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

[Bluenose]

You saw those things as criticism of 2e? I don't recall ever hearing that "Back to the Dungeon" was a criticism of more story-based play.

Yes, I did. Given the disdain for D&D as a game that was only good at dungeon crawling widely expressed in non-D&D circles then and now, the fact that 2e AD&D was rather good at showing a wider range of play was probably the best thing about it. That was something I thought TSR tried to emphasisse quite strongly, frankly. So when WotC came in with "Back to the Dungeon!" as if this was some great rallying dry, I wasn't the only person to be annoyed by it.

 

[jhunton]

I game with 15 or so between 2 groups. What i find with my players is the main concern is dropping hundreds of dollars on the same supplements with a twist of the rules set. We play anything from modern to fantasy, super heroes to space pirates. We pretty much use 3.5, PF, Cortex and M&M. We tried Saga and 4e and the consensus was no thanks. My gamer's range from 1ed to PF and tend to be happy with just sticking with 3.5/pf.

5e would really have to wow the group to get everyone to change over, especially the older group that grew up with 1e,2e,3e palladium etcetera and with little new material for the older system i'm hopeful that 5e nails it!

me to.

 

[Warbringer]

It's really hard to know what they were thinking.

Scary thing .. 5e is essentially (no pun intented) the same team : Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, James Wyatt, though to be fair, I dont know what changes have been made in the go to market team

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think you're reading too much into the emotional state of the skeptics, here, and I don't think it's a useful (much less productive) classification system.

The OP classified these camps. I admitted that there might be a few diehards of any given edition for whom NEXT is a lost cause, but I posited that there's probably not as many intractable people as the OP presumes. They exist, undoubtedly, but I don't think they're in the majority, and I don't think it's useful to classify oneself as part of an edition's "tribe" like that.

Skepticism is fine, healthy, and awesome. WotC needs to hear what we're worried about, what we want NEXT to support. But picking sides and being intractable (like the OP suggested folks were doing) is silly, and, I believe, pretty marginal.

 

[adembroski]

It seems like most of the posts attempting to directly refute me come down too "just because you don't like it..."

Hell, I never even said I didn't like it. In point of fact, there are aspects of it I rather do like. I'm currently running a campaign using it, and having fun doing so. It plays fast, bounded accuracy and the more grounded save DCs really do their jobs...

The point I'm making is the game is trying to cut through the middle of two viewpoints that are effectively incompatible. There's a reason Pathfinder is doing so well when no other fantasy RPG before it has had much staying power, and there's a reason 4E is being shelved. Whether or not you agree with those reasons, or even agree on what those reasons are, it's a simple undeniable fact that D&DN has to cover a lot of ground if it's going to bring everyone back into the fold.

I'm not saying that D&DN is bad. I'm not everyone hates D&DN. I'm saying that attempting to play the middle ground is going to leave a lot of people on the fence as far as how they feel about it. If a Pathfinder fan only likes half the game and can take or leave the other half, he's likely to stick with Pathfinder... especially considering, as many have said, it is the single most well supported game in RPG history. This leaves the 4E crowd to pick up the slack, and that'll be forced through lack of support. Even then, a significant number of them may well stick with 4E just as there are a good number of pre-3E folks out there.

If the 4E numbers weren't enough to support 4E, is it really likely that a large portion of the 4E converts and a small portion of the PF converts are going to be enough?

Picking sides may well be silly, [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], but it's a fact that at some point we all will pick sides, unless you're in the business of supporting Wizards for Wizard's sake. Tribalism, as you referred too it, is a fact, whether you would have it so or not. I didn't create it by making this thread, I did not ask people to join the PF army and help me fight off Wizards. No amount of hand holding and kumbiya singing is going to change the fact that people have preferences. You're not going make a PF player like 4e by appealing to their sense of gamer unity... and what this comes down too is that D&DN needs a larger market share, and I don't see it getting one by trying to please everyone.

 

[jhunton]

abembroski I think they are looking at geting new players in the mix .not just relieing on the old ones.

 

[adembroski]

abembroski I think they are looking at geting new players in the mix .not just relieing on the old ones.

That's a nice thought, but I would bet the vast majority of new players come in to the game through friends, not by picking up a beginners boxed set or a player's handbook and starting from scratch. New players come in through established, successful products, not through marketing.

To get the new players, you gotta have the old.

 

[El Mahdi]

...And I think people CAN be overly tribal in their gaming preferences, but I do think it's kind of silly, and I don't think it's really pervasive.

I don't think it's pervasive either, which is why I don't accept the premise of the OP. But I have been noticing more posting of this type lately here on ENWorld; more frequent and more strongly stated. In other words, the fringe minority is getting more vocal and entrenched. Even though I disagree with the OP, it appears to me that this is beginning to spread; though it's very possible it's only my own perception.

I'd really hate to see things devolve back into what we had during the last edition release.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The point I'm making is the game is trying to cut through the middle of two viewpoints that are effectively incompatible. There's a reason Pathfinder is doing so well when no other fantasy RPG before it has had much staying power, and there's a reason 4E is being shelved. Whether or not you agree with those reasons, or even agree on what those reasons are, it's a simple undeniable fact that D&DN has to cover a lot of ground if it's going to bring everyone back into the fold.

I think there is a significant omission in your analysis. A major, if not the biggest reason for the success of Pathfinder is the level support it gets.

First, the rules themselves get updated with occasional, outstanding books as opposed to a new hardcover every month. This dramatically raises the perceived value of each product.

Second, the Pathfinder setting gets more support than any other setting on the market.

Third, the flow of quality adventures is greater than anyone could conceivably play.

These things make the Pathfinder brand strong. They make the player feel good about his or her purchases.

In my experience, most Pathfinder or 3.5 players actually have significant beefs with the system. Things that Pathfinder can't address without breaking compatibility. D&DNext is a fresh start. That's a risk, but if they can provide the level of product quality and support that Pathfinder does, I think many will migrate.

 

[D'karr]

D&DNext is a fresh start. That's a risk, but if they can provide the level of product quality and support that Pathfinder does, I think many will migrate.

That is a huge IF, one of monumental proportions. Specially since WotC has never been very reliable with providing that level of support to begin with. WotC adventures? Not in my estimation. A fresh world that gets supported heavily? Again, no. Expanding rules support? That's what all the "expansion" books are. Isn't that one of the things the design team was "rallying" against?