D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

[sunshadow21]

I'm not discounting it at all. I am merely saying that it is my sense that the general climate is far less agitated, far more receptive to 5E than it was to 4E. Of course some folks aren't going to love or even like 5E - there is no way around that. And of course we'll know more in six months how the game is being received by the community, but as things stand now, my sense is that there is more receptivity towards and less hostility around 5E than there was 4E at the same point.

WotC has more wiggle room than they did with 4E, that much is true. They also have a lot more pressure on them this time around to avoid another perceived failure. There's less hostility this time simply because most people will just walk away and ignore the brand if they don't like what they see or perceive it to new and different enough to worth turning their back on whatever systems they are currently playing. So in the end, it's a mixed blessing; they have more people willing to give them a chance, but less people willing to give them a second glance if the first glance is not entirely satisfactory.

 

[SigmaOne]

WotC has more wiggle room than they did with 4E, that much is true. They also have a lot more pressure on them this time around to avoid another perceived failure. There's less hostility this time simply because most people will just walk away and ignore the brand if they don't like what they see or perceive it to new and different enough to worth turning their back on whatever systems they are currently playing. So in the end, it's a mixed blessing; they have more people willing to give them a chance, but less people willing to give them a second glance if the first glance is not entirely satisfactory.

Interestingly, I think your analysis of not having a second look is spot on in reaction to the playtest. It seems a lot of people were unimpressed with early renditions and just walked away. But many people seem to be having a second look now, which is no surprise. More than one reviewer indicated that they'd written it off early in the playtest process, but are impressed with the end result. And I think a similar process will occur if the game achieves a reasonable amount of success out the door. Somebody might pick it up in the store, flip through it, and think "ah, it's just a rehash of Xe", putting it down and walking away. But the fact is, if a few months down the road they see more and more groups choosing it, they'll likely give it another look.

 

[sunshadow21]

Interestingly, I think your analysis of not having a second look is spot on in reaction to the playtest. It seems a lot of people were unimpressed with early renditions and just walked away. But many people seem to be having a second look now, which is no surprise. More than one reviewer indicated that they'd written it off early in the playtest process, but are impressed with the end result. And I think a similar process will occur if the game achieves a reasonable amount of success out the door. Somebody might pick it up in the store, flip through it, and think "ah, it's just a rehash of Xe", putting it down and walking away. But the fact is, if a few months down the road they see more and more groups choosing it, they'll likely give it another look.

The playtest is one thing; most people expect a product at that stage to have rough edges. A formally launched product is something else entirely. A lot of folks are waiting for the DMG to get the full feel for the system. That is going to be when the true test hits. At that point, I suspect a lot of people are going to be giving it a hard look and making a yes or no decision. There may be a small gray area of DMs that choose to not play the system but occasionally buy some of the books to mine ideas for campaigns/house rules, but once the DMG comes out, second looks are going to be harder to get unless they can get and keep open support for the system through organized play, a routinely high amount of books flying of store shelves, and other visible signs of how well the system is being supported, both by WotC itself and the community as a whole. They cannot afford to have what happened with 4E where the supporters all ended up hudding inside the pay walls of DDI and little to no actual games being played in the game stores or conventions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't even understand the people who are condemning D&D for not "going in a bold new direction"... to do so opens it up to attacks of "not being D&D" which proved harmful overall to the brand, .

Though you get around to refuting the above, yourself, later, I'll still waste a moment saying that it's not the game that opens itself up to the accusation, it's just something an accuser with no valid criticisms can always resort to.

And while it's not a new direction, there is a lot of boldness in this game. This is as streamlined as I've ever seen D&D since they added the "A" to it.

It's the initial release. It's got less stuff, sure, so maybe it appears streamlined compared to 3.5/Pathfinder with 14 years of bloat. But, if you look at the actual core of the system, it's just about the same level of complexity as any modern ed (fairly complex, but not as bad as the arbitrary sub-systems of the early days), just shuffled around a bit.

They've come up with many elegant solutions to 3e's issues (adv/dis and concentration, for example) while keeping the "traditional" feel; bold.

Just by addressing 3e issues (that had already been solved), that's a step back, by definition.

Dropping Will/For/Ref and Saving Throws completely makes this drastically more accessible to new players; that's bold.

Maybe if they'd stuck to bounded accuracy and not had proficiency in saves, that'd make sense. But a WIS save is distinct from a WIS check because there's such a thing as proficiency in a save. No net savings in complexity compared to FORT/REF/WILL saves. Compared to FORT/REF/WILL /defense/, though, there's an increase in complexity. One you can see everytime something has to give Advantage to attacks but Disadvantage to saves (or vice versa) to represent one effect.

New and interesting mechanics for spellcasting all around. This is evolutionary, not revolutionary, but that doesn't mean it isn't bold. The pseudo-Vancian system could have been a flop, but I haven't seen a Wizard player who doesn't prefer it yet.

Who wouldn't prefer having combined 3.5 Vancian and Spontaneous casting? I mean, for years we argued over which was better, now the Wizard automatically gets /both/?

Warlock casting? Bold.

Really not that different from when it was introduced in 3.5, just, well, like the wizard, /more/.

Bounded accuracy? They bent the trajectory of the combat system trend in a completely different direction. Bounded accuracy makes the game smoother. But many members of the existing fan-base initially bristled, and some still are because it's not as fine a grained system as 3 or 4e. That took guts to even consider, and more guts to stick with it. There's a lot of boldness in this game.

Bounded accuracy is just the Treadmill turned down to 1. Originally, it was supposed to be no bonus, then 1-3 over 20 levels, then 1-5, finally settled on 2-6. That's not exactly sticking to a bold new idea.

 

[pemerton]

Tyranny of Dragons[/URL]) being subcontracted to Wolfgang Bauer and Kobold Press). WotC has little enough confidence in D&D's ability to make money from adventures that all they get from the adventures that are going to sell the best for the edition are licensing fees.

I strongly suspect that you are mistaken about the financial arrangement between WotC and Kobold Press.

I think that, as you say, Kobold Press was contracted to write the adventures. They will have been paid a fee to do so. It is WotC who is actually publishing the adventures, and will make whatever profits are generated by sales. (Whereas under a licencsing arrangement it is the party having the benefit of the licence who takes the risk of publication and who makes the profits, and the party who issued the licence simply receives royalties/licensing fees.)

And that's why D&D doesn't have you roll to hit, it has you make an attack roll.

To be fair, up until 3E it did have a "to hit" roll (as per the acronym THACO). And a successful attack roll is still described as (resulting in) a hit, and an unsuccessful one as (resulting in) a miss.

the general climate is far less agitated, far more receptive to 5E than it was to 4E.

<snip>

there is more receptivity towards and less hostility around 5E than there was 4E at the same point.

<snip>

many people who had issues with it felt like it was "Warcrafty."

For me, the question this raises isn't about "receptiveness", but rather - how important is it to the success of an edition of D&D that there not be a vocal group of RPGers actually decrying it?

Is our test for success that those who aren't playing about it aren't also whinging about it?

 

[Murkmoldiev]

But most importantly, What does Vin Diesel think of 5th ed ?
His intro to the Book : 30 Years of Adventure is amazing.

"Every word is spoken in the Dungeon " !

 

[Neonchameleon]

I strongly suspect that you are mistaken about the financial arrangement between WotC and Kobold Press.

I think that, as you say, Kobold Press was contracted to write the adventures. They will have been paid a fee to do so. It is WotC who is actually publishing the adventures, and will make whatever profits are generated by sales. (Whereas under a licencsing arrangement it is the party having the benefit of the licence who takes the risk of publication and who makes the profits, and the party who issued the licence simply receives royalties/licensing fees.)

Mea culpa. The post was mistaken (I actually edited when I skimmed through - but not heavily enough). Even so WotC aren't trying to get in house talent for their adventures.

 

[pemerton]

Mea culpa. The post was mistaken (I actually edited when I skimmed through - but not heavily enough). Even so WotC aren't trying to get in house talent for their adventures.

No need to apologise! And I am also just speculating, based on my best interpretation of what I've heard/read.

I agree with your more general analysis, that the functional difference between "mothball D&D and do other stuff" and "use a minimalist approach to RPG publishing to lead development of the brand for other purposes" is not very great.

 

[Imaro]

Just by addressing 3e issues (that had already been solved), that's a step back, by definition.

Not if the implemented "solution" was unsatisfactory...

 

[Imaro]

For me, the question this raises isn't about "receptiveness", but rather - how important is it to the success of an edition of D&D that there not be a vocal group of RPGers actually decrying it?

Is our test for success that those who aren't playing about it aren't also whinging about it?

Are you implying that D&D's success is based on how loudly/frequently people express their disdain for it, irregardless of sales figures or the actual number of people dissatisfied or a host iof other factors?? If so, I find it hard to believe that WotC uses frequency of internet complaints as a basis for their business model.

EDIT: I also wouldn't say no one is "whinging" about 5e... there are a few pretty vocal posters on these boards who seem to have nothing but negative things to say about 5e and I've seen other boards where the same thing is happening. The difference I think is that it's less people feel negative towards the edition this time around and there are more feeling generally neutral to positive about the game. Just my impression though, YMMV.