D&D 5E D&DNext - Frankenstein or Butterfly?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Caterpillar!

Exactly. To soon to tell whether it will transform into a butterfly or a moth. Or Mothra.

 

[Rechan]

What we're seeing is the sausage being made. The problem is that it's a good way to turn people off from the sausage.

 

[Mercurius]

Are they really saying two more years for the actual product? That seems like a rather long time for development.

Also, how is D&D going to be floated during that time with no new products? Is Insider carrying them that well along with the commemorative pieces (e.g. Dungeons of Dread)?

One thing that is really different about this edition transition is this huge gap in product - if I remember correctly, 3.5 product was being produced up until a few months before 4E came out...the same with 2E to 3E, 1E to 2E, etc. It seems crazy to think that there will literally be 2.5 years or so of no new product, other than "editionless" products and classic reprints.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've been busy with work, life, etc, and not paying attention to the development of D&D Next for the last few months (since about July). Can someone give me a short update? Where is the game going? Any news as to when it will be published?

From briefly browsing this forum my impression is that A) talk has died down and B) people are beginning to sour on Next. What I'm wondering is if WotC blew it or if this is a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" or "Can't please everyone, especially gamers."

I suppose my biggest question is if WotC has kept their original primary goals in mind - that of making a core simple rule system that serves story rather than the other way around, and can be adapted to different game styles and complexity levels, etc. In other words, are we going to see a truly new iteration of the game that represents an actual transformation to a higher level of design (thus the "butterfly"), or have they already gone the other way and are in the process of creating another Frankensteinian monster ala 3.x and 4E?

So what's new with Next? Thanks.

Well, I'd call 4e the butterfly, DDN seems to be closer to Frankenstein, but that would be a bit overly harsh.

The problem is DDN lacks real mechanical focus. It has an agenda, but it isn't a coherent vision and a lot of it is mutually contradictory. I don't see anything special about the resulting game and it is a real notch down from 4e's laser-like focus on solid design. DDN is a patchwork game, trying to borrow from here and there but the result is a bastard child if you ask me. I don't see any reason to consider it more flexible than say 2e was, and in fact overall it seems like DDN is mostly a kind of warmed over 2e. I suspect it will have the same problems in practice.

It won't be a bad game, but I don't see where it offers much overall that is in any way innovative or improving on D&D. There are a couple of specific mechanics, Advantage/Disadvantage and the combat dice thing that are newish to D&D, but I don't see where they add to 'story' particularly or how they're better than what preceded them.

It ain't bad, but it ain't no butterfly. I have no idea what they'll end up with ultimately, but my guess is the basic game is pretty well solidly set in stone at this point. We won't see vast changes, just tweaks of the various subsystems and more material, presentation changes, etc. None of that is going to take it to another level, that ship sailed a while ago.

 

[RACER_X?HAHAHA]

Are they really saying two more years for the actual product? That seems like a rather long time for development.

Also, how is D&D going to be floated during that time with no new products? Is Insider carrying them that well along with the commemorative pieces (e.g. Dungeons of Dread)?

One thing that is really different about this edition transition is this huge gap in product - if I remember correctly, 3.5 product was being produced up until a few months before 4E came out...the same with 2E to 3E, 1E to 2E, etc. It seems crazy to think that there will literally be 2.5 years or so of no new product, other than "editionless" products and classic reprints.

From what I hear it's all they can afford to do. 4e, DDI in particular, didn't live up to the early hype and they weren't expecting it to end so soon.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, I'd call 4e the butterfly, DDN seems to be closer to Frankenstein, but that would be a bit overly harsh.

The problem is DDN lacks real mechanical focus. It has an agenda, but it isn't a coherent vision and a lot of it is mutually contradictory. I don't see anything special about the resulting game and it is a real notch down from 4e's laser-like focus on solid design.

Oh yeah... comparing a completed game that had already gone through several years of development and playtest to a game that is barely like 9 months into its actual design makes a whole heap of sense.

I bet if you actually had been privy to 4E's development during its time in playtesting you'd have been just as horrified by what you're experiencing now in D&DN and wouldn't have nearly the same positive things to say about 4E.

Cause like Rechan said... "what we're seeing is the sausage being made. The problem is that it's a good way to turn people off from the sausage."

 

[DEFCON 1]

It seems crazy to think that there will literally be 2.5 years or so of no new product, other than "editionless" products and classic reprints.

Actually... that's probably the best thing they could release right now.

One, because enough people have been caterwauling for out-of-print material for years now, so finally giving them what they want is a good thing.

And two... quite a bit of the "new product" they released at the tail end of 3.5's cycle were actually adaptations of concepts they had planned to introduce in 4E. As 5E's design is meant to harken back to all the previous editions... re-releasing older material could get people inspired by the older editions again and better prep them for what 5E will be. Plus, all that material will probably be able to be adapted into 5E games when its finally released.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh yeah... comparing a completed game that had already gone through several years of development and playtest to a game that is barely like 9 months into its actual design makes a whole heap of sense.

I bet if you actually had been privy to 4E's development during its time in playtesting you'd have been just as horrified by what you're experiencing now in D&DN and wouldn't have nearly the same positive things to say about 4E.

Cause like Rechan said... "what we're seeing is the sausage being made. The problem is that it's a good way to turn people off from the sausage."

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. In mine you work progressively on a game from the most general and basic core aspects and elements to the more specific. The issue I see with DDN WRT to 4e is that 4e is built on and gains a LOT of flexibility and generality from common rules architecture and heavy structuring. This makes a really robust game and that isn't something you can just 'graft on' after you start design. It is either there from day one or it isn't there. So short of a total ground up design restart of DDN it WILL lack the generality and flexibility of 4e. It doesn't matter if they spend another 10 years tweaking the design, I can tell if the building is going to be brick or wood right from the start.

I think the problem is writing DDN now is a bad idea. It is the wrong climate. Too many people are too heavily invested in too many different visions of what D&D is. DDN isn't going to settle the issue, it is just going to introduce yet another complicating factor and another version of D&D that is both different enough to incite factionalism and not different enough to propel the game in any direction it might eventually have to go. WotC would be better off publishing 4e adventures for 3-4 years until the dust clears, meanwhile perfecting new business models, and THEN put out 5e, if it is even needed by then. DDN is just a mistake IMHO, regardless of the details of the system. It is being born under a bad star.

 

[RACER_X?HAHAHA]

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. In mine you work progressively on a game from the most general and basic core aspects and elements to the more specific. The issue I see with DDN WRT to 4e is that 4e is built on and gains a LOT of flexibility and generality from common rules architecture and heavy structuring. This makes a really robust game and that isn't something you can just 'graft on' after you start design. It is either there from day one or it isn't there. So short of a total ground up design restart of DDN it WILL lack the generality and flexibility of 4e. It doesn't matter if they spend another 10 years tweaking the design, I can tell if the building is going to be brick or wood right from the start.

I think the problem is writing DDN now is a bad idea. It is the wrong climate. Too many people are too heavily invested in too many different visions of what D&D is. DDN isn't going to settle the issue, it is just going to introduce yet another complicating factor and another version of D&D that is both different enough to incite factionalism and not different enough to propel the game in any direction it might eventually have to go. WotC would be better off publishing 4e adventures for 3-4 years until the dust clears, meanwhile perfecting new business models, and THEN put out 5e, if it is even needed by then. DDN is just a mistake IMHO, regardless of the details of the system. It is being born under a bad star.

D&D wouldn't survive that. Hasbro would shelf them if they weren't making significant profits. At this point they're squeaking by on edition neutral stuff, DDI subscriptions, and retro re-releases. They literally don't have the resources to write adventures and develop a new edition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. In mine you work progressively on a game from the most general and basic core aspects and elements to the more specific. The issue I see with DDN WRT to 4e is that 4e is built on and gains a LOT of flexibility and generality from common rules architecture and heavy structuring. This makes a really robust game and that isn't something you can just 'graft on' after you start design. It is either there from day one or it isn't there.

And were you there in the early alpha tests of 4E to state categorically that the "core" of 4E's miniature grid-based design was in fact there from the beginning? If you were, and thus can speak specifically to the alpha documents that were pretty much what we got in the final versions... then great, your point is made.

But if all you are doing is guessing that the only way 4E could have been made is if those alpha documents had the base design from the get-go (beause you just can't fathom how it could be otherwise)... then you're basically blowing smoke.

Personally... I think that if you truly think that 4E's core was pretty much there and set from the get-go, and it was only the pretty bells and whistles that were "playtested" over it's several year development... you're fooling yourself and have no idea how game development actually occurs.