D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Obryn]

The problem is expecting to sit down with Next and play a session of 4th of 3rd edition.

Dude, every single thread you start amounts to, "Next should do this like 3e/PF."

This most recent packet is the first time it's seemed like Next is going in a new direction of its own. It's even taking cues from Dungeon World, strangely enough, in its exploration rules.

-O

 

[Ratskinner]

Generating and/or modifying 4e powers and systems is actually not hard; I think what you are sensing there is the natural learning curve with a new set of mechanisms. When AD&D came along I felt very intimidated from modifying or inventing new system material for it - especially after reading the dire warnings about "upsetting the delicate balance of play" in the DMG. 4e initially looked at least as intimidating, but after taking time to 'grok' the system I now find it pretty easy.

That's certainly possible. My then-groups became casualties of the edition wars, so I haven't gotten to experiment as much as I'd like with 4e. OTOH, I'm a fairly inveterate system-basher, even for non-D&D systems. When I look at say making a new class in 4e...that just seems like a lot of writing.

As an aside, I finally got to play FATE this weekend - yay! I would say I think the same applies as with the D&D examples above; from limited exposure I cannot see how one would even begin to make a "dungeon crawl" aesthetic using a system that so boldly encourages the players to drive the story. Not that I think it's not possible - it's just that I would need to grok the "working parts" of the system far more than I do now in order to see how it could be achieved.

The key with FATE seems to be that everybody at the table wants to dungeon-crawl. A side-effect of the redistribution of narrative power. That's just my impression from reading others' posts, though. I've never tried it myself.

Um, I'm not sure where this came from - Abdul's point seemed to me to be that there is no such thing as " the perfect Role-playing architecture", which is why a game that tries to be "all things to all men" won't work. I'm inclined to agree.

AA was citing the advent of other games during AD&D's tenure as evidence that AD&D was too narrow a chassis to build a broadly-appealing game (serving different agendas and tones) while also claiming that 4e was better for this purpose.

No game covers everything well. (To which we all agree, I think) I just think that focusing tightly on providing one thing is a design choice, not a doom of rpg design.

As a final note (not specifically to you, Ratskinner) about the vaunted "tactical system", it's been said before but I think it misses the point. The main things I value about 4e I think are the clarity, the elegance, the structure, the precision and the rigour of the base rules. Various - often very different - systems have this; Primetime Adventures, Universalis and DragonQuest are three that spring to mind, but DDN does not. And these are things that, if they are to be present at all, have to be baked into the core of the rules, so it's pretty clear that DDN is unlikely to have them added in by any supplementary or "modular" system later. <snip>

This is part of why I'm glad I'm not on the design team. The critical <thing that makes 4e appealing> seems to vary a lot between 4e fans. It may do so for fans of earlier editions, but they seem less vocal or specific about it. In aggregate, it makes it seem tough to appeal to them as a group without basically redoing 4e. I do wonder if a more 4e-ish chassis could serve to cover the broader D&D audience, but I think the edition wars soured that milk. I just can't imagine trying to sell such a thing to the whole audience.

 

[Jester David]

I'm fairly certain the conversation went something like this.

R&D Member #1: Well, 2014 is three years away, so if we're going to make a new edition, it's time to start developing it.
R&D Member #2: So what do we want to address in the new edition?
R&D Member #1: Well, obviously the market is split. 4e's doing good, and DDI's been a money-maker, but Paizo's doing well with Pathfinder, and there's a lot of activity in the OSR. If we can tap into all of these markets, that'd be pretty awesome.
R&D Member #3: Hmmm...an edition for fans of all editions? I like the sound of that! But that's going to be a tough bit of design.
R&D Member #4: Say, public playtests are pretty popular. What if we hold a huge public playtest, over the course of two years? We'd have a much better idea how the game will be accepted by the various groups, and we could bring back some of the freedom and customization of 3e without the balance problems.
R&D Member #5: But what do we sell during that time? No one's going to want to buy 4e product while we're publically playtesting the next edition.
R&D Member #1: Well, DDI brings in about [REDACTED] dollars a month. Even if that drops off a bit, we can make up for that with collector's reprints of old editions and some edition-neutral product. Maybe get back into the PDF game. The board games are doing well, and we've got the digital rights back from Atari. That should be enough to pay the bills!

You're forgetting the timing.
In late 2010 and early 2011 WotC had just gotten burned by Essentials, which cost Bill Slavicsek his job. They cancelled three books and scrambled to change two books back to the old format. After getting hurt pursuing a potential audience over an existing audience, they'd be very wary about doing it again: if the existing audience was adequate, a new edition is unneeded.

They're missing two Christmases without easy products and are going to the 2013 GenCon without a big showcase product. Not something done lightly.
While coinciding with the 40th Anniversary is a nice goal, attention would be on the game anyway. It'd be better to have a game in stores with multiple accessories at the start of the year. You can't predict when people will hear or write about the anniversary and not having current products for sale hurts the game. You do NOT want people in stores told "they're just releasing a new edition. Come back in three months and you can buy it."

 

[Iosue]

You're forgetting the timing.
In late 2010 and early 2011 WotC had just gotten burned by Essentials, which cost Bill Slavicsek his job. They cancelled three books and scrambled to change two books back to the old format. After getting hurt pursuing a potential audience over an existing audience, they'd be very wary about doing it again: if the existing audience was adequate, a new edition is unneeded.

No, the timing is exactly my point. Both 3e and 4e were 3 years from start of development to release. 2014 is a) the 40th anniversary of D&D and b) 6 years into the life of 4e, which pretty much follows WotC's plan of major overhauls every 5 years. A new edition in 2014 was a fait accompli. And if a new edition is coming out in 2014, then planning is going to start in 2011. Which it did.

 

[El Mahdi]

Nope! So feel free to dismiss it.

However, you will note that I wasn't stating it as some kind of fact; I merely presented it as a possibility. Which it is (a possibility).

It carries every bit as much weight as the speculation that the pro-4e naysayers make up less than 10% of the feedback respondents, and every bit as much weight as pretend math.

No you did not "merely present it as a possibility." You presented it as somthing you "...think [is] more than a little possible..."

In other words, not merely a possiblity, but something you believe based on no evidence whatsoever and felt was important to share. Please save the disengenuity and downplaying. You said it; you own it.

Saying such negative and spurious things as what you said about the polling data, is no different (whether intentional or not) than those who hated and attempted to sabotage 4E. Simply put; an illogical assumption at best, certainly counter-productive, and wholly falacious.

All of us have the opportunity to show how we're different than those that attacked 4E, that we've all learned from the mistakes of the past, and we're better than those that attacked 4E.

So far, there's a very vocal minority of 4E fans that are showing they're no different than the fools who bash 4E, and doing the entirety of 4E fans a huge disservice.


This also goes for those who like to characterize 4E as a failure ( [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION] and others), under the supposedly innocent guise of only talking about it as a business. This is also disingenuous and fallacious, and nobody here is fool enough to not know what is really being said.

 

[am181d]

No you did not "merely present it as a possibility." You presented it as somthing you "...think [is] more than a little possible..."

In other words, not merely a possiblity, but something you believe based on no evidence whatsoever and felt was important to share. Please save the disengenuity and downplaying. You said it; you own it.

As a point of order "more than a little possible" means "a medium amount possible" or even "a large amount possible." It certainly doesn't, as you infer here, mean "definitely true."

 

[Campbell]

Businesses do not operate on thresholds of revenue in some sort of if/then matrix. When you can make more money than you're currently making you execute a plan to separate your customers from their money. It's modified based on risk and sometimes long term sustainability, but the intent is there. You know what's better than the money I'm getting right now? More money.

It's fairly obvious to me that WotC wants some of its pie back from Paizo. I'm just not sure that 4e fans are as loyal as WotC assumes, or PF fans can be convinced to switch while Paizo continues to release solid adventure content.

 

[Nagol]

Businesses do not operate on thresholds of revenue in some sort of if/then matrix. When you can make more money than you're currently making you execute a plan to separate your customers from their money. It's modified based on risk and sometimes long term sustainability, but the intent is there. You know what's better than the money I'm getting right now? More money.

It's fairly obvious to me that WotC wants some of its pie back from Paizo. I'm just not sure that 4e fans are as loyal as WotC assumes, or PF fans can be convinced to switch while Paizo continues to release solid adventure content.

Rule of Acquisition #242: More is good... all is better!

 

[El Mahdi]

Oh come now,if we want to be blunt, well everyone has their tune and I have yet to seepeople bend much at all on this whole topic. Again, look at the topic of thethread. It isn't about "all the stuff you think about DDN", its about"wrong path", so that's what we talk about. Since when was Iresponsible to answering your question? lol. You can imagine whatever you wish,it doesn't really matter to me. Of course everyone imagines that someone isgoing to read their thread and some lightbulb is going to come on and they'regoing to take you up on your idea. Isn't that sort of the universal fantasy ofall the type of people that would post in this thread?

But really, watch it, your motives could just as easily be questioned!

I deleted the quoted post because of Umbran's admonishment to everyone in the thread. I felt that the way I had phrased things came across as very combative and innapropriate. But apparently you want to keep it going no matter what. So, I'll do my best to respond without the failings of my first attempt.


My motives have no need to be questioned, by me or anyone else. I've openly and honestly voiced my motives for all to see. I have nothing to hide. My motives are:

· I am pro-D&D...period. I do not hate4E. I do not hate any edition or RPG. And I have NEVER participated in edition wars, posted any hate of any edition, nor posted anyhate towards players or fans of any edition based on their edition or game preferences.

· I choose to be optimistic and objective about what I hear from WotC, and do my best to be constructive with my participation in forming D&DN. I do so not because I'm a WotC fanboy (which any review of my posting concerning them would very easily confirm), or because I'm a 5E fanboy, or because I'm an X edition hater (covered above), or any other reason other than it's the only logical approach. Any other approach, other than ignoring 5E altogether, is simply a waste of energy and counter-productive (whether intentional or not).

· My motives as concerns your posts are simple: I'm tired of the hate, the vitriol, the baseless assumptions, the pervasive negativity, and the choice to be counter-productive (whether conscious or not). Your posts are doing nothing but spreading negativity and angst. You're not participating in the discussion in a meaningful or constructive manner. You are instead turning discussions that could be that, into ones full of negativity and edition bashing. I don't know if you intend that or not, but it is what your posts are doing. It's your choice as to whether you continue to do so or not.


As to answering the question "...why are you still here?" - As always nobody is forcing you to answer the question. Nobody said you have a responsibility to answer the question. Nobody has demanded that you answer. All anybody has done is asked you the question, and asked you to answer it. You can feel that you're the wounded and persecuted party if you want, but it just ain't true...no matter how much you profess otherwise.



However, the question is still there and has not been answered...

If you're so sure that D&DN will fail...that it absolutely will not have what you want out of it...and you have repeatedly (ad nauseum, your words) made sure everyone in the gaming universe is aware of your opinion...then why do you feel the need to continue in these threads? Do you feel that there are people out that aren't yet aware of your opinion of 5E? Trust me, everyone is painfully aware of your opinion of D&DN.

As I said before (but seemed to be conveniently left out of the quote of my post), there are only so many possibilities as to why one would do so (or a combination of them):

1. Simply wanting to complain in a venue where there is a lot of visibility.

2. Feeling a sense of sour grapes that WoTC is moving on from one's preferred game.

3. Wanting to convince other people to give up on D&DN also.

4. Wanting D&DN to support one's playstyle only as opposed to the playstyles it's currently designed to support.

5. Actually caring about D&DN and wanting it to also support one's playstyle.


So what is it? Inquiring minds would like to know.

If it's simply a need to complain loudly and continuously, then congratulations...Mission Accomplished. However, just so you understand the lay of the land, your posts are coming across as incredibly negative and hateful, illogical, and chocked full of assumptions and "mind reading"; all of which are not flattering qualities to possess or be linked with. But, if this is what you want your reputation on ENWorld to consist of, I guess that's your choice.

As to the sour grapes: do you not realize that you're doing exactly everything you hated about what others did when 4E was released? You're expressing and propagating the same hate, edition bashing, and negativity of those that railed against 4E. If you are aware of doing this, does it make you feel vindicated to do so? Does it make you feel proud? My guess is probably No. It's an itch that can't ever be scratched. You can continue as you have, but it's never going to make you feel better.

If it's about trying to get other people to give up on D&DN, or apply pressure to make D&DN support only your playstyle: then let me disavow you of these hopes...IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! There's only one result this course will lead to: you will not get what you want, you'll progressively feel more and more slighted, and it will sit like an open wound...that is until, or if, you decide to just give it up.

If it's about trying to influence WotC to also include your playstyle: I understand and I support you. However, I do not support how you're doing it. The venue you've chosen, and the manner in which you're pursuing this are ineficient and innapropriate...essentially guarenteed to fail (again, if this is what you're doing). Providing feedback to WotC in the official channels, and doing so objectively and constructively, is the only approach that has any chance of success. And before all the previously stated excuses start coming out again, let me head them off right here:

· "I already have provided feedback and it's been ignored..." - Just because you haven't seen changes does not mean it's been ignored; and things like this playtest require diligence and perseverence...faith and optimism. These are things that must be chosen and practiced. Nothing good ever came easy.

· "I don'thave the time..." - Absolute Crap! If any one of the people on here (including yourself and @pemerton among others), had devoted even a fraction of the time you've all spent complaining here to instead providing official feedback at WotC, you'd likely have seen results more inline with your desires (or at the least, an honest and indepth official discussion(s) from the designers of what D&DN needs in order to provide what you want, and real work on providing it).

· "It'sfutile. WotC/the designers/Mike Mearls (etc.) have implied/said that they will not/are averse to/are allergic to (etc.) to using 4E elements in D&DN..." - These are statements/opinions/assumptions that have been proven over and over (ad nauseum again) to not be true. They are baseless, disingenuous, and fallacious; not to mention that the incessant complaining proves that you don't believe this. If you truly felt this was so futile, I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else would be putting so much energy into complaining about what D&DN doesn't have, why it doesn't have it, what exactly it is you do want and why you want it.


Anyways...

Answer or don't answer, the choice is yours.

 

[El Mahdi]

As a point of order "more than a little possible" means "a medium amount possible" or even "a large amount possible." It certainly doesn't, as you infer here, mean "definitely true."

I agree...which is why I didn't say or imply that.

Nice try though.


Next Batter...?