D&D 5E Do we really need D&D:Next to be the One Edition?

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
No "should" involved. But we're all pretending to be elves in slightly different ways, and any outsider would find the level of divisiveness invoked due to differences in editions of a particular game to be downright silly, I'm sure. Just trying to show a different point of view.

But who cares about the outsiders' views on this? I'm not a fly fisherman so, as far as I'm concerned, all flies are pretty much the same. Ask an aficionado in the hobby and they'll have a different point of view. And they should because their POV within the hobby is different from mine without.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JamesonCourage

Adventurer
To build on that: I like certain video games. Not a lot, but a few. I generally dislike first person shooters, for example. If coworker invites me over to play video games, and says it's Call of Duty, I'm not likely to go. If a second coworker overhears and states that it's weird of me not to play, since I like video games, I'm not going to feel bad saying no, still.

I like driving certain cars, but not all cars. I drink soda, but not all soda. I like sandwiches, but not all sandwiches. It's just the way it is, and RPGs are no different. It's just preference. And if someone can't understand that -and lumps me in with all the other guys pretending to be elves- and then doesn't understand when I explain the concept of preference in certain subjects, then I won't much value his opinion.

But, that's me. As always, play what you like :)
 


Tony Vargas

Legend
You seem to enjoy many aspects of 4e, of all which made it into 5e (or are at least discussed) but it doesn't really ring true of older edition material.
Don't sweat it too much. There's not really a hint of balance in the core we've seen of 5e so far, nothing like 4e's AEDU-based class balance, at all. Not even a vague suggestion. The 'balance' part is vaporware at this point.

Slipping and sliding combat minis are a main feature of 4e.
Well, a minor part of tactical combat, which was a major feature of 3e and 4e, yeah. And, it's entirely absent from the playtest. Just more vague promises that the core doesn't seem capable of supporting.

"Plug and play" monsters, as you call them, are a feature of 4e that many enjoy. I don't enjoy having the boss/solo/elite mindset when making monsters, nor the minion/lacky/1(2hp) design either. I see both in 5e so far.
You have remarkable eyesight. 5e monsters, so far, are just bags of hit points, meant to be fought by PC of any level, just fought longer by lower level PCs, with the danger that the monster might kill you first. Solos have more powers, multi-target attacks, action-preservation, and other features that make them appropriate to take on a party single-handed, not /just/ a bigger bale of hps. Minions are one-hit-kill monsters, but misses don't kill them. There are very-low-hp monsters in the playtest, but misses /can/ kill them, they're just low-hp, there's nothing 'miniony' about them.

A lot of what you seem to like and what you say the designers are talking about sounds like 4e with new math.
What they're talking about and what they've actually delivered so far are two very different things.

The playtest has Vancian casters, clerical healing, open-ended skills (more like AD&D secondary skills or non-weapon proficiencies than 3e ranks, too), hard-hitting optionless fighters, sleep-casting magic-users, semi-competent trap-finding thieves, and pop-target evil humanoids by the score, all milling about killing eachother in an extensive cavern complex. It couldn't be much more AD&D in feel without being an actual re-print.
 

mkill

Adventurer
But who cares about the outsiders' views on this? I'm not a fly fisherman so, as far as I'm concerned, all flies are pretty much the same. Ask an aficionado in the hobby and they'll have a different point of view. And they should because their POV within the hobby is different from mine without.
There is an important different between fly fishing and tabletop RPGs.

If you think the general fly fishing public is wrong about proper bait choice, you can just run off on your own and show them how wrong they are. If you're right, you can catch all the trout you want in the right way.

If you're bitching about which edition to play too loud too often, you might end up without a group. Or to go back to the car example, if you complain about other people's ride too much, they won't stop by your house to pick you up anymore.
 

There is an important different between fly fishing and tabletop RPGs.

If you think the general fly fishing public is wrong about proper bait choice, you can just run off on your own and show them how wrong they are. If you're right, you can catch all the trout you want in the right way.

If you're bitching about which edition to play too loud too often, you might end up without a group. Or to go back to the car example, if you complain about other people's ride too much, they won't stop by your house to pick you up anymore.
Indeed. RPGs are a cooperatove, social thing. Getting too wrapped up in the details of precisely how you pretend to be an elf makes you lose sight of that.

There is no edition of D&D I would refuse to play, assuming I like the group I would be playing with. I doubt there's any RPG I would flat-out refuse to play, again assuming the group.
 

I like driving certain cars, but not all cars. I drink soda, but not all soda. I like sandwiches, but not all sandwiches. It's just the way it is, and RPGs are no different. It's just preference. And if someone can't understand that -and lumps me in with all the other guys pretending to be elves- and then doesn't understand when I explain the concept of preference in certain subjects, then I won't much value his opinion.
All of these examples involve you and only you. RPGs, basically by definition, involve other people as well. I suppose you could play an RPG by yourself?
 

dagger

Adventurer
Indeed. RPGs are a cooperatove, social thing. Getting too wrapped up in the details of precisely how you pretend to be an elf makes you lose sight of that.

There is no edition of D&D I would refuse to play, assuming I like the group I would be playing with. I doubt there's any RPG I would flat-out refuse to play, again assuming the group.

I would refuse to play versions I don't like because I have limited gaming time. Also I am the secondary DM and the primary DM agrees with me on 98% of our game choices.
 

Tovec

Explorer
Don't sweat it too much. There's not really a hint of balance in the core we've seen of 5e so far, nothing like 4e's AEDU-based class balance, at all. Not even a vague suggestion. The 'balance' part is vaporware at this point.
I covered all your points later in that same post. But...

If balance is the true goal then it is one in-line with 4e and along with a number of other things he said, it contributes to a picture of him WANTING 5e to be a 4e game with some changes.

Well, a minor part of tactical combat, which was a major feature of 3e and 4e, yeah. And, it's entirely absent from the playtest. Just more vague promises that the core doesn't seem capable of supporting.
I don't recall 3e having creatures who could slide if you hit them, or better yet if you missed, as an immediate action after the attack was rolled.
It seemed like all attacks in 4e did damage and then shoved the target back 2 squares, or made them prone or something.
The only time such things showed up in my long running 3.5 games was when I foolishly allowed book of nine swords. After seeing the classes and feeling the abuse I quickly disallowed the entire book after 3-4 characters from it were introduced.

You have remarkable eyesight. 5e monsters, so far, are just bags of hit points, meant to be fought by PC of any level, just fought longer by lower level PCs, with the danger that the monster might kill you first. Solos have more powers, multi-target attacks, action-preservation, and other features that make them appropriate to take on a party single-handed, not /just/ a bigger bale of hps. Minions are one-hit-kill monsters, but misses don't kill them. There are very-low-hp monsters in the playtest, but misses /can/ kill them, they're just low-hp, there's nothing 'miniony' about them.
On the internet, I do have remarkable eyesight. Starting here you go onto actual playtest issues instead of his perceptions.
Have you looked at the playtest monsters? Namely the Ogre and Kobolds?
The ogre has 88hp, far more than the math would suggest it should.
The kobolds have 2hp, far less than the math would suggest they should.
It has been suggested that old school kobolds had as many hp so that makes it okay. But when PCs have more than they used to I don't see why the kobolds should be the same as they used to be.
Also, with magic missile being able to kill them, without a roll and without a chance of missing and the slayer ability killing them on a miss. Yes, they feel very miniony. They get 1 extra hp but they're still minions.

What they're talking about and what they've actually delivered so far are two very different things.
Very true, and once again you have quoted the part where I was talking about his expectations and preferences for 5e. Not the actual mechanics. That came later... where I talked about the mechanics.

The playtest has Vancian casters, clerical healing, open-ended skills (more like AD&D secondary skills or non-weapon proficiencies than 3e ranks, too), hard-hitting optionless fighters, sleep-casting magic-users, semi-competent trap-finding thieves, and pop-target evil humanoids by the score, all milling about killing eachother in an extensive cavern complex. It couldn't be much more AD&D in feel without being an actual re-print.
So to clarify, it has the essence of 2e's non-weapon proficiencies but not the codification of 3e's skills. Vancian is 3e, but it is also earlier. So unless the primary reason you LIKE 3e was because you like vancian it doesn't seem to offer much. Same with optionless fighters and everything else you are spouting as being 3e. Those are aspects of 3e but they aren't what made 3e good. In fact, I would argue, that many things the designers are trying to incorporate that they think are "3e" are the things they remember of 3e as opposed to what we liked of 3e.

Now, unlike you Tony, I'm not arguing the game shouldn't try to incorporate aspects to suit us all. I'm also not advocating them try to exclude anyone or exclude a certain aspect of design for the game.

I am advocating that they work a little harder at addressing the issues in what I and others dislike instead of just trying to convince me that I'll like it later. If something is a sticking point now, it doesn't matter how many other layers they tack on it is still going to be a sticking point later. If they want my money then they might want to put some effort into working on what I care about.

Also, I am perfectly aware this is a playtest so it will have limited options. I am also aware that this playtest is VERY limited and has ALMOST NO options. It has pregen characters that can be played with or without backgrounds/themes. If you want anything else it isn't there.
I'm willing to wait for them to come up with more but all I can give them is feedback on the material they have given me so far. That feedback isn't glowing or happy, it is the opposite.

And finally, Tony, to tie this all back together. My question was "what about the playtest makes you think it will be good." The response I got was "I like X,Y,Z" to which I responded that "X,Y,Z seem to be VERY 4e" as far as design goals go.
Then somehow you criticized me, because what I said wasn't actually in the playtest.. which happens to be what I said.
My concern is that if the shining reviews WotC is going to get are going to be from people who say they like something else but really just like 4e-esk material then it is going to turn out poorly for those who feel the way I do.
 
Last edited:

ShinHakkaider

Adventurer
To answer the OP: If you are slave to the Brand name then yes I guess you would need D&D Next to be the One True Edition.

If it wants to do that based on the strength of it's brand name alone then I hope that it crashes and burns horribly.

However, if it were simply trying to make a good game (even if it's a game that I have no interest in playing) then I cant argue with that. There's nothing wrong with that because that's what everyone who writes and designs a game is trying to do. Make a good fun game.

But this whole idea of "We're D&D and we need to Unite gamers under the D&D banner because we're the industry leader" thing feels like a whole lot of smoke and mirrors to me. I mean I want to say thank you for 3X/3.5 and the OGL and as a side result thank you for Green Ronin and Paizo and a few more of the solid 3rd Party publishers out there. If not for these things (and the people behind them) I wouldn't have the game that I'm playing and enjoying now.

But most, if not all, of the people who created/worked/championed those things that I liked at WOTC are no longer there due to layoffs or leaving to form their own companies. And I havent played D&D for about 5 years now and am no longer invested in the brand. I've found life off of the WOTC plantation to be pretty robust and refreshing to be quite honest and have no pressing desire to return to it.

If D&D Next is an amazing system then I'll take a look at it. I'll play in someone else's game first. But the days of my buying new D&D editions sight unseen are over. The brand (for me) just doesn't mean as much anymore. If it's really really good and I mean it has to grab me, then I 'll consider a purchase and might run a few side games myself here or there. But I wont be abandoning my primary system for it.

In short, it doenst need to be all things to all people. It doesnt need to be the ONE GAME. I really wish that they would stop pushing that as a good thing. In the end it boils down to the same thing: either it's going to be good enough to want people the play it or it wont.

EVERYONE is going to be excited about it at the outset. Everyone is going to be chomping at the bit to play it when it first coes out. and for the next few months people are going to be feeling themselves and lashing out as well. I fully expect D&D to reclaim it's top spot as the best selling RPG and for its fan base to taunt Pathfinder players and for edition wars to break out all over again. I'm expecting that I'm going to have to abandon EnWorld yet again like I did for 2008 and most of 2009-10. But when the hype dies down that is when the truth will be told. how many people will still be not only playing but excited about it.

There are players who are loyalists and will be playing the latest version of D&D no matter what it is. But for everyone else? If D&D Next is able to retain large numbers of players after the first few years? Great. If they are able to take players from other systems? Even Better. Personally I dont see that happening. Theres just way too much bad blood out there not only directed at WOTC (which is sometimes not deserved) but at the fanbase (which most of the time IS deserved ON BOTH SIDES).

If they are able to maintain the momentum of the release long after the release then WOTC = WIN. And it will be a well deserved one.
 

Remove ads

Top