D&D 5E Have you moved on yet? Has Wizard's handled this properly?

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's nothing wrong with 4th edition.

More accurately, there's plenty wrong with each edition of D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I dunno... I read through everything you mentioned you'd do, and I thought to myself "that's not a new game... that'd just editing the old one."

Renaming powers... culling the feat list... removing the Epic tier... reorganizing skills. That's just editing. Anyone could do that right now themselves if they wanted.

But that doesn't change any fundamental gameplay. And that gameplay is what we already own. And what a large number of the population have said they don't want to play. And on top of that... everything you mentioned was Player's Handbook specific. So are you not going to release a new DMG? Or a new Monster Manual? Because the Essentials Monster Vault already did an editing pass on all the original 4E monsters, so I don't think you'd get away with doing that again for your version of '5E'.

I'm sorry... but what you suggested just sounds to me like an edit of the current game... one I don't think would not actually generate the same revenue for WotC that a new edition of the game actually would. Your 5E would just cater to the 4E player who wanted a 'clean' 4E Player's Handbook... rather than sifting through the several PHs the player probably already has.

IMHO you underestimate how much a game can feel differently for even very trivial reasons. I think you may also underestimate the degree to which I would tweak things if it were up to me. For instance I wouldn't "get rid of epic tier" I would just compress the game to 20 levels, which gets rid of a lot of dead levels and reduces the need for excess material to fill them in. I think a certain fairly modest but comprehensive set of tweaks to powers and combat mechanics will yield a game that produce the same tactical depth as 4e but in a more satisfying way. A fundamentally different way of explaining how you use the tools the game gives you and presenting organization of adventures etc in a somewhat different way can produce very significantly different feel and approaches to the game without really deep changes to the structure of the overall rules.

You can have a game that is as much like 4e as OD&D is like RC. RC is a vastly improved game over OD&D, yet they're really not very different in any mechanical sense.

 

[innerdude]

I've mentioned it before, but I am quite literally WotC's worst marketing nightmare--a formerly (almost blindly) loyal D&D adherent who in the space of 48 months from 2008 to 2012 went from not even considering games other than D&D, to actively shunning both D&D the game and D&D the brand. The D&D brand name has so little pull on my consumer heartstrings right now that I can name a dozen RPG core rules products off the top of my head I'd rather spend money on than D&D of any variety, 5e included.

To say I've "moved on" would be an understatement comparable to saying that Bill Gates fellow seems to be pretty well off, or that Olivia Wilde lass seems to possess some positive genetic qualities.

Edit: After re-reading this and seeing Tony's snarky-yet-humorous XP comment (lol, thanks Tony =) ), I realized that my point in posting this wasn't to be self-aggrandizing, but to merely offer a perspective of just how far WotC is going to have to go to get back some of its previously loyal clients. The fact that Wizards managed to lose me as a customer--someone who had never owned a non-D&D RPG product in his life until four years ago--says something at least as interesting about the company culture and attitude of Wizards as it does about their products.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's more to pre-4e D&D than "wizards with only daily spells." The main problem that the old-schoolers (myself, anyway) had with 4e was that it was designed around the combat encounter as the basic unit of gameplay, which does not support an old-school playstyle (e.g., in my experience, you can't really do a proper dungeon crawl in 4e).

I ran Temple of the Frog in 4e. I used 4e pre-gen PCs (9th level seemed about right to take on the Temple in a single, long session), and 4e stats for the monsters, but I changed /nothing else/. Many of the monsters were under-powered for facing 9th level PCs so I statted them as minions or consolidated them into swarms. I ran on a bare table-top, no grid, with lead minis, random bits for monster counters (green M&Ms for killer frogs, for instance), a tapemeasure, and laid down pencils to show where walls were, just like I did when I was a kid running my games on a shoe-string.

Total house rules: 1) For a 'blast' or 'burst' I'd just take the tapemeasure out to the requisite number of inchest and sweep it through 90- or 360- degrees to see what was in it.

It was so old-school it hurt.

For 4e to appeal to old-school gamers, it would need to have quicker combats with fewer and simpler decisions (which would require a redesign of all the content), and core

rules that emphasize combat-as-war (which would require a redesign of the core rules) -- basically, a different game.

Fights against minions go very fast, and the whole 'simpler decisions' thing is a red herring. The vague rules and capacious daily slots of higher level spellcasters are far more overwhelming than the relatively few and clearly defined 'powers' of 4e characters. You look at, and think, wow the fighter's got some choices, this game must be insanely complicated, but that initial impression is wrong. It's actually a lot simpler to play and to run, though, I understand being driven crazy by the differences, at first.

Combat-as-War is just a style. System has very little to do with it. Sure, in a bad system with a lot of holes, it's easier to engineer 'I win' scenarios by meta-gaming, and that can feel like the anything-goes of CaW. But you can get that in a functional system, too, you just have to face the fact that anything-goes gets pretty deadly.

 

[Aramax]

I really don't care what WOTC does,Ive moved on.Nothing agaist 5th,just Ive tryed 3.5,4th and pathfinder and went back to my roots-the OSR and wrote my own rules drawing what I liked from all edidions

 

[DEFCON 1]

Here's another thing to remember in all of this...

There are TWO differing camps within the players of all the previous editions at this moment in time. Overall... you have players who have chosen to still play their edition of choice-- BECMI, AD&D 2E, 3E, PF, 4E etc. With as many or as few tweaks as possible.

However, within those player-bases... they can be divided up into two groups...

1) Those who are playing their game happily as is, regardless of how old the game itself is, and with no need for anyone to do anything for them now or in the future.

2) Those who are playing their edition of choice, but who bemoan the fact that it's no longer "supported". And that can mean that WotC no longer prints new books for it, or that previous edition material is out of print and WotC has not released it in PDF format, or any other of other complaints.

Players exist in both groups. Goodness knows there are plenty of people in group 2... because we've spent years here on EN World listening to all the complaints about the pullback of PDFs off of RPGNow, how WotC is "leaving money on the table", how they'd "happily give WotC their money if they gave something worth spending it on" etc. etc. They want stuff to use, but thus far WotC hasn't given it to them.

So when it comes to D&DNext... realistically, is WotC trying to cater to ALL previous players of D&D? No. Not at all. Every player in group 1 is not a target for D&DN. They aren't "lost causes" necessarily... but those players have given no indication that they need or care about any new material for Dungeons & Dragons. They have "moved on" from the current gaming scene and are quite content to make do with what they have and what they build themselves.

However... it's that Group 2 that is really the "old school" target of D&DN and Wizards of the Coast. The people who would like to still be included in the plans of the company... just so long as those plans run somewhat in parallel with their own gaming tastes. THAT is what I believe D&DN is hoping to achieve... a game that can run parallel to most if not all the previous editions (in either mechanics, style, and/or aesthetic) such that those players in Group 2 might find something to their liking to spend their money on. Even if it's as simple as an adventure or two that they can easily adapt to their own game, or a set of game mechanics that help "fix" a problem they have with their own. Because any product that is usable amongst the widest swathe of players is most likely to generate a good chunk of cash for WotC's bank.

At the end of the day... I don't think it matters one lick to WotC if you buy the D&DN books merely with the intent to adapt some things within them to your own game in whatever previous edition you currently play. Because they are banking on the fact that if D&DN is good, and useful, and interesting, and you've bought it... that at some point, once your other campaigns have come to a close... you might actually give D&DN a try. And hopefully then buy even more of the product.

They're banking on the idea that if you're one of the folks in Group 2 that wishes WotC would give you something to use... you obviously are not completely satisfied with your game. And thus are more likely to be open to at least checking out whatever new thing WotC offers up.

 

[GhostBear]

I hesitate to move to a new edition of D&D. 3.5 works well enough for all of its flaws, and more importantly there are other game systems. Game systems which are far easier to learn, have less complicated yet still effective mechanics, and still allow for great character customization.

I'm watching 5e, but I can't see myself or my group moving to it unless there's some very compelling reasons to do so.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I ran Temple of the Frog in 4e. I used 4e pre-gen PCs (9th level seemed about right to take on the Temple in a single, long session), and 4e stats for the monsters, but I changed /nothing else/. Many of the monsters were under-powered for facing 9th level PCs so I statted them as minions or consolidated them into swarms. I ran on a bare table-top, no grid, with lead minis, random bits for monster counters (green M&Ms for killer frogs, for instance), a tapemeasure, and laid down pencils to show where walls were, just like I did when I was a kid running my games on a shoe-string.

Total house rules: 1) For a 'blast' or 'burst' I'd just take the tapemeasure out to the requisite number of inchest and sweep it through 90- or 360- degrees to see what was in it.

It was so old-school it hurt.

For 4e to appeal to old-school gamers, it would need to have quicker combats with fewer and simpler decisions (which would require a redesign of all the content), and core Fights against minions go very fast, and the whole 'simpler decisions' thing is a red herring. The vague rules and capacious daily slots of higher level spellcasters are far more overwhelming than the relatively few and clearly defined 'powers' of 4e characters. You look at, and think, wow the fighter's got some choices, this game must be insanely complicated, but that initial impression is wrong. It's actually a lot simpler to play and to run, though, I understand being driven crazy by the differences, at first.

Combat-as-War is just a style. System has very little to do with it. Sure, in a bad system with a lot of holes, it's easier to engineer 'I win' scenarios by meta-gaming, and that can feel like the anything-goes of CaW. But you can get that in a functional system, too, you just have to face the fact that anything-goes gets pretty deadly.

I too have run some rather old-school type dungeon crawls. Not anything as extensive as the Temple of the Frog, but dungeon exploration DOES actually work quite well in 4e IMHO. The only thing I did was get rid of sunrods, which IMHO kind of spoiled the ambiance of the inky depths, but mechanically 4e works quite well. It has all the exploration rules you could ever need, plenty of things you can do outside of combat, etc. It is skimpier on equipment lists and doesn't specifically contain rules for things like wandering monsters which you may want to have, but you can certainly do it.

I agree that the vague rules of the past made for a lot of "well, OK I'll let that work because hey it was a cool idea" kind of thing, which can make weird off-the-wall solution to every problem almost the lazy man's approach. Of course the DM can burn you on it too, but DMs can always do that in any system. Nothing actually stops the players from doing this sort of thing in 4e either BTW, the rules are just more flexible and tend to give less decisive results. Crazy plans are still a good idea.

On the flip side I DO think that vague rules can speed things up in some respects. For instance the Paladin in my group was mounted last night for the first time. The party ran into a fight and she had to decide whether to charge or dismount. The player took a good 5 minutes to work through the mechanics of how the action economy worked and understand that charging in and THEN dismounting would work one way, while dismounting first and advancing would work out a bit differently. I suspect in AD&D the character would just have charged on in and nobody would have considered exactly what the implications of dismounting were, and in fact dismounting probably wouldn't have had much effect. This is a pecular area of the 4e rules, but you do run into a corner case of one sort or another FAIRLY often. OTOH IMHO we ran into far more delays while people tried to armtwist the DM into allowing something or negotiating some adjudication in AD&D, but the point is both ways can have some pitfalls.

I do think a 5e based on 4e would have to streamline combat. Mechanically significant fights are more of a time investment than they should be. Its great if COOLER fights take longer, but cool and mechanically significant aren't tightly tied to each other in 4e. I think that the most direct way to do that would be something similar to what DDN is doing with combat, getting rid of a lot of out of turn actions and de-emphasizing the accounting of less important actions. OTOH I would keep the grid. I would reduce the frequency of ongoing effects substantially, etc. There are a few other things I would do as well. The Advantage/Disadvantage system for instance is very cool and helps speed things up. It would be bit different than 4e, but a lot closer to it than DDN is currently.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here's another thing to remember in all of this...

There are TWO differing camps within the players of all the previous editions at this moment in time. Overall... you have players who have chosen to still play their edition of choice-- BECMI, AD&D 2E, 3E, PF, 4E etc. With as many or as few tweaks as possible.

However, within those player-bases... they can be divided up into two groups...

1) Those who are playing their game happily as is, regardless of how old the game itself is, and with no need for anyone to do anything for them now or in the future.

2) Those who are playing their edition of choice, but who bemoan the fact that it's no longer "supported". And that can mean that WotC no longer prints new books for it, or that previous edition material is out of print and WotC has not released it in PDF format, or any other of other complaints.

Players exist in both groups. Goodness knows there are plenty of people in group 2... because we've spent years here on EN World listening to all the complaints about the pullback of PDFs off of RPGNow, how WotC is "leaving money on the table", how they'd "happily give WotC their money if they gave something worth spending it on" etc. etc. They want stuff to use, but thus far WotC hasn't given it to them.

So when it comes to D&DNext... realistically, is WotC trying to cater to ALL previous players of D&D? No. Not at all. Every player in group 1 is not a target for D&DN. They aren't "lost causes" necessarily... but those players have given no indication that they need or care about any new material for Dungeons & Dragons. They have "moved on" from the current gaming scene and are quite content to make do with what they have and what they build themselves.

However... it's that Group 2 that is really the "old school" target of D&DN and Wizards of the Coast. The people who would like to still be included in the plans of the company... just so long as those plans run somewhat in parallel with their own gaming tastes. THAT is what I believe D&DN is hoping to achieve... a game that can run parallel to most if not all the previous editions (in either mechanics, style, and/or aesthetic) such that those players in Group 2 might find something to their liking to spend their money on. Even if it's as simple as an adventure or two that they can easily adapt to their own game, or a set of game mechanics that help "fix" a problem they have with their own. Because any product that is usable amongst the widest swathe of players is most likely to generate a good chunk of cash for WotC's bank.

At the end of the day... I don't think it matters one lick to WotC if you buy the D&DN books merely with the intent to adapt some things within them to your own game in whatever previous edition you currently play. Because they are banking on the fact that if D&DN is good, and useful, and interesting, and you've bought it... that at some point, once your other campaigns have come to a close... you might actually give D&DN a try. And hopefully then buy even more of the product.

They're banking on the idea that if you're one of the folks in Group 2 that wishes WotC would give you something to use... you obviously are not completely satisfied with your game. And thus are more likely to be open to at least checking out whatever new thing WotC offers up.

Eh, I'm not sure that's the division really. There are IMHO 2 groups of people. Those who are playing older editions and people who are playing the current edition. Some of the current edition people will join the 'previous editions' group when DDN comes out, but perhaps some others will move to the new edition from old ones. Generally I think there's a substantial group of players who will either play the current edition or not play D&D, that's group 1. Group 2 are just people who are happy with what they play now, they might go on to the newest because they like it or their friends get them to, but they don't care if it is newest.

Group 1 are the people that buy lots of books for each edition. They might decide they dislike some edition and GO AWAY, or they might just join group 2, but basically they like to play a currently supported game and are probably fairly active players. They are into the activity and community and being current is a part of their thing. Keeping them interested always requires a flow of new (and probably reasonable quality) current material that caters to their tastes.

Group 2 can indeed just bop along on its own, and increasingly self produces material (you can get loads of brand new AD&D adventures these days for instance). They might also buy some original material from WotC. There's no reason to suspect they don't enjoy new supplements and adventures, they just want them for their game of choice. They MIGHT get the newest edition, maybe, but only if it is similar to what they like now. Because there are so many different niches here it is hard for a WotC to produce anything new for them profitably, and I doubt they ever will. Clearly though they will start reprinting, though I doubt they will reprint more than a few of the most popular and thus still easily available books. Obscure stuff might show up in PDF form though, which would be nice.

The question is what sort of game would appeal to all these people? It is hard to see why ANY one new game would appeal to all of group 2 broadly. They have many similar D&Ds to use already, but choose the one they like. A new one is not likely to be exactly like what they have. They might change their minds but most won't at this point. The best you can hope to do is get them curious enough to buy the first book, which 4e did quite well (PHB1 being the best selling D&D book ever apparently). That doesn't make a successful product though. As for group 1, they're going to want a game that caters to their general tastes and is a good game in their eyes. The problem WotC has now is they have PF and 4e fans to cater to and the two are NOT going to agree. As it stands right now DDN is pretty much not going to cut it with 4e fans. PERSONALLY, I'll just stick with 4e. I wouldn't want to be Mike Mearls is all I can say.

 

[innerdude]

One final thought --

As far as the way Mearls and Co. have handled the delivery of the 5e playtest to this point, I'd say they've done as well as they could have. The whole legal T's and C's of downloading the playtests is patently ridiculous, but is probably the result of Hasbro IP lawyers having their say. Other than that, the actual process of notifying players, handling of material, and receiving feedback has seemed fairly straightforward, which is encouraging. They've seemed to recognize that the presentation and process for delivering the material makes a difference in how the actual product is received, which is something I never sensed during the 4e era.

But as always the question comes down to--"Am I going to want to play the final product?" So far, the general tenor and conversation of the playtest on this site and others is a resounding, "Meh."