Fifth Element
Legend
I think your "clearly" is misplaced, at least with respect to the second point. We have no way of knowing that.
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
TwinBahamut
First Post
You know, as a 4E fan the last thing I want to see is a 4E clone. Clones of any kind are the last thing I want to see as a new game. I have very little respect for the people who try to profit off of them (unless they change the game around so much it becomes a totally new game, but then it would hardly be a clone). I'd much rather see a game that emphasized good game design and brought some actual innovation to tabletop RPGs.
This is what bothers me so much about 5E so far, really. It's trying to be a retroclone. Everything it does is based on copying older editions of D&D as much as possible, without creating anything new. 3E and 4E have their problems, but at the very least thwy brought new things to the table and tried to expand the game, make it more accessible to new players, and tried to fix what was wrong with older editions. They broke a few things along the way (3E broke any semblance of balance and ignited a fanbase split, 4E apparently finished the splitting by primarily appealing to only a more limited subset of 3E's fanbase), but at least they tried to move the game forward. 5E doesn't seem to want to do that, and that's a problem.
Overall, if WotC has to choose an audience, I think they should choose the audience that cares about good game design, rather than the audience that cares about nostalgia or tradition. Appealing to tradition and nostalgia (making a game that "feels like D&D") works in the short term, but it will slowly kill the brand because it leads to a rejection of broad appeal in favor of appeasing an aging and limited group. A game focused on good game design (who cares if it "feels like D&D" if it's fun) would have a much easier time of appealing to young new audiences, which would help it in the long run. The new fans will eventually outnumber the old fans before long, though it will probably take more time than WotC gave 4E.
Anyways, I guess my opinion is influenced by the fact that I really have no nostalgia for D&D. I like the game, sure, but it isn't anything I have a strong emotional attachment to. Certainly I have no strong emotional attachment to particular rules or races, like some here do. D&D is just a game to me, albeit one it is strangely fun to argue about on forums, so even if the brand is shelved by Hasbro and only exists in the future as a movie license it wouldn't matter too much to me. I'd just find a good fun game to play instead. If WotC wants my money, they need to focus on making that fun game, rather than hoping I stick around for a game designed to appeal to a bunch of old guys' sense of nostalgia.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Well, in an ideal world they're exactly the target audience WotC's going for this time around.
In an ideal world.
Perhaps, but there is actually one group of 4e players who *do* deserve at least an attempt at pleasing them: those who came in during the 4e run and have never played anything else. 5e needs to be at least vaguely familiar to them, preferably by module (true for all previous editions).That said, 4e is the most recent crop of D&D fans, and it's only been out 4 years, so it's not likely that a whole lot of them have become set in their ways and edition-insistent, after all, they've made the switch to every new edition, they have a record as 'adopters.'
Ironically, that's /also/ an argument for not trying to please 4e fans at all.
It seems many of the most ardent 4e-ers are those who have switched from something earlier; but at least those people have experienced a switch and can, if so desired, more easily do so again. But new players who came in during 4e may not have that experience, and thus the switch ought to be made as painless as possible...right?
Lanefan
I think this may be a false premise. It seems to me that it was neither nostalgia nor tradition that made D&D a household name, at its zenith in popularity, and presumably, its most profitable (which is what WotC really wants). Perhaps it was popular due to the game's simpler design? Perhaps it was because a child could pick up the game and learn to play in a day but there was enough meat in it to keep adults happy? Perhaps it was because it only cost $15 to buy all of the rules you needed to get an idea if you wanted to buy the rest of the game? In other words, perhaps it had a broader appeal than just those that "care about good game design" (and who decides what good game design is, anyway?)
If this is the case, and some folks certainly think it is, perhaps broad appeal is exactly what will be achieved with 5e. For now, no one can say and we won't know until we see a boom, bust, or more of the same slow degradation of interest after 5e.
Imaro
Legend
I can understand your PoV but it is IMO ironic that the creator (or one of the creators depending on your viewpoint) of the game didn't play with minis... Yet you're ignoring this fact (as well as how many people easily played OD&D, B/X, BECMI, AD&D, AD&D 2e and 3.x without the use of a grid) and troting out the fact that mini use was supported (but not necessary) in previouis editions as some sort of condemnation of people who don't want or enjoy more intertwined grid-based tactical combat in their D&D.
TrippyHippy
Hero
Personally, the model I hope to see is something akin to what Design Mechanism are doing with RuneQuest. That is, they have refined the game in all sorts of ways, that runs quite different to the original game (combat maneuvers, simplified skill system, Legendary abilities, Passions, integrated Characteristic scores as skill bases, magic systems, etc). Yet it is written by a long time RQ veteran who understands the cultural aspects of the game, and produces a game that is recognizable to the original brand.
'Good Game Design' itself is something of a subjective term. We hear time and time again why something is 'good game design', yet it isn't successful because it's not what people actually want.
D&D has got baggage, and it needs to be acknowledged in future game design agendas. Game designers who are responsible to the brand ought to be (and apparently are this time around) aware of this.
shadow
First Post
Neonchameleon said:
Ignoring the sarcasm, I will say that I do not mean to imply that 4e is just a tactical miniatures game. It clearly is not. Nor do I mean to revive the edition wars. I am not wanting to pit different editions against each other.
However, I do feel that 4e got a little too focused on combat and tactics for my taste. (Although if you like that, continue to play 4e by all means.) I much rather would see a simple combat resolution system that has modular options for varying degrees of tactical combat rather than have everything baked into the system from the start. This is because it is much easier to add options for those who want them than to take them away.
My reasons for not wanting tactical rules as the default assumption are:
1. They assume the use of miniatures and grid. Although I like miniatures, they can be somewhat of a pain to break out for every minor combat.
2. They can get somewhat complex and require a certain "system mastery" to break into the game. As I mentioned before this can be a turn-off to new and casual players. Also, players who aren't as good at tactical thinking can easily get bogged down in combat.
I wouldn't mind seeing different combat options and maneuvers as part of the core, but full scale grid based tactical combat should be a modular option, not the default assumption.
That all said, I realize how far this thread has gotten away from the original topic. I'll just close by saying that I don't think it's possible for 5e to be the "one true system" - different players are drawn to different things. From what I've seen in the playtest, it does seem like 5e is trying to draw "grognards" from older editions back to D&D rather than "convert" 4e players. However, it's possible that Wizards will try to appeal to 4e fans in the form of grid-based combat and an AEDU powers module.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
OD&D was so limited you couldn't play a non-human character you wanted, you had to play a stereotypical Elf, Dwarf or Halfling. No Halfling Fighter, Elf Ranger or Dwarven Cleric just the same, old straightjacketed stuff dreamt up in some guys' basement smoking funny stuff and reading Tolkein. The base system was so pathetic it could fit in three pamphlets, not even needing real books for its three classes. They clearly aren't advanced enough to be real gamers and should be ignored.
1E is also terrible. I mean, no kits, feats, no real choices outside of a very few classes, you couldn't even play a freakin' first-level Bard until everyone else was at least 10th level and Rangers couldn't wield two weapons properly in the PHB like every other actually advanced edition? And those level limits, what, if I don't want to play a human I can be a thief or a low-level putz? Racists much? And it didn't have a real DMG, just some charts strewn among a bunch of some geek's poetry and prose. And miniatures made with actual lead? Heck, that whole game couldn't come up with a decent acronym for attack number, were they licking those lead miniatures? Those people should be tossed right out.
And what about that so-called "Second Edition", sure, they finally figured out what to call the attack number and straightened out some charts but none of those people could even settle on a setting or three. What, Greyhawk (Western European old hat), Forgotten Realms (The Land of Mary Sues), Dragonlance (Because emo wizards are so awesome), Mystara (someone should have taken a drug test), Birthright (ooo, everyone's a prince), Ravenloft (someone fell asleep watching Nosferatu on late night TV), Dark Sun (from watching too many Mad Max movies or something), Spelljammer (Hey, space pirates can travel to any of those other worlds too if the Neogi and Mind Flayers don't get them like Han Solo played by Errol Flynn) or even Planescape (screw flying, I'll just walk through a couple of doorways to get where I want to go and I'll never get lost while I'm there 'cause it's just a big donut-shaped town). That many worlds is just dumb and can't be properly supported and every class having their own splatbook is just wrong. Those people aren't worth paying attention to.
And 3E the least like the others, what with all those fiddly skills and their minutia. And the 3E/Pathfinder cultists are the ones who post loudest about their dislikes of all things 4E. And what's this Eberron place, heck 2E had about 172 different settings and didn't even bother with that mess. Desert Drow, evil Gold Dragons, flying airships and all that mularky that was never part of what D&D really is. And because of their cult-like drooling over all things Paizo, they are worthless and just bring about the ruination of the game.
It's pretty obvious that if they want to get as many real D&D players together there's only one game they really need to emulate: Trouble because the Pop-o-matic keeps those dirty rotten cheaters from using loaded dice or telling lies about their stats.
Bedrockgames
Legend
I thought the 2e settings were great and my group played most of them during the 90s
I LOVED all the 2E settings. I can see stuff for all but Planescape and PHBs from each edition from where I'm sitting right now.
Similar Threads
