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

[Rhenny]

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.

I agree. I couldn't even last through level 7 with 4e. I tired of it within 1 1/2 years and I was an early adopter who was psyched about it when it launched. I think there are a number of people who play 4e who will try Next and like you and me, they might like the speed and fluidity of it. Next doesn't have to pull people away from 4e forever. It just needs to provide an alternative that's worth trying once in a while.

The thing is, with Next, I tend to think much more about entire adventures and larger campaign arcs for my campaign. In 4e I had to focus more closely on each encounter, setting it up so that it would provide the necessary challenge. And as you mentioned, the length of those combats meant that in a 2 hour game, I was lucky if I had 1 or 2 combats. With Next, (especially at lower levels), I can run 2 or 3 combat encounters (sometimes 4 if they are really small) and still have time for exploration and interaction/roleplaying. The experience for me tends to be more well-rounded.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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 certainly can be done. GURPS basic and advanced combat is a good example. The basic system is quick and mapless. The advanced version includes a grid, more precise movement rules, and more tactical depth.

That doesn't mean WOTC can pull it off, but the possibility exists.

 

[ccooke]

So, I posted in a recent thread why the two 4e games I'm currently running are converting to 5e.

That said, though, I don't see why D&D Next needs to "pull in" 4th edition campaigns at all. WotC will be much better served if they aim to create a system and (more importantly) ecosystem that makes 5e a natural option for as many people as possible when they start their next campaign.

Sure, in some cases (and yes, both of mine) the groups will be better served by changing the edition, but that's a big invasive thing to do. I doubt all that many campaigns shifted from 3rd edition to 4th, even among groups that really loved the new ruleset.

So yes: I don't see 5th edition as being in competition with your Current D&D game. It should be aiming to be your Next D&D game.
[size=-3](I feel ashamed I did that)[/size]

 

[adamc]

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).

As I tried to indicate in the first post, I don't think that's very appealing. May depend in how invested your players are in their characters/campaign, though.

 

[Incenjucar]

5E will need to have balance, flexibility, options-for-all-archtypes in all situations, and ease-of-use if it wants to get the attention of those people who are specifically satisfied with 4E the most rather than those who are just happy to play whatever the latest D&D is. If it fixes the problems of 4E, that's a bonus. We never did get all of the original promises out of 4E, like shadow and elemental classes, and a lot of options were left to rot in imbalance (Shade, etc) because reasons. The rest of it was just D&D as usual with some easily-ignored changes to fluff details.

Frankly, 5E needs to be designed for 5E players, and previous-edition players should be considered a nice bonus.

 

[Sadras]

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".

The basic combat options in 5e I believe, are indeed more extensive than 4e basic combat options. Also the abilities and spells of the classes are essentially your powers so I'm failing to understand where you seem to think 5e falls short on this. We don't even necessarily need a tactical module - its all in the rules already: movement speed, combat options, cover, abilities, spells, effects...etc.
It is just presented differently instead of in box or card form. Think of it as 4e Essentials but with many more powers/options. As for interesting terrain and weather conditions - those can easily be inputted.

We are actually going to run a 4e style combat in our next 5e session, grid and all, as we are mixing our combat encounters between ToM and Grid. I think you might need to have a look at it again, its pleasantly easy to do. I'm going to post our experience with it once its done (next session 1 February).

 

[Sadras]

As I tried to indicate in the first post, I don't think that's very appealing. May depend in how invested your players are in their characters/campaign, though.

Unfortunately, they cannot cater out of the box to all the weird and wonderful classes/races one could play in 4e. You have to concede that. So either your characters start afresh or change the ones you can (as we did) and have the player sit down with the DM and custom convert the others in an agreed upon blend of the rules of both editions.

 

[landovers]

As I tried to indicate in the first post, I don't think that's very appealing. May depend in how invested your players are in their characters/campaign, though.

I think I didn't express myself well, I meant "see your current campaigns through to the end", then make the switch. I understand that might not be very appealing either, since usually everybody wants to try a new edition asap.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I don't think any statements by Mike Mearls at this point are going to satisfy any of the diehard anti-Next brigade like, um, me. Talk is cheap, as the saying goes.

What WotC has to do is launch Next with a bang. It can't afford to let Mearls author a couple of dogs-with-fleas like 4E's Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows: this time the products have to be excellent with great word-of-mouth. I'm always on the lookout for good adventures - I run my 4E games using a lot of AD&D material - so I will happily pick up Next adventures or similar products because the rules aren't important.

Anyway, great word-of-mouth in the form of reviews and actual play threads may be the thing that attracts the diehard 4E gamers. Conversely, a another KotS or PoS might see the tabletop RPG land-banked for a while by Hasbro.

 

[landovers]

What WotC has to do is launch Next with a bang. It can't afford to let Mearls author a couple of dogs-with-fleas like 4E's Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows: this time the products have to be excellent with great word-of-mouth. I'm always on the lookout for good adventures - I run my 4E games using a lot of AD&D material - so I will happily pick up Next adventures or similar products because the rules aren't important.

Given what they've been acomplishing with the latest Encounters and Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle I'm also intrigued. I adapted Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle a bit and ran the first part using 13th Age, it's all looking good. I'll even be willing to try the system if they keep it up, if only to avoid the extra conversion work needed (even though customizing/creating stuff for 4E and 13th Age is a breeze).