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

It sounds intriguing but I wonder if by trying to accommodate everyone they will fail utterly or create a medocre product. I like the current edition best of all. It is not that complex, (and can be further simplified with essentials) allows for a lot of fluff. The skill challenges need modifying but generally I quite like 4th edition and will probably continue to play it unless 5th is really really special.

Neutral - hopeful

I've been a playing of DnD since the late 1970's, I must say I have enjoyed all my experiences with the game except with 4th. Not a hater of 4th Ed it just didn't suit my group and our style of play.
Over the years I supported my favourite RPG and like a lot of other posters DDX will need to be something very special for me to shell out for a new edition.
I really hope it is something that lives up to the talk and titbits so far being seen, but like a few other people I am sceptical that it is sounding too good to be true.

the future of D&D is non existent for me in the way of future products unless some things come back to the game in a serious way

*9 alignments
*Dragon Magazine in print
*Dungeon Magazine in print
*Monsters with fulls Player-style stats that allow classes to be added and played by Players or by DMs as NPCs
*Great Wheel Cosmology
*lose the "everybody can heal themselves" lamesauce

I fell in love with D&D when 2nd edition was in print. Why? Because of the rich stories and mythology.
I fell in love with 3.5 for the mechanics.

4e roasted the game into a sphere of annihilation for me.

When 3.5 was selling, i bought every book as it hit the shelf on the day it hit the shelf.

when dragon and dungeon stopped their print run, 4e hit the shelf, you lost me as a customer,

good luck and i will stick to the mythology that i fell in love with (all D&D prior to 4e) and my games will be 3.5 still

5e/D&D Next is only Next in the Can, my hobby $$ is spent on other things

this is a Negative Vote

Negative: WotC is attempting to create a game system by committee, and will have no clear market to sell it to.

• If they base the core system too much on the first three editions, they will alienate all the new gamers who jumped on at 4E. These gamers are a younger generation of gamers, internet savvy, possibly drawn into the game by association with PennyArcade and other trendy sources, and could carry the IP into the future if they simply keep refining the 4E game paradigm.
• Gamers who are staunch AD&D players are not going to jump at a new edition. They have been offered 2nd and 3rd, 3.5 and Pathfinder, and they are most comfortable dealing with Vancian magic, no skill system, and THAC0.
• D&D players who like 2nd Edition and Skills & Powers are not going to switch unless those elements are used in D&D Next. They too have had the option to switch for several editions, and have stuck with what they like.
• 3rd Edition and 3.5 gamers have gravitated to Pathfinder, or are firmly encamped in their enjoyment of that edition. Regardless, none of these gamers will enjoy a core ruleset that draws too much upon previous editions (Basic, AD&D, 2nd Ed), or which tries to utilize 4E powers and combat concepts.

Clearly, they cannot please everyone with a new game system which attempts to be the "core" for all versions of D&D. Someone's favorite features of the game from one edition will have to be left out in order to accommodate some other edition, and that could easily be a deal breaker for them buying into D&D Next.

I've been playing D&D since 1978, and have DM'd all editions. I really like D&D 4E, and think it has alot of potential. As others have pointed out, bad marketing and poor playtesting caused problems at launch, but that should not be a reason to dump it. Certainly it is not perfect - no first run at a new game system is - and there are things that could be fixed in order to make it better, and that, to me, is what D&D Next should be.

If I wanted to play AD&D, 2nd Ed, 2nd Ed with S&P, 3rd Edition, or 3.5, I merely have to dig into my storage space and pull out my old books. I certainly don't need to spend hundreds on a new edition to do that, and neither does anyone else.

So who is gonna be buying D&D Next?

Recent Blog:

Wizard Watch: Are we “Uniting the Editions” or just selling more books?

I'm neutral. While I am quite eager to get a look at it, I'm apprehensive. While I'm glad they seem to be bringing back earlier-edition esque vancian casting. What I'm hoping for are A) something like the SRD, for starters, and B) a book for alternate Rule Systems, like 3e's Unearthed Arcana, which, to me, would be one of the safer routes to achieving this otherwise shaky one size fits all design goal.

EDIT: And the great wheel, I want my wheel!

Came in late, but I'm not sure we should even be discussing the future of D&D on this level. Most of the problems with D&D that I personally had, were about the attitude of WotC.

So, fine. WotC makes 3rd edition. They OGL it and everyone seems generally happy. They then make 3.5 and OGL it too, after mucking around with it a bit and making it "better".

The rest of the world jumps on the OGL bandwagon and the market is so flooded with the grand and the gritty that it was sometimes hard to even FIND what you we're looking for, but it was possibly one of the greatest ages of D&D.

Then came along 4th edition.

Now, let's put aside edition wars. 4th edition D&D can be good or bad someplace else. What struck me is that they seemed to loose focus and consistency about the time it was being developed.

Again, I'm not talking about the quality of 4th edition or if it was bad or good.

What I mean is that they never could figure out what they wanted to do, even then. Note the following:

- They advertised the D&D online tools IN THE BOOKS, and they never arrived. Never got to play a single online game with them. The things they did make were buggy/crappy/damaged beyond use, with the exception of the character creator. That was just obtuse most days.
- They changed the licence so much, and put in so many clauses, that it was debatable if they wanted to make a new D&D, or just find a way to try and kill the old licence.
- They lost focus on who they were selling to: All those nice hardbacks, and then right after darksun... Paperbacks and boxed sets? Really? Did it never occur to them that gamers might be hardwired to a book format? After decades? (Your mileage may vary on that one, but you think it would have come up in a meeting?)
- Oh, by the way, darksun just came out, so we're not going to update the character builder with it. In fact, it's retired. Oh, yes! We're making a new one. It's not done yet, but we're making it right now. Be done in just a bit! Pay no attention to the DDI fiasco we created for years...

...

Sadly, I can't say much good about them since their first attempt with 3rd edition. They started out so well, and it just seems to have gone so horribly wrong. With that track record, how could I trust them to make D&D 5th? I can't ignore how much they have annoyed me personally while I tried to support them.

Then again, that's my opinion. Feel free to not agree.

Positive and Optimistic...

What I see with the new edition is WotC looking at Pathfinder/Paizo and realizing that they made a huge mistake in assuming that brand name loyalty would let them do whatever they wanted with the D&D name.

They have a huge job ahead of them. They have to re-assert their strength by putting out a product that not only keeps the new core of fanboys but re-establishes contact with the legions of players of earlier editions. (for lack of a better term grognards.)

The real trick is uniting the grognards; while 1st & 2nd edition D&D were quick and smooth (wait for it) there was a lack of solid rules when it came to certain situations and the DM as arbitrator left huge swings in rules decisions by DM style and experience. 3.X got rid of a lot of this by putting more rules/mechanics in the system and empowering the player. Which slowed the game considerably and made rules lawyering a legitimate occupation for players at the table. These are very diverse groups, even more so than the new 4e versus 3.X/Pathfinder camps (no really).

So why am I optimistic? For the following:
1) No saving throws. Everything is based strictly on Stats. This is good, why, because it means that a thoughtful DM and good mechanics will eliminate the "dump" stat. Do you really want to have a 3 charisma if all of your social reactions will be modified by it?
2) The commitment to listen to the fans. Okay, design by committee is never a really great idea, but in the past WotC has taken the approach of, we listen to the players even while having a set in stone concept of game design. This may slow the creation process, but hopefully the actually listen to the suggestions and implement them.
3) Revamping the magic system. The designers have already admitted that everyone having exactly the same abilities with different names doesn't really work. It's balanced yes, but bland. I'm not sure where they are going with this yet, but anything is better than the current system. (Although the decision to keep rituals is a definite plus.)
4) Staying with ability stats. This is probably the most iconic thing that makes D&D, D&D. For those that wanted to play a strict skills based system, please, there are other games that use these systems, go play them.

Concerns -
1) Races - I am a "purest" - the inclusion of the Tiefling in 4e made my stomach turn. I'm not against their inclusion, but make them an optional race. I've stated elsewhere make the core list small and then have a racial/player "splat" be your first big supplement, and really go nuts, include every variant, idea and wish you can stuff in it. Tieflings, giants, intelligent squirrels, whatever.
2) Classes - Again, while I love the original set of classes from 1e, I liked that 2e broke it into four 4 with subsets. While I think they could have been a little better arranged, a re-direction in that area may prove helpful and again, load up on the options with a splat. /P.S. - Fix the cleric, the idea of a straight adventuring priest is okay, but the idea of a hospitilar is better - maybe make the cleric and paladin part of the same class with the cleric focused on magic and the paladin focused on battle./ And speaking of paladins.
3) The Paladin - Okay, I love this class, however, it is ALWAYS the core of controversy. If the designers cannot figure out a way to fix this class so that it isn't either broken, hobbled or creates DM/player paradox/no-win situations... scrap it. (wow, that hurt more than I thought it would)

Mike has always been somewhat of a mystery to me. He really cares about the hobby but has some really out there ideas about how to make it viable. Monte is a mechanics machine and an excellent designer, but has a tendency to make the mage the center of attention. Hopefully there is a bright star somewhere in the design team that can balance these two during the process, if so... We might be on the brink of something beautiful.

I'm am optimistic about the next version, it can't be worse than the last one.... It just can't.

nutral-negative.

In my mind, its a tall bite. Wotc are trying to combine to many things.
To include so much of 4th ed.(a ed i trully dislike) Isnt a thing i care much for.

The fact, that skills are undesided-allignement in the air. That forgoten realms, is sugested in different time frames. It just isnt a thing i like at all.

But bringing back the past ed`s good sides i like.
The fact that they try giving us old d&d players a say is good.

I trully hate the lack of prestice classes in 4th. And have prob seeing how this can be fixed sorted out in 5th.

Also i so hate minions(figures) D&D is for me a game, that in a large scale are played in our imagination, to have stuff to help seeing stuff is good. But the line up of minions and squeres, Make the game way less suprising. and more like Warhammer(14 years old players playstyle)

I also whant way more uneven game. Less controle. great with some races and items that is overpowered.(we will never get a group that all whant to play this race, or buy this items) Some do. but the majorety play what they find fun-interesting.

I so whant a game that open up for freedom, and changes to learn buy doing. And i have seen the sugestions and statements from "Mike" that tests have been done with 1 ed 3 ed and 4 ed players that play totaly different. in style and what info they whant need.
But realisticly, the DM work, if you whant a tru edvanture, strong history, fun for the players. and a lined up group. And play in ferun. How on earth shoud that be done? With 4th playing 100 years laiter in ferun with plauge. and 3ed 100 years earlier with a world more inlined with the world we know and low from R.A Salvatore-Ed Greenwood and more. Its just not playable. At least not in the same campain. And the DM work will be so mixed, that it will hurt the flow, and also the progress of the game.

So i trully hope it will be done. I will test it out like i did 4th. But i havent the higest hope. And faith in the outcome of the 5ed.
Thank god for the fact that Pathfinder. and 3.5 books i have. So we can stay on with playing a fun and educatioable game stil.

Best of luck. and if it is a success i will Gladly suport and help in any way i can. But it looks like a steep uphill from my point.