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

[Ahnehnois]

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.

When are we getting that game? Seriously.

 

[Rhenny]

[MENTION=20988]Wulfgar[/MENTION]....Wow Wulfgar76...this is spookily familiar to my experience. Heck, I've played/DMd every edition from basic through 4e at the time when each was supported by WotC. I'm looking for a game that gives me the best of all....lots of flexibility and DM friendliness. D&DNext is flexible and DM friendly so far. I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel similar.

Hey...easy to DM...more DMs....more games...more adopters of the product. That may be one of D&DNext's biggest chances for success.

 

[Umbran]

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

Maybe. But then, I think it may be that players today are too picky to begin with, so the bar of "suit their desires well" is set too close to "suit their desires perfectly" for designers to be able to hope to match.

 

[Raith5]

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.

4th ed is the best edition of D&D I have played. In addition to the strengths you noted, I really like the fact the game had defences other than AC (and the attacker rolls all attacks), mechanics that enabled the player to just do things in the forms of powers (player empowerment is a big deal for me), some spells being rituals only, and I think +2 wands or +2 holy symbols were pretty cool.

However, I would like to see greater support for gridless combat and monsters with less hp for quicker combats. I would like to see a slightly lower starting point for 1st level classes for gritty feeling of previous editions. I also like the idea of simpler options for PCs (I think DDN has good ideas here) and more choice around AEDU. Also fond of leadership style gaming: setting up a thieves guild or keep etc (Legacy stuff).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm a 4e player. I don't think I'd go back to 3e/PF again for nothin'. I love the flexibility the math provides and how easy it is to invent a thing from scratch and stat it out. But there's a litany of things that 4e insists on that don't work with how I like to play D&D. I'm certainly in the target market for what 5e has the potential to offer because of that. I don't have a D&D version I'd call my "favorite" version, and as fun as it is to try other RPG's, D&D exerts a gravitational pull.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There's another reason why I think D&D Next has a good chance to succeed: It reminds me of Savage Worlds.

Not only did Savage Worlds change how I look at roleplaying games, but it has proven itself to be an easy path into roleplaying. The casual player, a majority in my experience, grasps it better and faster than any other system I've run.

My recent playtest experience was the closest to that I've seen out of D&D, and it left me feeling good about the system.

 

[Obryn]

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'm a big fan of 4e, but even more than that I'm a polygame-ist. So when I look at Next, there will always be a question of whether or not it will be my regular weekly game. I don't know if it will reach that point. I mean, it's not just competing with 4e here; it's also competing with AD&D, RC, Savage Worlds, Dungeon World, Fate Core, Call of Cthulhu, WFRP, Earthdawn, and countless other games I've never even gotten to run. For example, I just got my copy of Ehdrigohr. It looks awesome, and I hope I get to run or play it.

In other words, Next just needs to make a case for itself. Why do I want to devote my few hours of gaming time to it instead of to something else? I don't need or want a greatest hits game like was laid out in the original posts, because I have all those editions already and I have no qualms about, say, pulling out AD&D if I want to run Temple of Elemental Evil or logistical dungeoncrawl campaigns. I want it to be its own special flavor of D&D. This most recent packet is the first sign I've seen that it will accomplish this goal; that's all it will take for me to add it to my "active game" shelf.

That's what I want that I don't get in 4e - a different play experience, just like all the other RPGs I have sitting around.

-O

 

[pemerton]

At this point a number of people are stubbornly set in their ways and anything less than catering to their exact needs won't be enough for them to switch to D&D Next.

I think it may be that players today are too picky to begin with, so the bar of "suit their desires well" is set too close to "suit their desires perfectly" for designers to be able to hope to match.

These comments suggest that it is some sort of character flaw for someone to want to play a game that suits his/her tastes; or (flipping it around) that gamers have some sort of duty to compromise their tastes so as to keep the designers of less-than-optimal games in business.

I don't see it like that, myself. I have only a limited amount of time to spend RPGing. I want to spend it with a system I enjoy. It needn't be the same system all the time - I'm probably not as poly-game-ous as [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION], but there are multiple systems that I like - but I'm not going to play D&Dnext if it doesn't satisfy my preferences to some pretty significant degree.

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 think this is a key issue for WotC. If it's true, D&Dnext may do pretty well. If it's not - if lots of people are playing 4e or PF not just because they're "lease resistance" convergence points for RPGing, but because those systems are actually well-suited to their preferences - then D&Dnext may have a harder time of it.

I can't comment from the 4e side, because my main impression of 4e players outside my group is from posts on these boards, and its the nature of message board posters to take their games seriously.

I get the sense that, on the PF side, a lot of what many players like about it is the "simulationist" aspect of build - that build choices are choices not just about what sort of resource a player or GM will have for engaging with the game, but are also choices that construct a fictional element within the gameworld - and D&Dnext seems closer to that than to 4e (eg highly circumscribed martial encounter powers, no overt class roles, likely 3E-style multi-classing, etc). So I can believe that at least some PF players will be happy to jump ship if D&Dnext has that same vibe but simpler and better balanced mechanics.

 

[chaochou]

These comments suggest that it is some sort of character flaw for someone to want to play a game that suits his/her tastes; or (flipping it around) that gamers have some sort of duty to compromise their tastes so as to keep the designers of less-than-optimal games in business.

Hmmm.

Before I bought and ran HeroWars in 2000 I had no idea that HeroWars was possible. Then Robin Laws wrote it for me and it was incredible. Before I bought and ran Apocalypse World in 2010 I had no idea that a game like Apocalypse World was possible. After I ran it I thought 'Sweet Jesus, this is amazing!'

So if you'd asked me in 1999 or 2009 what my favorite game would look like I wouldn't have had a clue. Then Robiin Laws and Vincent Baker came along out of the blue and wrote these amazing games that I had no idea could be written.

But had I been determined in 2009 that my favourite game would be a slightly simpler and more streamlined version of Burning Wheel I'd have just bought Mouse Guard and never looked at AW. And I'd have been totally wrong - I don't really like MG.

For me Dungeon World provides a more compelling D&D experience than D&D. But Mike Mearls really doesn't have room to design a new system like that - he's locked into D20, AC, HP, Saving Throws, fire and forget magic, pages and pages of canonical 'spells', Classes, Levels. The only reason he's locked into those things is the assumption by the buyers of the system that those things are required. Those assumptions may be wrong, but how many people have been totally open about what D&DN could look like?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

These comments suggest that it is some sort of character flaw for someone to want to play a game that suits his/her tastes; or (flipping it around) that gamers have some sort of duty to compromise their tastes so as to keep the designers of less-than-optimal games in business.

Not at all. People should play what they want to play. However, getting a group of, say, 6 players and a DM who all agree that their tastes are identical and that one system somehow perfectly fits all their tastes is unlikely at best. Most people who play a game do so because it is the CLOSEST to what they like and they can find people willing to play that game.

I think people do have at least a slight responsibility to their friends to compromise their tastes in order to make sure a game happens. I can think that Champions is the best system ever, but if the only super hero game that anyone else likes is Mutants and Masterminds...well, I either have to sacrifice some my tastes in order to play a game or simply not play.