D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

Raith5 said:

adembroski said:

I think the culture of gaming is better served if Wizards doesn't try to unify the clans, so to speak.

Click to expand...

A year ago I thought they had a chance of creating a unified game but now I agree with you.

Click to expand...

And a couple of years ago I would have argued in favor of 3rd edition D&D being revitalized by D&D Next, but now I agree with you both, too. When Monte Cook came on board and lots of D&D 4th edition-isms were being crushed into dust, I was pretty happy to see that happen. I had huge animosity for 4th edition.

However, nowadays I have Pathfinder. I'm happy over here. I'm served well, there are lots of options, the community is active, and I'm getting to play a game that mostly works for me. In fact, I would submit that I am so happy, that D&D Next can no longer win me back, nor can it win back any of my friends. So, what does that mean? Well, if we are representative of some 3rd edition contingent, then pretty much D&D Next is on a futile attempt to win people back and will -- as you suggest -- alienate everyone by trying to do so.

Since I have a great game in Pathfinder, I no longer need D&D. So I am now very comfortable releasing it to other fans who wish to clamor for their own needs. If the 4th edition fans are seeing their needs go unmet, and if they have no other game they can play, then by all means, I suggest that Wizards of the Coast give up on their "everything to everyone" approach and simply reconnect with 4th edition fans and give them what they want.

I think (though I may be mistaken) that D&D has lost many customers to the point that the loss is permanent. So there is no sense in chasing those customers anymore. They're gone. I also think that a "all things to all people" D&D Next could cost Wizards all of their 4th edition fans, too. This would leave Wizards of the Coast in the opposite situation of what they intend: they would have no audience at all, and like D&D 4th edition, they'd mostly have to win new customers over from scratch again. From what I can tell, Wizards is dreading that idea. They are actively trying to avoid it. They wish to regain all their old customers and see their sales bolstered from the groundswell of support. But it just can't happen anymore. And if they fail to see that, they'll lose big. If they do recognize it in time, they may be able to keep a hold of their existing customer base, at least. And that's a great thing for them, and then they can hook a new generation too, and move on from there.

I guess what I'm saying is that I really no longer see a need for animosity or fighting about this. My needs are met elsewhere now. If 4th edition fans were to shout, "Screw 3rd edition, screw the old school, cater to us and give us every little thing we want even if the other gamers hate it," I would probably respond with, "Yeah, give it to 'em."

I hope Wizards realizes that before it's too late.

hollowleg said:

Does anybody still play 3.0 as opposed to 3.5, PF, or other 3.x+ derivatives (meant as an honest question, not as rhetoric)?

Click to expand...

I do!

Well technically I don't because as I said previously, 3ed in general is very time-consuming for the DM, and unfortunately these days I cannot afford to spend much time. Anyway, if I get to run some game these days it is 5e because I want to be part of the playtesting process.

But if I had all the time I wanted to prepare and run games of D&D, it would be 3.0, not any later version of it, although I might of course have some house rules either for setting/gameworld purposes or to adapt to a specific gaming group's style, preferences and misbehaviours too.

hollowleg said:

The mistake Wizards made with Essentials (in my view) was marketing it as a supplement rather than an upgrade.

Click to expand...

They made a lot of mistakes with Essentials: The product line was confusing, expensive, and (as you say) divisive. It accomplished none of the things WotC claimed they were trying to accomplish with it. The entire thing was badly bungled, represented a huge missed opportunity for the company, and basically sealed 4E's coffin.

adembroski said:

The more I think about it, the more I think the very mentality that the design team is taking is going to doom the product.

Click to expand...

I'm forced to agree. 5th Edition is looking pretty much exactly like what I suspected it would look like: A commercially non-viable compromise between classic D&D and 4E.

Back in January 2012, I speculated that the obvious goal of 5E would be to re-unify the splintered D&D fanbase. But in trying to achieve that, WotC, ultimately, faces an immutable truth: No reboot edition of an RPG has ever succeeded unless there is clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction in the existing customer base.

So WotC faces two problems:

(1) Among 4E players, there is not a clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction with 4E. So, right here, you have a problem that I don't know how you solve. No one has ever pulled it off before. There's no road map for WotC to follow.

(2) They have to win back 3E/PF players. In order to do this you have to make 5E more appealing than 3E/PF to them. Complicating this is that 3E players have invested large amounts of time, expertise, and money invested into their game. Traditionally you overcome that through novelty (but 3E/PF have already rejected novelty once), support (but their game is already the best supported in history and Paizo continues to crank out high quality support material every month), or superior design.

"Superior design" comes back to the issue of clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction: In order to convince these players that your game is so good that they have to abandon the investment of time, expertise, and money they have in their current game you need to identify something they all dislike a lot and then fix it in a way that they all like. The problem is that among actual 3E/PF players that clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction doesn't seem to exist. (Well, there are a couple things I could make an argument for. But that's probably a discussion for a different time.)

Long story short: Even if WotC said "screw the 3E/PF players, we're just going to double-down on 4E", I think they would fail. And, similarly, I think that if WotC said "screw the 4E players, we're just going to make a game specifically designed to win back 3E/PF players", I think they would fail.

But this is what I actually predicted WotC would do: "Honestly, I think the most likely outcome is that WotC will produce a game which attempts to return to classic D&D gameplay. But in an effort not to lose their existing 4th Edition players, they’ll try to strike a compromise between the two. The result may or may not be a great game, but commercially it will almost certainly fail: 3E players will reject the 4E elements and stick with the best-supported RPG in history. 4E players will reject a return to “wizard win buttons” and other spherical cows (which will presumably be even less true in 5E)."

And that, ultimately, appears to be the game they're actually designing.

We're at the stage right now where people are still able to look at the game as it exists, imagine that the problems they have with it are definitely the problems that WotC will be "fixing" before the game is actually released, and come away with a generally favorable impression. (If you look around at online forums, for example, you'll see a lot of people putting a whole lot of faith in the word "modular".) But my prediction, regrettably, is that when the actual game comes out and the quantum uncertainty of the "they might still change it!" goes away, most of these people are going to end up being unhappy with the finished product.

Hiya.

What HUGE mistake WotC is doing is that they are trying to basically create a 'new' system and trying to call it "D&D". This is simply *not* going to work. Period. Full stop. No Save. No Raise/Resurrection possible.

I said it at the announcement of 5e, and I'll say it again. WotC needs to decide what the absolute *basics* of the D&D/AD&D system is. THAT needs to be the core, bedrock, base-line, starting point of 5e. And, IMHO, this should basically be a clone of BECMI, with edges rounded, shaped and smoothed to be able to use a BECMI character in a AD&D 1e campaign, playing in a 3e adventure module. For example, take AC. In BECMI, low AC = better. No armor = AC 9. In AD&D 1e/2e, low AC = better. No armor = AC 10. In 3e, high AC = better. No armor = AC 10. All are basically the same concept "armor improves you chance to not be damaged". WotC needs to smooth that out so it all fits as a coherent system; where a BECMI characters AC can be used 'as is' in a 1e/2e style campaign whilst fighting a 3e style monster. They can then use "dials" or "modes" or "options" or whatever they want to call it, to tweak the effectiveness of AC and/or the detail of it.

However, WotC seems to be trying to say "The feeling of version X is Y; therefore, we need to make a new rule, called Z, that will give us X while still feeling like Y"...when they should just be saying "X feels like Y, so lets do that". It's like they are trying to re-invent the wheel for some reason, when they should be asking themselves "Why the hell are we trying to re-invent the wheel when a wheel does exactly what we need it to do?!?"

^_^

Paul L. Ming

pming said:

Hiya.

What HUGE mistake WotC is doing is that they are trying to basically create a 'new' system and trying to call it "D&D". This is simply *not* going to work. Period. Full stop. No Save. No Raise/Resurrection possible.

I said it at the announcement of 5e, and I'll say it again. WotC needs to decide what the absolute *basics* of the D&D/AD&D system is. THAT needs to be the core, bedrock, base-line, starting point of 5e. And, IMHO, this should basically be a clone of BECMI, with edges rounded, shaped and smoothed to be able to use a BECMI character in a AD&D 1e campaign, playing in a 3e adventure module. For example, take AC. In BECMI, low AC = better. No armor = AC 9. In AD&D 1e/2e, low AC = better. No armor = AC 10. In 3e, high AC = better. No armor = AC 10. All are basically the same concept "armor improves you chance to not be damaged". WotC needs to smooth that out so it all fits as a coherent system; where a BECMI characters AC can be used 'as is' in a 1e/2e style campaign whilst fighting a 3e style monster. They can then use "dials" or "modes" or "options" or whatever they want to call it, to tweak the effectiveness of AC and/or the detail of it.

However, WotC seems to be trying to say "The feeling of version X is Y; therefore, we need to make a new rule, called Z, that will give us X while still feeling like Y"...when they should just be saying "X feels like Y, so lets do that". It's like they are trying to re-invent the wheel for some reason, when they should be asking themselves "Why the hell are we trying to re-invent the wheel when a wheel does exactly what we need it to do?!?"

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Click to expand...

Yeah, but WotC already made that mistake with their last release. And what's really costing them goodwill with the current player base is they seem to be presenting a basic conclusion that they stepped too far away from basic gameplay and want to correct. At least to those looking for such signs - and I feel they are correct. The natural alternative would be to look at how 4e varied from previous versions and determine how that evolution can be honed into a better expression that was even more fun. There is certainly no sign that is the strategy.

Although I think several posters like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] oversell 4e's narrative design, any move away from strong scene-framing/player author stance/lazy attachment of effect to ability use/ is bound to be met with distaste by anyone who enjoys that style. (I don't doubt 4e works for them -- I just think that it is more a happy coincidence of muddled design and thinking than deliberate choice).

Although I think the AEDU and related balancing choices went a step too far towards homogeneity, any move back toward "one guy with combat at-wills and the other guy with reality-altering dailies" will be met with hostility. (I also think such attempts at balance miss the main point -- non-magical types aren't necessarily outclassed in higher-level combat, but they are entirely dependent on magical types to discover the appropriate combat, get them there, keep them alive in the environment, locate any physical rewards and reveal what they do pre-4e).

Although I think stripping a lot of non-combat ability out of the game breaks with a fun tradition, any move to reinject teleport, long-term overland flight, easy divination, et al. will be met with hostility from DMs of 4e who like the easier predicatability and fewer design considerations of the current edition.

Any attempt to course correct back towards pre-4e will meet disappointment from the different groups that saw 4e as a step towards something better -- whatever that something better is. Any new version will be examined critically by players of pre-4e D&D and games inspired by that style and may or may not be accepted at the table since they are already well-served. But apparently from WotC's position, that is the stronger play compared to building on differentiation 4e offers.

hollowleg said:

I dunno, man. Does anybody still play 3.0 as opposed to 3.5, PF, or other 3.x+ derivatives (meant as an honest question, not as rhetoric)? The mistake Wizards made with Essentials (in my view) was marketing it as a supplement rather than an upgrade. Yes, there would have been much butthurt. But there already was a ton of butthurt about 'essentials being 4.5', and if they were going to generate that, they may as well have gone all the way and made it true. Rather than saying "guys we goofed, here's a better version, please buy it because it will fix things with your game (and we're shifting Encounters and other official events to it anyway)", they did something more like "here's a variant with some simplified options." Not as compelling a sales pitch.

Click to expand...

*raises hand*

I do! I still run 3.0 D&D. Started a new weekly game last year. And ran 3.0 for several years into 3.5's run, until I had to take a break from gaming for half a year or so, after which I ran some d20 Modern/Future and then got kinda stuck running 3.5 and Pathfinder for the next few years. I'm not likely to run any more 3.5 or PF games after those campaigns have ended, unless it's strictly re-visiting those campaigns with the old groups to continue their stories. I never bought into 3.5 or PF or 4E (only use the SRD/PRD by necessity with 3.5 or PF, bought a few Paizo adventures and 2 setting books for them but seriously disappointed afterward).........but I might give D&D 5E a shot at least. If that doesn't turn out well..........I can still run 3.0! And will, regardless, even if concurrent with 5E at some point.

The 3E crowd isn't unified, certainly, given the hasty release of 3.5 and its rules-bloat/power-creep, the same route Pathfinder has gone. There are definite advantages to 3.0 and it's clearer what needs fixing in 3.0 at least. The supplements were less well-thought-out and less well-edited/tested, but would have been easy enough to revise without releasing a new edition (3.5). But there are many in the 3E crowd who'll try D&D Next I'm sure, even if we might not all stick with it. I haven't given up on D&D, I just didn't like some aspects of 3.5 and 4E, enough to where I didn't bother wasting my money on an edition change. I still have my 2E AD&D material and am still open to playing or DMing 2E, but I converted to 3E quickly enough when I saw how much better it was for my style and my nature as a tinkerer. I can enjoy a rules-light game or a rules-heavy game to some extent, though I definitely lean more towards the middle ground (where 3.0 D&D was).

I'm sure there'll be a 5E crowd that includes portions of the 3E and 4E crowds, and the compromise approach seems more likely to succeed than a straight 3E or 4E revision for WotC, but I don't know if it'll be as successful as Wizards of the Coast hopes (or as Ha$bro surely demands). I do think, however, that WotC WOULD be better off simply trying to publish new material and adventures for earlier editions (1/2/3/4E), while trying to fix some problems with 3E/3.5 and 4E/Essentials with some minor revisions, rather than rushing off to make YET ANOTHER hasty new edition. Certainly there are more people playing 1/2/3/4E and variants thereof than the number of people who will even consider converting to a new edition of the game, people WotC could be marketing to and profiting from without rushing out another new edition already. But I dunno if that would be profitable enough to please the corporate overlords. :-/

I would certainly buy a revised version of Sword & Fist, for example, if it actually fixed the minor problems with that product (and was still aimed at use in 3.0), even though I wouldn't touch 4E. Pathfinder doesn't satisfy most or all of the 3.x crowd, just a core crowd of Paizo-fans, so Paizo doesn't have a hold on the 3.x crowd as a whole.

Maybe they need to brand DND next DND and keep supporting 4e as ADND. If they release DNDN modules that are 4e compatible (not sure if that is possible with he next flattened maths).

And then there are people like me...

satisfied with 3.0... about equally satisfied with 3.5 (some good things were thrown out of the window... fokus on minis started), then very satisfied with 4e because of many interesting innovations that i always wished for the game, but sadly not the D&D i would like to play forever... later I was a lot more satisfied with essential design... as the game became more flexible...

and now, the new dragon articles with even more flexible multiclassing and design... in the end, 4e is a great game, flexible and quite complete... and I hope the support will never stop...

but: it is not the D&D of old... it is not what inspires the players... the longer you play with those elegantly designed classes, the more I stop thinking in character... the thing called player entitlement hinders creativity... although there are terriffic rules to resolve everything: page 42 and terrain powers... and still it feels somewhat off...

what I hope with D&Dnext is a combination of 2e,3e and 4e and in my opinion the designers are spot on... I play with people who like to have straight forward class design... they just want to play an assasin and take whatever is offered mechanics wise and they like improvising and dnd next offers it to them...

I personally just like new things... a new way to do something i like... and dnd next is really shaping up as a game that i like to run... although it has some parts i currently don´t like... but it is a playtest... not a full game

I do feel the WOC has dropped the ball on DND.
I played 2nd, moved to 3rd and then 3.5 of which I have a huge collection and loved it. Then came 4th and wow what the heck was this? A video game on paper IMHO?
I feel that they made many bad choices and dispite the hype it may well be too late. And this 5th may well be not eough to save them.
But I will buy the 3 basic books and try them, I love DND and if it pans out I will play it, if it is as dissapointing as 4th, I'll sell it and just do 3.5.
But I will wait and see, after all the proof is in the black pudding.

Nagol said:

Yeah, but WotC already made that mistake with their last release. And what's really costing them goodwill with the current player base is they seem to be presenting a basic conclusion that they stepped too far away from basic gameplay and want to correct. At least to those looking for such signs - and I feel they are correct. The natural alternative would be to look at how 4e varied from previous versions and determine how that evolution can be honed into a better expression that was even more fun. There is certainly no sign that is the strategy.

Click to expand...

I would love to have seen that game. However, in a broader sense, I think 4e has some architectural issues that make that harder to do in some ways. Maybe not harder from a design point of view, but harder from a gamer psych PoV.

Nagol said:

Although I think several posters like @pemerton oversell 4e's narrative design, any move away from strong scene-framing/player author stance/lazy attachment of effect to ability use/ is bound to be met with distaste by anyone who enjoys that style. (I don't doubt 4e works for them -- I just think that it is more a happy coincidence of muddled design and thinking than deliberate choice).

Click to expand...

Maybe. Hard to judge, really. As I mentioned above I've been wondering lately about how much those narrative designs hurt 4e's popularity. I never thought of it personally, as a fan of narrative games, but I've been met several anti-4e players who disparage all that <mean, nasty, bad words> getting into D&D.

Nagol said:

Although I think the AEDU and related balancing choices went a step too far towards homogeneity, any move back toward "one guy with combat at-wills and the other guy with reality-altering dailies" will be met with hostility. (I also think such attempts at balance miss the main point -- non-magical types aren't necessarily outclassed in higher-level combat, but they are entirely dependent on magical types to discover the appropriate combat, get them there, keep them alive in the environment, locate any physical rewards and reveal what they do pre-4e).

Although I think stripping a lot of non-combat ability out of the game breaks with a fun tradition, any move to reinject teleport, long-term overland flight, easy divination, et al. will be met with hostility from DMs of 4e who like the easier predicatability and fewer design considerations of the current edition.

Any attempt to course correct back towards pre-4e will meet disappointment from the different groups that saw 4e as a step towards something better -- whatever that something better is. Any new version will be examined critically by players of pre-4e D&D and games inspired by that style and may or may not be accepted at the table since they are already well-served. But apparently from WotC's position, that is the stronger play compared to building on differentiation 4e offers.

Click to expand...

Very much true, I think.