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

jedavis · Mar 12, 2013

Jester Canuck said:
You don't think that even if it was a perfect update of 4e that fixed the math and sped up play it would still only reach a portion of the audience of 4e? That many would dismiss it as 4.5 and say they already bought those books?
A retread of an edition will only every capture a portion of the original edition.

Plus, the 4e numbers were not good. They started strong but started sagging quickly. Hence Essentials in the first place. They'd didn't change the entire line and design of the game just for giggles. That was the attempt to save 4e. And it failed so bad it cost the head of the D&D brand his job.
Maybe a different 4e-style product might have worked. But trying that now would be doing the same thing they've done twice before and failed at.

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.

And TSR hated having two lines, and only started Basic to reduce royalties to Dave Arneson.

Here's a basic principle of book publishing: it's better to sell a high number of one book than medium numbers of two books. If you have one book and you sell 5000 copies you will have made more money than if you sold 3000 copies of two books even though with the later you sold an extra thousand copies.
Books have a high print run cost and there is an extra production cost in the form of art, design, writing, layout and the like. The more books you make the more design costs you have.

If you have two parallel but competing product lines with a simmilar audience you're halving sales of each book, which more than halves profits for each book.

If D&D is going to survive it needs to have a single core book, a set of core products that sell gangbusters that everyone buys and uses. And those profits will subsidize the rest of the product line.

... who said anything about books? Sell me a cheap enough pdf and I'll eat the cost of printing it, throw it in a three-ring binder, and thank you for the ability to add, remove, scribble on, and reorder pages. This is especially true of adventures, which are likely to be used once or twice (rather than brought to the table every session for ten years) by exactly one person (not passed around the table for reference) who, after giving it a thorough read, probably only needs a small subset of the stuff in the module (couple pages of stats, maps, and abbreviated descriptions - just enough to jog the memory) at the table to run it, while the rest of a paper copy of the module just gets in the way when actually being played. Yes, laying out multiple versions of a pdf with varying stats is annoying and time-consuming, but it's definitely much cheaper than the overhead cost of printing multiple versions of a book. Hell, if you really want to be cheap about it, sell an edition-neutral main pdf of most of the adventure, and then sell edition-specific appendices of rules-relevant material separately at a couple bucks a pop. This minimizes layout disruption from different-size statblocks and other such variances.

But whether or not this would work for Wizards is immaterial, because they've committed to 5e and they're going to see it through, for better or worse. On a completely unrelated note, anybody want to help build an open-source cross-edition adventure template library?

Celebrim · Mar 12, 2013

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)?

What I'm playing is sufficiently different to any RAW that it is difficult to answer, "Yes.", but of the 3.X+ options, 3.0 is the one I feel is most well concieved, the one I'd choose to play RAW, and the one my current game is forked off. It has a few 3.5 inspired things - Heal and Haste, for example - but the majority of innovation and change in 3.5 degraded the integrity of the game, increased imbalance, or pointlessly increased complexity and generally was IMO ill-concieved. WotC lost me as a customer at 3.5, although granted, I was already at that point more of a Green Ronin customer than WotC to the extent that I was relying heavily on anyone for expansion beyond the core rules simply because Green Ronin had higher production standards IMO than WotC.

Really, after the original PH, DMG, and MM1 for 3e - all of which were amazing - WotC didn't put out another title I consider well done in the entire 3e era. That's how many waste of space hard backs?

The way I'm judging RPG books right now is I'll pay about $0.20 a page for good useful material. If it costs me more than that, I'd just as soon make my own material. The problem is, in a 200 page book, I rarely find more than 5-10 pages I'd ever even use. It's just not worth it. The last book I paid full price for and thought I got my money's worth was Green Ronin's 'The Book of the Righteous'. That was what? Almost a decade ago now? I bought some pdf's for GM's day this year, and a used book or two over the last year, but that's it lately.

I feel abandoned. I used to love shopping for RPG materials. I guess 1e diehards must have felt this way for ages, but at least they've got OSRIC going lately.

El Mahdi · Mar 12, 2013

adembroski said:
D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

It's axiomatic that if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

I think D&DN is heading down this road.

I think you can roughly divide the D&D community into two main camps; the 3E/PF crowd and the 4E crowd. I realize there are OD&D, 1E, and 2E players out there, but I find that in most arguments, they're gonna come down on the side of the 3rd Edition folks. They'll remain united so long as the 4E people are a threat.

So, D&DN... the Great Uniter...

I believe you're completely wrong. I believe your conclusions are based on assumptions that are not correct, and not based on fact.

I present the following limited data in opposition.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...You-Like-The-Direction-D-amp-DN-Is-Heading-In

[Poll] Do You Like The Direction D&DN Is Heading In?

innerdude · Mar 12, 2013

Celebrim said:
I feel abandoned. I used to love shopping for RPG materials. I guess 1e diehards must have felt this way for ages, but at least they've got OSRIC going lately.

I know, it's a weird feeling, right? To suddenly have "your system," the one you're going to ride into the sunset with for a good long while . . . realizing that yeah, you COULD buy another splat book for some other system, just "because," or you COULD check out somebody else's rule system to maybe glean a handful of things for "your" rules . . . but truth be told, you really don't HAVE to buy anything ever again.

Between Savage Worlds, Fantasy Craft, One Ring, and Radiance RPG, I figure I'm pretty well set for a MINIMUM of five years of gaming life, possibly ten or fifteen. I remember going into my FLGS or Barnes and Noble in times past knowing full well that I was going to spend $35 on a new RPG book, because there was going to be SOMETHING there I absolutely HAD to have.

Now I go in and look at all the shelves full of D&D 4e and Pathfinder stuff, and just sort of shrug. Would it be awesome to have the Pathfinder Race Guide? Sure it would. Am I ever going to use it at any time in the next half-decade? Probably not.

The only "MUST HAVE" purchases I'm anticipating in the near future are One Ring expansions that include additional cultures (seriously Cubicle 7---Give us the Rohirrim, The Men of Westernesse, and the Noldor, and let's be done with it already mmkay thx).

Everything else falls solidly into the "nice to have, but entirely optional (the Fantasy Craft adventure companion, FC magic expansion, Savage Worlds settings books, etc.).

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 12, 2013

adembroski said:
It's axiomatic that if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

I think D&DN is heading down this road.

I think you can roughly divide the D&D community into two main camps; the 3E/PF crowd and the 4E crowd. I realize there are OD&D, 1E, and 2E players out there, but I find that in most arguments, they're gonna come down on the side of the 3rd Edition folks. They'll remain united so long as the 4E people are a threat.

So, D&DN... the Great Uniter.

What the 3E/PF player is supposed to see is a return to 3E inspired combat mechanics, the exit of grid-combat-is-required, a renewed emphasis on non-combat abilities and skills, class flexibility, and setting flexibility.

What the 4E player is supposed to see is a continued commitment to game balance, especially where combat is concerned, clear and well defined roles within a party, action oriented design with little downtime, etc. etc. etc....

Sadly, what I'm seeing over on the Wizards boards is that 3E folks are unhappy with things like dissociative self-healing mechanics (hand waved through the use of "healing kits"), 4E people are unhappy with open ended interpretation of what a class represents (there's a thread claiming that "fighter is not a class", which was the first time I realized that the 3E and 4E crowds have a fundamentally different understanding of what a class represents). There's a lot more, but just two examples.

I made the comment in one thread that I believed that Wizards has an opportunity with D&DN to either A.) win back the 3e crowd or B.) retain and grow the 4e crowd, but it would be difficult to do both, and on their current path, they'll accomplish neither. It was sort of off-hand at the time and I didn't really think about it before I posted it, but it got several replies in agreement and spawned a bit of a side conversation on its own.

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. As a 3E guy myself, I actually feel like the best thing Wizards can do at this point is re-up on the ideas that produced 4th Edition and grow that market rather than attempting to bring two disparate groups together and missing the mark with both. Accept that the Fantasy RPG market has been divided into two markets, and target the one you already have, make them your own, and let Paizo pick up the remainder.

I don't know why I felt the need to post this. I honestly think much of what I've said is self-evident. It's just... I think the culture of gaming is better served if Wizards doesn't try to unify the clans, so to speak. I would also hate to see the existing 4e crowd left without a supported game in favor of a somewhat watered down version that doesn't really serve anybody but the bean counters at Hasbro who don't understand why a single game can't please everyone.

Sorry if any of this is rehash, I really haven't the time today to read all 8 pages, but just to chime in:

I agree with you, DDN as it is is mostly the result of an attempt to reach some sort of compromise (though I think they are veering further and further away from any attempt to reach the 4e crowd at this point, maybe not deliberately).

I will just add this. Where the general frustration of 4e fans comes in, I THINK (I dare speak for others, dangerous at best), is that 4e could be so much better. That is to say '5e' could be a game that takes 4e and makes a MUCH MUCH BETTER realization of its goals and concepts. VAST amounts have been learned in this exercise of creating and using 4e. It is a great game, but there is HUGE room to go still in the direction it has taken, MUCH of which I believe are things that would also serve fans of previous editions well when and if they were playing that '5e' game.

So, TO ME, not only does DDN seem to represent an exercise that at best may produce something that I will play if other people are determined to play it, but that in the process of creating this game which ultimately is not entirely acceptable to anyone that the game we COULD have had, which I am interested in, is stillborn. This is exceptionally frustrating to see, WotC seems to be determined to do something nobody is sure they want, when there is something that SURELY at least some people definitely want and might well prove to be the answer to their problems as well, though we will certainly never know at this point.

All I can do is shrug and go buy some of the other interesting games that are coming out, or work on my own projects, etc. :-S

innerdude · Mar 12, 2013

AbdulAlhazred said:
Sorry if any of this is rehash, I really haven't the time today to read all 8 pages, but just to chime in:

I agree with you, DDN as it is is mostly the result of an attempt to reach some sort of compromise (though I think they are veering further and further away from any attempt to reach the 4e crowd at this point, maybe not deliberately).

I will just add this. Where the general frustration of 4e fans comes in, I THINK (I dare speak for others, dangerous at best), is that 4e could be so much better. That is to say '5e' could be a game that takes 4e and makes a MUCH MUCH BETTER realization of its goals and concepts. VAST amounts have been learned in this exercise of creating and using 4e. It is a great game, but there is HUGE room to go still in the direction it has taken, MUCH of which I believe are things that would also serve fans of previous editions well when and if they were playing that '5e' game.

So, TO ME, not only does DDN seem to represent an exercise that at best may produce something that I will play if other people are determined to play it, but that in the process of creating this game which ultimately is not entirely acceptable to anyone that the game we COULD have had, which I am interested in, is stillborn. This is exceptionally frustrating to see, WotC seems to be determined to do something nobody is sure they want, when there is something that SURELY at least some people definitely want and might well prove to be the answer to their problems as well, though we will certainly never know at this point.

All I can do is shrug and go buy some of the other interesting games that are coming out, or work on my own projects, etc.

That's the real frustration for 4e players, isn't it? It's the OPPORTUNITY COST of doing a "retro D&D mishmash" that appears to be serving no one, when they KNOW that a productive, detailed re-work of the 4e core could really give them something special. And realizing that opportunity is going to be lost, at least until someone with the guts and fortitude comes up with an OGL "Pathfinderized" 4e clone. Put in that light, I can see how that would be incredibly frustrating, especially when it feels like most of the 3e and prior crowd is giving Next a resounding "meh" to this point.

3e-ites don't need another fantasy D20 system nearly as much as the 4e aficionados need a revamped, cleaned up, progressive take of 4e.

Nemesis Destiny · Mar 12, 2013

AbdulAlhazred said:
Sorry if any of this is rehash, I really haven't the time today to read all 8 pages, but just to chime in:

I agree with you, DDN as it is is mostly the result of an attempt to reach some sort of compromise (though I think they are veering further and further away from any attempt to reach the 4e crowd at this point, maybe not deliberately).

I will just add this. Where the general frustration of 4e fans comes in, I THINK (I dare speak for others, dangerous at best), is that 4e could be so much better.

No worries; you have at least one person that agrees with you, and likely more. I can think of several posters who would gladly back you up on this.

That is to say '5e' could be a game that takes 4e and makes a MUCH MUCH BETTER realization of its goals and concepts. VAST amounts have been learned in this exercise of creating and using 4e. It is a great game, but there is HUGE room to go still in the direction it has taken, MUCH of which I believe are things that would also serve fans of previous editions well when and if they were playing that '5e' game.

So, TO ME, not only does DDN seem to represent an exercise that at best may produce something that I will play if other people are determined to play it, but that in the process of creating this game which ultimately is not entirely acceptable to anyone that the game we COULD have had, which I am interested in, is stillborn. This is exceptionally frustrating to see, WotC seems to be determined to do something nobody is sure they want, when there is something that SURELY at least some people definitely want and might well prove to be the answer to their problems as well, though we will certainly never know at this point.

All I can do is shrug and go buy some of the other interesting games that are coming out, or work on my own projects, etc.

innerdude said:
That's the real frustration for 4e players, isn't it? It's the OPPORTUNITY COST of doing a "retro D&D mishmash" that appears to be serving no one, when they KNOW that a productive, detailed re-work of the 4e core could really give them something special. And realizing that opportunity is going to be lost, at least until someone with the guts and fortitude comes up with an OGL "Pathfinderized" 4e clone. Put in that light, I can see how that would be incredibly frustrating, especially when it feels like most of the 3e and prior crowd is giving Next a resounding "meh" to this point.

3e-ites don't need another fantasy D20 system nearly as much as the 4e aficionados need a revamped, cleaned up, progressive take of 4e.

Agreed, to both posts.

rounser · Mar 12, 2013

Li Shenron said:
I am a 3e-tard who is not currently willing to run 3e games because I cannot afford anymore the time and effort required by system mastery, and for a long list of reason I don't enjoy 4e. Thus I am not interested in a 5e that is just an improvement of either previous edition.

Yeah. I think that for me, Talisman is becoming D&D Lite, and Space Crusade becoming Warhammer 40K Lite, pretty much to the exclusion of the real McCoys. Who needs the complexity and fuss associated with open-ended and broken RPGs and wargames when these home in on the adventure and tactics respectively?

Upgrade the miniatures for these games with replacements and paint them, and you have the "massive time and money sink when not actually playing" aspect.

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 12, 2013

innerdude said:
That's the real frustration for 4e players, isn't it? It's the OPPORTUNITY COST of doing a "retro D&D mishmash" that appears to be serving no one, when they KNOW that a productive, detailed re-work of the 4e core could really give them something special. And realizing that opportunity is going to be lost, at least until someone with the guts and fortitude comes up with an OGL "Pathfinderized" 4e clone. Put in that light, I can see how that would be incredibly frustrating, especially when it feels like most of the 3e and prior crowd is giving Next a resounding "meh" to this point.

3e-ites don't need another fantasy D20 system nearly as much as the 4e aficionados need a revamped, cleaned up, progressive take of 4e.

Yeah, I feel like what I see with DDN is something that will of course be DIFFERENT in specifics from B/X, AD&D, and 3.x, but won't really break any new ground or play much differently than what you can get with one or another of those games right now today. Especially given the LARGE numbers of both OSR games and d20 based FRPGs with D&D-inspired sensibility is there really a need, or even a market, for another one? If that's all DDN is then what's the point? The real opportunity in game design starts at 4e and goes from there. Again, the result can feel more like and be more useful to fans of older editions, I have no problem with that.

There are already people writing '4e heartbreakers', some may even be pretty decent games, but it would be vastly nicer if WotC was behind it, there's no way the one or two person hobbyist efforts are going to have that kind of quality and polish. Heck, I can write that sort of thing myself, it isn't like I need other people to do that, except if they're pros they will do it better, presumably. OTOH maybe I don't even want WotC anywhere near my FRPGs anymore, lol. I hope I can get people to play my own hack, it may come down to that...

Jester David · Mar 12, 2013

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)?

Yes.
Quite a few people never upgraded. Or upgraded slowly.
You're never going to get a 100% upgrade rate. Ask MicroSoft about that. Many people find the system that works for them and only upgrade if forced or skip a few changes.

hollowleg said:
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.

They were doomed either way. After 3.5e gamers were leery of any upgrade. A streamlined version of 4e wouldn't have made any difference, and would likely have been received identically.

hollowleg said:
... who said anything about books? Sell me a cheap enough pdf and I'll eat the cost of printing it, throw it in a three-ring binder, and thank you for the ability to add, remove, scribble on, and reorder pages.

There are still the other production costs: writing, art, editing, playtesting, etc. And the fact PDFs will potentially still take sales away from the main game.
It could be part of the magazines, which should feature all editions.

hollowleg said:
This is especially true of adventures, which are likely to be used once or twice (rather than brought to the table every session for ten years) by exactly one person (not passed around the table for reference) who, after giving it a thorough read, probably only needs a small subset of the stuff in the module (couple pages of stats, maps, and abbreviated descriptions - just enough to jog the memory) at the table to run it, while the rest of a paper copy of the module just gets in the way when actually being played. Yes, laying out multiple versions of a pdf with varying stats is annoying and time-consuming, but it's definitely much cheaper than the overhead cost of printing multiple versions of a book. Hell, if you really want to be cheap about it, sell an edition-neutral main pdf of most of the adventure, and then sell edition-specific appendices of rules-relevant material separately at a couple bucks a pop. This minimizes layout disruption from different-size statblocks and other such variances.

Conversions for edition neutral adventures would be a good idea. I hope more material we see for Next is designed to be edition neutral or has conversion guides.

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

jedavis

First Post

Celebrim

Legend

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch

Attachments

innerdude

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

innerdude

Legend

Nemesis Destiny

Adventurer

rounser

First Post

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Jester David

Hero

Similar Threads