probably a good thing Pathfinder picked up the 3.5 stuff and running with it.

Oh, the memories... (1)

Howard Beale (92386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642072)

Started with D&D, moved over to The Fantasy Trip and played that for a number of years. Hell, I helped out some friends who started Jersey Devil Game Company. Used to beta test games, and then help with shrinkwrapping and distribution. I even started designing the computer version of Silo 14 (one of their games). Those were the days (sniff!)...

learning from EA (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38642088)

I hear D&D 12 is basically just tweaks to the roster, er, monster manual and fixing some bugs; but D&D 13 is supposed to be built on a whole new engine! Supposedly they're finally introducing 7-sided dice, which the community has been trying to get for ages.

If only there was a way WotC could prohibit the use of old versions; sadly, no central server is required to get together and play with other people, so they can't turn it off and force you to upgrade every other year.

(Hmm, the premise of my sarcasm might be off - I'm not sure how much crossover there is between pen-and-paper RPGers and players of EA Sports titles; hopefully the general dislike for EA will help pull this off...)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>