D&D 5E Does 5E avoid the overloads of previous editions?

[Mistwell]

Let's be fair. Given WotC's track record, the likelihood of them screwing this up is very high. The pessimism is not baseless, by any means.

If they pull it off and D&D 5e is a good game, I'm sure everybody will be happy. History has not given people a lot of reason to be optimistic, though.

I think "completely making things up, and the complaining about the made up thing" is not pessimism. It goes well beyond pessimism. The claim that WOTC will issue completely new rules every single year is a baseless claim. Nothing in the history of WOTC or 5e indicates it to be likely. And it's not right to try and justify that behavior. You want to talk fair - OK, then let's talk fair. Making things up to complain about isn't fair.

 

[billd91]

So one edition you don't like and you have lost all faith that they can produce a good product. Really?

It's a bit blunt, but recent history does have a tendency to outweigh past successes in our minds. Personally, I think the moves they've made since 5e was announced have gone a long way to rebuilding my confidence, but I'm still unsure 5e will be a take on D&D I like. The fact that much of the leadership behind the development trends from 3.5 to 4e is gone also helps. We didn't seem to see eye to eye on a lot of issues from nerfing down too many spells to combat-level duration in 3.5 to the whole direction 4e went. Considering there's nearly a decade of moves I've considered questionable (including retreating from the OGL, pulling Dragon and Dungeon licenses, and retreating from e-book sales as if doing so would stem the stated reason of piracy), I can understand the skepticism that WotC will pull off a good edition launch and support it well.

Here's to hoping they do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's a bit blunt, but recent history does have a tendency to outweigh past successes in our minds. Personally, I think the moves they've made since 5e was announced have gone a long way to rebuilding my confidence, but I'm still unsure 5e will be a take on D&D I like. The fact that much of the leadership behind the development trends from 3.5 to 4e is gone also helps. We didn't seem to see eye to eye on a lot of issues from nerfing down too many spells to combat-level duration in 3.5 to the whole direction 4e went. Considering there's nearly a decade of moves I've considered questionable (including retreating from the OGL, pulling Dragon and Dungeon licenses, and retreating from e-book sales as if doing so would stem the stated reason of piracy), I can understand the skepticism that WotC will pull off a good edition launch and support it well.

Here's to hoping they do.

The problem here though, Bill... is that you and ForeverSlayer are confusing your dislike for a game for the more objective idea of whether the game itself is any good. And by extension whether WotC can produce a game that is actually good.

Because the fact is, in and of itself 4E is a really good game. It works exceedingly well for the job it is trying to do. You might not like it as a Dungeons & Dragons game in comparison to other versions of D&D that have been made in the past... but that doesn't automatically mean the game in of itself is "bad". People have been trying to make that claim from the beginning-- "Well, since I don't like it, obviously the game sucks!" but that kind of solipsistic attitude is way too easy for others to ignore and discount.

So the question that should be asked right now is not "Will WotC be able to pull off producing and supporting a good version of D&D"... but rather "Will WotC be able to pull off producing and supporting a version of D&D that I will prefer to play over the current version I am playing"?

Because those are two totally separate things.

 

[billd91]

The problem here though, Bill... is that you and ForeverSlayer are confusing your dislike for a game for the more objective idea of whether the game itself is any good. And by extension whether WotC can produce a game that is actually good.

Because the fact is, in and of itself 4E is a really good game. It works exceedingly well for the job it is trying to do. You might not like it as a Dungeons & Dragons game in comparison to other versions of D&D that have been made in the past... but that doesn't automatically mean the game in of itself is "bad". People have been trying to make that claim from the beginning-- "Well, since I don't like it, obviously the game sucks!" but that kind of solipsistic attitude is way too easy for others to ignore and discount.

So the question that should be asked right now is not "Will WotC be able to pull off producing and supporting a good version of D&D"... but rather "Will WotC be able to pull off producing and supporting a version of D&D that I will prefer to play over the current version I am playing"?

Because those are two totally separate things.

There is, however, a point at which those two things overlap. What if my general preference for D&D is more aligned with the rest of the D&D market than the edition WotC put out? Can it be a good D&D game if it fails to serve or sustain most of the D&D market? No matter how good 4e was (and I think it has a certain limited utility as a D&D game - I think it could be a decent engine for the D&D minis game), it doesn't seem to have the stamina WotC needed it or wanted it to have. That's going to undermine any analysis of its success as the main standard bearer for the D&D brand even if it does have its diehard fans.

Ultimately, whether or not any game with the brand on it is a good D&D game rather than a good game in general will depend a bit on the market's reaction. If they put out a good game, put the D&D name on it, but it's a game only a minority of the current D&D-identifying market wants, then I don't think it would be a good D&D game.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

So one edition you don't like and you have lost all faith that they can produce a good product. Really?

How many years has passed since it made it's debute? We aren't talking about about a year or a few months. It was years of not so good products that make one tend to be cautious the next time around. It also becomes hard when you see some of the same mistakes repeated. Live and let go isn't exactly easy at this point.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The problem here though, Bill... is that you and ForeverSlayer are confusing your dislike for a game for the more objective idea of whether the game itself is any good. And by extension whether WotC can produce a game that is actually good.

Because the fact is, in and of itself 4E is a really good game. It works exceedingly well for the job it is trying to do. You might not like it as a Dungeons & Dragons game in comparison to other versions of D&D that have been made in the past... but that doesn't automatically mean the game in of itself is "bad". People have been trying to make that claim from the beginning-- "Well, since I don't like it, obviously the game sucks!" but that kind of solipsistic attitude is way too easy for others to ignore and discount.

So the question that should be asked right now is not "Will WotC be able to pull off producing and supporting a good version of D&D"... but rather "Will WotC be able to pull off producing and supporting a version of D&D that I will prefer to play over the current version I am playing"?

Because those are two totally separate things.

I think you are trying to make light of what really happened. Good games don't get cut short. Also, even the most diehard fan has to admit that 4th edition created a lot of controversy, on a scale never before seen in the gaming community.

 

[Mistwell]

Can't we just talk about 5e without the constant references to feelings about 4e?

 

[DEFCON 1]

How many years has passed since it made it's debute? We aren't talking about about a year or a few months. It was years of not so good products that make one tend to be cautious the next time around. It also becomes hard when you see some of the same mistakes repeated. Live and let go isn't exactly easy at this point.

They were years all in service of a version of D&D you didn't like. What did you expect was going to happen? That they'd produce a 4E for a year or two that you didn't like, but then all of a sudden they'd magical begin producing product for 4E that you did like? I don't believe you seriously thought that was going to happen. So the fact that they produced years of so-called "not so good product" (in your words) is no real indication of anything.

But the idea that because WotC produced a 4E that you didn't like, that automatically puts 5E a couple steps back in your estimation seems a little short-sighted. Why bother going into it expecting failure? Why waste your time? If you already know 5E isn't going to float your boat over whatever edition you currently are playing (either because you've seen the playtest materials and don't like them, or because you just can't believe that a company that could produce 4E could possible produce another game you might like) then why keep following along? Why do that to yourself?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Good games don't get cut short.

Just because you keep trying to claim this doesn't mean its actually true. Once again, you are conflating your feelings of the game with the game in of itself. And they are drastically different.

I know it might be hard to accept... but you aren't the center of the D&D universe, FS.

 

[Mistwell]

I think you are trying to make light of what really happened. Good games don't get cut short.

Good things in life sometimes get cut short, for a variety of reasons.

I present the Firefly television show as Exhibit A.

The idea that WOTC would not cut off a game that was good has been challenged repeatedly for many years now. It not satisfying whatever internal profit goals they had for the brand, is not the same as it not being a good game in itself.

Can't we just talk about 5e without all the 4e stuff? Please?