D&D 5E D&D 5e is fantastic. Just a topic of appreciation and some forum analysis.

[Mercurius]

Nicely balanced post Evenglare. I think one thing you are saying is that it is OK to be critical of the game if it doesn't veer too far into negativity, and that we are only critical because we love the game so much - and this could be better remembered and more frequently explicated by all of us.

The edition is also new and there's a lot of bruised feelings over the changes. The wounds are still fresh.

My sense is that there is far less "wounding" with 5E, or at least with the game itself. I may be missing it, but I'm not seeing a lot of vituperative vitriolic cries of "I can't believe they did this!!!" Some, sure, but compared to the past it is like comparing the Korean War to World War 2.

That said, there are wounds, or rather there is a solid body of disgruntlement which may be gradually growing - and this largely has to do with how WotC is handling the game, their communication (or lack thereof), the lack of certain key elements such as a gaming license and digital tools, not to mention setting supplements and adventure modules. So the recent version of disgruntlement is a strange brew, because a lot of folks that love the game itself are unhappy with how the game is being handled. In the past it seemed like those that were unhappy were unhappy with both elements.

We could talk about it with a more proper level of doubt in our own assessments, but we don't.

Excellent point - one that should be reiterated again and again. None of us (presumably) know what is really going on, what is in the minds of Mearls & Co, what the pressures they receive from above, what their plans are, or why they're doing what they're doing, etc etc. And in a vacuum of knowledge we get rampant speculation, some of it quite nasty and in bad faith. Thus the internet.

I almost wonder, though, if WotC would be well served in having Mearls or someone write a monthly column that gives us a sense of what they're working on, what the plan is going forward, how the game is doing, etc. Maybe that is too revealing, and they clearly prefer to not show their cards until they're ready to play them, but again, in the absence of any solid information we're left to speculate. Some communication would be a good thing, no? If only, "Hey, we've got something really cool for GenCon - a major product release!" And then in later columns they could gradually roll out hints and previews - build the excitement. Isn't that what they used to do in Dragon? Was there something wrong with that approach? Given the fan-base, or at least the online forum community, I'm just not so certain that "mum's the word" is the best approach to take.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I almost wonder, though, if WotC would be well served in having Mearls or someone write a monthly column that gives us a sense of what they're working on, what the plan is going forward, how the game is doing, etc. Maybe that is too revealing, and they clearly prefer to not show their cards until they're ready to play them, but again, in the absence of any solid information we're left to speculate. Some communication would be a good thing, no? If only, "Hey, we've got something really cool for GenCon - a major product release!" And then in later columns they could gradually roll out hints and previews - build the excitement. Isn't that what they used to do in Dragon? Was there something wrong with that approach? Given the fan-base, or at least the online forum community, I'm just not so certain that "mum's the word" is the best approach to take.

I don't think there's any point to doing that. Specifically because they did this very thing all throughout 4E and it didn't help matters all that much. People who didn't like the game didn't suddenly decide to like it just because the developers were talking about it frequently... and every month with every article people were on the boards here ripping apart everything that was said-- either by disagreeing vehemently with what the developers were delving into, pissed off that things THEY thought should be talked about weren't getting addressed, or continually getting upset that ideas that were bandied about in months previous were not coming to fruition (with the ever-present "They promised us!" or "They lied to us!" caterwauling.)

I firmly believe IT DOESN'T MATTER how much or what the D&D developers talk about... the end result will always be double-scoopfuls of people here on the boards crapping on them. So no... I don't blame them in the slightest for not wasting their time having to spend a couple hours writing weekly or monthly "Status updates" about the game. Because at the end of the day... very few people ever seem to appreciate it.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think there's any point to doing that. Specifically because they did this very thing all throughout 4E and it didn't help matters all that much. People who didn't like the game didn't suddenly decide to like it just because the developers were talking about it frequently... and every month with every article people were on the boards here ripping apart everything that was said-- either by disagreeing vehemently with what the developers were delving into, pissed off that things THEY thought should be talked about weren't getting addressed, or continually getting upset that ideas that were bandied about in months previous were not coming to fruition (with the ever-present "They promised us!" or "They lied to us!" caterwauling.)

I firmly believe IT DOESN'T MATTER how much or what the D&D developers talk about... the end result will always be double-scoopfuls of people here on the boards crapping on them. So no... I don't blame them in the slightest for not wasting their time having to spend a couple hours writing weekly or monthly "Status updates" about the game. Because at the end of the day... very few people ever seem to appreciate it.

You may be right, but there's one thing I'd like to highlight in what you said. 4E was a different situation - many people who were unhappy were actually unhappy with the game itself. So yeah, I agree that communicating didn't help matters much, and wouldn't help matters much with 5E if the main problem people have is the game itself. But it isn't. I'm not saying that there aren't some folks who are unhappy with 5E, but it is a molehill compared to 4E - at least based upon what I see on forums. Most of what people are unhappy with is the lack of information, product, a gaming license, digital suite, etc.

So I would be concerned if WotC was thinking, "Well it didn't work for 4E so we shouldn't do it now." It is a very different situation.

 

[SilverfireSage]

I can't believe you think 5E is fantastic. It is, obviously, the greatest thing to ever happen in the history of RPG, nay, the entire world! Be prepared for me to completely derail this thread with a 20 page dissertation in pursuit of proving you wrong!

In all seriousness, great post. I think perhaps the substantial amount of negativity is precisely why we should look at this as a success. A lesser game wouldn't earn such viritrol about a beast master ranger!

 

[DEFCON 1]

You may be right, but there's one thing I'd like to highlight in what you said. 4E was a different situation - many people who were unhappy were actually unhappy with the game itself. So yeah, I agree that communicating didn't help matters much, and wouldn't help matters much with 5E if the main problem people have is the game itself. But it isn't. I'm not saying that there aren't some folks who are unhappy with 5E, but it is a molehill compared to 4E - at least based upon what I see on forums. Most of what people are unhappy with is the lack of information, product, a gaming license, digital suite, etc.

So I would be concerned if WotC was thinking, "Well it didn't work for 4E so we shouldn't do it now." It is a very different situation.

Even people who were playing 4E still constantly got up in arms about everything the developers ever said about 4E. Every single article there was someone who took what as said as a personal affront and made sure to let all of us know that the developers were horrible people who kicked their dog. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who remembers the vitriol from theoretical "4E fans". Hell, you could write a compete novel with all the invectives thrown just over the Weapon Focus Feats alone.

I stand by my statement. The way we behave in places like here, we don't deserve more information given to us because of our behavior when we get it. We have the game, we should just go play the game. And if every couple months we receive a note that says "X book is on target to be released in Y month", we should count ourselves lucky for even getting that.

 

[ad_hoc]

I love 5e. It is by far my favourite edition, combining what I love of 2e and 3e as well as its own thing.

It is:

1. Quick and easy to play.
2. Gives a lot of leeway for DM decisions and quick and easy customization.
3. Still has the depth of character customization that I am looking for.

Everyone in my group loves it. We switched from 3.x and will never look back.

 

[Reynard]

I love 5e. It is by far my favourite edition, combining what I love of 2e and 3e as well as its own thing.

It is:

1. Quick and easy to play.
2. Gives a lot of leeway for DM decisions and quick and easy customization.
3. Still has the depth of character customization that I am looking for.

Everyone in my group loves it. We switched from 3.x and will never look back.

My group is unfortunately heavily invested in Pathfinder, both time and money wise. When we finish the current AP I am going to force them to play 4 sessions of 5E and I bet by the end they will vote to switch up. I just wish 5E was OGL -- it would make the process so much easier if there was a version of pfd20srd for 5E.

 

[Umbran]

I almost wonder, though, if WotC would be well served in having Mearls or someone write a monthly column that gives us a sense of what they're working on, what the plan is going forward, how the game is doing, etc.

While I wouldn't state it as strongly as DEFCON1, I agree with some of the sentiments - I don't think we (collectively, as the broad gaming community) have shown that we can and will take such information constructively. And so, as DEFCON1 said - why bother with the effort?

Where I disagree with DEFCON1 is in the reasons - while we may have seen the pattern emerge most strongly with 4e, I don't think it has anything at all to do with the editions themselves. 3e was pre-Facebook, pre-Twitter, and 4e took the hit because it was the first edition change since social media really started shaping our patterns. This has to do with our as-yet incomplete understanding of how people communicate (or perhaps, fail to communicate) on the internet. We've seen the same (and, honestly, worse) in recent events in the geek community and world, so this isn't an issue of RPGs, specifically. It is an issue of people.

We are like Dr. Victor Frankenstein, and internet communications are the creature/construct. We are very focused on the fact that we can communicate. We aren't so solid on what the repercussions of doing so thoughtlessly are. That understanding will take time, and until then, I can hardly blame WotC for deciding not to play too much with lightning.

 

[rosing-bull]

5e is great. And I think I'm one of those weirdos who thinks they're handling everything very well. When people complain about something, I almost inevitably think, "...but I like that, though." Lack of needless splat books, self-contained core, focus on adventures and focus on capitalizing on the brand outside of the (relatively) niche table top RPG products--I think those are all great ways to handle it. I feel like for the first time in my time with D&D--and I started in 2000 when 3e came out--I have time to breathe. I don't have to worry about what the new supplements and classes and spells and direction for the game will be. I can just keep playing and enjoying what I've got.

 

[Mercurius]

While I wouldn't state it as strongly as DEFCON1, I agree with some of the sentiments - I don't think we (collectively, as the broad gaming community) have shown that we can and will take such information constructively. And so, as DEFCON1 said - why bother with the effort?

Where I disagree with DEFCON1 is in the reasons - while we may have seen the pattern emerge most strongly with 4e, I don't think it has anything at all to do with the editions themselves. 3e was pre-Facebook, pre-Twitter, and 4e took the hit because it was the first edition change since social media really started shaping our patterns. This has to do with our as-yet incomplete understanding of how people communicate (or perhaps, fail to communicate) on the internet. We've seen the same (and, honestly, worse) in recent events in the geek community and world, so this isn't an issue of RPGs, specifically. It is an issue of people.

We are like Dr. Victor Frankenstein, and internet communications are the creature/construct. We are very focused on the fact that we can communicate. We aren't so solid on what the repercussions of doing so thoughtlessly are. That understanding will take time, and until then, I can hardly blame WotC for deciding not to play too much with lightning.

Well said and I agree, Umbran, to the extent that it may be that what you describe is the primary causative factor. But I think there are valid secondary ones, and that the specific edition, topic, community, etc, all play a role.

But yeah, the technology is still so relatively new. It is amazing to think that the internet has only been ubiquitous for about two decades. I enjoy telling my high school students about "lost technologies" that they never really experienced, like the Palm Pilot or the minidisk player. A surprising number of them still buy CDs and a few even had a cassette walkman, perhaps inherited from a Gen X parent. It might be interesting to find out how many of them have even heard of MySpace.