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

[Hussar]

Similarly, there are some people (like myself) who have bought PF products with the intent of converting some of the material into a system which wasn't D&D at all. I also do play Pathfinder on occasion, but a lot of the adventures and fluff content were purchases I made with the intention of using the information in a GURPS game.

I think there is a very, very large segment of PF fans who, like GURPS fans, buy the books to read, rather than play and then use bits and bobs in other games.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I believe you're completely wrong. I believe your conclusions are based on assumptions that are not correct, and not based on fact.

I present the following limited data in opposition.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...You-Like-The-Direction-D-amp-DN-Is-Heading-In

[Poll] Do You Like The Direction D&DN Is Heading In?

I just want to comment on those numbers a little bit. I'm not counting the 'ambivalent' votes because they either don't care, or are reserving judgment for after release, or will just play whatever the new edition is regardless.

I'll point out that while slightly less than 50% of respondents said they either loved it or really liked it, about 30% either do not like it or really hate it. Not really great numbers for an edition whose stated aim is to unify everyone under a big tent that is labelled 'D&D'. This looks like market fragmentation to me - the same issue plaguing every edition since the boom in the 80s.

Even if you assume for a moment that the ambivalent votes ALL side with those who love it (which is unlikely), that still leaves 25-30% - between a full quarter and a third of the potential market doesn't like what's happening. That's not good news. And if the ambivalents all go the other way (equally unlikely, but it's just for illustration) then you're looking at 50/50. That's really not good news.

If the numbers were closer to 80 or 90% in approval or ambivalence, with minimal 'dislike' or 'hate' votes, that's a different story, but we're not seeing that.

 

[drothgery]

No worries; you have at least one person that agrees with you, and likely more. I can think of several posters who would gladly back you up on this.

Yup. Heck, because I wanted this to happen, I was very much in favor of WotC doing a 5e ... until I saw what they actually put out there in articles and playtest material. I figured a 1e->2e level edition change (massive overhaul of flavor text heavy on the 3.x-era nostalgia so back to Greyhawk and 9 alignments - well ten because unaligned should be core, make sure you don't need math fixes, prune the feat list a lot, give controllers a real shtick, kick epic out of PH1 to make room for almost all of the 3.x races and classes, get someone to write a good adventure series and go) would keep almost everyone who was already buying stuff and bring in everyone 4e lost for superficial reasons instead of real ones.

 

[Ratskinner]

<snippage>...would keep almost everyone who was already buying stuff and bring in everyone 4e lost for superficial reasons instead of real ones.

I'm going to say this in a totally speculative manner.

I sometimes wonder about the ratio of "superficial" to "real" reasons 4e seems to have lost people. I'm a "fan" of some really odd indie games (none of which sell very well). In fact, since none of the indie games I'm thinking of have had a whole lot of success at breaking a big market like D&D, I sometimes wonder if those types of mechanics are just not that appealing to the rpg audience as a whole. So while 4e taking steps in that direction was seen as good by rpg aficionados, those steps would make it less appealing overall. ::shrug:: I dunno for sure, but the way people toss around "metagame" and "dissociated" I tend to suspect that its more problematic than its given credit for.

 

[drothgery]

I'm going to say this in a totally speculative manner.

I sometimes wonder about the ratio of "superficial" to "real" reasons 4e seems to have lost people. I'm a "fan" of some really odd indie games (none of which sell very well). In fact, since none of the indie games I'm thinking of have had a whole lot of success at breaking a big market like D&D, I sometimes wonder if those types of mechanics are just not that appealing to the rpg audience as a whole. So while 4e taking steps in that direction was seen as good by rpg aficionados, those steps would make it less appealing overall. ::shrug:: I dunno for sure, but the way people toss around "metagame" and "dissociated" I tend to suspect that its more problematic than its given credit for.

... and that's certainly true. But it's also true that a lot of people's stated issues with 4e are based on things that are pure flavor (new alignment system, PoL-land vs Greyhawk and the Great Wheel, the set of races and classes in the first PH and set of monsters in the first MM, going to level 30, including Come and Get It) that could be changed pretty easily.

 

[jrowland]

... In which case, we pick different restaurants. Maybe not the same one, but not this one.

Yup.

Are you implying that it's rude to think Next's design is unappealing at this time? Or am I misunderstanding you?

-O

You are misunderstanding me. Implying it's rude? Where the heck did you get that impression?

My point was geared towards the idea that "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander" ie, if (Celebrim) can tell a player take a hike if they don't like his table rules, WotC can do the same to Celebrim. Or as you put it, pick a different restaurant.

If you don't like what the game is shaping out to be, why (to push the analogy) are you still dining here?

 

[jrowland]

See, this is what I hate about analogies. Instead of arguing the point, you end up arguing the analogy. Instead of clarifying, the analogy ends up obscuring.

In the original usage of the analogy, the 'chef' was the GM, and the 'eaters' were players. WotC is not a GM or a player. It's a company the publishes gaming media. You can't just repurpose an analogy and necessarily make a point. The analogy wasn't even necessarily perfect in the first place, and is likely to be even less perfect if you force it to refer to yet a third situation as if there was a one to and onto mapping between all three situations. There are lots of features of being a corporation that publishes gaming media for profit and being a DM that are different or exclusive to one or the other. They aren't perfectly comparable at all any more than gaming is perfectly comparable to eating a meal. If we want to keep extending the analogy past the breaking point, then WotC is analogous to a corporation that is preparing to launch a new line of casual dining restuarants, and I am a franchise owner/chef that has to decide whether to invest my money in opening a new restaurant. But really, by this point the analogy isn't helping understanding; it's hindering it.

You're the one pushing the analogy, and hindering it. I wasn't trying to alter the anaolgy. I got the original post. You claim DM prerogative at your gaming table (ie you are the chef). I am merely pointing out that WotC has Design Prerogative for D&D Next. You don't seem to like that prerogative (ie, you are a picky eater). Just as you can say, as DM, This is how things work at my table, WotC can say this is how things work in my rulebooks. Choose another restaurant.

 

[Celebrim]

You're the one pushing the analogy, and hindering it. I wasn't trying to alter the anaolgy. I got the original post. You claim DM prerogative at your gaming table (ie you are the chef). I am merely pointing out that WotC has Design Prerogative for D&D Next. You don't seem to like that prerogative (ie, you are a picky eater). Just as you can say, as DM, This is how things work at my table, WotC can say this is how things work in my rulebooks. Choose another restaurant.

Well, that's great except that it pretty much ignores everything that motivates a company or any thing that WotC has said about 5e. Other than that, good logic.

 

[billd91]

... bring in everyone 4e lost for superficial reasons instead of real ones.

Wait. What's the difference between a superficial reason and a "real" reason? Are you trying to say that setting/lore-based reasons aren't somehow "real" reasons? That game mechanic reasons are "real" reasons?

 

[billd91]

That's the real frustration for 4e players, isn't it? It's the OPPORTUNITY COST of doing a "retro D&D mishmash" that appears to be serving no one, when they KNOW that a productive, detailed re-work of the 4e core could really give them something special. And realizing that opportunity is going to be lost, at least until someone with the guts and fortitude comes up with an OGL "Pathfinderized" 4e clone. Put in that light, I can see how that would be incredibly frustrating, especially when it feels like most of the 3e and prior crowd is giving Next a resounding "meh" to this point.

Isn't that part of the frustration of any game fan who sees their game shift design directions with a new edition? The main reason the 4e fan is feeling it so acutely now is their favorite edition is the one whose design direction is being deprecated in favor of a different one. Well, I suppose the extended and public nature of the play test period may be stretching the period of impending despair...