D&D 5E Do you want D&D Next to succeed?

delericho

Legend
My first preference would be for 5e to be my ideal game. If that is the case, I don't really care if it succeeds or fails - I'll have my game, and that will be good.

If 5e doesn't suit me, then I still hope it succeeds. There's no benefit to me if it fails, so why would I want to spoil other people's fun (not to mention wishing for the redundancies of the designers)?

Now, it might be different if 5e didn't suit me but I thought 6e would... but I'm now convinced that if 5e fails then there won't be a 6e, so that's not a factor I'm considering. (Besides, if 5e doesn't suit me, then that will be two editions I've skipped. That being the case, my interest in 6e will be marginal at best.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Will you be happy if the game is popular, even if it's not one you'd want to play?
Probably, as long as it's any good.
Will you be willing to give it a try to support the D&D brand that has brought so many people years of fun, even if the rules aren't perfect? (And really, have you ever thought any version of D&D had perfect rules?)
I'll pick up the first round of core books (PH, DMG, MM) to see what they've done with it even if - as was the case with 2e and 4e - I never end up actually playing it.
Do you trust that the game designers are people who love gaming, who want to help others have fun, and who are trying to make a game that best encapsulates what they think the audience wants D&D to be?
The designers themselves, yes. But it remains to be seen what outside instruction and-or interference they're getting from the suits above.
Do you think that the benefits of having Hasbro's infrastructure to help market, distribute, and sell the game outweigh whatever limitations might be passed down from a corporate level?
Probably not, given that we haven't really seen that infrastructure put to use in the past where it could have been.
Will you not begrudge your fellow gamers if they have different tastes than you?
Begrudge? No. But I reserve the right to argue with them until I'm blue in the face. :)

Speaking of which...
[MENTION=32536]TwinBahamut[/MENTION] - there will be no way to use 5e without houseruling, if only because every time you decide whether you will or won't use a particular module in your game you are in fact making a houserule; and I don't think all the 5e modules are going to be compatible with each other thus just using them all won't be an option.

Lanefan
 


Shadeydm

First Post
Perhaps for the same irrational reasons that so many worked so hard to make 4e fail, and are so delighted that it has?
What on earth would make you say such a thing. Who "worked hard to make 4E fail"? How could anyone make 4E fail beyond the people who designed and marketed it? Are you blaming them?
 

Shadeydm

First Post
Will you be happy if the game is popular, even if it's not one you'd want to play?
Yes I hope it becomes the best selling edition ever and guarantees a future edition 10+ years down the road from its release.

Will you be willing to give it a try to support the D&D brand that has brought so many people years of fun, even if the rules aren't perfect? (And really, have you ever thought any version of D&D had perfect rules?)
So far I haven't seen anything that would prevent me from at least getting the core books and kicking the tires though I suspect my group is largely enamored of 4E. I never thought any of the rules were perfect but I have always liked 1E best.

Do you trust that the game designers are people who love gaming, who want to help others have fun, and who are trying to make a game that best encapsulates what they think the audience wants D&D to be?
Yes I do believe they want to achieve their stated design goals but it remains to be seen how close they can get.

Do you think that the benefits of having Hasbro's infrastructure to help market, distribute, and sell the game outweigh whatever limitations might be passed down from a corporate level?
I'd call it a wash.

Will you not begrudge your fellow gamers if they have different tastes than you?
Nope, 4E was enough of a radical shift for me that I could never bring myself to run it, I still play it and really have fun doing so so no begrudging here.

I really hope 5E can be the D&D the Linux edition, I can understand why 4E fans were hoping DDN would take 4E and build from there but I am glad they chose a more all inclusive approach in designing the next edition. For die hard 4E edition warriors the good news is just like 3.x warriors got pathfinder so will you have 13th Age.
 

pemerton

Legend
Will you be happy if the game is popular, even if it's not one you'd want to play?

<snip>

Will you not begrudge your fellow gamers if they have different tastes than you?
It won't bother me one way or another if the game is popular, and I guess it's a good thing if other's are enjoying it, provided it's not objectively horrible in some way. (There are some things which, if widely popular, would make me unhappy - in the RPG world I guess F.A.T.A.L. would be an uncontroversial example.)

Do you trust that the game designers are people who love gaming, who want to help others have fun, and who are trying to make a game that best encapsulates what they think the audience wants D&D to be?
I trust that they love gaming and want to help others have fun. As to the last clause, it depends a bit on how you define "audience" - I personally think they're focusing a bit too much on mechanics and not enough on tropes/themes, but maybe I'm not a core part of the audience!

Do you think that the benefits of having Hasbro's infrastructure to help market, distribute, and sell the game outweigh whatever limitations might be passed down from a corporate level
No idea. But probably not - it seems that Hasbro's need for unrealistic earnings projections may have helped kill 4e, for example.

Will you be willing to give it a try to support the D&D brand

<snip>

Let's stand behind D&D Next. What do you say?
The only RPG I have ever felt that much emotional attachment to is Rolemaster, and even that fondness has waned with what ICE, in its various incarnations over the years, has done with that game.

I am on a reasonable salary and so may buy a copy of the D&Dnext rules to satisfy my curiosity. But I won't play it just to support the brand. My play time is limited and precious. I will play it only if it's a good game for my purposes. (And at this stage I have some doubts about that.)
 

JeffB

Legend
I dont want it to fail, but Im not too concerned about it or its parent companies health like I have been over the past 35 years. I have a multitude of older and current versions of the game, and there is enough supllemental material for a lifetime of play. The OGL ensures future products, though I would miss the Wotc IP..all the setting and core fluff, as it were.

Before 5e was announced I was excited about the possibility of such, but now that it is a reality, Im not all that jazzed, despite the good things I am hearing. Unaligned, in 4e terms.
 

Riley

Legend
I want D&D 5e to succeed beyond Hasbro's wildest expectations.

This is not a zero-sum competition, so I don't understand why anyone would feel differently.
 

I don't give D&D any more or less consideration at this stage. I will try it out of curiosity, but my only requirement for whether I will play and support the game is if I enjoy it. What logo happens to be stamped on the cover isn't a factor for me these days.
 

Azgulor

Adventurer
Will you be happy if the game is popular, even if it's not one you'd want to play?

Will you be willing to give it a try to support the D&D brand that has brought so many people years of fun, even if the rules aren't perfect? (And really, have you ever thought any version of D&D had perfect rules?)

Do you trust that the game designers are people who love gaming, who want to help others have fun, and who are trying to make a game that best encapsulates what they think the audience wants D&D to be?

Do you think that the benefits of having Hasbro's infrastructure to help market, distribute, and sell the game outweigh whatever limitations might be passed down from a corporate level?

Will you not begrudge your fellow gamers if they have different tastes than you?


<snip>

Let's stand behind D&D Next. What do you say?

Um, no. D&D Next does not get any kind of pass based on "loyalty to the D&D brand" or anysuch nonsense. This kind of poppycock drives me nuts. The product should be evaluated on its own merits. Specific to your questions:

1. If I'm not playing D&D Next, I'll be indifferent to it. I'll be happy for those who are playing it and liking it, but if I'm not playing it, I'm not going to be happy or sad about it.

2. I'll give D&D Next a fair look. However, between dissatisfaction with 4e, general issues with WotC in recent years, general satisfaction with Pathfinder, and investment in Pathfinder (& 3.x before it) it's got a big hill to climb. Could it be my favorite fantasy RPG of all time? Sure. But the fact that it has D&D in the title doesn't mean jack, nor do the "years of fun" those other editions brought.

3. Sure, why wouldn't I?

4. I think that's far more likely than the "Hasbro is keeping WotC under its thumb and sticking it to the masses" meme that's so popular around here.

5. Sure, to each their own. However, I expect them to reciprocate and not be a$shats when my tastes in games run differently than theirs...


So, enough with the "be loyal to the brand" crap. If D&D Next/5e is a great game, that's good enough for me. If D&D Next/5e sucks, then it deserves its fate. Pretty simple.
 

MatthewJHanson

Registered Ninja
Publisher
Yes I want it to succeed, but it will not succeed just because a bunch of people on an internet message board want it to.

If it is going to succeed it first and foremost has to be a good game. Not necessarily a game that matches my personal tastes (though my tastes are pretty broad). If I don't like the game, but a 90% of roleplayers do, that's fine. I'll play something else and not begrudge D&D it's success. But if I don't like it and 90% of other roleplayers don't like it, no amount of goodwill will save the game.

Alas making a good game is not the only key to success, and WOTC will also have to do some great marketing and all the rest. I wish them well in those efforts too.
 

Well, I'm not asking for brand loyalty. Nor am I even trying to encourage people to buy the game. Or even to play it.

All I'm saying is, since we're part of a shared community of gamers, I think it's bad for the hobby as a whole if people try to tear down 5e before it's even out. If you care enough about D&D as a concept, brand, or nostalgic memory to consider playing 5e, give it a fair shake, and if you see some news you don't think bodes well, try to express that without being rancorous or negative. Recognize it's a beta right now, and don't rush to form an opinion, because if enough people do that, there'll just be more bitterness and acrimony and claims that "edition warring killed 5e before it had a chance." And the hobby as a whole will suffer.

And, if you don't care enough about D&D as a concept, brand, or nostalgic memory to even consider playing 5e, . . . then definitely please refrain from attacking the game. I've seen a few people on this subforum who have said they have no interest in 5e, yet who still give highly negative critiques. That's like if I, who never plans to read DC Comics, started complaining about how Superman isn't Spider-Man.

I'm not asking for brand loyalty. I'm asking for people not to tear something down before it's finished. If you don't give a damn about standing behind the game, please at least don't try to step in front of it and knock it down.
 

TwinBahamut

First Post
Well, I'm not asking for brand loyalty. Nor am I even trying to encourage people to buy the game. Or even to play it.

All I'm saying is, since we're part of a shared community of gamers, I think it's bad for the hobby as a whole if people try to tear down 5e before it's even out. If you care enough about D&D as a concept, brand, or nostalgic memory to consider playing 5e, give it a fair shake, and if you see some news you don't think bodes well, try to express that without being rancorous or negative. Recognize it's a beta right now, and don't rush to form an opinion, because if enough people do that, there'll just be more bitterness and acrimony and claims that "edition warring killed 5e before it had a chance." And the hobby as a whole will suffer.

And, if you don't care enough about D&D as a concept, brand, or nostalgic memory to even consider playing 5e, . . . then definitely please refrain from attacking the game. I've seen a few people on this subforum who have said they have no interest in 5e, yet who still give highly negative critiques. That's like if I, who never plans to read DC Comics, started complaining about how Superman isn't Spider-Man.

I'm not asking for brand loyalty. I'm asking for people not to tear something down before it's finished. If you don't give a damn about standing behind the game, please at least don't try to step in front of it and knock it down.
Er... The entire point of a playtest it to attract negative and positive criticism. The negative is just as, if not more, important than the positive. What you're calling "attacking" or "tearing down" is just another form of feedback. People shouldn't hold back because the game is in beta, they should express their opinions as much as possible exactly because it is in beta.

If the people at WotC are being honest in their desire to make a game that appeals to everyone, then the system will only work if people who are not happy with the game speak their mind. It is incredibly important to remember that 5E isn't done yet. It isn't a finished product yet. People who are unhappy with it still have a chance to push it more in a direction they want it to go.
 

Oh, hell yeah, critique it. I don't like the advantage/disadvantage rules, and I think using the traditional Vancian magic system without a big overhaul will be a step back.

But there's a huge difference between:

"I don't think this works. Consider this other thing instead."

and

"Why the hell are we using the same rules for magic we've had for 30 years? I know you Pathfinder-nuts will call me too 'video gamey,' but the best magic system I've seen in years was in the game Magicka. Even 4e's bull**** powers system would be better than what they have."

So, y'know, critique constructively. Don't insult destructively. That's what I'm asking.
 

JeffB

Legend
Oh, hell yeah, critique it. I don't like the advantage/disadvantage rules, and I think using the traditional Vancian magic system without a big overhaul will be a step back.

But there's a huge difference between:

"I don't think this works. Consider this other thing instead."

and

"Why the hell are we using the same rules for magic we've had for 30 years? I know you Pathfinder-nuts will call me too 'video gamey,' but the best magic system I've seen in years was in the game Magicka. Even 4e's bull**** powers system would be better than what they have."

So, y'know, critique constructively. Don't insult destructively. That's what I'm asking.


I think you have been on the internet long enough to know better than to post this commonsense nonsense! ;)
 
Last edited:

JRRNeiklot

First Post
Well, I'm not asking for brand loyalty. Nor am I even trying to encourage people to buy the game. Or even to play it.

All I'm saying is, since we're part of a shared community of gamers, I think it's bad for the hobby as a whole if people try to tear down 5e before it's even out. If you care enough about D&D as a concept, brand, or nostalgic memory to consider playing 5e, give it a fair shake, and if you see some news you don't think bodes well, try to express that without being rancorous or negative. Recognize it's a beta right now, and don't rush to form an opinion, because if enough people do that, there'll just be more bitterness and acrimony and claims that "edition warring killed 5e before it had a chance." And the hobby as a whole will suffer.

And, if you don't care enough about D&D as a concept, brand, or nostalgic memory to even consider playing 5e, . . . then definitely please refrain from attacking the game. I've seen a few people on this subforum who have said they have no interest in 5e, yet who still give highly negative critiques. That's like if I, who never plans to read DC Comics, started complaining about how Superman isn't Spider-Man.

I'm not asking for brand loyalty. I'm asking for people not to tear something down before it's finished. If you don't give a damn about standing behind the game, please at least don't try to step in front of it and knock it down.

I'm probably one of those who "tears it down." But it's in an effort to help make 5e - I refuse to use the term "next", I think it's stupid - the best game possible. If I see a crap mechanic, or crappy flavor, I will bitch about it. If no one criticizes the game, it WILL fail.
 

pauljathome

First Post
So, y'know, critique constructively. Don't insult destructively. That's what I'm asking.

If WOTC is getting anything approximating the number of people giving feedback that they're hoping for then neither really makes any difference.

95+% of the feedback that is actually used will either be
1) The multiple choice surveys
2) What the designers see and hear for themselves in their own games and/or the games they run at cons

The comments you add to the surveys and posts made to message boards will be nearly irrelevant. Far too much noise for the designers to pick up any signal.

At best, WOTC will have some intern or netizen look at the boards and give a summary back to the designers.

Also, of course, one persons constructive criticism is another persons destructive insult. Especially on the net.

But if all you're really trying to say is "Play nice" then
1) Sure. Agreed
2) Your first post really, really, really did not make that clear. Really.
 

What on earth would make you say such a thing. Who "worked hard to make 4E fail"? How could anyone make 4E fail beyond the people who designed and marketed it? Are you blaming them?
Little thing called the edition war. You may have noticed it. Marketing is a big part of any product's success, and in a niche hobby like ours, word-of-mouth (or internet) is a big part of it. Word of mouth can be negative, as well as positive - and based on irrational rejection as well as personal experience. So, yes.
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
Little thing called the edition war. You may have noticed it. Marketing is a big part of any product's success, and in a niche hobby like ours, word-of-mouth (or internet) is a big part of it. Word of mouth can be negative, as well as positive - and based on irrational rejection as well as personal experience. So, yes.
So, rendering an opinion constitutes subversion?

In that case, there were a lot of people who worked towards the demise of the prior D&D editions, as well as those nefarious writers trying to sabotage The Dark Knight Rises by giving it bad reviews.

There are certainly people who dislike 4e (and who dislike many other things), but I seriously doubt their opinions constitute a meaningful effort to make it fail, nor am I seeing how they are inherently "irrational". Or is the case that people have done something above and beyond giving their opinions?

Personally, I'll be looking at 5e with a critical eye and speaking my mind on it (as with any significant development in a hobby of mine), but there's nothing more to it than that.
 

Pickles JG

First Post
I want it to fail. If it suceeds it will draw players away from games that I like playing & it's already hard enough to get playgroups as it is.

Also I sold all of my Hasbro stock & invested in Paizo so I don't want their value to collapse once everyone deserts the abomination that is Pathfinder.

If despite being all things to all men & contra the evidence to date it is any good I will embrace it whole heartedly & woe to anyone who does not. The above does not then apply. Well the second paragraph does but that is not true anyway. Mind you neither is the first.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top