After DDXP, how are you feeling about D&En?

[Yora]

I certainly don't. I see the flaws of 3rd Edition that 4th Edition wanted to adress, but disliked the result even more.
Now many of the things they mentioned last week also adress these very same flaws of 3rd Edition, and many of the changes they have in mind sound like much better solutions than the ones tried in 4th Edition.

I play PF only because it's the game I least dislike.

 

[Reynard]

I play PF only because it's the game I least dislike.

Dude (or dudette) -- there are like a million RPGs out there. Try Dragon Age or Hackmaster. Life's too short to play the game you dislike least.

 

[Yora]

True, but I like the mainstream popularity of D&D and I really like the legal security that the OGL gives to amature publishers like me.
With a homebrew setting for Dragon Age, who would ever give my work a single look?

Though I have to say I did look at lots of other RPGs, and they also really don't strike me as any better. Different, but with the same amount of faults. Except Dragon Age, that game is cool.

 

[Snapdragyn]

It just makes me sad.

Maybe it will always be true that the fan of the current fears and loathes the new. Maybe it's just a basic, human reaction.

Not a lot of automatic change lovers out there.

I loved 3.5, but when 4e was announced I was overjoyed. Yay, something new! Early information sounded great to me, like reducing some of the overlapping skills into something more sensible (so I can Disable a device, unless that device happens to be a lock? What if it's a device made to resemble a lock in every way, but it isn't quite a lock - what then?). Easier rules for grappling were also promised early on, another draw (though I didn't find grapple that complicated, just more so than seemed necessary).

Then 4e came out. I'm glad to know that many people have enjoyed it, & some come into the game with it - but I, quite frankly, loathed it.

So I guess I can't say my own experience fits what you suggest, as I actually quite welcome the prospect of change in general - but the change needs to be GOOD (for my own gaming-style definition of 'good') in order for me to embrace it.

 

[kiltedyaksman]

I'm just so-so. I like some of what I've read, and dislike other bits of news.

I'll check it out, but if it doesn't capture Gygax style D&D I won't be playing it.

 

[OnlineDM]

I'm intrigued and optimistic about D&D Next, but I voted "meh" because I still feel like I don't know anything significant about the game. Once I get the playtest documents, I'm hoping to feel "Yay!"

 

[marleykat]

I am on the positive side. Generally I have.a wait.and. see attitude. It's.far too early to be worried. What I have heard makes me optimistic given I the editions. I like are e
fore 4th and Fantasy Craft. The theme idea and the state plusses to class are virtually a straight port from that game and it works fine IMO.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I'm positive, because it seems they are turning to balance.

There seems to be a Progressive vs. Conservative faction in games--two factors. This is not meant to reflect classic politics, but the general view of the terms.

The progressive faction believes in making sweeping changes, less mired in tradition and more into what makes for the best game out there.

The conservative faction is more into tradition and avoids change or only advocates slow change over time.

The key thing is for the game to survive is compromise between these two factions.

From what I've seen, D&D got really conservative a few years before the release of 2nd Edition (I'm kind of ignoring the 2e "options" books), which is probably why people reacted to 3e very well, it was received well by most gamers and it seemed to reignite the market. But I believe it was also counter-balanced by the conservative faction in the newly acquired merged studios of TSR and WoTC. Somehow, I think 4e was too progressive for most of the fans.

Which is why I think 5e has been worked on and is being approached with (hopefully) a little more care.

I think if a lot of 4e changes are being reversed, it's come from the progressive faction taking too much control. People like to say "it needs to take advantage of 30 years of game design"--but game design isn't a science. It's a combination of art and science, a craft, and to be honest the older forms of D&D (say, BECMI as ideal) are still good solid games. (In fact, game design has been shown to follow fads and trends over time).

There needs to be a mix between these two factions. I don't expect D&D to be 100% 1e AD&D circa 1980, but I also don't expect D&D to just be a trademark that gets rebooted every 10 years with little in common with the prior editions, or to just follow fads.

If the current design team is taking a more conservative stance, it's because 4e must not have done as well as the other editions, which means something is not in balance anymore.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I want to hear more about Monica Belucci's lingerie, and less about molesting weasels.

Isn't molesting the weasel what most people do when they think about Monica Bellucci's lingerie?

Unfortunately, Google Image Searches mostly provide nearly-naked pictures of Ms. Bellucci. It seems she prefers nudity to lingerie. Sigh.

Off topic, am I the only one hoping for some Star Wars Saga Edition to be thrown into the 5E mix? That 3.75 system had some good stuff, IMHO.

 

[KarinsDad]

Somehow, I think 4e was too progressive for most of the fans.

I don't think it is a matter of being progressive. Progressive is not automatically equal to superior.

It's a matter of quality across the board (both crunch and fluff), not just quality in a few areas.

I'm an old grognard, but even I can see the advantages of many of the 4E changes. But, I also see many of the disadvantages whereas I think that your Progressive hardcore 4E players might not see those.

Good change is good. Meh or bad change, not so much. Everyone has a different opinion about what is good and what is not, but 4E didn't just change crunch. It changed some very significant (to some players) fluff as well.


I'll give a simple example of what I consider Meh (or even bad) fluff change in 4E that many people have probably never even heard of.

Dragonborn in 3E were creatures of any humanoid race that heard the call of Bahamut. They were originally Dwarves, or Human, or Halfling, or whatever. Bahamut changed them into Dragonborn.

Now, most people were not heavily invested in 3E Dragonborn. They were only around for about 2.5 years before 4E came out. But for a player who had a very intensive backstory for his Dragonborn PC, 4E Dragonborns could be a very annoying shock. How dare WotC just up and wipe out the entire Dragonborn concept and replace it with a new one such a player might ask?

Quite frankly, I cannot think of a good answer to this question. WotC just changed it with no real good reason as far as I can tell. WotC did even more with regard to Paladins and Wizards and many other classes and races that a lot of players DID have a heavy personal investment in.


So to the vast majority of 4E players, this small group of 3E Dragonborn players who might be bothered by such a drastic change (in their minds) is no big deal. Live with it. But, it's the trampling of the D&D concepts which as a DM and player for almost 35 years, I find to be most annoying. This is merely a simple example. Not only did 4E totally revamp a significant portion of the crunch (wiping out 30+ years of many core D&D ideas), but they revamped a significant portion of the fluff as well.

WotC just threw these players (and many others) under the bus, all in the name of progress. They didn't really care that they were wiping out many perfectly good PC concepts. Their "problems" such as the 5 minute workday, Codzilla, Polymorph, and golf bag of healing wands were more important to them than the D&D feel consistency of their fan base. They didn't solve the problems by staying within the fluff, they did it by throwing fluff (and crunch) away and creating new fluff. Sometimes to match the new game mechanics, but sometimes just because they felt like "being progressive".

That's a mistake and I think that's why 5E is heading back towards that D&D feel consistency.


I actually applaud WotC for trying to merge original fluff and crunch back into the game. They won't be able to satisfy everyone no matter what they do, but could you imagine if they were to create a 5E that was even MORE progressive than 4E, but further away from 1E through 3E? They would not only have lost a significant 1E, 2E, and 3E portion of their base, but they would push away a portion of their 4E base as well.

By merging a lot of the concepts of 1E through 4E, they might push away some of their 4E base. But at least they might also bring back some of their 1E through 3E base. No matter what they do, they would have lost some of their 4E base. At least this way, they can at least try to make up for that. Combining conservative with progressive might be the best decision that they can make for a 5E.