D&D 5E 5E: Is it possible?

[DMKastmaria]

For 5E to succeed all it needs to do is be the compromise candidate for gaming groups. The fracturing of the gaming world is not new, but D&D has always been the compromise choice for groups until post 3.5.

How many groups out there, are that much in need of a compromise? Based solely on posts I've read, some do seem to have an issue in this area, while others don't at all!

Now D&D is not the automatic go-to game.

That genie is out of the bottle, for well and good.

At 43, I don't have the kind of time I once had for gaming. So, whatever I choose to run, its not going to be a compromise. I'm going to spend my free time on the game I really want to DM. I put too much work into a campaign, and derive too much enjoyment from that work, to do otherwise.

 

[Dausuul]

At 43, I don't have the kind of time I once had for gaming. So, whatever I choose to run, its not going to be a compromise. I'm going to spend my free time on the game I really want to DM. I put too much work into a campaign, and derive too much enjoyment from that work, to do otherwise.

Good for you; stick with what you love. For me, the compromise is on a personal level. My group could be willing to play anything I want to run, and I'd still be looking for a compromise, because to the best of my knowledge the Perfect Game For Me does not yet exist. If 5E comes closer than any other game to the Perfect Game For Me, I will buy it.

I am frankly astonished by the number of people who seem to have found their Perfect Game, upon which it is not possible to improve in any way.

 

[DMKastmaria]

Good for you; stick with what you love. For me, the compromise is on a personal level. My group could be willing to play anything I want to run, and I'd still be looking for a compromise, because to the best of my knowledge the Perfect Game For Me does not yet exist. If 5E comes closer than any other game to the Perfect Game For Me, I will buy it.

I am frankly astonished by the number of people who seem to have found their Perfect Game, upon which it is not possible to improve in any way.

There's no such thing as a perfect game. Of course, I run Old School D&D with a DIY approach. My campaign comes first. The rules are guidelines and I'll hack, morph, or otherwise change them to suite my campaign, myself and my group. I don't need the blessings of the current Gaming Pope, to run a "modular" D&D. I already have that game. It's called Swords & Wizardry + my vast gaming library + my own imagination + several hundred online old school DM's, who make and post more stuff than I could ever keep up with.


I'm happy with the basic D&D framework, upon which to build. If I wasn't, I'd pick a different game or make my own.

 

[Bobbum Man]

If 5E is a robust enough system to support a lot of different style games, it will be a success.
The goal is to sell books and subs to DDI. It does not need to participate in some sort of Highlander RPG; "There can be only one!". It needs to be the game that every gamer has because you can always find a game in your area. Or it fits your group.

But what happens if player A wants a BECMI style game, payer B wants a 4E style game, and neither player A nor B can abide the taste of the other?

The problem that WotC is overlooking is that many 3.x players don't WANT to sit at the same table with 4E players, just as many 4E players don't WANT to sit at the same table as AD&D players. Some of these camps are SO far entrenched within their own gaming style that they cannot abide the presence of others. I'm one of them.

How does WotC overcome this problem?

 

[gweinel]

But what happens if player A wants a BECMI style game, payer B wants a 4E style game, and neither player A nor B can abide the taste of the other?

The problem that WotC is overlooking is that many 3.x players don't WANT to sit at the same table with 4E players, just as many 4E players don't WANT to sit at the same table as AD&D players. Some of these camps are SO far entrenched within their own gaming style that they cannot abide the presence of others. I'm one of them.

How does WotC overcome this problem?

Is there such a problem? Isn't supposed to play the game if not with your friends but at least with a friendly group. I am playing dnd at least 20 years and never was such an issue among my players. In my gaming group we have players who didn't like 4e but they play it because of the dm. The opposite thing also happens. In a 3.5 e campaign I have a player who is sick to death the 3e rules but he plays the game because he likes the role playing.

 

[Bobbum Man]

Is there such a problem? Isn't supposed to play the game if not with your friends but at least with a friendly group. I am playing dnd at least 20 years and never was such an issue among my players. In my gaming group we have players who didn't like 4e but they play it because of the dm. The opposite thing also happens. In a 3.5 e campaign I have a player who is sick to death the 3e rules but he plays the game because he likes the role playing.

Maybe not in every group, but given the amount of vitriol that is slung back and forth between the 4E and *not* 4E camps on various forums, I would say that it certainly IS a problem.

I would say that there are members of both camps that will not be satisfied unless all members of the opposed camp are somehow booted from the hobby for good. These are the ones that tend to engage in fanatical, unrelenting hate campaigns all over the internet in answer to a game they don't like.

I get the sense that this is exactly the sort of thing that WotC hopes to avoid.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I'm suggesting they market to an audience with an interest in buying new WOTC prodcuts on a regular basis. Does someone who hasn't bought a WOTC product in 20 years, and only buys spin-offs of the only WOTC product they own, sound like someone who is going to buy new products from WOTC?

Because that sounds like someone who's going to go to a used-car lot and buy an 88' VW Bug and complain that the 2002 VW Beetle is "too girly".

I bought 90% of the 3.5 books. I bought 90% of the D&D novels put out in the 2000s (pre-4e). I bought between 3 and 5 cases of every single minis set they put out before 4e. I participated in every pre-release tournament for minis. We drove all over playing in various minis tournaments.

Since the release of 4e, I have purchased the Drizzt novels and a couple of the Brotherhood of the Griffon novels AND Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012 for the 360. I estimate the change to 4e has cost WotC about 5-6K in money from me alone. Much of that has gone to Paizo which IS releasing products I like.

I WANT to purchase their products. I want 5e to be a game I can spend money on. They have just refused to put out much of anything worth spending my money on in the last 4 years or so.
I think you will find that many of the Grognards like me feel the same. If 5e is it's own game that captures the D&D feel, and doesn't force a bunch of the less likable features of other editions on people within the core, some of those people will come back.

 

[TimA]

Plenty of edition bashing in this thread already, I see. Can't we talk about 5E without getting into a big flame war over previous games? Guess not.

For 5E to succeed all it needs to do is be the compromise candidate for gaming groups. The fracturing of the gaming world is not new, but D&D has always been the compromise choice for groups until post 3.5. Now D&D is not the automatic go-to game.

If 5E is a robust enough system to support a lot of different style games, it will be a success.
The goal is to sell books and subs to DDI. It does not need to participate in some sort of Highlander RPG; "There can be only one!". It needs to be the game that every gamer has because you can always find a game in your area. Or it fits your group.

Arguing about previous editions is GOOD for the project and the community. People should talk about what they liked and what they didnt and compare. The hobby is helped by discussion and sometimes even rancorous debate.

If we didnt have people arguing about whats best in a ruleset we would all still be playing 1E and comparing it to CHAINMAIL.

"edition bashing" is how the game moves forward and evolves.

Besides from a business perspective yes it SHOULD want to lop off all the other games heads and take their power.

 

[Piratecat]

Actually, no. Here at EN World edition bashing gets threads closed and people suspended. It's not something we want to tolerate.

Speaking of which, thread closed.

 

[Umbran]

Arguing about previous editions is GOOD for the project and the community. People should talk about what they liked and what they didnt and compare.

...

"edition bashing" is how the game moves forward and evolves.

To enhance slightly what Piratecat has said: we find there's a big difference between talking about what you like and don't like, and "edition bashing".

Simply put, "bashing" is a destructive activity - a metaphorical attempt to break something up, or knock it down. That is miles away from constructive criticism.

Folks calmly talking about details of structure, and how and why they do or don't work, we're good with. Just dumping negativity towards an edition and beating it with the "ME NO LIKE!" stick? Not so much.