D&D 5E Should Next have been something completely new and made from scratch?

[MerricB]

but if anything 4e and Pathfinder (for entirely different reasons) have shown that most RPG gamers dislike change.

That's quite incorrect. If RPG gamers disliked change, then 3E would have failed!

We have to look to other reasons.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

That's quite incorrect. If RPG gamers disliked change, then 3E would have failed!

We have to look to other reasons.

Precisely.

When an edition is released, I feel, is almost as important as what that edition looks like when it comes out, and part of the reason I've been less concerned while others rave on the forums about 2+ years of a mostly-empty D&D release cycle (which isn't even all that empty, if one considers that they're catering to older editions' players with all the reprints and D&D Classics re-releases). When 4E came out, a big part of the reason for the backlash was because a significant portion of the player base still saw plenty of life in 3.5, quite apart from any dislike of the mechanics of the new edition, and Paizo swooped in quite masterfully to take advantage of that - "3.5 Survives! Thrives!"

In contrast, when 3.0 came out, the player base as a whole was much more receptive to mechanical change because of how long it had been since 2nd Edition product had come out. The time scale wasn't all that much different from the 3.5 to 4E transition (1989-1995 pre-Player's Option or 6 years from 2.0 to "2.5", and 1995-2000 "2.5" to 3.0). The difference was, TSR filed for bankruptcy in 1997 and the hiatus between then and the release of 3.0 in 2000 gave gamers plenty of time to become overly familiar with the now-fossilized system.

(I use the term fossilized to denote that after official releases ceased, the system remained preserved as-is, not as a knock on 2E! Sure, individual groups might've continued to make new house-rules or homebrewed kits/classes/spells etc., but as a lingua-franca between tables 2nd Edition was largely set in stone after 1997.)

I'm convinced that three year hiatus in D&D was a major factor in 3.0's success. It allowed for gamers to wrap up their existing campaigns, get their money's worth out of their old books, and develop a hankering for some new D&D by the time the year 2000 rolled around. I've seen a lot of people argue that WotC is taking too long to release Next, or that there's no chance that it'll steal away that many Pathfinder players. As a Pathfinder GM myself, it's precisely because D&D is "resting" right now that I'm so eager to pick up a copy of 5E. The longer the wait, the less I need 5E to resemble Pathfinder; I'm already getting my Pathfinder fix, what I'm looking for now is something different. One of the critical mis-steps of 4E is that it was rolled out to soon; not only would an extra year have given WotC more time to fix the missing-content-and-math-issues-at-release complaints many had, but it would have given more players time to get on board with the idea of an edition change-over. So while personally I'm expecting and hoping for a 2014 GenCon release, because I'm just that impatient for it, I wouldn't be terribly concerned if we didn't see Next released until 2015 instead.

TL;DR: Gamers are perfectly willing to accept change, the timing just has to be right for it. The longer a rest WotC gives D&D, the more saturated we'll get with what we're already playing and the more willing we'll be to try something different.

 

[The Human Target]

They never said it would be compatible even once. Trust me, I've listened to everything they've ever said. They said they'd try to make it as easy to convert as possible, but never said you'd just be able to use old stuff. A couple of times they said that the mechanics would be close enough that you could likely run older adventures with minimal conversion. They said you'd be able to play 2e STYLE characters at a table with 3.5e STYLE characters. Which is possible. One person can just roll stats and choose a race and class, ignore backgrounds entirely and never pick feats or use proficiencies. Another person can create a custom background, take feats to customize their character, and multiclass.



To me, the core of 2e (my first version of D&D) was:
-fast play with a minimal amount of mechanics getting in the way of the game
-most of the game being in description with periodic stat checks to accomplish things
-fast character creation that didn't require much expertise. Just pick a race and class and write down what abilities they give you.

Which is pretty much the feeling I get from D&D Next. The mechanics are far from identical, but compare this to my experience with both 3e/3.5e/4e where focus on the mechanics was pretty much the entire point of the game and it feels MUCH more like 2e than any of those editions.

A rough example of play:

2e:
"I search the door for traps."
"Alright, make your find traps roll."
"I make it."
"Alright, you find a trap."
"I disable it. I make my roll."
"Alright, you disable it. On the other side are some Orcs. Roll for initiative."
"You go first, what do you do?"
"I move over and attack the Orc on the left. I hit AC -2 for 10 points of damage."
"He dies. Next person goes."

3e/3.5e:
"I search the door for traps."
"Are you a Rogue? Do you have the ability to find magic traps?"
"Yes. I make a 35 because of the magic item I have on as well as this feat that adds +5, as well as my PrC feature that adds another +5, does that make it?"
"Yes, that would make every trap DC in this entire dungeon. And the ones I will design for characters 10 levels above you."
"I disable it with a 40 because of a bunch more feats and class features."
"Alright, you disable it. On the other side of the door are a bunch of Orcs."
"Orcs? What are they wearing? Do they look higher than first level?"
"One of them has full plate on and a tower shield. One of them is in robes and has a staff with a glowing gem in it and is wearing a necklace. The rest all have Hide Armor and axes. Roll for initiative."
"Wait. Shouldn't we get a surprise round since they were unaware of our presence when we opened the door?"
"No, you weren't aware of their presence either. The rules state that if neither side is aware of each other's presence then there is no surprise round. Roll for initiative."
"Alright, I go first. I move over to the one in the back and attack."
"Then these two get Attacks of Opportunity."
"No they don't, they haven't acted yet."
"Oh, right. This one can, however, since he has the feat that allows him to. He attacks and hits for 10 damage."
"Wait, I didn't know he could do that. I tumble through his threatened squares then. I succeed."
"Fine, he doesn't hit you."
"I attack, using power attack for 5 points. Also, I activate my feat that means if I hit, I will knock him down. I hit AC 35 and do 55 points of damage."
"He dies...and is knocked down I suppose."
"Since he died, that triggers my other feat and allows me a free move over to the next Orc and I attack him as well. I hit AC 33 and do 45 damage."
"He dies too. Next."

4e:
"I search the door for traps. I get a 25."
"You find the trap."
"I disable. I get a 30."
"You disable. On the other side are a bunch of Orcs."
"I make my knowledge check. I get a 30. I know everything about them."
"This one over here is an Orc Shaman. He has the ability to cast curses and shoot fire. He has resistance to fire. This one over here is an Orc Barbarian. He hits really hard and knocks people down with his attacks. These are Orc Soldiers and wear heavy armor and their defenses go up when they are next to each other. Roll for initiative."
"I activate my daily power that gives me +10 to initiative. I go first. I use 'Speed of the Gods' in order to move 10 squares over to him then make a Close Burst 5 attack that hits these 4 Orcs. I hit only 2 of them. They both take 15 damage and are Dazed and have a -2 to hit until the start of my next turn."
"This Orc takes his Immediate Reaction to getting hit and hits you back. He hits AC 23 for 15 damage."
"I use my encounter power 'Unnecessary Toughness' and reduce the damage by 10."
"Alright, next person."

D&D Next:
"I search the door for traps."
"Alright, make your find traps roll."
"I get 17."
"Alright, you find a trap."
"I disable it. I get 19."
"Alright, you disable it. On the other side are some Orcs. Roll for initiative."
"You go first, what do you do?"
"I move over and attack the Orc on the left. I hit AC 16 for 10 points of damage."
"He dies. Next person goes."

So far, in actual play D&D Next is absolutely the closest to older editions out of anything since 2e.

This is insane and untrue, but it made me laugh.

 

[SageMinerve]

That's quite incorrect. If RPG gamers disliked change, then 3E would have failed!

We have to look to other reasons.

I agree that saying all RPG gamers dislike change is a bit of a hyperbole. But saing that they're not because of 3rd ed's success is equally preposterous. The situation now is too different from what it was back then to have a valid equivalency:

1) TSR was dead and WotC, who was THE gaming publisher thanks to MtG and had thus a lot of good will, was doing its first edition of D&D;

2) The Internet existed back then but it was nowhere near as present in everybody's life as it is now. Any online backlash then would seem to our 2013 eyes like background noise;

3) Nobody had published D&D-like alternatives that appeal to older edition lovers.

 

[Dunnagin]

I don't believe that starting from scratch would have helped in the design of D&D Next... but I do believe that they could have addressed some overall mechanical issues, as opposed to creating a "hodge podge" of mechanics from previous editions (probably done to satisfy players of various previous editions).

For example, I think Ascending AC was a huge improvement, and made game play much easier (which is probably why many "clones" or "variants" of older editions offer it as an option).

I think they should have first focused on some "ease of play" mechanics, for the general system overall, before creating a bunch of "franken-mechanics" for the game.

That would be my preference anyway.

The most valuable design goals, to me, would be:
1. How easy is it to DM
2. How easy is it to Teach to New Players
3. How Engaging is it when Actually Played

The open playtest is probably heavily populated with folks who have played at least one previous edition... it'd be nice to do some research on how brand new players grok the system (perhaps an in house play test with completely "non experienced" players).

 

[billd91]

In contrast, when 3.0 came out, the player base as a whole was much more receptive to mechanical change because of how long it had been since 2nd Edition product had come out. The time scale wasn't all that much different from the 3.5 to 4E transition (1989-1995 pre-Player's Option or 6 years from 2.0 to "2.5", and 1995-2000 "2.5" to 3.0). The difference was, TSR filed for bankruptcy in 1997 and the hiatus between then and the release of 3.0 in 2000 gave gamers plenty of time to become overly familiar with the now-fossilized system.

(I use the term fossilized to denote that after official releases ceased, the system remained preserved as-is, not as a knock on 2E! Sure, individual groups might've continued to make new house-rules or homebrewed kits/classes/spells etc., but as a lingua-franca between tables 2nd Edition was largely set in stone after 1997.)

I'm convinced that three year hiatus in D&D was a major factor in 3.0's success. It allowed for gamers to wrap up their existing campaigns, get their money's worth out of their old books, and develop a hankering for some new D&D by the time the year 2000 rolled around. I've seen a lot of people argue that WotC is taking too long to release Next, or that there's no chance that it'll steal away that many Pathfinder players. As a Pathfinder GM myself, it's precisely because D&D is "resting" right now that I'm so eager to pick up a copy of 5E. The longer the wait, the less I need 5E to resemble Pathfinder; I'm already getting my Pathfinder fix, what I'm looking for now is something different. One of the critical mis-steps of 4E is that it was rolled out to soon; not only would an extra year have given WotC more time to fix the missing-content-and-math-issues-at-release complaints many had, but it would have given more players time to get on board with the idea of an edition change-over. So while personally I'm expecting and hoping for a 2014 GenCon release, because I'm just that impatient for it, I wouldn't be terribly concerned if we didn't see Next released until 2015 instead.

TL;DR: Gamers are perfectly willing to accept change, the timing just has to be right for it. The longer a rest WotC gives D&D, the more saturated we'll get with what we're already playing and the more willing we'll be to try something different.

While I agree that gamers aren't unwilling to accept change in general, I would point out that there wasn't a 3-year hiatus in D&D materials. Once WotC bought TSR, products started coming out again, including a set of 25th anniversary products that featured "Return to" various adventuring grounds and a bunch of Greyhawk publications. So I think there's a gap in your analysis. There were materials coming out before the 3e release, yet the market was still reasonably receptive to 3e and the edition + ongoing support from Paizo has had a pretty good run.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The bottom line here is people really did enjoy 3rd edition. For all of it's flaws, it actually did something right that grabbed the attention of a lot of players. 4th edition was just not an edition that everyone was one board with. Blaming it on change itself is trying to shift the blame on something that's not entirely the real reason.

 

[Dunnagin]

The bottom line here is people really did enjoy 3rd edition. For all of it's flaws, it actually did something right that grabbed the attention of a lot of players. 4th edition was just not an edition that everyone was one board with. Blaming it on change itself is trying to shift the blame on something that's not entirely the real reason.

I have a silly way of describing this...

Here's the changes I "tasted" in D&D:

AD&D 1E was standard apple pie... maybe not "perfect", but it was made by Mom! (made with lots of love).

AD&D 2E was pretty much the same. They used Mom's recipe, but the added a bit more salt (Mom had a few tricks she never wrote into the recipe). Overall... still good.

3.0/3.5 & Pathfinder "looked" a lot like Mom's apple pie... but damn, they made it spicy. So spicy in fact that it impacted my enjoyment of the pie quite a bit!

4E was... beef stew. Wait a second... the package still said "Mom's Apple Pie", but this is Beef Stew! Huh?

As a side note... Basic/BX/RC was pretty much Mom's Apple Pie that I could quickly heat up in the microwave and serve. Not exactly Mom's apple pie... but very close and quick to make.

EDIT:
I should have circled this back around to D&D Next, since that is what the thread is about.

Essentailly, the Next Design, so far, seems to be trying to mix Mom's Apple Pie recipe with some Extra Spice and a bit of Beef Stew. I'm not sure if that works.

In real life, I do love my mom's apple pie... but, I have tasted pie that I've liked better than hers (though it is rare).

This "better than mom's apple pie" was not produced by a "hodge podge crowd pleasing" method... it was made by a skilled "pie crafter".

If every fan of apple pie was an actual "pie crafter"... then you'd value their opinion more highly... but I fear the truth is that most people giving suggestions have never actually crafted an "entire pie"... and they are instead focused on specific ingredients they like.

That magic "better than mom's pie" had some ingredients that I never would have guessed.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This is insane and untrue, but it made me laugh.

I wish it were untrue. Most of those are almost direct quotes from our group playing those respective editions. They are all things that came up at one time or another mashed together for effect. There's a reason I stopped offering to run 3.5e. That was combat nearly every time.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I have a silly way of describing this...

Here's the changes I "tasted" in D&D:

AD&D 1E was standard apple pie... maybe not "perfect", but it was made by Mom! (made with lots of love).

AD&D 2E was pretty much the same. They used Mom's recipe, but the added a bit more salt (Mom had a few tricks she never wrote into the recipe). Overall... still good.

3.0/3.5 & Pathfinder "looked" a lot like Mom's apple pie... but damn, they made it spicy. So spicy in fact that it impacted my enjoyment of the pie quite a bit!

4E was... beef stew. Wait a second... the package still said "Mom's Apple Pie", but this is Beef Stew! Huh?

As a side note... Basic/BX/RC was pretty much Mom's Apple Pie that I could quickly heat up in the microwave and serve. Not exactly Mom's apple pie... but very close and quick to make.

EDIT:
I should have circled this back around to D&D Next, since that is what the thread is about.

Essentailly, the Next Design, so far, seems to be trying to mix Mom's Apple Pie recipe with some Extra Spice and a bit of Beef Stew. I'm not sure if that works.

In real life, I do love my mom's apple pie... but, I have tasted pie that I've liked better than hers (though it is rare).

This "better than mom's apple pie" was not produced by a "hodge podge crowd pleasing" method... it was made by a skilled "pie crafter".

If every fan of apple pie was an actual "pie crafter"... then you'd value their opinion more highly... but I fear the truth is that most people giving suggestions have never actually crafted an "entire pie"... and they are instead focused on specific ingredients they like.

That magic "better than mom's pie" had some ingredients that I never would have guessed.

It's kind of like saying "if you like apple pie, your friend likes beef stew, and another friend likes spices, then you all three should enjoy what we've mixed together."

*thumbs up*