D&D 5E No longer interested in 5e now

[triqui]

For me, it sounds as "I only care if it is backward compatible with the edition I like". The rest its just blablabla to fill the post and sneak a cheap shot against the edition you dont like.

However, whatever float your boat.

 

[Plane Sailing]

After reading Monte's latest "Legends&Lore" article, I'm going to have to say I'm no longer interested in 5th Edition or "D&D Next" or whatever.

...

Again, support the 4 editions. This "uniting" crap is silly. I believe taking the "best" of all 4 Editions and blending them into some weird soupy goo is very poor and very sloppy game design. Leave what is alone and support them.

Just like it was stupid to take everything in an MMO and blend them into a TTRPG. You can see how well 4E did because of that mistake.

It's OK to voice your opinion like this once, in this thread, but we're not interested in any edition war histrionics - we learnt our moderatorial lesson back in the 4e days. So no more rants please.

Hopefully the other forums on ENworld which cater to your preferred edition will still provide you with plenty of fun here.

Thanks

 

[kitsune9]

I'll wait until the final product comes out before I decide on a verdict for myself on whether I'll play 5e. I'm going to buy the core set no matter what, but as for whether I'll be picking up D&D from that point on, I'll just have to wait and see.

Still, even if a game supports a style, I'm sure that it would lend itself to compatibility.

For example, I own Pathfinder and C&C. Both play very different, but at the core rules for both sets, they are similar and in my opinion quite compatible. I could buy C&C modules or Pathfinder AP and use them for either system. I'm hoping that with WotC's efforts, they are breaking the game down to the core functionality where all editions agree, but the modularity supports the particular play style of an edition. If so, that should make things like modules or APs a snap to convert to one's favorite edition, something that I look forward to.

This is what I take away from the articles and information so far. However, how and what they choose for this approach is kind of up in the air, so I'm waiting to see how it actually comes out.

 

[Crothian]

But I bet it was funny though. Paranoia was one of those games where reading the rulebook was really funny. Just don't tell the computer.

It was a good joke once the players figured out what was going on. But once the payoff happened we still have a couple hours of different rule set interactions.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Hmmm, system doesn't do something they never said it was able to do, and now you are claiming it is going to fail. That is like buying a car and finding out it can't fly, and then getting pissed at the car manufacturer, even though they never said the car could fly.

If I can play my 4E-styled character alongside a friend's 3.5E-styled character, and another friend's 2E-styled character, even though those characters aren't built exactly like the editions they are meant to mimic, I will could that as a victory. I am looking forward to the playtest so I can at least see what they mean by evoking the multiple editions.

 

[Kynn]

Hmmm, system doesn't do something they never said it was able to do, and now you are claiming it is going to fail. That is like buying a car and finding out it can't fly, and then getting pissed at the car manufacturer, even though they never said the car could fly.

Ah yes, that calls to mind:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo&noredirect=1"]Avery Brooks in 2000.[/ame]

Back in 2000, I wasn't worrying much about edition wars ... until 3e came barreling along and killed my beloved Alternity.

 

[Nytmare]

Exactly why is it WotC's business to convince me that I should include "1e-style" or "4e-style" gamers at MY table?

Am I missing the part where they say that they are going to somehow force you to do this?

 

[ahayford]

"To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. "

Sorry, but, I care less about playing a D&D game with mixed styles. I just want my edition of game to continue getting support, in fact, I want all 4 editions getting support.

Isn't that exactly what he said? I think maybe you are misconstruing what he said. They aren't creating an ability to play 1e and 4e at the same table...but a ruleset that allows you to play all 4 depending on what parts of the rules you choose to use....but not at the same time....

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, let's break it down here.

Sorry, but, I care less about playing a D&D game with mixed styles. I just want my edition of game to continue getting support, in fact, I want all 4 editions getting support. That's the best way to go, and it'd be more than profitable than any new edition could accomplish. This is because you capture every generation of D&D gamer ever to exist to come throwing their money at you for products for their preferred edition.

Financially, that's not a viable business path for D&D, because it breaks the market down into four smaller markets, none of which can support themselves (at least at the size that WotC is looking for). It's the 2e setting glut all over again. The most viable business model for D&D is to have everyone playing (basically) the same ruleset, so that everyone is at least potentially interested in a new bit or fob that comes out for the game. Not everyone might buy, say, a Dark Sun style campaign setting, but it's not smart for D&D to rule out a huge chunk of their fan base because they have to choose which "e" to publish it under, which automatically excludes 3/4ths (or whatever) of their potential customers.

So that can't happen. It's not realistic to expect that. It's not a very viable business model for WotC.

So screw 5E, it'll bomb like 4E because now instead of leaving everyone in their own camp and giving each camp their own "rations", so-to-speak, you're trying to accomplish getting 4 different and resentful camps to all sit in one big tent and eat at the same table and be happy with it.

This is going to fail hard, IMO. A DM like me, I run 3.5e with a few of my own houserules and, therefore, everyone at my table must abide by the same thing.

The first question is: Why resentful? If a person in my gaming group really loves 2e, I'd be more than happy to play a game with them, especially if I got to play the sort of Frankenstein's Monster of D&D that would likely satisfy me. I don't think any less of that person for liking a different kind of pretending-to-be-a-magical-elf than me. That seems petty to me.

Second question: You run 3.5. So hypothetically, someone could sit down at your table with a barbarian or a fighter or a wizard or a sorcerer and run with any of them. I don't think that's dramatically different from what Monte is talking about here: different player options. What do you care if someone plays the "simple version" fighter or the "mystic fighter" who has pseudo-magical powers?

Side Point: Monte pointed out that a lot of the control of the game's style and modules is in the hands of the DM (he pointed out minis rules, forex). So it seems like DMs will be able to set the tone for their games pretty strongly.

Exactly why is it WotC's business to convince me that I should include "1e-style" or "4e-style" gamers at MY table? We like our edition choice at our table and all we ever wanted was to, once in awhile, see a NEW 3E PRODUCT for our games. That's all we ask. We have what we want, and so does every other gamer, just continue to give us more of what we like.

It's in WotC's interest, because if they can get EVERYONE who enjoys D&D as their potential market, they can make more money, and that is what they are in this bag to do. It's also not financially viable to publish more of the same thing.

I mean, look at how much exists, especially for 3e, between Pathfinder, OGL, and old WotC stuff. Why do you even want new product?

Again, support the 4 editions. This "uniting" crap is silly. I believe taking the "best" of all 4 Editions and blending them into some weird soupy goo is very poor and very sloppy game design. Leave what is alone and support them.

Just like it was stupid to take everything in an MMO and blend them into a TTRPG. You can see how well 4E did because of that mistake.

Again, to drive home the point, supporting the current editions is not a realistic option for them. The closest you will ever get to them releasing a new 3e book is them releasing a 5e book that is compatible with the design ethos of 3e.

Which is actually pretty awesome.

I can't jump on the bashing bandwagon with you, either. It's...skeevy?...to me to get dogmatic and fundamentalist about any particular ruleset for pretending to be a magical gumdrop elf. 4e has its good sides (though I don't think the MMO role-division or the CCG sales strategies were really among them). People who like 4e are rational, fair-minded people who just happen to disagree with you on what makes awesome rules for make-believe. They aren't bad people, and I love to game with them, and I'd love to game with them even more in a system where I didn't have to ignore things like the fact that 95% of my character is dedicated to 101 different ways to kill stuff.

 

[Tilenas]

This is going to fail hard, IMO. A DM like me, I run 3.5e with a few of my own houserules and, therefore, everyone at my table must abide by the same thing.

Good luck then to you then, and good riddance to us. Jeesh.

Admin here. If a post is problematic, please report it using the little triangular "!" to the bottom left. That's always, always better than making it (or taking it) personal. -- Piratecat