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

Negative.

New editions live and thrive on 'new blood'. 3E wouldn't have been possible without Tweet and Cook, then neophites in the 'design a new edition' game. Same holds for Heinsoo, Collins, and Wyatt - watch them on the early 4E preview youtube clips, with Andy throwing a ball at Rob: these are kids, excited at making their own game. And then of course, there's Gygax and Arneson, at the beginning of the game's history, making it up from whole cloth.

Quick: name one person in this list who ever made more than one edition of D&D. Actually, name one person in this list who's second game was superior to his first. Lejendary Adventures is a poor shadow of AD&D, and Arcana Evolved can't hold a candle to 3E.

I'll bold it for greater clarity:

Let it be forever known that no man, alive or dead or undead, should write more than one edition of D&D.

And now they're doing it. They're doomed, I say, dooooooomed!

And I'm not only kidding. Monte Cook and Mike Mearls have just come out of a decidedly unimpressive year in Legend & Lore. Nothing they wrote remotely approaches the freshness and intelligence of their first offerings. Some of it was hilariously bad, like the revamped skill system. All they got left right now is 'Why don't YOU tell us what we should design?'

Please guys, step down and make room for someone else. You've had your chance, you've left your mark. Give 5E a chance. Let it be a good, strange, innovative game. Leave it to the hands of others. Cheers.

I voted neutral, but a more accurate term would be apprehensive.

There's a lot of good with 4e. I see several things could be improved but I like 4e better than any other edition from a mechanics perspective. I have no idea if they'll take us back to the days of broken mechanics or improve things.

Eh, I went with neutral....

On one hand I am very interested to see what they come up with. But on the other, I am very doubtful that it will turn out well enough to bother switching to. At best, it will probably provide a few nice ideas to plug into my own hybrid set of house-rules, heh.

My outlook may change some if they announce that they are doing something that actually undoes the late-nite back-alley job they did on the Realms in 4e.

But who knows, perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised... but I doubt it

Neutral as well, there is potential (have good memories of D&D Basic, 2E, and 3E), but the last four years WotC and D&D haven't generated the best of memories. I'm hopeful, but realistic.

I know making a game for all sorts of players can work, I'm running a campaign for the 3rd year now where we have players and thus PCs from all sorts of base games - DSA, 2E, 3.5, PF, WoD, V:TM, SW, ST, Gamma World, d20 modern and d20 future. It works wonderfully with the right set of players.

And that's my worry. With rule fanatics and power players, I could not pull anything like that off, and I am unsure if a whole new rule set around this issue would make this any different.

So, neutral but curious.

Positive, if only because "negative" is a lousy way to live your life.

A lot of people have developed an impressive amount of scar tissue since the 3e/4e Edition Wars began. We see that very clearly in this Thread. There is little indication of unreserved trust; rather, there is every indication that for many experienced players, WOTC is going to have to work very hard to get back to 'neutral.'

Fine. But give them the chance to earn your trust. And I actually mean do them the courtesy of giving them the chance -- resist the urge to pile on whenever you see any slightest indication of trouble. Don't be the spark that starts yet another tedious, self-destructive edition war.

We've all got fall-back positions. Let them try to pull a rabbit of their hat.

Maybe even lend a hand when they ask for it. Something good and fine could come from this, if not for we the jaded forerunners, then for those who come after.

5mind? Maybe. Open mind ... absolutely.

Well, I clicked positive but now I'm having buyer's remorse. Sometimes I'm too much of a sunny idiot. But I liked that they led with saying that they're prioritizing TTRPG. That's the right vein to start in.

What worries me is what has been said: how can it really be all things to all people? We'll have many Frankenstein's monsters (flesh golems!) running around and it seems like finding a new game would be really tough. Imagine all the up front interviewing questions you'd have to wade through to find out if you can stand the new campaign you're considering joining.

Voted Positive, but I'm also very skeptical. Great news at how much public playtesting they appear to be planning, but they sound ridiculous with their "all editions to all players" type comments.

If they can be "many things to most players" it will be a historic hit....but that is a really really (throw in a lot more reallys) tough standard to meet.

I'm looking forward to the playtesting, and wishful that they can take the best parts of the past, some new ideas and blend into a smooth running game of D&D

The skeptical side of me worries that they'll lose too much of the gains from 4e (and lose a lot of that player base) and not bring in enough of the prior editions to excite those players to play the newest iteration of D&D.

Added note: Saw they haven't decided what to call the new edition....why not a complete reboot and drop edition references and just call it "Dungeons and Dragons".

Voted "positive" and will remain so until-unless they either a) mess it up and-or alienate some large segment of the existing player base, or b) come out with a system that just doesn't play as intended.

"b)" is extremely unlikely.

"a)" is where my worry lies.

Lanefan

Basically positive. I think 4e was a bold misstep for the brand (not necessarily a bad game), but the designers now have a lot of info about just how far they can step away from aspects of D&D's tradition they lacked before. And, I hope, some new marketing wisdom.

I think the truly fundamental mechanical assumptions and game elements needed to support a wide variety of styles the designers are pursuing are actually quite sparse, so that the basic modular goal is achievable. After all, complexity emerges from the interaction of simple parts, so the simplest version of the game will define all the fundamental pieces but keep the interactions minimal, and all modules will be self-enclosed except for interactions with this small set. In addition, the number of modules required to get most people into their preferred ballparks will probably be small. How many truly major design decisions or campaign assumptions do people argue about back and forth? Half a dozen? (Perhaps health systems, class structure, character progression, nature(s) of magic, skill systems, and low vs. high magic campaigns). Three options for each may very well define a game that covers and exceeds the entire historical range of published D&D. Many other things that lead to heated debate, like alignment, usually have a muted mechanical impact and just aren't major complications to modularization.

In addition, I think the indications are that WotC is finally ready to better utilize its old content. I will be very surprised if classic modules and sourcebooks are not (slowly) made available for download and/or print on demand starting a few months after 5e releases. After all, prior to this they apparently feared doing so would cannibalize demand for new products. Whether or not that belief is true is immaterial, because in 5e the new belief (if I'm reading them correctly) is that old material can actually be purchased in support of the new system. Even among people who don't adopt 5e there will be an uptick in good will toward WotC. And all that new old material will give interested people plenty to discuss as they experience the game's roots for the first time, whether in 5e or the original system. The edition wars or trolling may reach a new generation, but so will a knowledge and appreciation of history among a larger collection of gamers. I know that reading the Rules Cyclopedia, for example, was really informative for me as a gamer who played CRPGs in the 2e era and started tabletop gaming at the start of 3.5.

In no case will 5e unify everyone. But people houserule things all the time: if it is a better system from which to start houseruling, and maybe even to experience the old with a fresh coat of paint, that might be enough for wide appeal.