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

[billd91]

Two different versions of D&D? Sure, I have time to play them. Of course, that means I'm not playing something else... like Mutants and Masterminds, Star Wars, Torg, or Numenera. But one of the groups I play with does make an effort to shift from game to game/campaign idea to campaign idea. It does mean that a game or campaign may sit on the shelf for several months at a time, but we do usually circle back around to play some more. If you like lots of different games and have limited time, that's what you have to settle for (or embrace depending on how you feel about it).

 

[Wulfgar76]

For what it's worth, my group is a spilt group of 2e, 3e and Pathfinder fans, and D&D Next has already united us.
Everyone is having a great time breathing the 'fresh air' of a system that's free of the exhausting complexity of past editions.

 

[Obryn]

I am a big time skeptic of Next, but I see a lot in this packet I like. It's moving in a good direction.

I don't care much about uniting fans or whatnot, I mostly want it to be another good D&D game I can keep on my shelf along with RC, 1e and 4e. It's a lot more likely to further divide the fanbase, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

There are so many good games out there now - I thank Kickstarter for reinvigorating the indie RPG world - that I think it's kind of crazy to be a one-game player or DM these days. This decade should be one of branching out and exploring.

-O

 

[Derren]

As it was said already, uniting who? Pathfinder players? 13th Age players? D&D 4E players?
WotC has bigger problems than their customers being divided over several editions. They lost them to other products. And without them there isn't much left to unify.
If WotC wants those players back than 5E must be better than what they are playing now. It must be a better Pathfinder than Pathfinder, a better 4E than 4E, a better Castle & Crusades than...
And that is pretty much impossible to achieve as some of those games are opposed. Someone who left D&D for Pathfinder instead of switching to 4E certainly won't come back for even more 4E mechanics, while avid 4E players will not like it when the next version includes more 3E rules they were glad to be rid off.

What WotC tries to do with 5E seems to be to throw away all their cards and draw a completely new hand (I am sure there is a poker term for that), hoping that what they get is drawing enough people from all groups to sustain itself. The "uniting" part of the description is imo only advertising.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

As it was said already, uniting who? Pathfinder players? 13th Age players? D&D 4E players?

WotC has bigger problems than their customers being divided over several editions. They lost them to other products. And without them there isn't much left to unify.
If WotC wants those players back than 5E must be better than what they are playing now. It must be a better Pathfinder than Pathfinder, a better 4E than 4E, a better Castle & Crusades than...

And that is pretty much impossible to achieve as some of those games are opposed. Someone who left D&D for Pathfinder instead of switching to 4E certainly won't come back for even more 4E mechanics, while avid 4E players will not like it when the next version includes more 3E rules they were glad to be rid off.

What WotC tries to do with 5E seems to be to throw away all their cards and draw a completely new hand (I am sure there is a poker term for that), hoping that what they get is drawing enough people from all groups to sustain itself. The "uniting" part of the description is imo only advertising.

There's an assumption to this statement that that 4E and Pathfinder well suit the desires of their players today. I tend to think that each is more the path of least resistance for most players.

I posit that, at the end of Third Edition, players were mostly ready for a new edition. One that cleaned up the rules, addressed some of the issues, and made the game easier to play.

But what we got were three new games, 4E, which dramatically altered the shape of the game. Pathfinder, which aimed to revise while remaining compatible, and the Old School Renaissance, which simply doesn't have the brand awareness.

While Pathfinder was the closest to that desire, I don't think any of them really fit the bill. 4E was too different, and Pathfinder was too similar.

I believe there are a lot of these people playing both 4E and Pathfinder. Probably even a majority.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

I believe there are a lot of these people playing both 4E and Pathfinder. Probably even a majority.

And I'm one of them. Last year a group of friends decided they all wanted to "play D&D", and as I was DMing and pretty much the only one interested in the system (my group is all casual players, none of whom even own any books), I elected to go with Pathfinder. Not because it's my one and only true love system, but because honestly 4e's not something I'm interested in, and frankly working with my group is like herding cats, so I don't need the added hassle of continually explaining the esoteric design decisions of earlier editions to them. I like PF, but I'm well aware of it's faults - there's too many fiddly bits, casters and non-casters aren't perfectly balanced at higher levels, and combat will inevitably become like pulling teeth after level 12.

So Next is the edition I'm most excited for out of all of them. If even a tenth of the promised modularity is present in the end product, I'll switch my group over in a heartbeat.

 

[Wulfgar76]

And that is pretty much impossible to achieve as some of those games are opposed. Someone who left D&D for Pathfinder instead of switching to 4E certainly won't come back for even more 4E mechanics, while avid 4E players will not like it when the next version includes more 3E rules they were glad to be rid off.

This is not my experience.

I was a 3e, then a 4e, then a Pathfinder DM. 10 years of 3rd edition had burnt me out, so I hopped to 4th. Eventually my 4th edition 'fatigue' reached critical mass and I jumped over to Pathfinder. As my Pathfinder party grew in level (only to about level 8), the 3rd Edition headaches I had endured for 10 years crept back in. Then the D&D Next playest packets started coming out.

All it took was the description of Bounded Accuracy and I became a convert. Next gave me enough of what I liked about previous editions and eliminated the parts of 3rd and 4th that were causing me grief. So I was eager to make the jump to Next.

Most of my group skipped 4e entirely and pretty much loathed it. They were committed Pathfinder players, but they too were getting burnt out by the complexity, bloat and broken bits. They were wary that Next was '4e Lite', but eventually realized it didn't have things that annoyed them about 4e, and still had enough of the 'iconic D&D experience" to try it out. Like me they were refreshed at the freedom and 'breathing room' over their previous games.

All of us collectively had fond memories of playing 2nd Edition, especially with regard to gridless, theater of the mind immersion and fast-paced, improvisational, cinematic combats. Lo and behold Next managed to recreate that aspect as well.

At this point, none of us is too keen on going back to the old headaches of past editions – we're having too much fun playing Next.

 

[Derren]

There's an assumption to this statement that that 4E and Pathfinder well suit the desires of their players today.

The system do not need to meet the the wants of the people perfectly, but that still doesn't change that they are incompatible.
If the Pathfinder really wanted things from 4E, they would not have jumped ship and switched to Pathfinder. Likewise, the 4E player would play 3E or Pathfinder if that would fit them better. And while there might be a small portion of people wanting a middle ground between 4E and Pathfinder, many other people would not be impressed by something they abandoned, just with a few concessions added.
Pathfinder players would still play Pathfinder over 4E with a little bit of Pathfinder stuff thrown in.

So thats why WotC can't make a "uniting" edition which is based on previous ones. Instead they have to throw in the wild card and hope for the best.

 

[JeffB]

I am in some weird demographic as far as D&D players go.

I run Od&D, S&W, and my fave version of D&D is moldvay/cook/marsh..

I also really lke 4e despite the tactical grid bit and have preferred to mod it, than to run 3.x/PF, which have their strengths but are too much like work, AFAIC. Running a 4e game now aamof

I will check out NEXT but between OD&D versions, and 4e, I am not seeing anything that makes me want to play it over them. It does not have enough "new/exciting" for me and does not do anything "old school" in any meaningful or better way...it just seems to be in some sort of confused, bland limbo in the edition universe.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

The system do not need to meet the the wants of the people perfectly, but that still doesn't change that they are incompatible.
If the Pathfinder really wanted things from 4E, they would not have jumped ship and switched to Pathfinder. Likewise, the 4E player would play 3E or Pathfinder if that would fit them better. And while there might be a small portion of people wanting a middle ground between 4E and Pathfinder, many other people would not be impressed by something they abandoned, just with a few concessions added.
Pathfinder players would still play Pathfinder over 4E with a little bit of Pathfinder stuff thrown in.

So thats why WotC can't make a "uniting" edition which is based on previous ones. Instead they have to throw in the wild card and hope for the best.

Except, as a Pathfinder fan, I DO want things from 4E. Not all of them, obviously, or I would play 4E. But off the top of my head:

1. 4E style prep-time compared to 3.5 style prep time
2. self-contained 4E-style stat blocks instead of 3.5 style stat blocks referencing spells in the PHB
3. 4E style XP-budget based encounter building
4. Warlords. Never played one, but I like the idea of them, and would like to see them in Next.
5. Monster Vault style monsters. I DM for my group, and for all the players out there complaining about how all a simple Fighter can do is swing their sword, monsters alternating between the same old claw or bite attacks sure is dull compared to a purple worm that can blast through the ground, swallow a PC whole, vomit him out for 3d10 + 8 damage and strike at another with his poisonous stinger.

Now, when it comes to the rest of the edition there's things I feel more strongly against that I feel positively for (AEDU for all classes, the necessity of gridded play, Healing Surges, AdjectiveNoun Verbers, etc.), but Next has the potential to handle that as well (i.e. dials you can turn to have healing be as gritty or as gonzo as you like, tactical grid-based rules or Theater of the Mind as default, the possibility for optional AEDU subclasses - pretty much everything except AdjectiveNoun Verbers). It's a game that scratches my simulationist / versimilitude-lover itch while at the same time offering me a system that creaks less under the weight of it's own rules (I'm looking at you, 3.5 / Pathfinder) while giving me the best parts of 4E while letting me optionally exclude the parts of it I find unpalatable.

Now, I know that that is all from the Pathfinder fan's side, so let me ask the 4E players out there: What not-4E features are you looking for in Next? Let's say down the line they balance the classes better and we see some more optional rules that could make Next hew closer to 4E if that's how you'd like to play it. What else would you do with a modular, turn-the-dials-any-which-way Next?

I mean, yeah, if 4E is your one-system-to-rule-them all, don't switch, you've already got what makes you happy. Pathfinder obviously fulfills that need for a lot of former 3.5ers. But like Jeff Carlsen said, a lot of us are just using the system we have because it's the best of the current options, and I think there are actually quite a lot of us on both sides that'll at least seriously consider switching come release time.