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

[Sunseeker]

A lot of people seem to think that it instead needs to be the "we get ours, other editions have to deal" edition

I am aware of that. And honestly, they can go spin. D&D is a cooperative experience, anyone who's playing it for "me me mine", is IMO, missing the point.

 

[Stoat]

I hope so, but I don't think so.

I predict 5e will be mechanically different from any previous edition of D&D. Players will still roll a d20, add modifiers and compare the result to a target DC, but the way the modifiers and DC are calculated won't match anything we've seen before. This fact alone will piss off some portion of the community.

Vancian magic will be back in, but I'm going to guess that spellcasters have fewer available spells to cast per day. I'll also guess that spells will be less powerful over all than in 3.X. The fighter will look something like the Essentials Slayer, and have some sort of mark/taunt/aggro mechanic. Fighters will have access to the functional equivalent of daily and encounter powers. Healing surges or something like them will also be in the game. Monsters will have something like a CR. The DM will have some sort of wealth by level guidelines.

4e fans will complain that the game is "regressing." They'll argue that the fighter is boring and that spells are too powerful. They'll complain that game balance has gone out the window. They'll say that skill options for crafting and professions are "timmy" choices put in by the ghost of Monte Cook. The game will look too much like 3e.

For their part, fans of 3e/Pathfinder will say that magic isn't magic enough. They'll be upset about dissociated mechanics like healing surges and daily powers for fighters. They will argue that the game is "overbalanced. They'll say that flavor and verisimilitude have been sacrificed for gamist concerns. 5e isn't real enough. The game will look too much like 4e.

OSR folks will agree with both camps. For them 5e character creation is too complicated. They'll say the game doesn't really reward skilled players. The rules are too constraining and don't give the DM enough latitude to make rulings and run the game his way.

If WotC releases a core ruleset that contains a bunch of optional modules, the folks who don't want them will complain about having to pay for them. "Why should I spend 50 bucks for the DMG when I'm not going use more than half of it? Why should I pay for a PHB full of dragonbewbs and grid-based combat rules?" On the other hand, if WotC releases a slimmed down core with optional modules sold separately, the folks who want those modules will complain that the game is nothing but a moneygrab. They'll say WotC is peddling an incomplete game. "Why do I have to shell out 15 bucks for grid-based combat rules? I shouldn't have to buy 5 books just to run the game!"

Heaven help WotC if the initial launch is missing some core module that a big part of the community wants. Launch without grid-based combat or AEDU fighters or Vancian wizards or whatever and watch the fireworks.

Partisans on all sides will complain that their favored modules are not being adequately supported. Player A: "The rules for fighter powers only contain 3 good builds. There were a half dozen good fighter builds in 4e." Player B: "Why is WotC wasting all it's time and resources supporting the fighter. They need to work on the monster building module!" Partisans will also argue that the lack of support for modules they don't like is proof that those modules are unpopular. This will provoke outrage from partisans who do like those modules.

Meanwhile, 5e will attract a passionate following of lapsed players and new fans who will take umbrage at all criticism of the new edition. These fans will argue long and hard that the monster building module is perfect that the new rogue powers are too balanced and that 5e feels just like OD&D the way they used to play it. They'll fight with everybody, and everybody will fight with them.

I hope it's not so, but I think that's how it'll pan out.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

This is an unfortunate and common misconception. While DDN's goals are unification, it's not 100% of everyone everywhere at all times. It's A: the ability to have a more customizable game that can fit various "feels" of D&D, and B: to create a larger and more cohesive playerbase than currently exists.

In regard to A, I'm still not sure what this whole unification thing has to offer gamers like me. We already have an edition that covers our style, so why go buy a new one?

 

[Sunseeker]

In regard to A, I'm still not sure what this whole unification thing has to offer gamers like me. We already have an edition that covers our style, so why go buy a new one?

This is particularly true for older editioners. People with an edition they like who haven't bought new materials in some 20 or so years, aren't very inclined to pick up a new edition. I question the logic in marketing heavily towards them.

To be honest, I think that DDN is going to be 3e-styled in most of it's mechanics, it will include most of the major math fixes, clerifications, and tools that were in 4e in order to capture the two single largest audiences, 3rd editioners and 4th editioners, as well as draw in some Paizo fans. Anything at all that caters to "classic" editions of D&D will largely be semantics and styling. I doubt very much that many mechanical affects of early editions will be included in DDN. Those audiences haven't bought new editions before, they're unlikely to start now.

 

[Dausuul]

In regard to A, I'm still not sure what this whole unification thing has to offer gamers like me. We already have an edition that covers our style, so why go buy a new one?

For B, the expanded player base. Or, if your current edition is not in print, for renewed support and new material. Or, if there are things about your current edition you find unsatisfactory (come on, do you really love absolutely everything about it?), the possibility that D&DN might address them.

I mean, look, if D&DN proves to be not as good as what you have, you won't buy it. That's how it goes. And there will be many people for whom, indeed, it is not as good as what they have. Those people will stick with Pathfinder, or 3E, or 4E, or AD&D, or something else. I don't think anybody has ever suggested otherwise.

But there will also be many people who, for any or all of the reasons above, or out of simple curiosity, do buy D&DN. The question is, will there be enough of them to make it a success?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

A lot of people seem to think that it instead needs to be the "we get ours, other editions have to deal" edition

They are not even really the problem. You get walnuts, I get pecans, other guy gets Brazil nuts. We all go home happy, even If we all selfishly didn't care if the others got what they wanted.

OTOH, you've got people basically trying to hold the process hostage: If someone else gets walnuts, pecans, or Brazil nuts, that means it will contain something besides peanuts. It's got to be 100% peanuts, all the time, with the rest of it available only in a supplement (if that). By definition, you can't satisfy them and have a unity edition. With careful marketing, you might satisfy them and have something that sells, but it won't be a unity edition.

 

[Savage Wombat]

They are not even really the problem. You get walnuts, I get pecans, other guy gets Brazil nuts. We all go home happy, even If we all selfishly didn't care if the others got what they wanted.

OTOH, you've got people basically trying to hold the process hostage: If someone else gets walnuts, pecans, or Brazil nuts, that means it will contain something besides peanuts. It's got to be 100% peanuts, all the time, with the rest of it available only in a supplement (if that). By definition, you can't satisfy them and have a unity edition. With careful marketing, you might satisfy them and have something that sells, but it won't be a unity edition.

I don't think that's a fair analogy.

It's more like chocolate. I want cherries in my chocolate, you want coconut. I can't stand coconut, and don't want it in my chocolate. Which is a fair debate. We all still want the base chocolate to taste good.

The problem then stems from the people who don't think chocolate "tastes right" without coconut, or that they're allergic to coconut and don't want the factory to use any coconut at all for fear of contaminating their chocolate.

 

[Tovec]

I don't think that's a fair analogy.

It's more like chocolate. I want cherries in my chocolate, you want coconut. I can't stand coconut, and don't want it in my chocolate. Which is a fair debate. We all still want the base chocolate to taste good.

The problem then stems from the people who don't think chocolate "tastes right" without coconut, or that they're allergic to coconut and don't want the factory to use any coconut at all for fear of contaminating their chocolate.

Difference is, they could make chocolate without anything in it. Neither faction would get entirely what they wanted but they would both get chocolate. Hopefully they would then release modules or ingredients to be able to add cherries and coconuts into the chocolate and then people would be satisfied.

Except... no one can agree what plain chocolate is. As you said, some people think chocolate doesn't taste right without coconut and therefore consider chocolate and coconut to be the main flavours, but clearly not everyone agrees. That is sadly the crux of the issue.

For the record, the plain chocolate idea I said above is hopefully what WotC is doing or at least trying to do. No one will get their edition but they should all hopefully get a product they can like. The other problem I see was raised by.....

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] I absolutely agree with your HP/surges post. It is my deal breaker. I can live with X or Y being in the game as long as Z is there too so I can cut out X and Y if I don't like them. However, HP and healing surges are one of those things I can't cut out without using a completely different system. They are like trying to take the motor out of a car and expecting it still to run. I really don't know how they are going to accomplish it. I had higher hopes until reading that post of yours. (Sorry can't XP you anymore.)

I could cut out or reintroduce weapon speeds, different forms of initiative, different forms of BAB (THAC0), different ways weapons work, or various races, classes and minor mechanics. I don't have a problem with making them defensive saves, or with different ways of making an encounter, using XP, figuring out difficulty or whatnot but HP not being HP is really a problem for me. I want things to be believable and realistic (I know how you hate that term here Dausuul) and others want superheroics at level 1, HP is the major difference between those extremes. I hope, but don't know how, they will accomplish a system that will work for both camps.

 

[Ratskinner]

Basically, I think it comes down to the fact that you can't play D&D by yourself. I'm currently sorta torn between three "tribes" of players, and I don't want so hear two of the gripe while we play in the third's style. If they can create an edition that allows me to start up a game and let one player go old-school dirt simple next to another who delves into feats or whatever, and have it all be reasonably balanced...I can run more games. Running more games makes me happy and much more likely to buy more product. It also makes it much more likely that I'll be getting more people to play.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The problem then stems from the people who don't think chocolate "tastes right" without coconut, or that they're allergic to coconut and don't want the factory to use any coconut at all for fear of contaminating their chocolate.

"Fear of contaminating" may very well be it. Assume it is. Alright, then I say that requests based on fear of someone else's thing being included have no legitimate claim on a modular, unified design. Such claims only have weight in a design meant to cater solely to their tastes.