D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[El Mahdi]

Maybe, but I'd say it's arguable whether their goal of uniting the D&D community under a single game is possible given people's downright conflicting desires. I'd also add that while they started there, and keep repeating it as their goal the vast majority of talk coming out of WotC sounds to me one-sided against what I want out of D&D as a 4E fan.

I do understand that it will be impossible to design a game that will appeal to 100% of D&D fans, but I'm betting that they can do so for a significant majority. Maybe even up in the 90% range (my opinion only, of course).

But, I'd posit that you're either just one of the gamers that will be in that minority percentage (which is cool), or you're just not reading what's coming out of WotC very objectively. I'd recomend giving them the benefit of the doubt until you actually see the game (which you'll be able to see most of for free through the open playtests, once they start, and won't have to wait to buy it to get a good look).

I've found that it feels much more satisfying and righteous to criticize poor design and customer relations once you have concrete proof.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak, I think a lot of their 4e hate is really lip-service to appease the old-schoolers though. But I don't think anyone will know for certain until we actually see the stuff nearer to release.

I have yet to see any 4E Hate coming from anyone at WotC. I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

I challenge anyone on these boards to bring forth proof that anyone at WotC has done this since the anouncement of 5E.

It doesn't even need to be an edition or WotC bashing thread.

Just start a thread in the 4E Forum with quotes of the negative things WotC has said about 4E since the 5E anouncement. However, I'd expect it to be fair and objective, including the positive things that have been said about 4E.

I'm betting that either the thread never get's started due to a lack of negative quotes, or it's a thread with some quotes showing a very thin and purely subjective connection of this happening.

If nobody finds that there are any such quotes that show this, then I'd ask that people quit saying this...as it's unfounded, completely biased, and totally unconstructive.

Most of D&DNext's modules will not be 4e modules.

ROTFLMAO!

I think you understated that one a little bit.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

I can't imagine how you could have some characters with healing surges and others without healing surges at the same table. This is a daily resource used to throttle how much a character can do in a day. If one person has this limitation and others don't have it . . . not likely to work. But I'll be glad to be surprised if it does work.

 

[Janaxstrus]

The key is: Do you not want martial dailies and healing surges on your character sheet or are you so full of edition hate that you won't be happy if they exist on the same table?

Everything we've seen seems to indicate they are aiming for the first method. If you don't want a 4e style character sheet then you pick the old school classes/themes and have a fighter/sword whacker, but your buddy Joe who does like martial dailies and healing surges picks the Paladin/Holy Bastion. So the choice of playstyle lies at the individual character level. Admittedly this does not help if you are unwilling to permit Joe to have badwrongfun at your table, but if we can all be just a bit more grown up than that then 5e might have a chance.

I don't want them at all, same table, same character sheet etc. I don't really want to see them in the game.

 

[Sunseeker]

I wouldn't call it hate so much as bias. They claim 5E is going to be for everyone, but the majority of talk coming out of WotC is biased in the other direction. Given that, I find it difficult to trust WotC or to be enthusiastic about 5E.

That's probably a better way to put it. IMO, I feel like a lot of what was learned from 4e will make it into 5e. I just feel it will be wrapped up in fluff that will make older gamers more palatable to it.

I guess outright calling it "hate" might be a little much, but it does feel like they're talking down about a lot of 4e stuff. I realize that there's a desire to pull in fans of older editions, but they're not going to unify the base if they pull in the old guys by throwing out the new guys(which for some old guys, is the only way they'd buy a new edition).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I have yet to see any 4E Hate coming from anyone at WotC. I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

I challenge anyone on these boards to bring forth proof that anyone at WotC has done this since the anouncement of 5E.

I'm not saying 4E hate is coming out of WotC. I'm saying that the majority of talk is biased in the opposite direction. In the L&L article being discussed in this thread, Mike states "if we get the math right and it doesn't feel like D&D, we've failed" but it doesn't address the opposite, getting the 'feel' right but getting the math wrong. I read that statement and wonder if they are willing to get the math wrong to get somebody's subjective 'feel' right. As a 4E fan, getting the math wrong, or getting balance wrong is a complete dealbreaker and I'm pretty sure I'm far from alone on this. WotC is doing little to reassure my worries, while seemingly bending over backwards to court people who want things contrary to what I'm after.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't want them at all, same table, same character sheet etc. I don't really want to see them in the game.

Yes, we all get that you hate 4e and everything 4e and everyone who plays 4e even though you've never actually played it. Could you kindly be constructive instead of divisive? I said I wouldn't report you for your opinion, but you're really borderline trolling at this point. You're aware of the stated design goals of 5e to be INCLUSIVE of players and ideas from multiple editions. If your personal opinion is that 5e should be exclusive, then it clearly isn't for you, so I'd appreciate it if you stopped wasting everyone's time.

Admin note: we've dealt with this privately. -- PCat

 

[El Mahdi]

Well, you can't really be claiming your current game is awsome while at the same time running a PR campaign to promote why the new game is going to be great, just 3 years after the old edition hit the market.

Why is that? I'm just not seeing why that would be contradictory.

Was Original D&D awesome? Absolutely

Was BD&D awesome? Without a Doubt.

Was AD&D, AD&D 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and Essentials awesome? I'd say resoundingly, YES!

We're any of those editions (excepting the original one), unifying editions? Not Really.

So how is it that if 4E was and is an awesome edition, they aren't allowed to say that and have people believe them just because they believe the new edition will be awesome too...?


Sounds to me like people just looking for a reason to be contrary...

I think 5E may very well be the industry unification edition. People with radically different approaches might be buying it and playing it.

I think it may also, perversely, be the hobby anti-unification edition. People with radically different approaches will frequent the same discussions, get royally sick of each other, and forums software will need some kind of clever enhancement to handle the much larger "ignore list" features.

5E may be the first edition to push forums, like this one, into dividing up by play style instead of edition--in self defense of moderator sanity, if nothing else.

You just may be right!

Maybe we should have a Moderator Apreciation Day or Week just before 5E is released. Just to let them know we understand their pain...

 

[D'karr]

They could totally succeed in their goal to unify the player base. If in the end everyone hates NeXt they will have unified the fan base, in at least some manner.



I truly hope that is not the case.

 

[El Mahdi]

...I'm saying that the majority of talk is biased in the opposite direction. In the L&L article being discussed in this thread, Mike states "if we get the math right and it doesn't feel like D&D, we've failed" but it doesn't address the opposite, getting the 'feel' right but getting the math wrong. I read that statement and wonder if they are willing to get the math wrong to get somebody's subjective 'feel' right. As a 4E fan, getting the math wrong, or getting balance wrong is a complete dealbreaker and I'm pretty sure I'm far from alone on this. WotC is doing little to reassure my worries, while seemingly bending over backwards to court people who want things contrary to what I'm after.

And I completely disagree with this also.

Lack of active discussion of something (what's good in 4E) IS NOT evidence of bias against that something (4E), or willful ignoring of something (getting the math right).

Saying that it is, is incredibly faulty logic based purely on Assumption.


One should always remember the Oscar Wilde quote about Assumptions...

 

[Andor]

That's probably a better way to put it. IMO, I feel like a lot of what was learned from 4e will make it into 5e. I just feel it will be wrapped up in fluff that will make older gamers more palatable to it.

I guess outright calling it "hate" might be a little much, but it does feel like they're talking down about a lot of 4e stuff. I realize that there's a desire to pull in fans of older editions, but they're not going to unify the base if they pull in the old guys by throwing out the new guys(which for some old guys, is the only way they'd buy a new edition).

It's hard to improve something if you insist it was perfect to begin with, it's hard to learn a lesson if you think you got it right the first time.

I haven't read much bashing of 4e, certainly not nearly the level of bashing they were dumping on 3e back when 4e was the hot new thing. What I have read seems to be more along the lines of "We see some room for improvement." or even "We liked it but half our player base went into anaphylactic shock and had to have pathfinder administered by IV. We'd like to dial that back to sub-critical dosages."