Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Ahnehnois]

Forward not back.

Fair to say. But it's not all that clear that any particular set of changes constitutes a "forward" direction for the majority. Many people genuinely do seem to believe that older editions are better.

Personally, I would have thought that "forward" would be taking the design principles of 3e D&D and maintaining the flavor of earlier editions, but starting over with the math, removing high bonuses, wild imbalances, and resource management, and building the game back up again using only the elements needed for whatever tactical or dramatic experience the DM wants to create. But I suspect the 4e crowd would never go that way, and even 5e, while it purports to be close to this, isn't.

I'm sure you meant something by "foreward", but I'm not sure what.

It's probably somewhat akin to television. Back in the day, a show like MASH could utterly dominate American viewing because not only was it a very good show, but it only had three competitors in its time slot. Then came cable with 30 channels, then 100 channels and suddenly even a good show couldn't dominate a time slot like it used to because some viewers started watching Rachel Ray to MMA.

Some people stilll watch TV Land and syndicated old shows and the new shows don't appeal to them. Re-hashing/re-doing a show generally has not had good results in the marketplace.

The TV market has since gone two ways. One is appealing to the lowest common denominator, and putting out poor quality TV that gets people talking (this is most of reality TV and a lot of what's on the big networks). The second is picking a niche and making quality programming to appeal to that niche (this is a lot of what's on the higher-end cable networks: innovative dramas, insightful documentaries, unrestrained comedies). I wonder which way D&D will go.

 

[Obryn]

There are too many considerations to take into account - whether Skills & Powers and the Tome of Battle were used, for instance,

Honestly, my group was one of the ones who used many options from ToB, Complete Mage, and Complete Champion. The 4e transition felt very smooth and natural to us. Like, "Oh! Here's what we were doing before, but streamlined!"

By way of anecdote, though, my group was playing Earthdawn (1e) back when 3e came out, and it felt like a natural transition from that, so...

-O

 

[Neonchameleon]

Fair to say. But it's not all that clear that any particular set of changes constitutes a "forward" direction for the majority. Many people genuinely do seem to believe that older editions are better.

Personally, I would have thought that "forward" would be taking the design principles of 3e D&D and maintaining the flavor of earlier editions, but starting over with the math, removing high bonuses, wild imbalances, and resource management, and building the game back up again using only the elements needed for whatever tactical or dramatic experience the DM wants to create. But I suspect the 4e crowd would never go that way, and even 5e, while it purports to be close to this, isn't.

I'm sure you meant something by "foreward", but I'm not sure what.

Pick a star and aim for it. I don't care which one. I don't want what is essentially a retroclone; I have the rulebooks for a lot of editions sitting on my shelves. And the idea that you can play 4e in 5e doesn't interest me - I have a perfectly good 4e as it stands. The idea you can play 1e in 5e doesn't interest me - as of next week (I hope) I will have a 1e DMG (I already have a 1e PHB, MM, and UA). The idea you can play 3e in 5e doesn't interest me - I can pick up a Pathfinder set without any trouble at all. For that matter the idea you can play any setting you like doesn't interest me - I have two editions of GURPS on my shelves.

The idea of gaming archaeology doesn't interest me (well, I'm buying the 1e DMG and would probably pick up a copy of RC D&D or even brown box D&D if released at a reasonable price). And it especially doesn't interest me as none of the groups I play with are true edition warriors - if the DM wants a system and they like the DM they will use that system.

Or if we're going into gaming archaeology, make it "By this axe I rule". The integral part of 1e that as far as I know WotC has barely touched. Not "Back to the dungeon" so much as "Who dares, wins". Powerful but twisty spells. Domains. Birthright.

Forward is literally any direction so long as they have a clear vision for what they want the game to be. "Uniting the editions" is not a vision for the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Forward is literally any direction so long as they have a clear vision for what they want the game to be. "Uniting the editions" is not a vision for the game.

I don't particularly disagree.

I think it's really about uniting people, not mechanics. A real forward step in mechanics could unite the people instead of further dividing them. I haven't seen that yet either.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll be shocked if in the end 4E fans won't be able to pick enough optional components to customize DDN to look and play very close to thier favorite edition.

I'd be shocked if they did, though. There's just no reason to put work - design work - into piecing together something almost as good as 4e, when you can just keep playing 4e.

WotC is going to have to actively kill 4e to get us doing that. Fortunately for them, they have the tools to do that, the GSL is not like the OGL, WotC can and probably will not only take down on-line tools but C&D anything close to a 4e retro-clone.

I think we aren't seeing it at this time because they are focused on making a core which can be added to and fine-tuned to any edition/playstyle

I can't agree. The 'core' we were presented with in the playtest was a retro-clone of classic D&D first and foremost, and a terrible foundation to build a modular (let alone balanced) game up from. Sure, there are bits from 3e & 4e - it's still basically d20, there's a spell called Healing Word - but the soul of it is old-school D&D, and old-school D&D was successful because it lacked competition. Modern D&D does not lack for competition.

5E is coming and its supposed to be the no one left behind edition (this is a good thing). The fact that there is no particular edition fans saying the core currently looks like the best thing ever is probably good news all around after all the best compromises usually mean no one leaves the negotiating table happy. So in an odd way I guess I'm saying be happy no one is happy or better yet keep calm and carry on

Yep, that's the nature of compromises. A compromise requires a compelling reason, though. For WotC, the compelling reason to compromise among past editions when designing 5e is that they can represent to their dark lords at Hasbro that doing so will let them re-capture the revenue lost to Pathfinder and retro-clones while retaining the revenue of 4e and driving new-customer growth. It's a good story around a conference table, I suppose, or they wouldn't have gotten the green light. It's OK as a marketing story, too, at the vaporware stage, because you can promise everyone what they want. When you start having to deliver on those promises, everyone realizes they're /not/ going to get what they want.

And the customer has little reason to compromise. The big one is, as always, the D&D name. I've left D&D before when it got bad enough, and the whole of the Pathfinder set is demonstrably willing to do so. Retro-clone fans had long since abandoned the D&D product line in favor of the D&D they already had.

I'm afraid 5e may end up selling only to those who are just unwaveringly loyal to the brand, while fans of old editions continue to play their old editions and retro-clones, and fans of 4e continue to play 4e or move on to other more modern games.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The thing about "forward" with D&D, is that it is a direction in an orbit, or more likely, a spiral. There is a heart of D&D, never perfectly realized in any version (when you consider the whole range of fans), and never will be. Yet "forward" for D&D is ever closer to this heart, where ever it may be. To find something like that, you have to go out in a direction and see what is there. 4E, 3E, 2E, and arguably even 1E, have all been pushed in a particular direction to see where the limits are. Each time, something was learned--positive and negative alike. And like any orbit, there are twin forces, the force moving one out and away, and the force of gravity pulling one back. When it reaches stable orbit, the spiraling can stop, and the game will have encompassed that heart.

Next is the first edition where the designers have implicity recognized this, and tried to hit it. Up until now, the vision has been more limited--more exploratory. Chances are, this try, even with this understanding, will still fall short. But we should learn something new.

 

[HoolMarshes Dweller]

Here's where you demonstrate that you just do not understand the argument.

You have failed to understand for, as near as I can tell, years now, so I don't hope that a lightbulb will suddenly go on with my post, but here goes, once again, the triumph of hope over experience:

I understand that some people do not like tactical miniatures-based combat rules in their RPG. They do not find them fun. I am completely and totally okay with this.

De gustibus non disputandem.

I do not particularly enjoy heavily operational dungeon crawls. I think the minutiae of time and resource tracking take away from what I enjoy in my roleplaying.

I also do not particularly enjoy heavily scripted, "railroady" adventures, where the DM knows ahead of time almost everything that's going to happen. I want my choices to matter, not just in the niggling details, but in the broad strokes, as well.

However, there are people out there - including posters on these very boards - who do like both of these styles.

Unlike a certain crowd, I can state that I do not like these particular styles of play, and even discuss why I do not like them, without resorting to telling these people that they are not playing an RPG - an insulting and dismissive argument that seeks to elevate my own preferences to the status of "real" RPG, while those who like something else are playing a lesser game.

That is the fundamental difference between my POV and the "4E isn't an RPG, it's just a tactical miniatures game" crowd. I can disagree with and chat about preferences politely.

We should not accord the same forebearance to what are essentially insults.

We certainly can disagree and discuss preferences politely, so why are you flaming away about dying in fires, burning in acid, etc. over what is essentially someone's opinion?

I wholeheartedly agree that 4e is for tactical miniature play, and yes, there can be role-playing involved as well. I don't find it to be a role-playing game and that's not to dismiss or be rude to 4e's greatest adherents that's how I and many others see it.

I am excited about 5e simply because it offers a chance to bring the community together like never before. It's not going to magically make all the grognards drop their 0e/1e/2e books nor is it going to make the 3.x/4e crowd suddenly drive the price of out of print stuff on Ebay go through the roof. It does however offer the chance at a vehicle for people to get together and play in a system we can nearly all agree upon.

 

[Balesir]

The TV market has since gone two ways. One is appealing to the lowest common denominator, and putting out poor quality TV that gets people talking (this is most of reality TV and a lot of what's on the big networks). The second is picking a niche and making quality programming to appeal to that niche (this is a lot of what's on the higher-end cable networks: innovative dramas, insightful documentaries, unrestrained comedies). I wonder which way D&D will go.

I think it's really about uniting people, not mechanics.

Yep, this seems uncomfortably likely.

A real forward step in mechanics could unite the people instead of further dividing them. I haven't seen that yet either.

I'm not at all sure that the divisions that clearly exist regarding what mechanics are and what they are there to do - never mind what they should include or how they should work - make it in the least likely that any actual such "forward step in mechanics" is in the least bit feasible.

When half the audience want mechanics that work as written, and the other half want mechanics that are deliberately partial or inoperable so as to allow "input" from a GM, how is any formulation of mechanics to suit both possible? For the latter group, how is the formulation of the actual mechanics even relevant? They just have to be broken enough to allow GMs plenty of scope in fixing them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

When half the audience want mechanics that work as written, and the other half want mechanics that are deliberately partial or inoperable so as to allow "input" from a GM, how is any formulation of mechanics to suit both possible? For the latter group, how is the formulation of the actual mechanics even relevant? They just have to be broken enough to allow GMs plenty of scope in fixing them.

True. I certainly don't want mechanics that work as written (or, I don't think that such is possible). I'm looking for ideas.

That said, I think there is such as a thing as improvements. Saving throws improved from 2e to 3e. The addition of skills/NWPs was an improvement. Opening up all classes to all races was an improvement. Of course, there won't be unanimous agreements on anything, but I think there are at least some truly forward steps the D&D rules have taken in 30-40 years. And some more to be taken. I don't think that writing new editions of D&D is a pointless endeavor.

 

[n00bdragon]

I wholeheartedly agree that 4e is for tactical miniature play, and yes, there can be role-playing involved as well. I don't find it to be a role-playing game and that's not to dismiss or be rude to 4e's greatest adherents that's how I and many others see it.

Well. I'm sorry that's your opinion, because your opinion is factually wrong. Please take the edition warring somewhere else. Making thinly veiled insults of other players masked behind "well that's just my opinion" is major uncoolness.