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

[AbdulAlhazred]

We have moved on. Well, that's not technically true. The truth is, we didn't really move at all...we just sort of stayed right where we are.

When 4th Edition was announced, we got really excited for a few months, tried it out for a few weeks, but we never seriously considered buying new books and switching to the new edition. 4th Edition was a good game but it was also a different game; we weren't looking for a different game to play.

Same thing for Pathfinder. Same thing for D&D Next. We were really excited for a few months, and we playtested a few sets of rules, but we weren't seriously considering buying new books and switching to another edition. 3.5E is the game we know best, it is the game we play the most, and it is the game we already own.

Seems like about where we're at around here with 4e.

However, I am bothered. I wouldn't really care except that I perceive there is a large scope for 4e design to carried forward into an even better execution based on the same basic design. DDN has aborted that development in favor of something infinitely less interesting.

 

[DaveMage]

As much as I criticize WotC, one thing I disagree with that some posters here are indicating is that the design team doesn't understand the OSR. At last report, Mearls still has an AD&D (1E) game going, so to say he doesn't get the OSR is a bit silly, IMO.

I think he very much understands the OSR. The problem is, the OSR doesn't need WotC so WotC can't cater to that group alone and expect to be successful. (Although, as I've said before, if they keep re-releasing the classic stuff, I hope Next is a long, long way away... I'm hoping they find a way to reprint the old D&D Gazetteers.)

 

[JeffB]

As much as I criticize WotC, one thing I disagree with that some posters here are indicating is that the design team doesn't understand the OSR. At last report, Mearls still has an AD&D (1E) game going, so to say he doesn't get the OSR is a bit silly, IMO.

I think he very much understands the OSR. The problem is, the OSR doesn't need WotC so WotC can't cater to that group alone and expect to be successful. (Although, as I've said before, if they keep re-releasing the classic stuff, I hope Next is a long, long way away... I'm hoping they find a way to reprint the old D&D Gazetteers.)

Absolutely. They do not understand , or far more likely, they are throwing out alot of talk about NEXT catering to old school players and do not have any intentions of actually doing so. The only way WOTC is going to come out smelling like roses to the OSR is to keep up with the reprints, and offer the entire back catalog in some way (obviously which has been said they want to do). The OSR has no use for anything but Gary & Daves game. They do not want Monte Cooks, John Tweets, James Wyatts, Rob Heinsoos, Andy Collins, or Mike Mearls' D&D.

IOW WOTC needs to either shut it regarding NEXT and its intent to appeal to the old school, or they need to start some serious redesign.

Honestly the issue i s just a pet peeve of mine. Im an LBBer, but I also run PFBB, and 3.0, and I liked many thimgs about 4th. I have games to play I like. I will buy NEXT if it appeals to me in its final form.But it irks the crap out of me when Mearls insinuates that rules light is the major thing about NEXT that should satisfy the old school. Its far more than that. I like the guy, more than most internet posters seem to.for sure, but if he thinks that will be the draw, he is nuts.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I 'moved on' in the mid '90s, but I came back when D&D finally dragged itself into something resembling modernity with 3e. 4e was amazing, it really was just about on par with the rest of the industry. The first time D&D had been anything but a complete laggard 'dinosaur' since there /was/ a 'rest of the industry.' As someone who's already moved on before, letting D&D fall in my roster of Games I Actual Want to Play is not going to be difficult or traumatic. It all depends on just how bad 5e is. It's pretty clear that it's going to be worse than 4e, so while 4e campaigns last, there's that. But there's plenty of other games I've hardly looked at the last few years because D&D has been decent and easy to find, and they'll benefit from the failure of WotC to produce a game worth playing. If 5e is even worse than 3.5, there's always Pathfinder or d20 in general.

 

[dd.stevenson]

The only way WOTC is going to come out smelling like roses to the OSR is to keep up with the reprints, and offer the entire back catalog in some way (obviously which has been said they want to do). The OSR has no use for anything but Gary & Daves game. They do not want Monte Cooks, John Tweets, James Wyatts, Rob Heinsoos, Andy Collins, or Mike Mearls' D&D.

Respectfully disagree. The OSR is half "get-off-my-lawn" and half "do-it-yourself". The Get Off My Lawn vibe will presumably only be satisfied with reprints, or with new products written in a now-archaic style. So reprints it is.

The DIY guys want a product that is easy to hack into and experiment with. But they want more than that--they also want a community of gamers who are open to houseruling things and experimenting. They want the intense "rules as written" debates to go away. They want the snide dismissals consisting of "you can do it if you want, but it's just a houserule and should be discussed in a separate forum so the rules forum can be kept pure" to go away.

I think DDN is still in a position to deliver what the DIY guys want. I think that by the very nature of DDN's development process, it will transform the community into something they increasingly want to be a part of. But I guess we'll see.

 

[Magesmiley]

Like many of the other posters, I've also detected a sense of apathy over the playtest amongst the various players that I've talked to. And the players who simply don't care about a new edition seems to greatly outnumber those who do.

That doesn't bode well to me.

Anger or excitement are better responses than apathy. Anger and excitement tell me that the players are looking on with a keen interest in what is going on in the changes. Apathy tells me that the players are content and more interested in the games that they are playing than in something 'new'.

I've been getting a very bad feeling that D&D Next is going to be a dud for this reason, no matter how well polished it is or how good it is to play.

 

[FireLance]

However, I am bothered. I wouldn't really care except that I perceive there is a large scope for 4e design to carried forward into an even better execution based on the same basic design. DDN has aborted that development in favor of something infinitely less interesting.

Absolutely agreed. In my view, the base 4e system was the most balanced, flexible and robust that we have seen to date. Given time, I'm sure that it would have been able to develop modules and sub-systems to emulate most of the features of past editions, such as wizards with only daily spells (Essentials already had fighters and rogues without daily attacks; this would simply be going in the opposite direction) and the ability to mix and match attack and utility abilities.

The most disaffecting aspect of the complaints about 4e (at least to me) was that the majority seemed to me to be about elements that were added to the game and could be removed with minimal effort. Don't like dragonborn and eladrin? Don't have them in your campaign. Don't like martial healing? Remove the warlord class, the ability to spend healing surges during a short rest and the Second Wind action. Don't like minions? There are plenty of other monsters to choose from. Don't like specific powers? Tell the player to pick another one.

The most troubling aspect of this exclusionary mentality is that it will likely torpedo any attempt at "unification".

Ah, whatever. I'm sure that at the end of the playtest process, the majority of gamers will end up with exactly the edition that they deserve.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Given time, I'm sure that it would have been able to develop modules and sub-systems to emulate most of the features of past editions, such as wizards with only daily spells (Essentials already had fighters and rogues without daily attacks; this would simply be going in the opposite direction) and the ability to mix and match attack and utility abilities.

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). 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.

Don't like martial healing? Remove the warlord class, the ability to spend healing surges during a short rest and the Second Wind action.

Have you tried this? I think this would break the game (since all the XP targets are based around the PCs starting every fight at full).

 

[DaveMage]

The DIY guys want a product that is easy to hack into and experiment with. But they want more than that--they also want a community of gamers who are open to houseruling things and experimenting. They want the intense "rules as written" debates to go away. They want the snide dismissals consisting of "you can do it if you want, but it's just a houserule and should be discussed in a separate forum so the rules forum can be kept pure" to go away.

I think DDN is still in a position to deliver what the DIY guys want. I think that by the very nature of DDN's development process, it will transform the community into something they increasingly want to be a part of. But I guess we'll see.

I'm curious how many DIY people there potentially are now compared with games of the past. DIY in 3.x/Pathfinder was/is just not possible for me because I just don't have the time. However, I loved designing worlds and plots all through 1E and 2E (when I was a teenager and then in College). I also don't want to houserule things on the fly because I'm not good at remembering what I did last time.

Nowadays, I wouldn't even have time for DIY using a simpler 1E/2E ruleset because of work, raising my family, etc.

I wonder what % of D&D (all editions)/Pathfinder GMs are DIY vs. only using published adventures and how the figure of today compares with the figures of yesterday.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm curious how many DIY people there potentially are now compared with games of the past. DIY in 3.x/Pathfinder was/is just not possible for me because I just don't have the time. However, I loved designing worlds and plots all through 1E and 2E (when I was a teenager and then in College). I also don't want to houserule things on the fly because I'm not good at remembering what I did last time.

Nowadays, I wouldn't even have time for DIY using a simpler 1E/2E ruleset because of work, raising my family, etc.

I wonder what % of D&D (all editions)/Pathfinder GMs are DIY vs. only using published adventures and how the figure of today compares with the figures of yesterday.

That's a good question.

Considering that I run a homebrew world and I just rewrote the 3e base classes to fit in with my melange of d20 variant rules and I run things fast and loose at the table, I'm going to say I'm DIY-ing 3e.