It's coming... D&D 5e.

[Istal_Devalis]

Kind of like how they made Eberron by asking people to come up with a system and then pickedthe one made by one of their own employees because he is technically a freelance writer?

>:( Whoa! Whoa whoa whoa, back up a second. I have no idea where you got this from, or who told you this, but it's dead wrong and you need to stop spreading that disinformation.

Eberron was created by Keith Baker. That was what put Keith Baker on the RPG Publishing radar. Before that he worked in the computer gaming industry. Because they share the same last name, he is often mistakenly identified, or thought to be related, with Rich Baker, a long time DND writing veteran. Keith Baker had no employment with WOTC, and wasnt even writing RPG material, before the Setting contest.

[cray]

Third Edition dramatically reduced the complexity of characters compared to 2nd Edition- they took the 8 saving throws against source type down to 3 saving throws against effect type, made attack rolls simple to perform, and actually assigned value to your ability scores in a way that having slightly above average on a score actually gave a bonus instead of requiring you to have a super-high score to get anything worthwhile from it.  And gave everyone the same XP progression table instead of having each class advance at different rates.

Yep. Those are what sold me on 3E. I grumbled a bit about the loss of THAC0 and dumbing down of the game until I realized 3.X was a heck of a lot easier to use AND much more capable than a clunky game like 2E. I mean, it ain't often that you get "simpler and more capable" in the upgrade of anything.

The d20 spin-offs like Mutants & Masterminds are also fun, fast, and capable.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Yup, pre 3rd Edition, D&D had far too many things in the game mechanics that added complexity without adding any gameplay value.

[Stormlion1]

What, no one like used buckets o' dice?  ;)

[cray]

What, no one like used buckets o' dice?  ;)

I play SR4 frequently. I still like buckets o' dice. :)

[Klep]

I play SR4 frequently. I still like buckets o' dice. :)

"The bucket" is obviously the most entertaining unit of dice measurement.

[Aokarasu]

"The bucket" is obviously the most entertaining unit of dice measurement.

This is what happens when said bucket is interfered with:

[GreenDragon]

Yup, pre 3rd Edition, D&D had far too many things in the game mechanics that added complexity without adding any gameplay value.

Like half the non-combat skills were percwentile (and only available to maybe 1/3 the classes).  While the other half were an attribute value +/-0 to 2 (and the attribute was often the prime requisite for the class(es) most likely to use the skill) - in other words, you had to roll less than or equal to your attribute to succeed on a NWP check, giving most PCs about a 75-90% success chance every time.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What, no one like used buckets o' dice?  ;)

Sure, when I was fireballing a group of orcs or something.  I just didn't like having to use a different die for every kind of check and the random switching between needing to roll high or needing to roll low.

I did miss the insanity of my wildmage once 3rd Edition rolled around, though.  Especially given that my GM had a customized wild surge table with a few subtables on it based on what plane we were on at the time.

For some reason, items that granted magic resistance were very popular in that party...

[StCptMara]

I play SR4 frequently. I still like buckets o' dice. :)

Shadowrun: where rolling large numbers of dice is, actually, just about right.(In 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions!)

Personally, I always felt 3rd edition got a little crazy with giving EVERYONE iterative attacks...it should be only
fighters who are specialized with a weapon who ever get multiple attacks in a round with anything other then
a bow!

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Why?

[Fletchi18]

I'll definitely give 5th edition a look. I gave 4th a chance and didn't end up liking it. Everything basically boiled down to a few different effects.
-Damage
-Damage with a push
-Damage with a slide
-Damage with a heal
-Heal

It didn't matter what kind of character you had. All of their abilities fit into one of those categories (there might have been more, doing them by memory). That just wasn't fun.

[cray]

Personally, I always felt 3rd edition got a little crazy with giving EVERYONE iterative attacks...it should be only fighters who are specialized with a weapon who ever get multiple attacks in a round with anything other then a bow!

After being a bit askance at it for a while, I decided I liked how DnD3.X handled multi-attacks for a couple of reasons.

First, because it was a simple, universal rule. Each class got an extra attack every +5 base attack bonus, but those +5 to-hit bonuses arrive at very different rates. For example, a fighter gets a 2nd attack at level 6 when a wizard is just figuring out which end of a staff to use (the blunt one). Later, when a fighter is past his third multi-attack and building up toward a fourth (level 12), a wizard is only realizing that staves have two ends.

Second, thinking about it, I had no problem with the idea a wizard who made it to level 12 might have a clue how to pick out more than one attack opportunity per turn. After all, if a wizard survived to level 12, they survived the levels where wizards often run out of spells and resort to clenching their eyes shut and wildly swinging small knives or long sticks in hopes of hitting the bad guy.

[Xotl]

Everyone knew it was coming, and I'm going to drop a big spoiler here and tell you that 6th ed is also coming.  Businesses are there to make money, and as long as games exist there will be new products.  Only a very few games have the luxury of sticking with their base rulesets, Battletech being one of them: it's the advantage to having a sales approach based more on the universe than the rules.  If you don't want a new edition, stick with your old one.

Never played 4th, though from reading about the changes I thought Pathfinder seemed like a new coat of paint on the Titanic, and 4th seemed a little bland, though more mechanically sound.  I loved watching all the terrible arguments being made about 4th ed, if only because they were the same arguments made about 3rd ed, with the serial numbers filed off.  "This new edition is just a crappy Diablo WoW clone for kids with no attention span!"

I played a lot of 2nd ed back in the day, and while it was a terrible system, it was pretty abstract and so tended not to get in your way, which made for a pretty freewheeling fun time if you were willing to overlook the system's flaws (it helped that there were fewer games to compare it to).  3rd ed had some very welcome cleanups, but combat also became more tactical.  3.x ed (and reading on 4th ed) made me realize two things: 1) I like tactical combat, and 2) post-2nd ed systems are just tactical enough to get me to realize that, without being tactical enough to really scratch that itch.  I moved to the Hero system.

Also, the idea that 4th ed somehow takes away from the ability to roleplay is weird - there's no story you can tell in Basic or 1st ed you can't tell in 3rd or 4th.  Only the numbers change.  On the other hand there are systems that add to the ability to roleplay, usually in a certain very specific style or genre by virtue of that system being crafted from the ground up to do so.  However, I don't think I'm going to buy any particular effort to tell me that X edition of D&D was such a system, while all the other ones are for babies.

[Tokage]

The problem with pumping out new rules editions every 3-4 years is you will quickly hit the law of diminishing returns as people realise that's what you're doing.

People will just stick with an edition they like and that's that, your new money making scheme bombs.

WOTC really shot themselves in the foot though with the OGL, before 3e/3.5e would never have been able to compete with 4e and the edition war would have been a massacre and over quickly with 4e triumphant by default. As it is, new editions had better be damn good, or at least appeal to a wide swathe of the customer base, or else they will not succeed, as we see with 4e.

Constant rules changes are not really an option going forwards imho, personally I have all the rules I'll ever need or use, games companies will not win my money by just churning out rules modules. They need to produce exciting, deep and detailed setting books and adventures, as Paizo have consistently been so good at. Stuff I have to come up with myself otherwise. Rules I have, great new ideas to use in play ... now those are always worth my money.

EDIT -

I'm not going to claim any of the D&D editions particularly encourage roleplaying above half, but I will firmly state 4e definitely discourages it. Any game that in real terms devotes as much page space, and more importantly in play time, to combat above all other things can imo be said to not be conducive to encouraging non-combat roleplaying. There are role playing systems that do encourage roleplaying in real terms imo. D&D probably would never be amongst them particularly though.

[Diplominator]

The thing that bothered me the most about iterative attacks was the full-round action requirement. I'm not sure what an alternative would have been, but giving Monks and Two-weapon Rangers all kinds of mobility options and then requiring them to stand still to use more than one attack didn't do either class any favors.

[Centurion]

Star Wars Saga edition replaced iterative attacks with a single attack with a damage bonus based on level (I believe level/2). Cut out a significant number of rolls and sped things up at higher levels.

[GreenDragon]

The thing that bothered me the most about iterative attacks was the full-round action requirement. I'm not sure what an alternative would have been, but giving Monks and Two-weapon Rangers all kinds of mobility options and then requiring them to stand still to use more than one attack didn't do either class any favors.

I've tried to play Swashbucklers/Duelists and run into this same problem.  Sure you can swing on a rope and land on a table - if you let everyone you were swinging over take an attack of opportunity (possibly vs. Flat-footed AC), and then maybe not get an attack on arrival - certainly with no benefit for momentum.

[HobbesHurlbut]

Star Wars Saga edition replaced iterative attacks with a single attack with a damage bonus based on level (I believe level/2). Cut out a significant number of rolls and sped things up at higher levels.

And they allowed extra attacks with feats :P

[MadCapellan]

I've tried to play Swashbucklers/Duelists and run into this same problem.  Sure you can swing on a rope and land on a table - if you let everyone you were swinging over take an attack of opportunity (possibly vs. Flat-footed AC), and then maybe not get an attack on arrival - certainly with no benefit for momentum.

Pretty sure you could avoid those attacks of opportunity with a Tumble check.  Swashbuckler happens to be one of my favorite classes!

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

With any game system, there's a point where you realize that you can't produce any more material for that system without it becoming redundant or so hyper-specialized that the market for it is going to be tiny.  At that point, you either need to come out with a new system, make a new game with your old system, or change professions.

This is doubly true of game systems that depend more on selling products related to game mechanics, like D&D does, than on products relating to the campaign world, like BattleTech does.

[shadow_walker]

Well the D&D flow chart still be valid in 5th?

[StCptMara]

Well the D&D flow chart still be valid in 5th?

Flow chart?

[GreenDragon]

I seem to recall plenty of people talking about the parts of Faerun that were insufficiently fleshed out.  Then there are the Continents north and south of Maztica, and at least one other continent southeast of Kara-Tur.
Aebrynis had just finished putting out the box sets for the five regions of Cerillia, with several more books planned when WotC axed Birthright.
Masque of the Red Death was poised to take Ravenloft in a whole new direction.

In short, there are plenty of universe setting books they could be producing instead of a new edition.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

But campaign setting books aren't where WotC makes money off the game, since they usually don't sell those books to players, just GMs.  If they wanted to sell those books to players, they'd have to stick a bunch of new feats, magic items, class abilities, and the like in the books.  And it's questionable how much more of that stuff they can continue to come up with.

[MadCapellan]

I'm sorry, I would have paid good money for 3rd Edition Spelljammer, Al Qaddim, or more of Greyhawk outside the Flannaess.  For me, story is where it's at, and I didn't care for D&D until I found Greyhawk.  Another big part of the reason why Fourth Edition is an enormous failure in my mind is that it doesn't have Greyhawk.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

You're welcome to believe that, but a large part of the reason TSR went under in the first place was due to having too many different campaign settings, which badly split profits because people tended to only buy products for 2-3 campaign settings.

[StCptMara]

I'm sorry, I would have paid good money for 3rd Edition Spelljammer, Al Qaddim, or more of Greyhawk outside the Flannaess.  For me, story is where it's at, and I didn't care for D&D until I found Greyhawk.  Another big part of the reason why Fourth Edition is an enormous failure in my mind is that it doesn't have Greyhawk.

Al Qaddim should have been part of the Forgotten Realms stuff, since Zakhara was south of the area commonly looked at.
I would also have wanted to see Maztica, Hordelands, and Kara Tur stuff for 3rd edition.

Spelljammer...well, there was the really, really bad attempt in Dungeon Magazine..that kind of LOST all the stuff that made Spelljamer
great(No Elven Imperial Fleet, no Phlogiston, no tinker gnomes bent on blowing everything up..and no Scro!)

[ShadowRaven]

my group ended up rewritieng the rules for Spelljammer ourselves. Damn Tinker Gnome broke the campaign though. In a good way.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Personally, I think it would have been nice if TSR had melded Spelljammer and Planescape into one setting instead of making them two different settings.  They had a ton of stuff in common and their general wackiness and totally non-Tolken feeling always attracted me.