Roland55
First Post
Thank you. That makes perfect sense.
WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition
Thank you. That makes perfect sense.
In my experience, those have little or nothing to do with rules, and are mostly issues of how the GM presents material to the players.
broghammerj
Explorer
As a guy who thinks 4e is a great game, but unfortunately it is not DnD for me, I am happy to see a change. As much as I thought the "I told you so" would feel good, it really doesn't. I still feel like I'm a kid stuck between two parents in a divorce.
Last edited:
Eytan Bernstein
Explorer
[Caveat: This is all speculation. Anyone I might know on the Design Team or who has been in early playtests is under NDA, so I don't have any more details than you do. I'm making what I hope are educated guesses, based on past experience. But this is a whole new frontier and anything can happen.]
The way I see it, whether or not it's possible to create a perfect, utopian unification of previous editions is less important than the fact that Wizards has a committed design team focused on this goal. This sort of goal drives the culture of the team, it creates an atmosphere of openness (hence the drive to work with the gaming community), and it shows dedication to playtesting this edition until it is smooth.
Many people complained that 4E didn't have a long enough playtest period. I was on one of the playtest committees for 43, and I think that this new approach to playtesting is a much more practical one. It involves far more communication between the Design team and playtesters.
A lot of people complained about rigidity in 4e, or lack of choice when it comes to designing the character that fits the concept they want. These players often like 3.X better. The design philosophy that's been stated for 5e seems to alleviate that concern.
We don't know how previous editions might be unified, but I believe that the goal is a good one. We don't know how much the Design Team has already spec'd out and how much hasn't even been storyboarded. And even then, any and all of that can change. I do know that when we playtested 4e, huge sections of rules change throughout the process. Will this happen in 5e - who can say? It sounds almost like the Design Team is trying to get community consensus, and then generating mechanics, or meshing community thoughts with mechanics they are already working on. This allows them to fill in goals and make tough decisions.
Sometimes, when you are with a small group of people, a set of blinders or assumptions come on, making it hard to make decisions. This can lead to missing obvious things or making choices that would seem obvious to the majority. But they've chosen to ask the majority, rather than assuming that their small group will get it right. This is very smart.
After they ask the community, they probably do a rought draft, or amend an existing draft with whatever they learned. I'd guess that at that point, they would return to small group playtests and convention playtests, like D&D Experience and see how the new content plays out outside of their small "lab environment." Things are very different when live than they are in a controlled setting where everyone has the same aims and assumptions. Bob, who likes to kill defense goblins, might cause you to rethink that particular skill challenge mechanic.
As the playtest process goes on, they might slowly flesh out the core game, all the while testing with the community. They might even hold contests for monsters or other mechanical elements. This allows for direct contributions. Who wouldn't want a monster they created to have the potential to become part of D&D canon.
In the end, people who have kept abreast of the playtest process will know far more about this edition than they would have before the release of any previous edition, unless they were among the few that happened to playtest one of those editions. There is a much greater degree of transparency, and I think this is a crucial component of Wizards' strategy. WotC knows that Paizo has an advantage in terms of a cohesive brand image for Pathfinder. Pathfinder has a clear path, a very solid and devoted fan base, longevity, and a decisive vision. Wizards must become more transparent and open in its "new D&D" if it wants to appeal to people who play Pathfinder, or who might play it, as well as people who stopped playing D&D or didn't play 4th.
The appeal of this open process is genius. It's not just a marketing tactic, but also something that really makes people feel like they're part of something (or at least should make, if done right, and I think there's a good possibility it will be done right). When people feel like they are part of something, they will support it, which will make for a great game, but will also make people want to buy the products. The people playtesting will create buzz and hype which will draw in other players. If they buy the products, the company will do better and will be able to make more products. That is what happened with Paizo. Wizards will now try to get back on course by involving fans in the Design Process.
It used to be that players could become involved in design through the 3.X OGL. But in this new process, they can actually influence the design of the core game. I don't know what will or won't be with the OGL, though I suspect that it will be friendlier than the 4e license, which was very restrictive. My theory, and this is highly speculative (by which I mean, quite possible hogwash), is that if players are more trained in design, they will be more capable if they choose to go off and work on their own products through OGL.
Another thing to consider: think of some of the names on the Team that is designing 5e. Many of them did significant work on OGL products. Two of the Stars, Mike Mearls and Rob Schwalb launched their careers through the OGL. If there hadn't been an OGL, I think the list would be significantly different.
In that sense, the OGL can forge new talent that WotC can tap. That talent can go on to become competition, but new talent has to come from somewhere and has to have experience. It's true that the 3.X OGL produced a lot of really terrible products, but it also produced some incredible products. I hope that this becomes possible again because it will make the D&D world more united. Surprised?
You might think that this would fracture the community further, but it wouldn't. The reason for this is that people need to have and play the core rules in order to play OGL products and design for them. Tons of people will want to play those OGL products and many will want to try their hand at design. This means that they will need to become familiar with the Core D&D rules. Even if they use something like the SRD, they are still using WotC's rules, not Pathfinder's (and this is not in any way a knock against Pathfinder, which is an awesome world and system).
Will Wizards actually create an OGL like this? Will the gaming community unite around 5e? Will it successfully unite previous editions? I know know, but early reports are extremely positive. I do have positive feelings about the philosophy and aims that the Design Team has put forth. And ultimately, the philosophy behind the game is what makes or breaks it. The marketing, design, integration, release schedule, playtesting, transparency - those are an extension of a strong core vision that is clear to all staff working on the project and all players of the game.
The way I see it, whether or not it's possible to create a perfect, utopian unification of previous editions is less important than the fact that Wizards has a committed design team focused on this goal. This sort of goal drives the culture of the team, it creates an atmosphere of openness (hence the drive to work with the gaming community), and it shows dedication to playtesting this edition until it is smooth.
Many people complained that 4E didn't have a long enough playtest period. I was on one of the playtest committees for 43, and I think that this new approach to playtesting is a much more practical one. It involves far more communication between the Design team and playtesters.
A lot of people complained about rigidity in 4e, or lack of choice when it comes to designing the character that fits the concept they want. These players often like 3.X better. The design philosophy that's been stated for 5e seems to alleviate that concern.
We don't know how previous editions might be unified, but I believe that the goal is a good one. We don't know how much the Design Team has already spec'd out and how much hasn't even been storyboarded. And even then, any and all of that can change. I do know that when we playtested 4e, huge sections of rules change throughout the process. Will this happen in 5e - who can say? It sounds almost like the Design Team is trying to get community consensus, and then generating mechanics, or meshing community thoughts with mechanics they are already working on. This allows them to fill in goals and make tough decisions.
Sometimes, when you are with a small group of people, a set of blinders or assumptions come on, making it hard to make decisions. This can lead to missing obvious things or making choices that would seem obvious to the majority. But they've chosen to ask the majority, rather than assuming that their small group will get it right. This is very smart.
After they ask the community, they probably do a rought draft, or amend an existing draft with whatever they learned. I'd guess that at that point, they would return to small group playtests and convention playtests, like D&D Experience and see how the new content plays out outside of their small "lab environment." Things are very different when live than they are in a controlled setting where everyone has the same aims and assumptions. Bob, who likes to kill defense goblins, might cause you to rethink that particular skill challenge mechanic.
As the playtest process goes on, they might slowly flesh out the core game, all the while testing with the community. They might even hold contests for monsters or other mechanical elements. This allows for direct contributions. Who wouldn't want a monster they created to have the potential to become part of D&D canon.
In the end, people who have kept abreast of the playtest process will know far more about this edition than they would have before the release of any previous edition, unless they were among the few that happened to playtest one of those editions. There is a much greater degree of transparency, and I think this is a crucial component of Wizards' strategy. WotC knows that Paizo has an advantage in terms of a cohesive brand image for Pathfinder. Pathfinder has a clear path, a very solid and devoted fan base, longevity, and a decisive vision. Wizards must become more transparent and open in its "new D&D" if it wants to appeal to people who play Pathfinder, or who might play it, as well as people who stopped playing D&D or didn't play 4th.
The appeal of this open process is genius. It's not just a marketing tactic, but also something that really makes people feel like they're part of something (or at least should make, if done right, and I think there's a good possibility it will be done right). When people feel like they are part of something, they will support it, which will make for a great game, but will also make people want to buy the products. The people playtesting will create buzz and hype which will draw in other players. If they buy the products, the company will do better and will be able to make more products. That is what happened with Paizo. Wizards will now try to get back on course by involving fans in the Design Process.
It used to be that players could become involved in design through the 3.X OGL. But in this new process, they can actually influence the design of the core game. I don't know what will or won't be with the OGL, though I suspect that it will be friendlier than the 4e license, which was very restrictive. My theory, and this is highly speculative (by which I mean, quite possible hogwash), is that if players are more trained in design, they will be more capable if they choose to go off and work on their own products through OGL.
Another thing to consider: think of some of the names on the Team that is designing 5e. Many of them did significant work on OGL products. Two of the Stars, Mike Mearls and Rob Schwalb launched their careers through the OGL. If there hadn't been an OGL, I think the list would be significantly different.
In that sense, the OGL can forge new talent that WotC can tap. That talent can go on to become competition, but new talent has to come from somewhere and has to have experience. It's true that the 3.X OGL produced a lot of really terrible products, but it also produced some incredible products. I hope that this becomes possible again because it will make the D&D world more united. Surprised?
You might think that this would fracture the community further, but it wouldn't. The reason for this is that people need to have and play the core rules in order to play OGL products and design for them. Tons of people will want to play those OGL products and many will want to try their hand at design. This means that they will need to become familiar with the Core D&D rules. Even if they use something like the SRD, they are still using WotC's rules, not Pathfinder's (and this is not in any way a knock against Pathfinder, which is an awesome world and system).
Will Wizards actually create an OGL like this? Will the gaming community unite around 5e? Will it successfully unite previous editions? I know know, but early reports are extremely positive. I do have positive feelings about the philosophy and aims that the Design Team has put forth. And ultimately, the philosophy behind the game is what makes or breaks it. The marketing, design, integration, release schedule, playtesting, transparency - those are an extension of a strong core vision that is clear to all staff working on the project and all players of the game.
Gundark
Explorer
nothing to se hereWell, I guess we can be thankful that the pace of change over the last 11 years has slowed down slightly from the first 11 years of D&D's history:
1974-1985: Original D&D, AD&D, Basic Set (Holmes), Basic Set (Moldvay), Basic Set (Mentzer), AD&D UA.
Last edited:
Gundark
Explorer
Yeah I have been seeing that too.
Truth Seeker
Adventurer
Let's start the one thing, that mostly is needed to be on a fresh start.
Respect...
It not given.
It is earned.
Respect...
It not given.
It is earned.
Argyle King
Legend
I'm not sure I'd completely agree. I do believe how the GM presents material matters a lot. However, I am also of the belief that mechanics (crunch) can (and often do) impact how fluff feels and how it comes across.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Excellent chart, Echohawk!
One minor thing: there was a book - I think it's called "Forgotten Realms Adventures" (or something like that, I have it but I can't find it right now to confirm) that came out in 1987 and was specifically intended and written as a transition from 1e to 2e. So I think 2e started oozing forth a bit earlier than your chart indicates.
As others have posted before me, I can but repeat:Walking Dad said:
Simplicity. Sure, 1e had some complexities but those could be pruned out with relative ease leaving a game that was (and remains still) very playable.
Mystery.
Quite right, but hear me out: the DM is likely to present to the players in much the same vein as the game is presented to the DM! If the DM is learning from an arcane-like book with complex prose and dripping with flavour (e.g. the 1e DMG) then it naturally follows that some of that will get passed on to the players. Conversely, if the DM is reading from something only slightly more engaging than an instruction manual the presentation to the players is also likely to be a bit dry. Same goes for the PH, which is the best chance for the game to present itself to the players.Umbran said:
That, and as the editions have progressed more and more mechanical information has been moved to the players' side of the screen. Couple this with the drier presentation and yes, sadly, the mystery is gone by design.
Lanefan
Bagpuss
Legend
To which I respond the increasingly popular Savage Worlds, rules. The core rule book is very thin pretty and only about £6. While you can run a game with it, really if you want to use it, you get a setting book with additional rules or buy one of the many add on rules like they have for Pulp, Supers or Fantasy, so it could almost be called incomplete.
Similar Threads
