D&D 5E 5E Can't Fail If It Focuses

[drothgery]

As one such, I'm nowhere near as cut-and-dried on this as you seem to think. If 5e can play like 1e only better I'll be happy as a pig in mud, and when it's released I'll give it a long look to see if it can. In your view, not shared by all So if it's not 4e it's sucky? I'll take that under advisement...

No, but if it doesn't solve the same problems that 4e did solve (admittedly, it didn't solve those problems in a way that old-school fans like), then it is a backwards move for those of us who did like 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As one such, I'm nowhere near as cut-and-dried on this as you seem to think. If 5e can play like 1e only better I'll be happy as a pig in mud, and when it's released I'll give it a long look to see if it can.

Like I said, you have no need to compromise: if 5e plays like 1e only better, you'll be delighted with it. If there's anything not-1e-enough about it, you can safely hate it and keep playing 1e.

5e's goal is to be a great compromise, and it's being pitched to a number of factions who are reluctant to compromise, and in some cases, have no incentive to compromise whatsoever.

 

[B.T.]

There is no such as a "great compromise."

 

[Gaming Tonic]

Please let us know in this thread when you've posted your interview.

Interview posted. Here is the link just in case. http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/323442-en-world-interview-mike-mearls-lead-designer-d-d-next.html

 

[Tovec]

5e's goal is to be a great compromise, and it's being pitched to a number of factions who are reluctant to compromise, and in some cases, have no incentive to compromise whatsoever.

Like I said, you are only using part of the picture.

It is also being pitched to a number of factions who ARE willing to compromise. It is being pitched to a number of factions (or groups) who have numerous incentives to switch or adopt 5e wholesale.

It isn't just about getting the AD&Ders to play new D&D again, it is about getting as many people from as many factions as possible to play it.

If they made 4e supreme then it will only interest 4e people. And even then it will only interest a select number of 4e people who want to switch, because there is probably a margin of 4e that doesn't want to buy new books just because WotC says so.

If they made what they are proposing and attract 4e people, 3e people, 2e people, 1e people. People who have switched to D10 games, people who have quit, people who have started playing clones, or OGL stuff, or PF people, or whatever. Then if they do make a product that can attract a good percentage of people from all these factions, and more, then they will have more people than if they had just made 4e. It is a simple as that.

Is that to say that they will all be interested in compromising and using a game they don't like? Of course not.

But does it mean that they would be willing to try a system that can accommodate aspects of what they like from their preferred edition but in a new form, which happens to be supported by WotC? YES.

5e isn't about compromise. It is about making the best of what D&D has over the course of nearly 40 years of evolution. Not about making a game about the course of evolution for the past 5 years only. The more it resembles 4e, and only 4e, the more it WILL fail. It can't win by catering only to one group. It has to try and appeal to as many groups as possible.

 

[Mark CMG]

Yah...not interested in re-skinned 4e. It certainly could fail that way.

I hope it's more new ideas with an old school feel than 4.75.

Would a unifying edition then be 1E + 2.XE + 3.XE + 4.XE = 10E? That could be twice the game 5E would be!

 

[Remathilis]

Like I said, you have no need to compromise: if 5e plays like 1e only better, you'll be delighted with it. If there's anything not-1e-enough about it, you can safely hate it and keep playing 1e.

5e's goal is to be a great compromise, and it's being pitched to a number of factions who are reluctant to compromise, and in some cases, have no incentive to compromise whatsoever.

I like the steamlined elegance of Basic D&D, as well as its nod toward the classic archetypes. I dislike its oversimplification of other elements (race as class) and lack of options.

I like the mood and tone of AD&D 1e, esp some of its weird fantasy elements and eccletic hodgepodge of fantasy types. I dislike its multitude of subsystems which do not seem to go together as a seamless whole.

I like the options of 2nd edition along with the worlds and settings. I dislike its unbalanced mechanics and legacy elements from 1e.

I like 3e's nod toward unifying and codifying everything, along with its myriad of options. I dislike its difficult number crunching, easily abused stacking rules, and some of its mathmatical formulas.

I like 4e's attempt at injecting new elements to D&D, its attempt at simplifying the math, attempts to strengthen martial PCs, and the general ideas behind it. I dislike its wholesale redesign of the worlds, the power structure (and how everyone used the same progression of powers), the lack of Vancian magic, and its overemphasis on combat vs. exploration.

There are things I like from every edition, and stuff I don't like. I hope 5e marries the stuff I like and removes the stuff I don't. It won't be perfect, but if something can merge those parts together for me, I'll be happy as a clam.

 

[the Jester]

As both an old-skooler and a 4e lover, let me say that 5e shouldn't be either one, but should be able to feel like either one, at the group's option.

I would absolutely love a version of D&D that captures the best elements of every edition, and every edition- even 2e, which is my personal edition punching bag- has a "best D&D version of ___" in it. It's just that what is in the blank changes depending on the edition. If 5e plays fast (or can play) and furious and a little chaotic like 1e and earlier, and has broad specialty priest possibilities like 2e, and has the level of tool kitting available that 3e had, and manages to incorporate the smooth math and tactical acumen of 4e, it will be the perfect game (for me).

But if 5e is 1e redux it's pointless. If it's BECMI redux it's pointless. If it's 4e redux or 3e redux, Pathfinder redux or L&L or C&C redux or 2e redux, why bother? For 5e to really succeed and to meet its stated goals I think it really has to transcend previous editions.

If they can pull it off, though, I would love to see us (as Mearls put it) get off the edition treadmill entirely.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As both an old-skooler and a 4e lover, let me say that 5e shouldn't be either one, but should be able to feel like either one, at the group's option.

That is among it's collection of impossible goals. Heck, it was even suggested that it might allow AD&D, 3e, and 4e fans to all sit at the same table and feel like they were playing their respective favorites.

Might as well aim high, I guess.

But if 5e is 1e redux it's pointless. If it's BECMI redux it's pointless. If it's 4e redux or 3e redux, Pathfinder redux or L&L or C&C redux or 2e redux, why bother? For 5e to really succeed and to meet its stated goals I think it really has to transcend previous editions.

In order to do that, it'd have to stop trying to hard to /be/ previous editions.

The design goals of 5e are starting to remind me of the proposed astronomical system of Tycho Brahe. At the time, there was controversy between the Geocentric and Heliocentric systems. Brahe envisioned a system in which the sun and moon orbit the earth, but the other planets orbit the sun. A neat compromise between the other two.

 

[YRUSirius]

If they can pull it off, though, I would love to see us (as Mearls put it) get off the edition treadmill entirely.

Dream the impossible!

-YRUSirius