WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

Wightbred · Jan 9, 2012

OK, so I'm interested and cautiously optimistic.

Since I got sick of 3.0 and was disappointed with 4e I've been trying and liking other games. I don't know if D&D can deliver what I want any more because one of the things I don't like about it are the pointlessly escalating HP, skill and attack/defence bonuses which are core to every edition so far.

If they can somehow give me a modular D&D that allows me to run heroic fantasy without pointless maths I will come back now and be happy. But I can see it is most likely I'm going to be unsatisfied by the core of 5e, even as I love the idea of what they are trying to do and appreciate some of the new inclusions I expect such as proper social mechanics.

Still, I'm keeping my hopes up.

More ranting on unnecessary maths: Removing the last unnecessary escalation?

howandwhy99 · Jan 9, 2012

Mother of Iuz! Tavis made into the Times article!

Mearls said:
"...one that takes the fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game."

Interesting use of terminology. I'm wondering what they posit this is? I'm secretly hoping they don't answer it. The less call for divisiveness in the community the better.

I'm pumped. I've been dissecting AD&D for my OD&D game for awhile now, but there is so much material I could use the help, or at least comments from others who may want some of it as optional elements in a new publication. The idea of D&D as setting occurred to me awhile back and, while it may not be the setting or system everyone desires, I think having those elements available and comprehensible on a large scale does benefit everyone.

EDIT:
Part of the reason I don't care to have the essence of D&D defined is also personal, not simply because we each have our own. I run and like playing in D&D as a reality puzzle game, a kind of simulated reality which is programmed in part by the players as they play. It's very much based on a preset vocabulary of words which grow through play, but all reference the game world. Think "rook", "knight", and "queen" in terms of chess and you've got the idea.

A simulated reality, like our own world, can be addressed in different manners. Two I've come up with are Palette and Puzzle. Think of a computer program. Are you using it to create your art, your story? Or are you treating it like many treat computer games which is as a puzzle to explore and figure out the underlying code to achieve your victory in the game? By defining the essence of a computer program or a game or D&D even as one or the other or something else entirely we stop being inclusive in my book. And because I enjoy a good strategy game and a good puzzle and a good story and a good artwork I'd rather not have a single essence defined.

ShinHakkaider · Jan 9, 2012

Truth Seeker said:
If any part of it, is compatiable with a 3.5 conversion. Then maybe...if not. I 'll be watching that carousel spin, and spin, and spin.

Even that isn't going to bring me back on the WOTC carousel. I'm staying where I'm at and not even signing up for the 5E play-test. When it's actually out I might take a look but right now D&D isn't even a factor in my RPG livelihood.

Besides I dont know why some 4E people are wringing their hands about this new edition, it looks like WOTC still is planning on supporting 4E in some form or fashion. That's a HELL of a lot more than 3x fans got when 4E came on the scene.

Uder · Jan 9, 2012

Wonder how open the playtest will be? Maybe it will be possible to use the OGL to retroclone a D&D edition before it's even published!

Gentlegamer · Jan 9, 2012

WotC seeks unity? Does that mean they aren't going to troll players who like past editions this time?

Umbran · Jan 9, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Of course it is. When I'm talking with you about how to improve something you want help improving, you don't then own my ideas. I still have them, and I can still go use them elsewhere, regardless of if you take them or not.

But, I'm not trying to publish anything - you cannot later sue me for rights on things I'm producing, or claim significant damages from my use of your ideas. If you got in a huff over my using an idea in my home game, the courts would laugh at you as frivolous. The same is not necessarily true when discussing ideas for a book that (I would expect) hopes to sell in the tens or hundreds of thousands of copies.

but it's still possible to leagal-ese that to protect WotC without this sort of intellectual imperialism.

If you go to them of your own free will to take part in their design process, posting in their web space, in the area they set aside and specifically label as "this is where we are farming ideas for the new game we intend to publish, and here are the terms", I don't think you get to call it "imperialism". There's a darned sight too much free will on your part to name it so.

You may not like the terms they offer - that's fine. But let's keep the action in appropriate perspective.

Nagol · Jan 9, 2012

So long as what is built isn’t met by unified disinterest. The problem with generic games is they end up as toolkits for building a game and I have enough of those right now, thanks.

Remathilis · Jan 9, 2012

Gentlegamer said:
WotC seeks unity? Does that mean they aren't going to troll players who like past editions this time?

Did you read the announcement? Its like a damn love letter to those players?

DaveMage · Jan 9, 2012

Can anyone give me a compelling reason why one should possibly trust WotC going forward for anything?

Scott Rouse said 8-10 years between editions. That was in 2008.

He doesn't work there anymore. In fact, all the people on the current design team may not be there next year (much less in 4 years).

Sorry, WotC. Until you (as a company) can be trusted (good luck), I'm not interested in supporting you....

UNLESS, you get a license from Paizo to integrate the Pathfinder system in whatever offering you come up with. Then we'll talk.

Ahnehnois · Jan 9, 2012

Kzach said:
Naysayer here.

I do not believe in democracy. I can't go into the reasons why without earning a ban, but suffice it to say that I don't have any, and I mean zero, faith in humanity to make intelligent decisions. People need to be ruled.

The division within the D&D community isn't because of different editions, it's because people are inherently divisive. Design by committee doesn't work anywhere else so it's not going to work here either. WotC should ignore the community entirely, especially the online community, and just make games.

Asking people what they want is stupid because people don't know what they want. WotC should become more like Apple and less like a socialist republic.

Actually, my main concern is that regardless of their stated intent they'll ignore popular demand and end up making the same mistakes they made last time. Democracy has its problems but anyone in the entertainment industry needs to play to their audience.

OTOH, I agree that the divisions in place now are quite fundamental and not tied to brand loyalty. I'm also skeptical that any attempt at unification will succeed. For my part, if I see anything "per day", "per encounter" or "per [any unit of time]", I'm done. I'm sure there are people who feel the reverse.

At least they're trying something. The industry needs a kick in the pants.