D&D 5E D&DNext - Frankenstein or Butterfly?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I already thought 4e would bring back some 2e flavour... which it sadly did only partial.

I also see so much of 4e in DnDnext, that it makes me happy. Even expertise dice are a 4e invention... (seeker)

If everything works well in the end, 5e is a perfect mix of 4th and 2nd edition, making a game 3e should have been (and was in parts)

If it does not work out well, I still have myth and magic to play with, which seems to have tried to create 2nd edition flair with solid mechanics.

Well, from a pure flavor standpoint and the way it is in general written 2e is great. However as a RULE SYSTEM it is AWEFUL.

I'm not aware of anything that Seeker has that is like expertise dice. While you could sort of by a stretch consider them to be a bit like some of the striker damage bonus features they serve a totally different purpose.

Honestly, nothing that is important and central to 4e TO ME at least is present AT ALL in DDN. Instead it suffers from the same "mass of different mechanics" nightmare that was classic to 2e. This is PRECISELY what 4e was all about is NOT being that. Nothing is gained by it either, ED, casting, etc can be perfectly well emulated to almost the Nth degree using mechanics that already exist in 4e.

All I want to see from DDN is a perfection of the existing direction that the game has been going in for the last 5 years. I have no desire to have any of the mechanics of 2e back in anything like their 2e form, whatsoever. I don't even want any 3.x mechanics back.

 

[JeffB]

Well, from a pure flavor standpoint and the way it is in general written 2e is great. However as a RULE SYSTEM it is AWEFUL.

So awful that they canned 4e, and all its support, but they are bringing back 2e reprints next year.

Reckon they know where they can make money, because there is absolutely no shortage of 2e books on the used market. And even if it is aimed at collectors, its a.pretty sad assesment offurther products of the "superior" systems ability to turn some profit.


I dont mean to edition war, but Its pretty funny when you are critizing a system that made tons more money, had a lifespan almost 3 times as long as 4e did, and was seen as more desirable to revisit 13 years after its demise than pushing out more 4e material next year.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So awful that they canned 4e, and all its support, but they are bringing back 2e reprints next year.

Reckon they know where they can make money, because there is absolutely no shortage of 2e books on the used market. And even if it is aimed at collectors, its a.pretty sad assesment offurther products of the "superior" systems ability to turn some profit.


I dont mean to edition war, but Its pretty funny when you are critizing a system that made tons more money, had a lifespan almost 3 times as long as 4e did, and was seen as more desirable to revisit 13 years after its demise than pushing out more 4e material next year.

Well, I don't know that it would be more profitable. I doubt WotC knows either. It serves their strategic interests to do it and they'll find out. Frankly it looks to me more like a band-aide. Mike decided to abandon 4e, so he's got nothing to sell. He's gotta do SOMETHING and if he pumped out 4e books he wouldn't have the staff to do his little D&D empire of DDN. IMHO it isn't evidence of anything except how determined Mike Mearls is to have his own edition of D&D... I can understand the temptation, but I think he's too close to things to make good decisions.

And yes, 2e was a giant mess, mechanically. There's nothing from that mess that I would want in DDN. In all fairness DDN so far is not identical in any specific, but it is very similar in overall design (or chaotic lack of overall design rather). Like 2e it will fall apart under the weight of added material pretty quickly. Something that 4e handled quite well.

I just don't think that the feel of 2e play that people often want is at all hard to do using a better designed system like 4e. It will not be EXACTLY 4e, but it will still be quite close and again I think it will be a lot more solid and interesting system.

 

[RACER_X?HAHAHA]

Well, I don't know that it would be more profitable. I doubt WotC knows either. It serves their strategic interests to do it and they'll find out. Frankly it looks to me more like a band-aide. Mike decided to abandon 4e, so he's got nothing to sell. He's gotta do SOMETHING and if he pumped out 4e books he wouldn't have the staff to do his little D&D empire of DDN. IMHO it isn't evidence of anything except how determined Mike Mearls is to have his own edition of D&D... I can understand the temptation, but I think he's too close to things to make good decisions.

And yes, 2e was a giant mess, mechanically. There's nothing from that mess that I would want in DDN. In all fairness DDN so far is not identical in any specific, but it is very similar in overall design (or chaotic lack of overall design rather). Like 2e it will fall apart under the weight of added material pretty quickly. Something that 4e handled quite well.

I just don't think that the feel of 2e play that people often want is at all hard to do using a better designed system like 4e. It will not be EXACTLY 4e, but it will still be quite close and again I think it will be a lot more solid and interesting system.

There is something that 4e can't do that 2e could. Inequity, that is the key. Now, admittedly most people would say that inequity of class, race, monster, and etcetera are bad things. However, if used with care, inequity of mechanics provides a certain excitement.

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, I don't know that it would be more profitable. I doubt WotC knows either. It serves their strategic interests to do it and they'll find out. Frankly it looks to me more like a band-aide. Mike decided to abandon 4e, so he's got nothing to sell. He's gotta do SOMETHING and if he pumped out 4e books he wouldn't have the staff to do his little D&D empire of DDN. IMHO it isn't evidence of anything except how determined Mike Mearls is to have his own edition of D&D... I can understand the temptation, but I think he's too close to things to make good decisions.

I doubt that its that petty/conspiratorial. My suspicion, mostly driven by D&D's edition cycle since WotC purchased it, is that D&D/TTRPGs is really (even now) not that good of a business fit for a branch of a major company like Hasbro. I don't think it has anything to do with any particular edition, just that the purchasing market is so small and easily saturated. Once you've sold the core books, you have to start producing ever more specialized product, and you get into the unprofitable weeds pretty quickly.*

4e tried to fix this a little bit (I think) with the way they handled it. For whatever reason, it didn't take. WotC has corporate memory now that the fix for slow D&D sales is to make a new edition, so that's what they did. I don't feel that the lifetimes of 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 4Essentials are so significantly different that any conspiracy theories are necessary to explain 5e on the schedule it is set for. (The Great Splintering, caused by the edition war, may have hastened 5e's coming a little bit. Only from lost sales though, IMO.)

And yes, 2e was a giant mess, mechanically. There's nothing from that mess that I would want in DDN. In all fairness DDN so far is not identical in any specific, but it is very similar in overall design (or chaotic lack of overall design rather). Like 2e it will fall apart under the weight of added material pretty quickly. Something that 4e handled quite well.

Its a little early to be predicting too much about 5e and its failings yet. 2e lasted quite a while. Whether that was because it was a hot mess, in spite of it, or for other factors entirely, I dunno. I just don't think there's enough data to support much conjecture in that regard, especially given the very different climates in which 2e and the modern versions were produced and played.

I just don't think that the feel of 2e play that people often want is at all hard to do using a better designed system like 4e. It will not be EXACTLY 4e, but it will still be quite close and again I think it will be a lot more solid and interesting system.

Now that sounds like an interesting thread. I suspect that whether a person finds it true or not will depend greatly on what aspects of 2e that person found so attractive. (Also, I suppose, on what aspects of 4e count as "better-designed".)

*I think Paizo has built a steady following of its adventure paths, which supports its profit model more than selling core books. For whatever reason, WotC has never managed to pull off a similar trick. Note also, that they are a "smaller shop".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is something that 4e can't do that 2e could. Inequity, that is the key. Now, admittedly most people would say that inequity of class, race, monster, and etcetera are bad things. However, if used with care, inequity of mechanics provides a certain excitement.

Sure it can. My level 5 wizard is more powerful than your level 2 fighter. It is perfectly feasible to have unequal characters, the game simply makes each LEVEL be an actual meaningful measure of character power. If you want, for instance, a mage-centered campaign with other classes reduced to a secondary 'henchman' type of role then just give 2x XP for doing things with magic, or just make all the story rewards focused on magical accomplishments that can't be acquired by non-casters.

Not only does 4e do inequity better than previous editions, it does it rather elegantly actually.

 

[Ratskinner]

I also believe, as good as 4e is. It is not the edition which could achieve the goal. I baught gardmore abbey, and it is a great adventure... but playing it with 4e rules does not work for me.

While 4e greatly decreased the preparation time, it actually increased the time needed for encounters, which too be honest, was already too high in 3e.

So I expect from 5e that it will be a game that is easy to prepare like 4e but faster to run, as my playing time is even more limited than my preperation time.

And selling adventures works better for a game, where it would otherwise cost a lot of time preparing. 4e is structured in a way, that I just don´t need to buy adventures. It is so easy to take an old one and upgrade it to 4e. It takes a few seconds to make up appropriate stats...
So I do support the opinion, that continuing 4e would be a bad decision.

I would XP every single paragraph of this post, if I could. As it is, I can't even XP the post...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I doubt that its that petty/conspiratorial. My suspicion, mostly driven by D&D's edition cycle since WotC purchased it, is that D&D/TTRPGs is really (even now) not that good of a business fit for a branch of a major company like Hasbro. I don't think it has anything to do with any particular edition, just that the purchasing market is so small and easily saturated. Once you've sold the core books, you have to start producing ever more specialized product, and you get into the unprofitable weeds pretty quickly.*

I wouldn't call it petty or conspiratorial at all. In fact this is a very standard reaction you get EVERY TIME you bring in a new engineering lead to maintain an existing software project. The first thing they almost invariably do is suggest throwing out the whole product and starting over because clearly they can do so much better and what exists must be a giant deeply flawed mess, etc. It is an "NIH" effect. It is QUITE obvious that's what is going on here with Mike and 4e. It is a rather insidious disease too, despite how easy it is to predict. There are ALWAYS some arguments for making a clean break and doing a new product from a blank slate. In this case it looks like Mike is pretty much in charge of making this decision. It is a slam dunk, and USUALLY a bad move at that.

4e tried to fix this a little bit (I think) with the way they handled it. For whatever reason, it didn't take. WotC has corporate memory now that the fix for slow D&D sales is to make a new edition, so that's what they did. I don't feel that the lifetimes of 3e, 3.5, 4e, and 4Essentials are so significantly different that any conspiracy theories are necessary to explain 5e on the schedule it is set for. (The Great Splintering, caused by the edition war, may have hastened 5e's coming a little bit. Only from lost sales though, IMO.)

Well, clearly the trend has been accelerating over the years, and 4e is still at the short end of the spectrum no matter how you count. The problem is that every new edition is another fracture in the fan base. Eventually you have nothing left but the worst-case scenario, just the people that will 'buy anything that says D&D' reflex buying this year's endless rehash of core rules.

Its a little early to be predicting too much about 5e and its failings yet. 2e lasted quite a while. Whether that was because it was a hot mess, in spite of it, or for other factors entirely, I dunno. I just don't think there's enough data to support much conjecture in that regard, especially given the very different climates in which 2e and the modern versions were produced and played.

I think we can make perfectly good comparisons of 2e and DDN. DDN may not be complete but even Mike tweeted something about once a couple tweaks he was working on were finished the "core would be complete". I think its valid to draw some types of conclusions. CERTAINLY we can consider the faults in a system that tacks on many disparate subsystems and has no strong exception-based design. THAT was the essence of the problem with 2e, mechanically. You had a dozen different confusing and competing ways to try to implement something and the result was chaos by the end of the Player Option series. It was indeed a hot mess. If you can have all the benefits without the downsides why wouldn't you?

Now that sounds like an interesting thread. I suspect that whether a person finds it true or not will depend greatly on what aspects of 2e that person found so attractive. (Also, I suppose, on what aspects of 4e count as "better-designed".)

It isn't actually a matter of little pieces parts. It is a matter of the overall way in which the system is structured and extended. It is a large topic though of course, and one that has surfaced in various threads before.

*I think Paizo has built a steady following of its adventure paths, which supports its profit model more than selling core books. For whatever reason, WotC has never managed to pull off a similar trick. Note also, that they are a "smaller shop".

Yes, and note the guy that is one of the cheif architects of that business model as well. A guy who seems to keep pulling off successful game system launches too. I think I'd be all over that if I was running a game company with any pretensions to be a good business. WotC is according to him wasting its time churning out new editions, it is a loosing game. At least that is what I gather from what I read.

 

[RACER_X?HAHAHA]

Sure it can. My level 5 wizard is more powerful than your level 2 fighter. It is perfectly feasible to have unequal characters, the game simply makes each LEVEL be an actual meaningful measure of character power. If you want, for instance, a mage-centered campaign with other classes reduced to a secondary 'henchman' type of role then just give 2x XP for doing things with magic, or just make all the story rewards focused on magical accomplishments that can't be acquired by non-casters.

Not only does 4e do inequity better than previous editions, it does it rather elegantly actually.

Firstly, what non-casters? Secondly, that hypothetical would make it impossible to have a mixed group. 4e has massively varying math by level, a level 2 non-caster has insufficient HP, AC, Attack bonus, or other defenses to stand against a monster that would be a challenge for a level 5 caster. So you'd either have to low-ball the challenges, which would bore the casters. Or, you'd have a high rate of non-caster death.

I think it's obvious that 4e isn't perfect. It's darn good, and fun to boot, but it's pretty limited IMO.

 

[Ratskinner]

I wouldn't call it petty or conspiratorial at all. In fact this is a very standard reaction you get EVERY TIME you bring in a new engineering lead to maintain an existing software project. The first thing they almost invariably do is suggest throwing out the whole product and starting over because clearly they can do so much better and what exists must be a giant deeply flawed mess, etc. It is an "NIH" effect. It is QUITE obvious that's what is going on here with Mike and 4e. It is a rather insidious disease too, despite how easy it is to predict. There are ALWAYS some arguments for making a clean break and doing a new product from a blank slate. In this case it looks like Mike is pretty much in charge of making this decision. It is a slam dunk, and USUALLY a bad move at that.

As much as it seems to be the popular belief, working in software/IT and the peculiarities of that culture, are not the end-all be-all of work life and workplace politics. I do not consider it at all obvious that that is what's going on. There's plenty of evidence to indicate perfectly likely monetary and business motivations for WotC.

Well, clearly the trend has been accelerating over the years, and 4e is still at the short end of the spectrum no matter how you count. The problem is that every new edition is another fracture in the fan base. Eventually you have nothing left but the worst-case scenario, just the people that will 'buy anything that says D&D' reflex buying this year's endless rehash of core rules.

Maybe. I personally suspect that this is a "farewell" edition of D&D that will be shelved after a relatively small run of titles. Leaving the IP to be resurrected after 10-15 years. I'm guessing that WotC has concluded that the audience's appetite for new editions is insufficient to maintain D&D as a constant, ongoing concern. Of course, if Next succeeds in its goals of unifying the audience, then WotC have the option to continue cranking out as much product as is profitable. I think the "unification" goals are an attempt to ensure that there still is an audience about 12 years from now for which to write 6e. In this, I will be happy to be wrong.

I think we can make perfectly good comparisons of 2e and DDN. DDN may not be complete but even Mike tweeted something about once a couple tweaks he was working on were finished the "core would be complete". I think its valid to draw some types of conclusions. CERTAINLY we can consider the faults in a system that tacks on many disparate subsystems and has no strong exception-based design. THAT was the essence of the problem with 2e, mechanically. You had a dozen different confusing and competing ways to try to implement something and the result was chaos by the end of the Player Option series. It was indeed a hot mess. If you can have all the benefits without the downsides why wouldn't you?

Maybe you can't have all the benefits?

Seriously.

A lot of us, myself included, have been enamored of unified mechanics. Maybe they aren't the best. Perhaps there's a middle ground between 2e's hot mess and 4e's strict conformity (hopefully one with less fiddly bits than 3e, AFAIC.) Certainly a great many people who were turned off by 4e cited that as a reason (and something similar can be said for 2e).

At this point, I'm willing to accept that my desire for an "elegant" unified system is not the best architecture for D&D. It seems to work well for some of the other systems I like, particularly more Narrative-oriented ones. However, it doesn't seem to create that mystical magical feeling of "D&D." Why? I have no idea.

I'm certainly not suggesting that we go back to AD&D, where there were several different ways to "hide" depending on how, who, where, and when they were doing it. However, I don't think its totally unreasonable or unworkable to suggest and test a system where martial maneuvers work differently than spells.

Yes, and note the guy that is one of the cheif architects of that business model as well. A guy who seems to keep pulling off successful game system launches too. I think I'd be all over that if I was running a game company with any pretensions to be a good business. WotC is according to him wasting its time churning out new editions, it is a loosing game. At least that is what I gather from what I read.

I'm not sure who or what you're referring to here. You're grammar isn't parsing for me, but maybe its because I don't have the antecedents you think I do.