D&D 5E Do we really need D&D:Next to be the One Edition?

[slobo777]

To answer the OP, no I don't need one over-arching version, and I think this will be very hard to do in practice (pretty much any major part of every version out today is someone's pet love or hate)

However, I think the community of table RPG gamers as a whole benefits from there being a big, active brand that a lot of people are going to know how to play. At least at the core level - I guess experiences and expectations are going to vary even more wildly than today. I suppose that the 3 v 4 "edition war" has focussed players on the parts of the game that they like, and a lot of preference can be quickly summarised by "I prefer 4E" or "I prefer 2E" . . . that will go, and have to be replaced by "I play 5E, but I really want to play it with/without the tactics module"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

WotC won't say it, and they probably haven't even thought it yet, but one obvious path they are currently on is to replace the edition war with a "module war". That, if they build a game that people can play with very different options to get very different play experiences, then the forum disputes become about which options to use and why.

From the industry perspective, that's more than fine for WotC! Lots of people buy their products. And then people who are using those products argue about options, keeping a constant buzz of publicity and interest in those products.

From the fan perspective, unless you have a "module war" in your particular group, that is largely neutral. A successful industry is theoretically one producing more stable products, but it could also get a bit stagnant. You never know on that, until we see it in practice. Getting what you want means also buying some pieces of product that you'll never use. So it goes.

The people most adversely affected are apt to be moderators of gaming forums. It won't be as easy to segregate fans by edition, which means everyone is going to be seeing a lot of text on options with which they don't much agree. Is there a hard limit on ignore lists? Will various playstyles emerge clearly enough to warrant their own sub forms?

Not that pushed, cranky moderators are going to make for a pleasant environment for everyone else. When the moderator is unhappy ...

 

[Mallus]

Taking a new edition of D&D, ceasing to support the existing edition and filling the shelves with ONLY releases of the "New and Improved!" edition with go-faster stripes has MASSIVE effects upon the gaming community.

Really?

Aren't all the 3e fans left unsupported by WotC simply playing Pathfinder now, or the 3e materials still available or that they already own?

I mean, right now I'm running AD&D for my group, using books and modules I bought decades ago. Should I want new materials, there are plenty of current, compatible OSR products (and freebies).

So, what MASSIVE effect(s) are you talking about, practically-speaking?

 

[Steely_Dan]

*edit*

 

[Tony Vargas]

If balance is the true goal then it is one in-line with 4e and along with a number of other things he said, it contributes to a picture of him WANTING 5e to be a 4e game with some changes.

If balance were the true goal, the core as presented in the playtest wouldn't look the way it does. You're mistaking lip-service to 4e for actually commiting to or delivering a product of quality comparable to 4e's. What's actually been delivered so far is very AD&D. And, while that might be an adequate foundation to bolt-on options to make it 3e-like, it makes achieving anything like 4e improbable.

It seemed like all attacks in 4e did damage and then shoved the target back 2 squares, or made them prone or something.

Yes, "h4ters" have been hammering this talking point since day one. That 'seeming' is the result of using consistent terminology across all powers, rather than using one set of rules for conventional combat, and a lot of verbose prose to describe magic.

Have you looked at the playtest monsters? Namely the Ogre and Kobolds?
The ogre has 88hp, far more than the math would suggest it should.

What "math?"

The kobolds have 2hp, far less than the math would suggest they should.

Kobolds were 1/2 HD monsters. 2hps on right on the money for an old-school kobold. Consistent with 5e aiming at the AD&D crowd. (Not saying that's "OK" from a 3e fan perspective, just consistent with going for the AD&Ders, and not with aiming to please 4e fans)

when PCs have more than they used to I don't see why the kobolds should be the same as they used to be.

There are also 10 or 11 hp kobolds in the playtest. FWIW.

Also, with magic missile being able to kill them, without a roll and without a chance of missing and the slayer ability killing them on a miss. Yes, they feel very miniony.

Actually, the slayer ability killing them on a miss is distinctly un-miniony. Minions aren't damaged by missed attacks. They're just low-hp monsters, not minions. Using very low-hp monsters speeds up combat as much as using minions, that's how the playtest achieved it's 'fast play' - by having some distinctly underpowered foes.

Even the auto-hitting magic missile isn't so much 4e as classic D&D, the Essentials 'Red Box' brought back the auto-hitting magic missile as part of it's attempts to be more appealing to fans of the '83 "Red Box" basic set.

So to clarify, it has the essence of 2e's non-weapon proficiencies but not the codification of 3e's skills. Vancian is 3e, but it is also earlier. Same with optionless fighters and everything else you are spouting as being 3e.

My point was the playtest was strongly reminiscent of AD&D, not 3e or 4e. You expressed fears it'd be 4e-like. It's not, it's AD&D-like.

Now, unlike you Tony, I'm not arguing the game shouldn't try to incorporate aspects to suit us all. I'm also not advocating them try to exclude anyone or exclude a certain aspect of design for the game.

While my original topic questioned the 'something for everything' idea, I feel we've drifted from that. So, in my reply to you, I was making no argument about what the game should incorporate, just what it has so far, and could conceivably do by adding to the foundation that's been laid.

Your fears that 5e will resemble 4e are baseless. You're letting yourself get worked up by a vague few pie-in-the-sky promises that have little chance of being fulfilled, even if there were an intent to do so.

I am advocating that they work a little harder at addressing the issues in what I and others dislike instead of just trying to convince me that I'll like it later.

First you say you don't object to having something for everyone, then you make it clear that you have deal-breakers that you won't accept in the game. Which is it?

My question was "what about the playtest makes you think it will be good."

Oh, nothing at all. But the playtest makes me think it'll easily succeed at the classic D&D feel, and nothing about it suggest that some very 3e-like options can't be added to it as the modules come out. Fighters that are customizeable with a bonus theme (that you can trade in for bonus feats). Spontaneous casters. PRCs. NPC classes. Etc.
No telling how multi-classing might work, and skill ranks are probably dead, in favor of 5e's Storyteller-like stat+skill system, though.

My concern is that if the shining reviews WotC is going to get are going to be from people who say they like something else but really just like 4e-esk material then it is going to turn out poorly for those who feel the way I do.

I'm afraid you're jumping at shadows. There isn't a hint of 4e in the playtest and no conceivable path from the playtest to anything remotely 4e. 4e is dead. WotC has thrown it under the bus. 4e fans have been making enough noise that they're getting some lip-service, but nothing of substance.

Ultimately, WotC understands that lapsed AD&D fans are the most numerous potential customers for 5e, but already have retro-clones, that 3.x fans already have Pathfinder, and that 4e fans will have no alternative to 5e short of walking away from D&D entirely (even 'continuing to play 4e' may not be much of an option once the on-line tools are killed, since a lot of faithful 4e fans went with DDI over dead-tree products). They also know that longtime D&Ders who adopted 4e are 'adoptors' by nature - a fair proportion of them will play anything with the D&D logo. They realize that they don't need to accomodate them much to sell to 4e fans, that they will have to really bring the old-school feel to tempt back nostalgic lapsed fans, and that they must deliver exactly what 3.x fans want or they'll just keep playing Pathfinder.

Given those market realities, can you really think 5e will resemble 4e in the slightest?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Only if you want D&D to continue to exist.

And if you don't want D&D to continue to exist, well...

-- 77IM

I think, at worst, if 5e fails, WotC will shelve it for a few years or a decade, then test the waters, and if there's excitement, bring it back. Maybe re-printing 2e or starting with games based on 2e settings, since the 90s should be coming back by then.

 

[am181d]

I think, at worst, if 5e fails, WotC will shelve it for a few years or a decade, then test the waters, and if there's excitement, bring it back. Maybe re-printing 2e or starting with games based on 2e settings, since the 90s should be coming back by then.

If 5e fails, I suspect the D&D brand will live on in board games, card games, novels, etc. and Hasbro will eventually get around to attempting another cartoon or movie.

In the meantime, the gaming industry will lose 40-60% of its business, hobby stores will shut down across the country, and a lot of people will lose their jobs.

 

[Tovec]

If balance were the true goal, the core as presented in the playtest wouldn't look the way it does. You're mistaking lip-service to 4e for actually commiting to or delivering a product of quality comparable to 4e's. What's actually been delivered so far is very AD&D. And, while that might be an adequate foundation to bolt-on options to make it 3e-like, it makes achieving anything like 4e improbable.

No, I'm not.
You are mistaking my comments about "perception" and "reality". I was commenting to @Ahnehnois' perceptions about what 5e will be. His perceptions seem to be favourable because of the aspects which were either founding principles or driving goals or architectural features of 4e.

Yes, "h4ters" have been hammering this talking point since day one. That 'seeming' is the result of using consistent terminology across all powers, rather than using one set of rules for conventional combat, and a lot of verbose prose to describe magic.

I don't appreciate my entire argument summerized as "h4ter" speech. I dislike 4e and have reasons why I do. But instead of discussing it you call me a hater and blow on past. Also, since I was STILL talking about Ahnehnois' perceptions the feeling or "seeming" do seem relevant.

What "math?"

Presumed math. Not actual math, there is remarkable little Actual math. If there were more than one ogre would it have less hp? I would have to assume so, or else things wouldn't be "balanced" for the encounter. Thank kind of thing.

Kobolds were 1/2 HD monsters. 2hps on right on the money for an old-school kobold. Consistent with 5e aiming at the AD&D crowd. (Not saying that's "OK" from a 3e fan perspective, just consistent with going for the AD&Ders, and not with aiming to please 4e fans)

Would I be right if they had 1hp?
They kept 2hp kobolds from AD&D but quadrupled* the HP the PCs would have at the same level.

This is also a completely different issue which I have discussed elsewhere, if you want my thoughts on the subject go looking. No need to further deviate from the real topic.

There are also 10 or 11 hp kobolds in the playtest. FWIW.

There were higher hp kobolds in 4e too. How does that invalidate my comments about minions?

Actually, the slayer ability killing them on a miss is distinctly un-miniony. Minions aren't damaged by missed attacks. They're just low-hp monsters, not minions. Using very low-hp monsters speeds up combat as much as using minions, that's how the playtest achieved it's 'fast play' - by having some distinctly underpowered foes.

See comments above, but..

If the 4e fighter had the slayer's ability how would that be different about minions?

Even the auto-hitting magic missile isn't so much 4e as classic D&D, the Essentials 'Red Box' brought back the auto-hitting magic missile as part of it's attempts to be more appealing to fans of the '83 "Red Box" basic set.

My point was the playtest was strongly reminiscent of AD&D, not 3e or 4e. You expressed fears it'd be 4e-like. It's not, it's AD&D-like.

Okay, so your point is that 5e is old school and not 4e. And you annoyed that I said Ahnehnois' perception was pro-4e when 5e isn't 4e?

Now, unlike you Tony, I'm not arguing the game shouldn't try to incorporate aspects to suit us all. I'm also not advocating them try to exclude anyone or exclude a certain aspect of design for the game.

While my original topic questioned the 'something for everything' idea, I feel we've drifted from that. So, in my reply to you, I was making no argument about what the game should incorporate, just what it has so far, and could conceivably do by adding to the foundation that's been laid.

Your fears that 5e will resemble 4e are baseless. You're letting yourself get worked up by a vague few pie-in-the-sky promises that have little chance of being fulfilled, even if there were an intent to do so.

My fear isn't that 5e will resemble 4e. What I do fear is that there will be comments from people who say they are 1e or 2e or 3e players, who are giving feedback and saying they like the 4e aspects, while all the while liking those aspects of 4e. I know this looks like I'm fearing 5e being 4e. But I fear the feedback, along with the assumptions they'll get.

Allow me to illustrate:

Say WotC receives feedback from three players (or groups or w/e);
1st is "Tony", who tells WotC he is a 4e player and loves XYZ of 5e so far.
2nd is "Not-Ahnehnois", who says he is a 3e player and loves XYZ of 5e so far.
3rd is "Tovec", who says he is a 3e palyer and dislikes XYZ of 5e so far.

It seems to me that WotC is going to say, great, 4e players love it and at least some of 3e players do too. Whereas, "Not-Ahnehnois" is actually a AD&Der who seems to like aspects of 4e.

Once again, this has more to do about perception than reality as far as the rules go. Which happens to be what I said originally. Ahnehnois' perceptions are either 4e slanting, intentionally or not. I bolded why I thought so and you haven't refuted that. The fact that "4e" showed up in all his comments solidified my thinking, I didn't need to have a anti-4e to see that, just "good eyesight".

First you say you don't object to having something for everyone, then you make it clear that you have deal-breakers that you won't accept in the game. Which is it?

First, those aren't mutually exclusive.. so Both!
Second, I don't object to them having options for everyone, NOR am I against people having exactly what they want. The fact that I want what I want is just part of this.
Third, this ties into "second" but if I don't get what I want then it won't work.. for me. They are perfectly able to make something that won't work for me. However, if they want my money then they WILL have to address sticking points. Others can have theirs, but if they want me then they'll have to address mine - which they aren't doing so far as I have seen. And that is based on both the playtest as well as the blog-spots coming out of any branch of WotC.

Ultimately they can certainly ignore me. I would just prefer if they are going to, that they realize they are ignoring me, so that when I don't like the product it won't be a surprise. However, if the reporting is off then they might be surprised when they don't get the results from my demographic that they expected.

Ahnehnois

My question was "what about the playtest makes you think it will be good."

Oh, nothing at all. But the playtest makes me think it'll easily succeed at the classic D&D feel, and nothing about it suggest that some very 3e-like options can't be added to it as the modules come out. Fighters that are customizeable with a bonus theme (that you can trade in for bonus feats). Spontaneous casters. PRCs. NPC classes. Etc.
No telling how multi-classing might work, and skill ranks are probably dead, in favor of 5e's Storyteller-like stat+skill system, though.

That could be my bad, when I asked that question I was referring to my asking Ahnehnois, not you Tony.

I'm afraid you're jumping at shadows. There isn't a hint of 4e in the playtest and no conceivable path from the playtest to anything remotely 4e. 4e is dead. WotC has thrown it under the bus. 4e fans have been making enough noise that they're getting some lip-service, but nothing of substance.

Certain aspects already strike me as 4e but I can understand if you do not feel the same. I probably come off sounding the exact same way when people say aspects come off as 3e when I fail to see it.
Beyond that, if you entire point is that 5e reminds you more of AD&D than 3e or 4e then I suppose I can understand that even if I do not agree.

Ultimately, WotC understands that lapsed AD&D fans are the most numerous potential customers for 5e, but already have retro-clones, that 3.x fans already have Pathfinder, and that 4e fans will have no alternative to 5e short of walking away from D&D entirely (even 'continuing to play 4e' may not be much of an option once the on-line tools are killed, since a lot of faithful 4e fans went with DDI over dead-tree products). They also know that longtime D&Ders who adopted 4e are 'adoptors' by nature - a fair proportion of them will play anything with the D&D logo. They realize that they don't need to accomodate them much to sell to 4e fans, that they will have to really bring the old-school feel to tempt back nostalgic lapsed fans, and that they must deliver exactly what 3.x fans want or they'll just keep playing Pathfinder.

Given those market realities, can you really think 5e will resemble 4e in the slightest?

A. I would be a little surprised if AD&D fans are going to be their largest change or segment of the population. It is possible I suppose but I have not seen that. More often I see AD&D people who have moved onto different systems entirely or newer editions of DnD. I see this more often then them moving onto retro-clones but maybe that has to do with them not talking about it, who knows.

B. Sucks to be you for not investing in books, which they cannot take away, instead of online sources which you have to subscribe to. *shrug*

C. I know far too many people who are not willing to play pathfinder for your last comments to be true. The ones who did not convert generally either did not want to shell out the money or that they did not trust a non-WotC brand. Both of these problems could be circumvented by 5e because it IS a WotC brand and because it has been (and still will be) a few years.

D. Anyone who decided to not go outside the official books for any edition are in the same boat Tony, 4e is not unique in that regard.

E. (the last paragraph) I do think 5e has a stronger chance of keeping more than a few aspects of 4e. As much as it wants to recapture old fans, it HAS a current fanbase who will probably buy the product if it keeps a lot of the same foundation and math. There is no telling, yet, if this is going to happen but it would be smart to incorporate 4e into 5e as much as possible. Probably MORE SO than only getting older players to try new twist on old material. The winning strategy of course will be the blend old, new and in-between to get as many people as possible to play the latest game. (This is also their declared goal of 5e. Go figure.)


*Maybe not quadruple, but somewhere in that magnitude.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Presumed math. Not actual math, there is remarkable little Actual math. If there were more than one ogre would it have less hp? I would have to assume so, or else things wouldn't be "balanced" for the encounter. Thank kind of thing.

I'd speculate that if you encountered two ogres, they'd have the same hps. Particularly in the Caves of Chaos, where it says up front that there's no real attempt at encounter balance (it's not what's being tested).

If the 4e fighter had the slayer's ability how would that be different about minions?

The 4e fighter has Dailies that do half damage on a miss. In 4e, missed attacks never damage minions. A 4e fighter using, say, a Close Burst Daily like Thicket of Steel would roll to hit every enemy next to him, he'd do big damage to those he hit, half damage to those he missed, but if one of them was a minion it would simply die on a hit and remain up on a miss. 4e minions are never damaged by attacks that miss, making them very different from monsters that simply have fewer hps than the minimum your attack can dish out.

My fear isn't that 5e will resemble 4e. What I do fear is that there will be comments from people who say they are 1e or 2e or 3e players, who are giving feedback and saying they like the 4e aspects, while all the while liking those aspects of 4e. I know this looks like I'm fearing 5e being 4e. But I fear the feedback, along with the assumptions they'll get.

That is a subtle distinction, but OK. Your fear is that 4e fans will lie about which edition they like in a desperate attempt to make their voices heard, and that said ploy might even work.

Beyond that, if you entire point is that 5e reminds you more of AD&D than 3e or 4e then I suppose I can understand that even if I do not agree.

Yep, and that I can't see how they could get from the current playtest /to/ anything like 4e. Superficial bits can always be thrown in. Inserting a spell called "Healing Word" is a reference to 4e, but it in no way makes it like 4e.

A. I would be a little surprised if AD&D fans are going to be their largest change or segment of the population. It is possible I suppose but I have not seen that. More often I see AD&D people who have moved onto different systems entirely or newer editions of DnD. I see this more often then them moving onto retro-clones but maybe that has to do with them not talking about it, who knows.

AD&D was the edition with the greatest longevity (if you include 1e & 2e), and was the flagship of the line when D&D was at the height of it's popularity. There are certainly more people who have played AD&D than have played any single other edition. When you consider who similar AD&D, 0D&D, & BECMI are compared to 3e and 4e, the pool of potential customers who have played 'classic D&D' is vast. Many of them aren't playing /anything/ right now, though. They played D&D in their teens when it was a fad, but didn't join the broader hobby. Now they're in their peak earning years, making them a doubly-attractive market segment. Essentials targeted the same audience without enough success, 5e is probably going to try /harder/. The playtest is consistent with that focus.

D. Anyone who decided to not go outside the official books for any edition are in the same boat Tony, 4e is not unique in that regard.

3e is, in that OGL and SRD allow for ongoing 3.x support. Even if you don't care to buy an actual retro-clone, 3e supplements and modules continue to be made, and a vibrant 3.5 community has been kept going thanks to them.

E. (the last paragraph) I do think 5e has a stronger chance of keeping more than a few aspects of 4e. As much as it wants to recapture old fans, it HAS a current fanbase who will probably buy the product if it keeps a lot of the same foundation and math.

Some of the current fan-base will probably also buy it if the don't keep anything from 4e. There's no Pathfinder or retro-clone alternative, no 3rd-party support, and WotC can be excused for thinking 4e fans are chronic 'early adopters' who will embrace any new ed just for being new.

I do agree that there's a danger 3e fans will be ignored, too. The danger is that WotC will look at the rage they've provoked in that community, the resources 3.x fans have in Pathfinder, the goodwill and enthusiasm they have for Paizo, and conclude they can't possibly do enough to win them back. Just write 'em off.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the meantime, the gaming industry will lose 40-60% of its business, hobby stores will shut down across the country, and a lot of people will lose their jobs.

Hobby stores are already an endangered species, that has more to do with internet shopping than anything else. But, no, if 5e fails, it won't be because we all stop gaming, it'll be because the 3.5 set keeps buying Pathfinder, the classic D&D set keeps buying retro-clones, and 4e players and new gamers move on to other, non-D&D systems. More likely, if D&D falls out of the nominal industry-leadership position, it'll just be like the 90s, other producers will step in and make their mark. We'll have another generation of WWGS's and SJG's making new stuff without all D&D's baggage. In the 90s, Vampire genre and LARPS kept the hobby going while TSR was in it's death throes and M:tG poached it's potential next generation of customers.

Won't be all bad.