How do you feel about the future of D&D after the official announcements?

[Morrus]

This is the first of a series of polls we'll be taking here on EN World to try and gather the community's feelings about specific issues in a snapshot. We'll start with an easy one:

In one word - positive, neutral, or negative - please select how you feel about the future of D&D after the recent announcements about the next edition. Feel free to elaborate in the thread, but the poll is just to take a very general snapshot.

If you're viewing this on the news page, you'll see the poll to your right. If you're viewing the thread, you'll see it at the top of the thread. If you're viewing this on one of our mobile apps, you'll need to click through and view it in your mobile device's web browser. If you're viewing it in the newsletter, you'll need to visit the site, also. If you're viewing it some other weird way that I've not thought of, then I have no frikkin' idea - just visit the EN World home page.

Comments

for being all inclusive and even adding "Some other way to view"

[Talinfein]

Definitely positive. It's not going to be easy doing all they want to do, but the goal is worthwhile. I think the next edition will be significantly simpler at its core, and that may very well be a good thing. I personally like the complexity of 4E, but not everybody does. In the end, good design goals for me are balanced classes, cooperation among players and easy prep for the DM. How they go accomplishing that I don't particularly care.

[shamsael]

It seems like they're admitting that the way Paizo created Pathfinder was the way they should have handled 4E. Not in the sense that Pathfinder was so close to 3E, but in the sense that Pathfinder was the result of extensive public play testing and input, as opposed to something designed and developed in secret.

Comments

	I had the same thought reading the articles.
	The Pathfinder Open Playtest was clearly a Good Idea!
	Now if Wizards could have just taken what Pathfinder did and used the existing D&D world.

[Pour]

Positive for the community during design phase, as this will help unify people toward a common and noble goal, but personally negative. I'm a content 4ther, my group plays and loves the autumnal edition, and there's no OGL or Paizo-like entity that will preserve it come 5e. Just far too short a lifespan.

And as much as I want this universal edition to be glorious and true to its mission, the specifics are puzzling, and the concept, though aspiring, sounds truly difficult to implement and preserve what all of us love of the game. Modular services many, but I wonder about the down sides, like a coherent identity. Could mutability actually fracture things even more with highly-specific system combinations players and DMs prefer, down to the way combat runs, magic works, availability of feats, etc: options making more fences than bridges.

[delericho]

Relieved. Hopeful. More than a little glad that we don't seem to be seeing a lot of Edition Warring - maybe people really are ready for reunification.

But not confident. I fear making a D&D that is all things to all people is an impossible task, I fear that WotC may still be labouring under impossible requirements from Hasbro. And I can't help but remember thinking that they were doing exactly the right things with 4e, right until they took an horrific wrong turn.

So, positive, but with significant reservations.

[Stoat]

Neutral to Negative.

WotC's promise to make a modular system that appeals to all gamers everywhere sounds like pie in the sky to me. I'll believe it when I see it.

Comments

	pretty much the same
	+1 for Negativity
	Sceptical, I fear a game nobody hates, but nobody loves.
	In this line

[Ranes]

Positive. Sceptical but positive. And curious. Will I join the 5mind? Maybe.

Comments

	5mind
	5mind began with you, like it or not! :p
	5mind. I like.
	++5mind
	5mind - you will be assimilated!

[Henry]

"5Mind"? Awesome. First I've hear it. Beats "3etard" and "4ron."

Short term - Positive; I always get enthused when a new edition is in the works. Long Term - Negative for the future of the hobby; while I don't worry for my gen (we've got it!) I do feel like future generations who only know MMO guilds or Facebook networking and don't have something to help keep the joy of "meatspace" friends alive a little longer, will be missing something. Now, if something comes along or is revived that does encourage people meeting face to face for playing games, RPGs could wither further I'd I'd be OK with it. But as it stands the future of gaming is as impersonal as MMOs and "Words With Friends."

So I answered Neutral -- it's a wash.

[UngeheuerLich]

Positive:

Someone care´s about improving my favourite game.
Do i believe it is a strategy to make money! Hell, yes... and I hope they do. Because if they make enough money with 5th edition (and maybe 4th edition combined, as I see no reason to pull it down with DDI working nicely) chances are, that the need for new editions is over.
IF 5th edition is modular as they want it and if the core of the system is just a little bit more solid than 4e, then I really see no reasons why 5th edition can´t be profitable for more than 4 years.

3.5 was solid enough to be played for 12 years now, ADnD 2nd editon lasted even longer than that (IIRC).
4th edition did not last that long, as it, although a great improvement, limited itself by a too strong effort to have a static rules system that was promised to be unchangeable from the beginning.

With essentials, we have seen, that some loyal fans were very unenthusiastic, because it allowed for more freedom.
IMHO it was just what 4e´s initial launch missed! Chances for development!

[enrious]

My feelings are fairly well summed up by Henry.

Short term this means WotC and D&D is back on the front page and let's face it, the evidence seems to suggest that WotC couldn't afford to do nothing, so it's positive in that regard.

On the downside, is it too late?

3.5 was solid enough to be played for 12 years now, ADnD 2nd editon lasted even longer than that (IIRC).

2nd edition lasted for 11 years (1989-2000), I believe.

[ardoughter]

Neutral, I really like 4e and think it had soo short a life. I am also sceptical about the ability of the desginers to reach their stated goals. I also wonder if they have enough experience now to deliver on the digital support side of the game.
The other problem is that I simply cannot afford to buy another edition of D&D.
It would want to be bloody awesome and make my tea to sink another 6 - 700 euros into the game.

[Osgood]

I picked neutral. I love 4E, and I am hopeful the new edition can support that style of play... but I am pretty doubtful that it can be all things to all people.

Comments

	I so agree
	Yep.
	For your signature.

[DaveMage]

Between Neutral and Negative.

Since I'm happy with Pathfinder, that's all the "D&D" I need, so I'm Neutral.

But since WotC still has control (and they seem dysfunctional when it comes to how to treat the D&D property and team), I'll go with negative.

[frankthedm]

Negative. The Information provided in the last weeks backed up what used to be speculations I had about wotc's motives and business choices. That info killed a lot doubts that had been benefiting Wizards in my book. Hell, I now believe the Poison Pill nature of the 4E GSL was conceived by wotc themselves, which I used to assume was FORCED on them by Hasbro Legal. Now I'm struggling to hold back many ban worthy comments about WotC.

[ferratus]

I'm going to start using "5mind" to refer to boosters of 5th edition. It fits in perfectly with the design goals of 5th edition (to be all things to all people) and WotC/Hasbro is a corporate entity who seeks consume the player base of other RPG's.

Like Henry says though, it isn't as denigrating as 3etard or 4oron, and it has a menacing borg-esque quality. It is something that can be used by both detractors (because you are going along with WotC's plans to resell D&D to you) and for boosters (because all your players will belong to us).

As for my feelings about a new edition... it is a little soon but I'm as disatisfied with 4e as I was with 3e when I dropped it. So both Pathfinder and 4e are not really options for me going forward. I pretty much have an idea of how I want my D&D system to look, and if D&D 5th edition allows me to do that reasonably well I'll go along with it.

I must mirror my skepticism of most of the posters on this thread that their design goal is even possible. However, I certainly will have a huge reservoir goodwill towards the project simply because it is about the most ambitious design goal ever attempted in table top gaming. I like to reward ambition.

I also think that having the playtesting be open is an excellent idea in terms of gaining even more goodwill from the fanbase. However, open playtesting isn't going to ensure necessarily that you will get the best rules. For example, crit confirmation rolls survived 3e into Pathfinder. To take something wonderful that only happens 5% of the time, and then immediately take it away 30%-50% of the time is just evil.

Comments

	I hate crit confirms. I really do.
	one of my biggest hates too...confirming crits is a ridiculous fun killer!