Celestian
Explorer
I do not want an improvement, I want compatibility with what I play, AD&D. Contrary to what some here might believe there are groups of folk playing AD&D and it's other forms.
D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?
- Thread starter Harlock
- Start date
I do not want an improvement, I want compatibility with what I play, AD&D. Contrary to what some here might believe there are groups of folk playing AD&D and it's other forms.
That's an excellent point about compromise...
If we were the UN and we had to decide policies about what dams can go up where and who has the right to divert which river between multiple countries with the same river in it's national boundries... alternative=war
Or if we were a group of managers from a merged company deciding which employees and divisions to keep... alternative=loss of profits due to duplication of effort
Or if we were a family dividing up assets from an inheritance where there is no will... alternative=no one gets anything
In all those cases there is an alternative to the compromise that is WORSE to all parties than whatever concessions they would have to make for the compromise to go in effect. There is no such driving force (or at least much less of one) when it comes to a game.
I don't want to play a roleplaying game (That has D&D printed on the cover) if it leaves me dissatisfied. And especially not if it leaves all players dissatisfied. Why would I? When I could play the edition of my choice or one of many other games on the market?
People generally don't chose to play games that leave them dissastified. They pick a game they love to play and then play that game. D&D Next could be the perfect compromise on paper between AD&D, 3E, and 4E but if it winds up being a game that is collectively underwhelming to ALL those groups then it's not going to fare that well. (Though heck, maybe enertia and nostalgia and curiousity and collectionism alone will be enough to keep WotC in the black... who knows?)
I would much rather D&D Next be a game that a subset (hopefully as large a subset as possible) of gamers absolutely love to play, then have it be a game that is collectively described as "meh". Even if I'm not in that subset that loves the game! Because I still have plenty of other choices to spend on my entertainment dollar and precious free time.
That's why I said in my post I wanted D&D Next to be a fun new game in it's own right. If it's built on the foundations of a particular edition then it will possibly make that edition's player's happy, but will tend to not be enjoyed by fans of other editions.
I consider AD&D, 3E, and 4E to all be individual games. They have their own complete rulesets and they are not particularly compatible to each other. (Yes, they can be if you do a lot of work... but I would say it would take about the same amount of work to convert a Fantasy Hero adventure to a 2E adventure as it would take to convert a D&D 3E adventure to a D&D 4E adventure).
When I said in my post I'd like to see sacred cows barbequed, it was a tongue in cheek way of saying I don't want any component of the game to exist purely because it has always existed. I am aware of brand loyalty, and familiarity, etc. But the definition of sacred cow is something that is "beyond question or criticism" and I don't think that's a healthy way to design a game, to keep stuff in it without healthy criticism, analysis, and questioning. Keep elements of the game because they work well and are popular and are fun, and there is no better alternative to them to replace them with. Don't just keep elements of the game because they have always been there.
By the way I'm not totally against compromise. I think it is possible to come up with something that makes the largest group of people possible as happy as possible. An example of this was the latest Ledgends and Lore article where Mike Mearls was talking about the new "Combat Superiority" aspect of the fighter. A New (for D&D) mechanic where fighters get dice to allocate to special attacks or as a default to more damage. Dunno if it will work or not in play, but it's the kind of thinking I love to see from the design team.
Anyways there's been a lot of pages of discussion here and in almost all posts there are times I'd love to quote something and reply to it, but there's just too much. Besides [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] have done a good job representing my stance on the "It's not D&D argument" and many others have gotten the jist of what I was getting at, for my "make D&D Next a new game in it's own right" post and most of them have expressed their views far more eloquently than I did. Thanks for that!
By the way, I'm not arguing for a game that has space monkeys with lasers or a game of baseball without bases and balls. If I do, then fine, play the "It's not D&D card". But if I want a new way to join a group of gamers and to kill dragons, save princesses, and pretend to be an elf, and I want this game to come from WotC then I absolutely, 100%, still want to play D&D.
Finally, the baseball analogy presented several posts ago was a good one. If the Colorado Rockies want to implement a rule where anyone on second base can kick a field goal then it is not baseball anymore. But I would never go into a bar and tell a guy in a Yankees cap that his favorite team isn't playing baseball because they have a designated hitter, unless I had the intent to rattle his cage a little. I might not care for the Yankees and I might not care for the DH (I hate it) but it's still baseball.
innerdude
Legend
Edit: @innerdude you don't want FantasyCraft. Legends of Anglerre all the way!And I'm much more enthused by 13th Age than I am by D&D Next. Heinsoo and Tweet putting the pedal right to the metal.
Legends of Anglerre -- Been there, bought the book, loved it. If I could convince my group to get off their stinkin' power-gaming ways and try a FATE game, I'd be in heaven.
Until that time, my buddy will run GURPS, and I'll run Fantasy Craft and Savage Worlds.
And like you, I'm actually far more intrigued by 13th Age than I am by 5th Edition---and I don't even LIKE 4e.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I hope, stats will be 18 for ogres, and 25 for titans (which is the cap)
Then, I would like beeing able to raise low stats. When we played ADnD, we had a rule, that we may improve a low stat every 5th level to a maximum of 8,9 or 10... just as far that you don´t have a penalty derived from that stat anymore.
That was actually a very good rule, as it allowed people to play characters with a (rolled) low stat and feel better, because you knew, that at some point, you get better.
Then, I would like beeing able to raise low stats. When we played ADnD, we had a rule, that we may improve a low stat every 5th level to a maximum of 8,9 or 10... just as far that you don´t have a penalty derived from that stat anymore.
That was actually a very good rule, as it allowed people to play characters with a (rolled) low stat and feel better, because you knew, that at some point, you get better.
In the study of mediation/alternative dispute resolution, that is called a WATNA- Worst Alternative to (a) egotiated Agreement. They vary in severity, and the worse the WATNA, the better the chance of settlement (generally). Sometimes, you get multiple WATNAs.
What is the WATNA here? Hard to ID any one "worst."
Too radical a departure from D&D's identity, and not only might you massively fracture the fanbase, the fans gained may not offset the loss- the "New Coke Syndrome." (Especially possible if thee are other FRPGs that do the edition's new tricks as well as or better than it does.)
Get the balance wrong, too slavish adherence to any particular prior edition, and the game is potentially dismissed as a recycled mistake. Fanbase split or not, Yogi Berra's "people stayed away in droves" line springs to mind.
I think both are significant WATNAs with potentially dire rippling implications.
As for the rest of your post...your position is much clearer and not what it sounded like in the paragraph that blew up in the thread, and I withdraw my "not D&D" critique. In fact, some of what you talk about is congruent with my position on 4Ed itself- that it's a good game that could have been better had it ditched more D&Disms.*
* All of them, in fact. I think 4Ed's mechanics make for a poor version of D&D, but could have been an epically good FRPG divorced from being linked to any predicate elements from D&D's past...and then sold with its own identity as a new game wiith a new name all its own.
Last edited:
Neonchameleon
Legend
Once upon a time two boys found a cake. One of them said: “Splendid! I will eat the cake.” The other one said: “No, that is not fair! We found the cake together, and we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me.” The first boy said, “No, I should have the whole cake!” The second said, “No, we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me.” The first said, “No, I want the whole cake.” The second said, “No, let us share it half and half.” Along came an adult who said: “Gentlemen, you shouldn’t fight about this; you should compromise. Give him three quarters of the cake.”
- Raymond Smullyan
Compromise isn't inherently good.- Raymond Smullyan
But my point is that D&D Next needs to do one hell of a lot more than "offend no one". It needs to actively attract people to it. The only possible way to unite the fanbase is to produce a steaming turd and have everyone in unison say they don't want it. That's a united fanbase.
And from the stated design goal that is literally the only thing that will help drive sales.
The thing is I don't think that sales cannibalism is that big a risk. I'd love to get my hands on pre-Faction War Planescape and Spelljammer.
The problem is what the NA on the table is. An insipid edition, unsure what it is, and that pleases no one. Not dynamic enough to be able to bring in new players or radical enough to energise part of the fanbase. It's more or less retiring from arguments.
Get the balance right and the result you will hear is "I can almost play the game I've been playing for the past n years by using three separate modules, learning a new set of rules that will leave everyone confused for a while, and having most of my existing shelf of rulebooks as incompatable with the new game." That is quite literally the goal they are aiming at with their compromise edition. And I just don't get why that wouldn't encourage people to stay away in droves or work with their retroclones (or Pathfinder) of choice.
Fundamentally I see the "negotiated agreement" being offered as almost indistinguishable from one of the WATNAs you propose.
And this is why I'm suggesting that WotC veer hard the other way. If they fail, they will at least have made a heroic failure rather than a miserable failure. And if they succeed, they succeed. As a 4e fan, I do not mind if this comes out looking very different from my D&D of choice as long as there is a good reason to play it over other game systems.
And here's a compromise! Compatability with one old system, which, ipso facto, means it isn't compatable with any more modern system. As far as I know, none of the 3e or 4e fans are asking for this.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
my opinion is quite the opposite:
I don´t want sacred cows slain in DnDnext. And in my opinion they are on a good track. We see refreshing new mechanics, which may still need some work, but feel quite right, like D&D.
And I don´t believe a compromise between all editions will dissatsfie everyone. I for myself wish for such a game. I have fond memories of every edition since 2nd. And also from different RPGs.
So an edition that takes the best parts of all editions and makes it a new game could really work for me.
Not everything is just the sum of its parts.
And really, we already have seen some new things, like themes and backgrounds.
I don´t want sacred cows slain in DnDnext. And in my opinion they are on a good track. We see refreshing new mechanics, which may still need some work, but feel quite right, like D&D.
And I don´t believe a compromise between all editions will dissatsfie everyone. I for myself wish for such a game. I have fond memories of every edition since 2nd. And also from different RPGs.
So an edition that takes the best parts of all editions and makes it a new game could really work for me.
Not everything is just the sum of its parts.
And really, we already have seen some new things, like themes and backgrounds.
Sometimes, that's thë way WATNAs are- in Kentucky, they at using alternative dispute resolution to help resolve even the most egregious felony cases, so someone's WATNA could be the death penalty...
To me, that does not sound like a plan. A "miserable failure" might be correctable over the life of the brand; a "heroic failure" could kill it.
Neonchameleon
Legend
You miss the point. The equivalent in Kentucky would be a plea bargain which would lead to a death penalty. It's not the WATNA that's the problem. It's that the NA is indistinguishable from the WATNA. If there's no negotiated agreement: The Edition Fails. If there's a negotiated agreement as currently stands: The Edition Fails. Therefore I'm going to refuse to accept the current agreement until something sensible is put on the table.
Note that word "might". A miserable failure is IMO less likely to be correctable over the life of the brand. You need the heroism to inspire people to stick with it rather than wander back to a better game out of apathy. I could make the case that the 4e PHB was a heroic failure and that is why it survived long enough to turn matters round and turn into the game it was trying to be. A "meh" doesn't inspire people to stick with things. My first 4e character was a Bard from just before the PHB 2 came out, and all my PHB-classed characters (Bravura Warlord, Summoner Orbizard, Cha-Infernal Warlock) have relied strongly for their flavour on splatbook and Dragon options.
4e certainly did not hit the ground running. And I think it's one of the disconnects between 4e lovers and 4e haters - the 4e haters normally talk as if the PHB was the sum total of 4e, when to the 4e lovers, Essentials came out over two years ago - or about half the life of the edition ago.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Well, if it were as dire as some people have been insisting, then negotiation would be the least of the problems. To hear some people tell it, this is figuratively Omaha beach on D-Day, where the "only people staying on this beach are the dead and those that are about to die." In that situation, first get off the beach.
The problem in this case is that so many people have a different idea of which direction is the fastest way "off the beach," and others disagree about the nature and amount of incoming fire on the Next beachhead. Top that all of with stakes so low in the scheme of things that I'm a bit hesitant in using the above metaphor, and you get the usual "academic infighting is so vicious because the stakes are so low" effect.
Happily, there doesn't need to be a negotiated settlement on these questions. The negotiations are to give WotC some idea of where the center is. Then they'll deliver a game on that spot to the best of their ability, and it will either win enough fans or it won't.
The problem in this case is that so many people have a different idea of which direction is the fastest way "off the beach," and others disagree about the nature and amount of incoming fire on the Next beachhead. Top that all of with stakes so low in the scheme of things that I'm a bit hesitant in using the above metaphor, and you get the usual "academic infighting is so vicious because the stakes are so low" effect.
Happily, there doesn't need to be a negotiated settlement on these questions. The negotiations are to give WotC some idea of where the center is. Then they'll deliver a game on that spot to the best of their ability, and it will either win enough fans or it won't.
Similar Threads
