Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Stormonu]

Might I humbly suggest, then, that they say this*, instead of the old saw about 4E (usually, and 3E, less so) being a tactical miniatures game and not a roleplaying game?

The first is a statement of position. The second is an insult. And, yes, needs to die in a fire.

* IF, in fact, it's the argument they want to make - I suspect in some, if not many, cases, it is not.

I don't think it much different that saying they don't want D&D to be Hack'n'Slash or Monty Haul. There are some folks that don't want the game tied to the grid and the tactics thereof (like me - I'm horrible with tactics), regardless of edition.

Some people will argue that any one of the three - Hack'n'Slash, Monty Haul or Tactics-base Minis game has been baked into any given edition; that is what they see the game having devolved into and it's very hard to argue against experiences that individual has had with the game - for good or ill.

 

[Imaro]

See above...that's not what was said.

Not, "I don't enjoy tactical combat" but "4E is not an RPG".

See the difference?

This whole part of the discussion is off-topic, of course. A thread about how 4E players could be convinced to consider 5E has become yet another thread where people talk about how much they don't like 4E. That's not relevant, because the thread is supposed to be about people who do enjoy 4E.

Hey did you happen to see where I said... "On a side note"???? This was unrelated, except tangentially, to the post I quoted... thus, "On a side note".

 

[Imaro]

Here's where you demonstrate that you just do not understand the argument.

No, here's where you demonstrate you don't understand what... "On a side note" infers.

You have failed to understand for, as near as I can tell, years now, so I don't hope that a lightbulb will suddenly go on with my post, but here goes, once again, the triumph of hope over experience:

WTH??? Failed to understand what?? I wasn't talking about you specifically so how do you know what I've encountered with some 4e fans?? Wait, that's right you've known me well enough to know what I have and haven't understood for years... Funny I don't think you really know me like that.

I understand that some people do not like tactical miniatures-based combat rules in their RPG. They do not find them fun. I am completely and totally okay with this.

De gustibus non disputandem.

I do not particularly enjoy heavily operational dungeon crawls. I think the minutiae of time and resource tracking take away from what I enjoy in my roleplaying.

Good for you did I ever comment on what Patryn of Elevenshae does or doesn't understand... unlike the comment you made earlier.

However, there are people out there - including posters on these very boards - who do like both of these styles.

Never said there weren't...

That is the fundamental difference between my POV and the "4E isn't an RPG, it's just a tactical miniatures game" crowd. I can disagree with and chat about preferences politely.

We should not accord the same forebearance to what are essentially insults.

And this has what to do with my side note??

 

[Harlock]

snip... the thread is supposed to be about people who do enjoy 4E.

Let's continue on with that then. Isn't the strength of 4e for these people enough alone to convince them to at least try 5e? I know I have bought and played every edition of D&D since 1981. Certainly I have enjoyed some more than others, but the fact that I am a fan of D&D generally is enough to convince me to buy a new edition and hope for the best as I play it and learn the system. In other words, I'll give every edition a chance because I am a fan and not some fair weather gamer.

 

[Pour]

I'm still having trouble understanding how 5e is supposed to appeal to anyone happy with their system, not just us 4thers. We all have our preferred rules and play experiences already. What benefits gamers who know exactly what they like buying into a unity edition predicated on compromise and reconciliation? It's even more unpalatable having to then buy modules outside of the basic rules to recapture something like our desired experience (which we already own).

I will miss the active support for 4e, what's left of it anyway, and no doubt that will draw some (maybe a lot) of people to 5. But then you see the OSR and PF crowds are already well-supported. What's the hook for them? New mechanics? Revenge? Brand longing?

I just hope the equivalent of an OSR movement of blogs and independent products develops for 4e.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again!

i think it would have been perfectly reasonable to just focuson their current customer base (which I have said from the beginning). No one likes being pushed aside in a drive for more customers. But if they are going to try to recapture lapsed players, continuing the 4e trajectory by making it even better simply wont work. That is definitely a good plan for retaining the 4e base. But a new and improved 4e probably wont appeal to 3e players and old schoolers.

Agreed.

I actually think a better approach would have been multiple edition lines. These would still be new editions (because new is still important) but they would go in different direction. You would have a 4e style line, 3e and Ad&D style line. I personally believe this is a stronger approach than modules (and not that different from what they did with basic and AD&D before). They are already kind of doing this by having three module lines. So why anchor the mechanics to to each other when that clearly makes it harder for them to attract the different fanbases? I mean if three different groups want three different games do they really need to use the same core system?

Love this idea! So simple and it gives WotC a license to print money.

1. Reprint/Rework Basic D&D (Some new art; homages, layout and so forth, but keep the 'feel'). Make minor tweaks where necessary. "BASIC" line.
2. Reprint/Rework AD&D. "ADVANCED" line.
3. Reprint/Rework 3rd Edition. "DRAMATIC" line (yes I'm struggling with this one)
4. Keep 4th Edition ongoing. "TACTICAL" line.

Lets say WotC make a new adventure like 'Madness of Gardmore Abbey' (to use an example). They release 4 different versions of the product. They can use the same artwork and virtually everything except the mechanical text. Make the cover and interior layouts look different - fitting in with each system.

Adventures in TSR's back catalogue can be reworked for each edition with a minimum of effort.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

So your problem is that you want one big PC to have the damage output and resilience of four or five - phrase it like that and the answer starts to beome obvious. (That said, most published 4e modules suck).

But there are some different assumptions in the specific situation here -

In a solo game having an uberpowerful character doesn't really matter as there are no other party members to share the spotlight with.

And it is something pretty easily done in earlier editions (And likely in 4E as I well, I just went about it the wrong way - Krust's solo idea looks like it should work).

But look outside the game. Real life issues involve. You can only play solo or not at all, and the GM doesn't have time to individualize adventures so if you play it is only in published adventures with little or no adaption. So the adaption has to be in the PC - rather than bring the monsters down to the level of the solo character, you have to up the character to be able to deal with the monsters.

By the way - That you again for the idea Krust - I always wanted to love 4E but never found a way to play it given my current circumstances. That would let me play 3 D&Ds now - 3rd, 4th and 5th when it comes out.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hey did you happen to see where I said... "On a side note"???? This was unrelated, except tangentially, to the post I quoted... thus, "On a side note".

Hey, did you see where I pointed out the comment you're effectively supporting is "4E is not an RPG"?

The tangential nature of the discussion is, well, tangential, to the point that saying "4E is not an RPG" is not the same thing as saying "I don't like tactical combat."

 

[SKyOdin]

Let's continue on with that then. Isn't the strength of 4e for these people enough alone to convince them to at least try 5e? I know I have bought and played every edition of D&D since 1981. Certainly I have enjoyed some more than others, but the fact that I am a fan of D&D generally is enough to convince me to buy a new edition and hope for the best as I play it and learn the system. In other words, I'll give every edition a chance because I am a fan and not some fair weather gamer.

Huh?

Fan? Fair-weather gamer?

Why are you talking about D&D as if it was a sporting team? Heck, that kind of fan thinking is silly even in sports.

While I like D&D, I don't owe it anything. It is nothing more than a hobby. If a game doesn't appeal to me, I have no reason to buy it. The only reason I bought 4E was because everything about it sounded like fun. If the next edition of D&D doesn't appeal to me, I will happily pass on it.

There are plenty of other role-playing games on the market for me to try, after all, many of which I have heard good things about and sound appealing. Even if those aren't any good, I still have other hobbies to indulge.

So, if WotC wants my money, they need to create a game that appeals to me. Right now, I am leaning against a purchase. Thus, the point of this thread.

 

[Upper_Krust]

hey Zustiur!

*shudder* I agree with your 5 points but you'd need another 20 or 30 things on that list before I'd consider it even remotely close to perfect.

Feel free to post as many as you think are relevant.

Starting with:
6. Remove the math and start again from scratch

The math works better than any previous edition.

7. Provide more alternatives to AEDU

Like what, Weekly?

I don't see how adding alternatives to AEDU is a massive game changer.