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

frankthedm · Jan 12, 2012

What it boils down to is Wotc keeps throwing viable games under the bus in pursuit of profits to keep Hasbro happy.

3rd Edition
Chainmail (2002)
D20 Modern
3.5
DDM1.0
4th Edition
DDM2.0
4Essentials

Why shouldn't we expect the same won't be done with 5th Edition?

illwizard · Jan 12, 2012

I'm really happy. I still play and enjoy 4e, but there is a lot about it I think can be improved. And I love new books and learning new stuff.

MoxieFu · Jan 12, 2012

It's interesting to see how the vote at this point is over half positive, but if you only read the comments you would swear that positive would be a tiny fraction.

I voted positive. I really don't have any reason to think that Mike and Co. are just flat out lying when it comes to the design goals of the new version. I think that asking gamers what they wan and having an open playtest is going in the right direction. In trying to appeal to the broadest spectrum of players they will have to sacrifice the newest of changes that are incompatible with previous editions.

Just as we are seeing a very vocal minority in the comments in this threads I think that the loudest of those complaining about 3e were being listened to. Plus I think that with 4e the designers only listened to the voices that agreed with them. At least with this iteration they are asking us what we like instead of telling us we are wrong to like the existing game.

enrious · Jan 12, 2012

MoxieFu said:
It's interesting to see how the vote at this point is over half positive, but if you only read the comments you would swear that positive would be a tiny fraction.

I voted positive. I really don't have any reason to think that Mike and Co. are just flat out lying when it comes to the design goals of the new version. I think that asking gamers what they wan and having an open playtest is going in the right direction. In trying to appeal to the broadest spectrum of players they will have to sacrifice the newest of changes that are incompatible with previous editions.

Just as we are seeing a very vocal minority in the comments in this threads I think that the loudest of those complaining about 3e were being listened to. Plus I think that with 4e the designers only listened to the voices that agreed with them. At least with this iteration they are asking us what we like instead of telling us we are wrong to like the existing game.

Here's how I see it - add up Positive and Neutral.

Why?

Because I think a substantial number of the people voting neutral are 3.x and earlier players, who've abandoned WotC/D&D at this point, so prior to this they'd have had a Negative opinion. Thus, becoming Neutral is a positive.

And for the other Neutrals, then they presumably are 4e players who aren't immediately turned off by the news.

So I add the two together.

At this point, all it takes for WotC is Neutral - converting Neutral to Positive is for later on.

Erekose · Jan 12, 2012

I voted neutral . . .

I'd like to be positive as I'd like the new version to be a D&D that I like as I'm not a big fan of 4E.

However, it doesn't get past the fact that with 3.xE (plus Pathfinder) I'm pretty happy where I am. It would have to be a real step change better to win me over to 5E.

Having said that I can see that I'll buy the 3 core rulebooks (if they go down that route).

Henry · Jan 12, 2012

One POSITIVE result of all this is me hearing from people I haven't seen or just missed on ENWorld for years. Feels like 2003 all over again!

A couple of clarifications, though Tinner:

Tinner said:
I have strong doubts that this player feedback is actually going to be used. Morrus even posted that he has already played 5e. That seems to imply that at least the initial design work is DONE. And it was done without fan feedback.

That's actually an ENWorld correspondent named Chris who went to Seattle, not Morrus. Also, Mearls in the interview did specify it's an early-early-early version, and the reason for the details blackout is that they still have a long way to go; the implication is also that it's based on feedback they've received over the past two years from across the gaming community, so -- without fan feedback, in my opinion, isn't quite accurate.

There has been NO information about what the licensing will be for 5e. IIRC the term that has been used for 5e is GSL. The GSL has been an abject failure compared to the OGL. Even considering revising the GSL is a terrible idea. Scrap it and come up with something new. Better yet, go back to the OGL and while you're at it, liberate those few IP monsters that the OGL kept back. Really, is there ANY evidence that keeping the Beholder and Ilithid out of the OGL honestly made WotC ANY money?

With the exception of the "liberate its monsters" thing (if they want to keep it, that's cool -- Paizo has shown that everyone else can survive without beholders and mind flayers

-- I agree with every bit of that. In one of the articles, Mearls (and elsewhere Bruce Cordell) has said they're VERY aware of the role of the OGL in their success in winning fans back; will it mean real change? I dunno, but I'm still pretty hopeful at this point. I just know that Ryan's 2001 prediction about "what would happen if the producers of D&D tried to radically change the game in an OGL world" actually started to come to pass, from 2009 to now.

IMO there is really no need for a new edition, other than for ~~WotC/Hasbro~~ the D&D brand to ~~make more money~~ survive in the hands of gamers.

Probably closer to the truth, if I've been reading between the lines of these articles properly.

--Henry

TheAuldGrump · Jan 12, 2012

Neutral, leaning toward positive.

The negative is the fear that it may already be too late, positive includes the admission that mistakes were made, and the public playtest.

There is some fear that they won't listen to the playtesters, but I am hopeful in that regard.

The other big thing is still going to be the license, with something akin to the GSL they could yet snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory. No way of knowing, until it is announced.

So, I guess 'reserving judgement' is more accurate than 'neutral', but I am hopeful, not convinced of futility.

The Auld Grump

Rassilon · Jan 12, 2012

Hells Yes!

I voted totally positive.

I saw comments above to the effect that 5E can never satisfy Hasbro, and thus D&D will get mothballed. I hadn't thought of that. Pretty grim. But then I got in on Transformers at the ground level way back when, and whilst Hasbro benched that IP from time time, I can't really claim that Transformers faded away as a pop-concept over almost 30 years.

WOTC-current-DnD is dead to me anyway. Not in a mean, 'you're the worst friend ever' way, but in a a "I miss you, why'd you have to go so soon?" kind of way. I tried 4E. Intellectually really admired a couple of things they'd done with it too - but couldn\t stand the experience of actually playing it. Got bored reading the books in fact (contrast AD&D, 3.X, PF). That was probably a bad sign right there.

SO, I agree that that claim that it can be all thnigs to all people is untenable. I don't agree that WOTC acutally made that claim, more "there is a 'heart' of D&D and 5E will have that, and probably use mechinics from previous editions that we know worked" but still, they have made themselves a big target.

Personally, the absolute worst that can happen is that I want to play the ciurrent edition of D&D.

- Rassilon.

[PS: The media tell me that a huge number of my D&D playing homies really like 4E. I winced real hard on your behalf, on account you've had 2(ish) systems in three years, and now WOTC says she's gonna go steady with someone else already. I got nothing against WOTC no more, but if you need numbers to take the walls, I'll help out.]

Rassilon · Jan 12, 2012

QUOTE=Henry;5774432]One POSITIVE result of all this is me hearing from people I haven't seen or just missed on ENWorld for years. Feels like 2003 all over again!

Most definitely!

Ranes · Jan 12, 2012

More than one poster has responded with scepticism about the 'everything to everyone' idea. Whilst being somewhat sceptical myself about the company's goals, can I point out that this precis is inaccurate? What WotC has claimed to be aiming for is 'the best of everything from previous editions'. If we're going to have our expectations dashed, let's have the right expectation dashed.