D&D 5E Can D&D Next Unite Fans of Different Editions? I think there is some hope now.

[Rhenny]

Over the past few days I've been reading the playtest package, reading the WotC boards, the ENWorld boards, the RPG.net boards and the Paizo boards, and I've been converting the PCs for my 12th level playtest adventure that is still in progress. (yes, I am on vacation and have too much time on my hands).

I'm getting a sense from what I've been reading that many more people (some who have been very negative about D&D Next up until now) are starting to share a little bit of optimism that the direction suggested from this playtest package (and some of the L&L articles) may start to draw more fans from different editions.

Here's something I wrote in my WotC blog (warning, everything I wrote is completely from my own subjective experience reading the board posts, playing, and DMing the playtest packages):

****

Flexibility for Players and DMs with D&D Next (More thoughts after the August 2013 public playtest release)

Can D&D Next really unite fans of different editions? Many thought (and maybe still think) that this is impossible, but as the rules, classes and sub-classes develop, I’m beginning to see a ray of hope.

With PC creation and development, I think I'm sensing (and I hope I'm sensing) that a power gamer can trick out his D&D Next PC, and play in the same party as a roleplayer who chooses options because they are cool not just optimal. Both will enjoy the experience, and it won't be necessary to maximize a PC to contribute to the game.

Another aspect that touches on flexibility in D&D Next is that it seems pretty easy for DMs to run sessions with 1, 2 or 3 players, and it doesn't really matter what the party composition. No cleric...fine. No fighter...fine. No rogue...fine. I dig it. Furthermore, it is far easier to find fewer than 4 players to run a game than have to rely on 4 or more to be at each session.

I kind of like the experience of playing without skills too. It seems to free up my players to just try stuff and not worry too much about what skill they have. In my experience without skills, my players make choices more directly because they understand how their PC would act given its attribute strengths and weaknesses, its class and its background. I like it. Not having skills also makes the game move a bit quicker because the players don't hunt for their skill to check if they can apply the bonus die or bonus to their rolls. The best part about no skills is that it will be an option. There will be a way to use skills if groups like them, and there will be a way to play without them. Good stuff.

Additionally, I think we will get to a point with Next where DMs will have complete control over combat length and difficulty thereby influencing playstyle and balance as well.

So far in my games, I've been able to create adventures that have been completely different. In one adventure, PCs went on for over 17 encounters before having to quit for the day (11 combat, 4 traps/puzzles, 2 interaction encounters - about 10 hours of gaming to complete). In another part of one adventure the party went through only 4 combat encounters each of which took between 30 minutes to 1 hour (about 3 1/2 hours to complete), and they were spent. The shorter combats foreground storytelling and the flow of the campaign while the longer combats become more tactical, and using both becomes a fantastic tool for the DM to infuse variety and excitement into adventures.

I think D&DNext is very flexible....I like that very much, and I’m hoping that the flexibility will become the beacon that draws all fans from basic D&D through 4e.



http://community.wizards.com/rhenny...ibilty_of_dd_next_and_the_power_to_unite_fans

 

[Morrus]

Well, that's certainly their primary design goal. Whether or not it'll be successful remains to be seen (let's hope it's more unifying than divisive).

 

[DaveMage]

I don't think it will unify or divide in large numbers. Frankly, the only folks left to divide are 4E fans, and many of them seem happy to experiment with new systems. OSR and Pathfinder fans are happily gaming without anything WotC produces and have no need for Next. In other words, WotC needs D&D Next to be good more than most former D&D players do.

What would really be gutsy - and to me, this will tell if WotC's even worth another look - is if they open the game like they did in 3.x. If they do that, they may be able to get back some of the fans they lost (if 3PPs are willing to come back - which is certainly not a given).

 

[adamc]

As a 4e fan, I'm not convinced. I'm not saying it couldn't be a fun game -- I'm sure it can -- but I don't see a lure that will make 4e players decide to jump to it. One of the players in our group has been running a Tephra campaign, and there's a fair buzz for 13th Age -- very little interest in next so far.

That doesn't mean Next couldn't turn out to be compelling (especially if they build great tools for it), but I'm not seeing it yet.

 

[n00bdragon]

Trying to lure players away from older editions is a fools errand. 5e decided early on it wasn't going to be 4e so it won't be a better 4e than 4e. You don't really want to be a better 3e than 3e because of the inherent flaws in the system and the market is already crowded with 1e and 2e clones that do those editions better than they did. Put simply 5e either can't or won't be the "better" alternative to any previous edition. The only place left to go is to forge new ground. They have do decide what they want to accomplish and go for it 100%. Whatever flaws you can attribute to 4e it knew what it wanted to do and it executed the **** out of it. Maybe you didn't like where it went but it's hard to dispute it went there with gusto.

I have yet to see that from 5e but it's never too late to start.

 

[Raith5]

I am not sure that the WOTC message boards are all that supportive. I still see a fair bit of angst there. In particular I was surprised in the tone of the comments in response to Mearls recent "Scaling complexity" article - especially about the whole apprentice tier thing. I would expect them to be far more supportive because people who anti-DDN surely would have dropped off by now?

I still think WOTC demonstrates an amazing ability to create and support a style of play - a dark gritty fantasy style in third ed and almost gonzo zero to hero high fantasy - then just drop the style and move on. And subsequently leave others to build on those markets in the form of pathfinder and 13th age. I am still not sure WOTC has done enough to show that these styles can be accommodated at a gameplay or mechanical level in the same rule set.

 

[Stormonu]

I think that WotC and other RPG makers are strongly attempting to provide an atmosphere of unity - not through game design, but through tolerance of play styles and editions. Whereas during the 4E era I got a feeling from WotC of "if it's not 4E, it's crap" undercurrent (the clauses of the GSA preventing selling pre-4E product, removal of previous edition PDFs, discussions of 3E's "proud nails" and other comments), I get the feeling these days of "it doesn't matter what edition you play, just enjoy playing the game".

5E will be geared toward 5E players, Pathfinder will be geared towards Pathfinder play and so on - but the vibe doesn't feel like "play this or else"; its more like "play what you want and politely nod and acknowledge that those people playing over there are enjoying their game. Maybe we'll throw them a bone every once in a while, while we're at it - just so they know we're all brothers (and sisters) here."

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

We all have a skewed perspective. We care enough about RPGs to post on a message board about them. We're fanatics.

I think there is a quiet majority of roleplayers who want to play D&D, but don't want to put a lot of effort into it. They enjoy playing their characters, and some tactical combat, and some character building, but only so long as it isn't cumbersome. These players still have various tastes, from the super simple to fairly complex. From high fantasy to gritty realism. They just aren't invested in it the way we are.

And I think D&D Next is being built for these players.

 

[Iosue]

To somewhat echo what others have said, it depends on what you mean about unification. If it's "Get the majority of each of the various groups (OSR, 3e, 4e) to all play 5e happily," then no. That's impossible. They'd just run into the "competing standards" problem in that overlinked-to xkcd comic. But I don't think that's ever been their goal or their plan.

However, if "unification" means "Get the majority of each of the various groups to give their moneys to Wizards of the Coast", that's eminently doable. You put out a highly configurable system that can emulate early TSR-styles of play, 3e styles of play, and 4e styles of play. This is the key point: the goal of the system itself is not to recreate the exact conditions of those previous editions, but to emulate the kind of play people enjoyed in those editions. Now, of course there are all kinds of playstyles, but AFAICS, they're basically looking at a) dungeon exploration/hex mapping (0e, 1e), b) adventure path play (2e, 3e, 4e), c) tactical set-piece encounter play (3e, 4e). One could argue that these make up the "mainstream" styles of play through D&D history.

Now, ideally, what they want with this system is to get at least significant numbers of folks playing various editions to at least add 5e to their repertoire. They're banking on there being a lot of folks like me, who like B/X but wish for a little more combat granularity, or who like how 4e plays but hate the more involved chargen. For us, 5e represents a way to easily adjust the game to a style we like, without having to extensively houserule, or the like. But that's not the end game. Because some folks simply won't leave their preferred edition for 5e -- they're perfectly happy where they are. But how does WotC get their sweet, sweet moneys?

By reprints, PDFs, and this is the kicker...new material. Because if 5e can emulate 1e's playstyle, they can release a 5e product compatible and/or easily convertible to 1e, getting moneys from both 1e players and folks who play 5e like it was 1e. They can release material compatible and/or easily convertible to 4e. Maybe adamc is right and 4e player won't want to play with 5e. But if there's new material they can use with 4e, that's moneys to WotC.

Because if your goal is to get everyone playing a different edition to play the new one, what you don't do is reprint the editions they like to play. You're just encouraging them to stay with those editions. WotC's goal is not to unify everyone by playing 5e, it's to unify everyone into giving WotC moneys for D&D material.

 

[Raith5]

By reprints, PDFs, and this is the kicker...new material. Because if 5e can emulate 1e's playstyle, they can release a 5e product compatible and/or easily convertible to 1e, getting moneys from both 1e players and folks who play 5e like it was 1e. They can release material compatible and/or easily convertible to 4e. Maybe adamc is right and 4e player won't want to play with 5e. But if there's new material they can use with 4e, that's moneys to WotC.

Because if your goal is to get everyone playing a different edition to play the new one, what you don't do is reprint the editions they like to play. You're just encouraging them to stay with those editions. WotC's goal is not to unify everyone by playing 5e, it's to unify everyone into giving WotC moneys for D&D material.

This is an interesting idea! I have been wondering how it will work with only some of the various editions coming on board to DDN. But why dont they just cut to chase, avoid getting bogged in the modularized mechanics of DDN and just write modules and material for the main editions they already have?

I have to say that while I personally was hoping for a new take DDN, with new ideas and new mechanics, rather than the lowest common denominator thinking of coming different edition, I quite like the idea of being able to combine different levels of complexity at the one table.