D&D 5E 5E: Is it possible?

[theuglyamerican]

I'm not asking whether it's technically possible to produce a new edition (obviously it is). I'm not asking whether the new edition can be a good game (it can be).

No, what I'm asking is whether it's even remotely possible whether the new edition can achieve the main goal set for it by the designers and the corporate entity that employs them: to unify the players of all the different flavors of D&D in one big happy family, all using the same rules (well, not really the same rules because of the modular approach, but that's a whole different kettle of fish I ain't touching here), all content to abandon the games we've found over the past dozen years that we really, really like for a game that isn't exactly what we want, but sort of resembles what we want if we squint and don't turn the lights on too bright.

The reason I'm asking is that this seems rather less likely than, say, me winning the lottery half a dozen times in a row while Eva Mendez rubs my feet and Christina Hendricks makes me a nice ham sammich. I currently play Pathfinder, and I'd say that, for my desires, it gets about 97% of the rules right. Why would I abandon that for a new game that gives me 40% of what I want? Likewise, why would a player of a 1E, 2E, BECMI, or 4E game give up his current game to play something that's very clearly not a 1E, 2E, BECMI, or 4E game?

In WotC's best-case scenario, how does 5E unify a fractured community that, for better or worse, has a wide variety of games that it likes perfectly well, thank you? What's the path they take to get from Point A to Point B? And can someone get Christina Hendricks to make me a ham sammich?

 

[Ellington]

If you're almost perfectly content with your current system, there is indeed little incentive to switch. I don't think this is the case with all groups, however. For our group, finding a correct system has been a grueling process of compromise. We also play Pathfinder, and from the looks of things 5E is addressing a lot of the things we dislike about the system, so we will most likely make the switch as well. We're what you could call the "swing vote"; we go with whatever suits us the best.

There is a number of people which have found their one true edition and stick with it no matter what. I mean, just look at the fanbase that AD&D still has today. With every edition this number of people grows, as every single edition attracts such a loyal following and the so called swing vote group decreases.

I think the best WotC can do is pretty simple: work hard to make a great, polished system, don't rush it and stick by it once it's released. If done well enough, its reputation as well as the prestige of the D&D name should attract new players, the swing vote, and even some of the older edition loyalists as well if done well enough.

In short: make a good product and it will sell.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There are roughly two levels of unity:

1. Build a product that a lot of people like to buy and use, if only occasionally when at a convention, or for a change of pace. Talk about it. Tweak it. Occasionally rob it for bits to use in your preferred system.
2. Turn D&D players into one big happy family, where any player who has at the minimal basic social skills would be wildly and enthusiastically welcome at any other table.

The first is doable, and will lead to sales. The last is against all human nature. Not least because some with an axe to grind will try to use "failure" when measured against the latter as evidence of general overall failure, while conveniently ignoring the first.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Likewise, why would a player of a 1E, 2E, BECMI, or 4E game give up his current game to play something that's very clearly not a 1E, 2E, BECMI, or 4E game?

Maybe he liked his current game five or ten or twenty years ago and doesn't like it now. Tastes change, people get bored. I used to love 3e for example, now I'm sick of it.

EDIT: Also, how was any previous new edition possible? How was 1e possible, if players were happy with OD&D?

 

[Doug McCrae]

There is a number of people which have found their one true edition and stick with it no matter what. I mean, just look at the fanbase that AD&D still has today. With every edition this number of people grows

Eventually they die.

 

[Scribble]

A lot of the rules arguments over the past couple of years have boiled down to what an edition can't provide towards someone's gaming style.

A lot of the people arguing, have evben mentioned that they've moved on to other games... Yet they still argue about D&D so clearly D&D is still important to them in some way.

There are plenty of people who moved on and are truly happy with whatever edition they have. This edition, just like any other is not for them.

At the very least, hopefully we don't continue with the "This edition sucks because I can't do X or I'm forced to do Y!" type arguments.

 

[Sunseeker]

This is an unfortunate and common misconception. While DDN's goals are unification, it's not 100% of everyone everywhere at all times. It's A: the ability to have a more customizable game that can fit various "feels" of D&D, and B: to create a larger and more cohesive playerbase than currently exists.

It's not the "make everyone happy" edition, it's the "find common ground" edition. Big difference.

 

[Scribble]

This is an unfortunate and common misconception. While DDN's goals are unification, it's not 100% of everyone everywhere at all times. It's A: the ability to have a more customizable game that can fit various "feels" of D&D, and B: to create a larger and more cohesive playerbase than currently exists.

It's not the "make everyone happy" edition, it's the "find common ground" edition. Big difference.

Yep. I think A is more important to them then B as even if you have an awesome product that a lot of people love, if you start getting a lot of negative publicity, it starts eating away at your ability to grow.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This is an unfortunate and common misconception. While DDN's goals are unification, it's not 100% of everyone everywhere at all times. It's A: the ability to have a more customizable game that can fit various "feels" of D&D, and B: to create a larger and more cohesive playerbase than currently exists.

It's not the "make everyone happy" edition, it's the "find common ground" edition. Big difference.

A lot of people seem to think that it instead needs to be the "we get ours, other editions have to deal" edition

 

[Dausuul]

I think the success of D&DN as the "reunification edition" will hinge on a single issue: Non-magical hit point recovery.

Really. That's it. That is the one huge point of contention between the editions that lacks an easy answer. Don't like dragonborn? The game has them, but calls them out as a "rare" (not assumed present in any given setting) race. Love tactical combat and miniatures? The game supports battlemat play. Hate 'em? The game also supports "theater of the mind." There will be fighters with powers and fighters without powers, wizards with all prepared spells and wizards with at-will feats, monsters with class levels and monsters that just have better stats.

All this stuff is easily handled with optional modules. Alignment isn't, but I don't see anybody making a big stand for five-point or three-point alignment. If Wizards brings back the old nine-point scheme and adds a tenth option for Unaligned, while ensuring that the entire system can be ignored if you don't want to deal with it, that should cover everybody nicely.

But the question of whether and how you recover hit points without magic is the crux. It's too central to the game to be easily shoved into a module--characters who can Second Wind and regain hit points on their own after combat have a huge advantage over those who can't. And it has a large number of passionate voices on both sides of the issue. D&DN without some form of nonmagical recovery is going to lose a lot of the 4E crowd. But D&DN with healing surges or anything similar is going to lose a like amount of the 3E/Pathfinder crowd. And going off in a different direction like WP/VP risks upsetting everybody. It's a very tough gap to bridge.

If I were Mike Mearls, I would be doing surveys and polls and forum conversations and focus groups and anything else I could think of to find a solution here. It's the one Gordian knot that's absolutely got to be untangled if D&DN is to achieve its goals.