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

[theuglyamerican]

Well that is the what they are attempting to show us. Just because we cant see it yet, or it doesnt exist at the moment, doesnt mean that it is impossible. Who knows how it will turn out? To play Devil's advocate here (and Im not insinuating that you are saying this in your post) just because something seem hard or even nigh impossible, does that mean that it shouldnt even be attempted? What if 5e comes out and revoloutionizes the game? What if they succeed on their vision and craft a game that does unify the audience? I personally think that this goal they have set themselves is a good one to have. It may be very difficult to achieve, but arent there alot of great things that started out as a seemingly impossible vision initially? For example, should Apple have given up when they were at their lowest state as it was impossible to regain any kind of a foothold? Clearly we now know the answer to that, but before their acension, well before the ipod, Apple was not a serious contender to a company like Microsoft or IBM.

I've bolded the problematical part of your questions. When 1E came out, some people didn't like the changes and kept playing their older versions. When 2E came out, some people stuck with 1E. When 3E came out, and with it the OGL, a considerable number of people stayed with older versions because they could now buy new material for them regardless of what WotC produced. When 4E came out, man, there was a massive split and tons of people avoided making the switch.

While I don't have data to back this up, I'm going to go ahead and guess that at no point along the way did a large number of people say, "This new edition is insufficiently revolutionary, therefore I will stick with my old edition." People stayed with their old edition because the new one was revolutionary and they didn't want a revolution. There have been four significant revolutions, and the more revolutionary a given revolution was, the more it split the community.

We've had a surplus of revolutions. Another revolution is the last thing we need.

Which brings us to the problem I raised in my first post. If a revolution won't serve, then evolution will have to do. But what conceivable evolution will work when each side demands things the other sides find unacceptable?

 

[TimA]

Not to be defeatist here but especially with recent company developments I find the "one edition to unite them all" laughable. I mean they are still blogging about healing surges for gods sake......

Whats left there is the same team that a few years ago told 60% or so of the gaming community that they were having badwrongfun and they could adapt or go to hell for all they cared. And they did it with all the arrogance typical of large company drones who just assume that everyone NEEDED their product and so would be forced to adapt.

Well a lot of us told them exactly where they could stick 4e and kept right on with our badwrongfun and if they keep the same ideas then we'll tell them the same thing with 5e too.

Not one thing I have seen yet encourages me in the slightest towards this edition and the hope I had for it when i heard the idea in the first place has now dwindled to hoping the playtests turn out and they actually listen to the results instead of just hearing the opinions that agree with their own pre-existing 4e opinions.

I dont love Cooks work but he was a symbol of respect for older ways. Now that symbol is gone,

There was always nothing more then a very faint hope that 5e could achieve its stated goal but it might still have been a good game. However I dont want a revolutionizing of the game. I want a polishing up of older editions and thats all.

Dont experiment anymore. We dont need the flagship RPG brand to be experimenting with things that may or may not work. Let the smaller companies do that. WoTC needs to stick with the things that sold the most and support those ideas with a little polishing and then leave it alone.

I mean really, just how the hell many ways can you roll a D20 and add modifiers anyway? Stop with the rules framework and focus on quality content within an existing framework.

 

[Sunseeker]

Not to be defeatist here but especially with recent company developments I find the "one edition to unite them all" laughable. I mean they are still blogging about healing surges for gods sake......

Whats left there is the same team that a few years ago told 60% or so of the gaming community that they were having badwrongfun and they could adapt or go to hell for all they cared. And they did it with all the arrogance typical of large company drones who just assume that everyone NEEDED their product and so would be forced to adapt.

Well a lot of us told them exactly where they could stick 4e and kept right on with our badwrongfun and if they keep the same ideas then we'll tell them the same thing with 5e too.

Not one thing I have seen yet encourages me in the slightest towards this edition and the hope I had for it when i heard the idea in the first place has now dwindled to hoping the playtests turn out and they actually listen to the results instead of just hearing the opinions that agree with their own pre-existing 4e opinions.

I dont love Cooks work but he was a symbol of respect for older ways. Now that symbol is gone,

There was always nothing more then a very faint hope that 5e could achieve its stated goal but it might still have been a good game. However I dont want a revolutionizing of the game. I want a polishing up of older editions and thats all.

Dont experiment anymore. We dont need the flagship RPG brand to be experimenting with things that may or may not work. Let the smaller companies do that. WoTC needs to stick with the things that sold the most and support those ideas with a little polishing and then leave it alone.

I mean really, just how the hell many ways can you roll a D20 and add modifiers anyway? Stop with the rules framework and focus on quality content within an existing framework.

You realize that your retort to supposedly being told that you're doing it wrong is "No you are!". This whole thing is completely pointless. Revolutions, evolutions, revisions, spin-offs happen because the existing framework had problems and at some point it becomes easier to build a new beast rather than add more layers. A product that never grows, dies. I'm not saying u gotta like any of the changes, only be aware that to remain static is impossible.

 

[MoonSong]

I think uniffying D&D is a lot like trying to uniffy Football. Let's supposse that at some point all major Football asociations from all major football versions (American, Soccer, Rugby) got togheter and say something like "well it's been 200 years already we should try to put our differences aside and create a single football game we all can enjoy and call it football, not american football, not soccer, not rugby, just plain Football"

Then soccer players would start complaining about the over-estructuralism of american football ("why does time stops every time the ball touches the ground? and why can you only try four times to advance in the field? why can't you just take control of the ball and run with it if you have the chance? why are positions so rigidly defined?) and american football and rugby players would complain about handling the ball with the hands being the sole privilege of the goalkeeper and even would go so far to even question the need of a goalkeeper, saying it shouldn't be a position at all because they never score goals and so nobody would want to play one. At the same time the rugby players would question some of the soccer stuff (why can't I get more physical when trying to rob the ball? ) and the american futball (why should I need to be folded in equipment like a christmass tree just to stay alive?)

At the same time the very few fanatics of the original and vestigial style of football would feel ignored and without a voice, claiming that the new sport should be an evolution of their old school version and all of the other versions are "corrupted" versions bloated with rules that cripple innovation and free form play.

Not the easiest of goals, but should it work can you imagine how awesome would be an uniffied football game? I mean D&D edition?

 

[DMKastmaria]

At the same time the very few fanatics of the original and vestigial style of football would feel ignored and without a voice, claiming that the new sport should be an evolution of their old school version and all of the other versions are "corrupted" versions bloated with rules that cripple innovation and free form play.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Mythmere Games, Goblinoid Games, Brave Halfling Games, Pacesetter Games, Johnny Rook Games, Expeditious Retreat Press, The First Edition Society, Fight On! Magazine, Autarch, Knightvision Games, D101 Games, (and many other, smaller outfits.) Then, the OD&D Discussion Board, The Knights & Knaves Forum, Goblinoid Games' Forum, Dragonsfoot, Over 300+ OSR Blogs...

I think Old Schoolers have a voice. Make that voices.

Don't feel ignored, as we're too busy corresponding with each other and playing games.

Are few, but no longer very few.

And quite frankly, are too busy producing some of the best RPG material on the market, to be overly worried about what WotC is going to do.

Speaking for myself, I'm curious. Wouldn't mind seeing WotC put out a game I would enjoy playing, but do not at all expect any game they make to replace AD&D/OSRIC or Swords & Wizardry as my go-to D&D and would really prefer it if the company would just support all editions, or stick to 4e (as I no longer need their support or products.)

Because the only people who need 5e is WotC and as far as I can tell, most of their existing customers don't want a new game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Maybe, in a commercial sense. 5e can't possibly actually please everyone. But it might be able to please those whom it must, while giving others no attractive alternatives.

The key is 3.0s most dramatic innovation: the open source OGL and SRD. With the OGL out there (and it's one genie that's not going back in the bottle), any dissatisfaction from the 3.x fan base can be capitalized upon as a market for a third-party product, like Pathfinder.
There are also some 'retro-clones' out there based on the same liscence that do a fair job of emulating older D&D, at least in feel. 4e, OTOH, is based on the GSL, which is more tightly-controlled. WotC can pull the plug on future 4e support - by anyone - at will.

So, to succeed on 'unifying' the player base, 5e /must/ satisfy the 3.x fans as completely as possible and also needs to invoke the nostalgia of older editions better than retro-clones can (and the name and other IP are a big help, there). Last priority, 5e needs to avoid sticking it to 4e fans so hard that they give up D&D entirely: because there will be no where for them to go for new material, their only alternative is to play with what exists at the time, and whatever homebrews they care to come up with (and perhaps share, discretely).

 

[Bobbum Man]

I don't believe it is.

Then again, what I personally want from D&DN is a game that supports and bolsters playstyles that I enjoy, while shunning and abandoning playstyles that I do not enjoy. In other words, I want a D&D edition built for me specifically, and no one else.

I suspect that most people are the same, even if they claim otherwise. 1E fans don't really care whether or not 4E fans are happy, as long as they get a game they like. 4E fans don't really care if 3.x fans are happy, as long as they get a game that they like. And so on, and so on...

I'm not really a part of the "gamer community", and I don't recruit players from the usual sources, so it doesn't really matter to me if D&DN is a huge success or a commercial flop, as long as I get MY ideal game...so I will keep lobbying for the game to include design conceits that I want, and for the game to jettison those that I don't want.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't believe it is.

Then again, what I personally want from D&DN is a game that supports and bolsters playstyles that I enjoy, while shunning and abandoning playstyles that I do not enjoy. In other words, I want a D&D edition built for me specifically, and no one else.

I suspect that most people are the same, even if they claim otherwise. 1E fans don't really care whether or not 4E fans are happy, as long as they get a game they like. 4E fans don't really care if 3.x fans are happy, as long as they get a game that they like. And so on, and so on...

I'm not really a part of the "gamer community", and I don't recruit players from the usual sources, so it doesn't really matter to me if D&DN is a huge success or a commercial flop, as long as I get MY ideal game...so I will keep lobbying for the game to include design conceits that I want, and for the game to jettison those that I don't want.

Sure, I would love for Wizards to make 5E into my personal custom edition, tailored entirely to my tastes. However, if Wizards produces a 5E that, with the right switches flipped and options selected, comes pretty close to my own personal edition, that will be good enough for me to buy it and run it.

The question is not "Do you care if other people get what they want?" The question is, "If the game gives you what you want, but requires you to flip a few switches and select a few options, will you buy it?" What matters is whether, in the end, you're willing to plunk down money for 5E.

 

[TimA]

You realize that your retort to supposedly being told that you're doing it wrong is "No you are!".

The one key difference is that I'm right and they were wrong. As evidenced by sales figures and them kicking 4e to the curb faster then a diseased wino who they found breaking into their garage.

 

[grimslade]

Plenty of edition bashing in this thread already, I see. Can't we talk about 5E without getting into a big flame war over previous games? Guess not.

For 5E to succeed all it needs to do is be the compromise candidate for gaming groups. The fracturing of the gaming world is not new, but D&D has always been the compromise choice for groups until post 3.5. Now D&D is not the automatic go-to game.

If 5E is a robust enough system to support a lot of different style games, it will be a success.
The goal is to sell books and subs to DDI. It does not need to participate in some sort of Highlander RPG; "There can be only one!". It needs to be the game that every gamer has because you can always find a game in your area. Or it fits your group.