D&D 4E What can Next do to pull in 4e campaigns?

[adamc]

As I think is common in 4e players, I'm a little disappointed with next so far. It doesn't really seem like a descendant of 4e, and that makes it hard for me to imagine moving our current campaign to it -- and my players have been clear that they don't want to abandon this campaign, both because they are attached to their current characters and because they are invested in the story. As it stands now, I suspect it would be easier to transfer to 13th Age, but neither would be trivial. So long as they support the online tools like the character builder, I'll probably just hang with 4e -- after that, I don't know.

My question is, what can WoTC do to make such transitions more likely?

For my group, I'm thinking it would take:
1) Have good online tools that keep the investment needed to DM low. This is essential. If they aren't there, I won't even consider switching to Next.* Ideally, the tools would include conversion options for 4e characters, but I'd be shocked if WoTC was _that_ competent, based on what they've done in the past.
2) Provide a more tactical module (optional rules) that make it play enough more like 4e that my players don't rebel. Probably a big issue only for my more tactical players (one in particular), but that's enough to wreck an attempted switch. We use a lot of miniatures and that isn't going to change (since we already have them), so that needs to fit into this or it's DOA.
3) Something to make the players _want_ to switch, bearing in mind that they already _have_ well-defined characters (and none are Vancian wizards).
4) Provide a subscription model that gives me access to the books at a more reasonable cost. There are two issues here: I don't want to re-buy all the content (at least not at "new" published book prices), and I don't really want physical books. What I want is the content, better indexed and available on the web for some reasonable cost (an extra $50 a year, say). Not an absolute must, but I doubt I will re-buy many books new if they don't provide it.

*13th Age doesn't have this (yet), but it's a lot simpler so far.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Has there been an official statement regarding a tactical module within the last year or so? Because honestly, I'll believe the existence of such a thing when I see it.

I'm not really sure you can just tack tactics onto a game that doesn't already have them baked in at some level. I think if you want to make tactics optional you've got to start with tactics and then strip them out. And 5e as presented is pretty clearly not tactical.

 

[landovers]

Has there been an official statement regarding a tactical module within the last year or so? Because honestly, I'll believe the existence of such a thing when I see it.

Agreed, the last thing they want is to divide the fanbase within the edition itself. Essentials did that to 4E due to very bad marketing decisions on WotC's part. I know they promised at first to have the new edition allow for all playstyles, but that was never going to be possible. Right now I'm hoping for a focused game that delivers well on the particular kind of game it aims to be. That was one of the beauties of 4E, it had a clear design direction (albeit a controversial one), something still lacking in Next.

As for converting campaigns, the best thing to do is wrap up the current campaign and start a new one later using the new edition. Converting material is another story. I don't think we'll ever see an official convertion tool, not in WotC's interest, but I would like if it was easy to port stuff (as in 4E -> 13th Age, not difficult to convert at all).

 

[Mistwell]

Has there been an official statement regarding a tactical module within the last year or so?

Yes.

On Sept 23, 2013:

An optional tactical combat system, with rules for using miniatures, rules for combat that operate like 3rd Edition or 4th Edition in that they remove DM adjudication of things like cover, and expanded, basic combat options to allow for forced movement, tanking, and so forth, as options any character can attempt. This optional system will look a bit like AD&D’s Player’s Option: Combat and Tactics book with key lessons learned from 4th Edition. Its goal is to present combat as a challenging puzzle that pits the players against the DM, capturing the best parts of 4th Edition.

 

[fjw70]

Has there been an official statement regarding a tactical module within the last year or so? Because honestly, I'll believe the existence of such a thing when I see it.

I'm not really sure you can just tack tactics onto a game that doesn't already have them baked in at some level. I think if you want to make tactics optional you've got to start with tactics and then strip them out. And 5e as presented is pretty clearly not tactical.

It was mentioned around the time the public playtest ended as one of the modules that was not gpoing to the public playtest and was going to be playtested with non-public playtest groups that wanted to play with tactical rules.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'd like to see a "Welcome to 5e" article or section of the PHB that gives a snapshot of the game from the perspective of gamers of each editions. When D&D players switch to a new edition, there are lots of assumptions they have that may no longer be true. They want to figure that stuff out at a quick glance, not wade thru the entire book piecing it together. Don't just write the game with new players in mind, help the old guard transition (or at least to decide whether they want to transition).

For example, 1e players will notice X, Y, and Z are similar, but A and B are different.

Really spell it out in no uncertain terms what the game is, and what aspects of which editions it is carrying over, changing, or adding completely new stuff to. Not sure that will happen, though, it will probably all be hidden in between the lines.

 

[Grydan]

I can't speak for anyone else, even within my own groups, but that Mearls quote doesn't fill me with hope.

For me, you can't "capture the best parts of 4th Edition" (even when specifically talking about the tactical aspects of combat) by providing a tacked-on tactical module that presents "basic combat options … any character can attempt".

Combat roles, along with class-specific features, feats, and power-lists that support those roles and class-specific ways of performing them contribute rather significantly to the depth and variety of tactical combat in the system.

 

[fjw70]

I'd like to see a "Welcome to 5e" article or section of the PHB that gives a snapshot of the game from the perspective of gamers of each editions. When D&D players switch to a new edition, there are lots of assumptions they have that may no longer be true. They want to figure that stuff out at a quick glance, not wade thru the entire book piecing it together. Don't just write the game with new players in mind, help the old guard transition (or at least to decide whether they want to transition).

For example, 1e players will notice X, Y, and Z are similar, but A and B are different.

Really spell it out in no uncertain terms what the game is, and what aspects of which editions it is carrying over, changing, or adding completely new stuff to. Not sure that will happen, though, it will probably all be hidden in between the lines.

That is a good idea and I hope to see this as well.

 

[fjw70]

I can't speak for anyone else, even within my own groups, but that Mearls quote doesn't fill me with hope.

For me, you can't "capture the best parts of 4th Edition" (even when specifically talking about the tactical aspects of combat) by providing a tacked-on tactical module that presents "basic combat options … any character can attempt".

Combat roles, along with class-specific features, feats, and power-lists that support those roles and class-specific ways of performing them contribute rather significantly to the depth and variety of tactical combat in the system.

5e emulating the 4e playstyle (whatever that means to you) is never going to be as 4e-like as 4e. Just like it won't be as AD&D-like as AD&D or 3e-like as 3e.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Before I switched to the D&D Next playtest, I played a 4th edition campaign from start to finish, levels 1-30.
It was a blast, but at the end I was exhausted. My 4th edition fatigue had become critical and I think one more 2-hour battle would have drove me insane.

After the grueling slog through 4e's epic levels, I was ready for a change. The simplicity and speed D&D Next promised sold me pretty fast, and it delivered. Gone was the bloated tactical grind and in its place a simple and easy combat system that made for fast (sometimes too fast), action packed, immersive battles.

I had longed for the cinematic theatre-of-the-mind combats of 2e, and Next delivered that experience. I loved the system elegance and power structure of 4th, and I was sad to see it go – but at the end of the day I was having more fun with Next.

I think D&D Next can pull in 4e campaigns that are fatigued. If your game sessions are nothing but big, long, grindy, grid-based combats (in which the PCs are never in danger). If you miss a seamless transition from exploration to encounter and think you might like ToM over Grid. If you are tired of indestructible characters with unlimited healing. And, if you have had it up to here with the dazed condition – then I think D&D Next will be a refreshing change.