D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?
- Thread starter Harlock
- Start date
I like that last line. And I think that may be what WotC are going for. They want to go after the three major splits, as I see them: Grognards (I despise that term, but it is convenient here), 3.x/Pathfinder, 4e.
My personal opinion, at this point in time, is that they simply cannot do this unless they actually support three different versions of the game, two of which are already receiving a great deal of support from the OGL industry and 4e will obviously receive that same support from its fans and companies. Of course, reprinting could go a long way (1e core books and 3.5 reprints already released or announced), especially if they stick with editionless support, like the recent Menzo setting.
Hey, nothing wrong with being selfish! We all want what we want and that is subjective. We all have fun in different ways. If I am to be completely honest, I made this thread to see if I was even close to being the target audience for 5e. I'm not completely convinced that I am! Sometimes I feel lost in the shuffle because the edition warring seems to pit 3.x vs. 4e most often. And, frankly, I am quite happy with C&C and not really looking for another system. That's why I selfishly listed I want a published commitment from WotC to stick with 5e for at least a decade.
If conversion to 5e was painless and simple, and I knew it was going to be supported for at least ten years, I could maybe justify the switch. That's still a big maybe. I'm knocking on the door of forty years old. Sticking with a system feels more important to me now than having the latest greatest toys to play with. My campaign and world are more important than the system in which they run.
I have really enjoyed reading everyone else's ideas and choices. We are a diverse bunch! I admit where some see weakness, I see strengths and vice versa. I loved the comment about D&D needing to be able to support Airbenders and Jedi more than traditional fantasy elements. To me, a good core game mechanic can support any genre. If it's balanced well, I think it can support them at the same game and table! I hear Savage Worlds is really good at this. It would be great to have a Jedi, Wuxia Monk, Grim Fighting Man, Billy the Kid and a Caveman as a party.
In the end, I hope we somehow all get what we want. I suppose I am just being a Pollyanna, but I hate that the greatest, most famous roleplaying game system in the world can't support some folks. Impossible dream? Maybe, but screw it, that's how I feel.
I honestly don't think a new rules set is going to be what brings people back to D&D and WotC, and it certainly won't bring me back in. It will definitely help for WotC to put out a barebones game system that can accommodate the vast array of material already out there, but primarily they need to be looking at ways to bring the gamers back into the fold.
So, what will?
There needs to be a new renaissance of sorts that brings all these amazing products coming out under one roof.
I'll re-post something I put up on Google+.
In truth, right now there are so many different variations of the game that making yet another variation with dozens of splatbook modules just isn't going to cut it. People are going to other sources for their D&D stuff.
So, what will bring me onboard with D&D Next?
It won't be whether D&D Next has healing surges or not... Or, Vancian casting... Or, whatever.
What will likely bring me into the fold is if WotC created an umbrella of inclusion for all types of gameplay and ideas and settings and modules and rules variations that is easily accessible by everyone and allows people to get their ideas out there. That won't be through rules, it'll be through something bigger than that.
There should be no D&D "Insider", because every single D&D player of one sort or another, from OD&Ders to 4Eers should be included and allowed to share ideas and concepts. Then, let each DM or player pick and choose what they like for their various styles. But, there's a central nexus where we all meet and exchange these ideas.
And, that's the future of D&D to me.
So, what will?
There needs to be a new renaissance of sorts that brings all these amazing products coming out under one roof.
I'll re-post something I put up on Google+.
WotC needs to harness the exact power that's killing them: individual creativity.
D&D has always been about that, with homebrew worlds, campaigns, adventures, monsters, etc. It's just, people didn't really have a way to publish to the masses.
With the OGL and so many different creations out there that take advantage of it and the ease of internet publishing, now WotC isn't just competing with Paizo or whatever, but all of the amazing creative minds out there. Just take a look at all of the amazing, talented work coming out right now. Why would I buy the next generic WotC adventure when I can buy Hammers of the Gods?
So, what can WotC do? They can "publish" it all.
Create D&D Next as a hub for all that content. Create a barebones, lean and clean system that can be hacked to pieces and then provide a sort of "App Store" for D&D Mods / Hacks / Adventures / Settings / etc. And, use an App Store-like system for ratings, reviews, featured content, etc.
There are some hurdles of course. They'll need guidelines on PDF design and logos and all that. But, people were fine using the OGL - why not this system? And, instead of leaving the OGL out there for someone to make money off of the game without WotC getting a cut, WotC can actually profit by taking a small fee for each transaction in exchange for the server space and distribution (like Apple does with the app store).
People are creating it anyways, so why not give them the tools to get it to the largest audience? Imagine if the next Into the Odd or Tales of the Grotesque and Dungeonesque or Lamentations of the Flame Princess or Adventurer Conqueror King were simply modules for D&D Next? Now, those creators might not actually go that route, but there are certainly people out there that might take advantage.
D&D has always been about that, with homebrew worlds, campaigns, adventures, monsters, etc. It's just, people didn't really have a way to publish to the masses.
With the OGL and so many different creations out there that take advantage of it and the ease of internet publishing, now WotC isn't just competing with Paizo or whatever, but all of the amazing creative minds out there. Just take a look at all of the amazing, talented work coming out right now. Why would I buy the next generic WotC adventure when I can buy Hammers of the Gods?
So, what can WotC do? They can "publish" it all.
Create D&D Next as a hub for all that content. Create a barebones, lean and clean system that can be hacked to pieces and then provide a sort of "App Store" for D&D Mods / Hacks / Adventures / Settings / etc. And, use an App Store-like system for ratings, reviews, featured content, etc.
There are some hurdles of course. They'll need guidelines on PDF design and logos and all that. But, people were fine using the OGL - why not this system? And, instead of leaving the OGL out there for someone to make money off of the game without WotC getting a cut, WotC can actually profit by taking a small fee for each transaction in exchange for the server space and distribution (like Apple does with the app store).
People are creating it anyways, so why not give them the tools to get it to the largest audience? Imagine if the next Into the Odd or Tales of the Grotesque and Dungeonesque or Lamentations of the Flame Princess or Adventurer Conqueror King were simply modules for D&D Next? Now, those creators might not actually go that route, but there are certainly people out there that might take advantage.
In truth, right now there are so many different variations of the game that making yet another variation with dozens of splatbook modules just isn't going to cut it. People are going to other sources for their D&D stuff.
So, what will bring me onboard with D&D Next?
It won't be whether D&D Next has healing surges or not... Or, Vancian casting... Or, whatever.
What will likely bring me into the fold is if WotC created an umbrella of inclusion for all types of gameplay and ideas and settings and modules and rules variations that is easily accessible by everyone and allows people to get their ideas out there. That won't be through rules, it'll be through something bigger than that.
There should be no D&D "Insider", because every single D&D player of one sort or another, from OD&Ders to 4Eers should be included and allowed to share ideas and concepts. Then, let each DM or player pick and choose what they like for their various styles. But, there's a central nexus where we all meet and exchange these ideas.
And, that's the future of D&D to me.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
D&D Next can win me over very quickly and very easily, actually. All I ask is for more DIY stuff, and less of the pre-packaged stuff.
For example, I want rules for creating my own monsters, and maybe a hundred examples. I do not want two, three, four textbooks full of random yet ready-to-use monsters.
I want rules for creating my own PC races, and a half-dozen examples. I do not want twenty or thirty different races to sort through.
I want rules for creating my own character classes, and maybe a half-dozen examples. I do not want thirty flavors of Fighter, Wizard, and Fighter-Wizard all mashed together.
I want rules and guidelines for creating my own campaigns, and a single (generic) default setting. I do not want book after book of campaign settings to crowd my shelf.
And so on. I want more "Here's How," and less "Use This." With the right tools, I can make the game into anything that I or my players could ever want. Gimme those tools.
-----
I realize this makes me part of a very, very, (very) small minority in this part of the realm. Most people will want to be able to just open a book, grab the stats for a zombie, and go with it...and they will want it to be the same zombie stats that their friend used in his game last weekend. That's fine. McDonald's has the best-selling hamburger for the same reason.
And I also realize that my idea will not work at all from a sales point of view; Hasbro wants (needs?) to sell textbook after textbook full of monsters, races, classes, and everything else. It is not in their best interest to give us the tools we need to build for ourselves the things they hope to later sell us.
Ah well. That's my dream, anyway. It won't happen, at least not for a long while. So I'll buy the book and I'll play it for a couple of weeks, and then decide if it's the game for me. And if it isn't, well, it won't be the first time.
For example, I want rules for creating my own monsters, and maybe a hundred examples. I do not want two, three, four textbooks full of random yet ready-to-use monsters.
I want rules for creating my own PC races, and a half-dozen examples. I do not want twenty or thirty different races to sort through.
I want rules for creating my own character classes, and maybe a half-dozen examples. I do not want thirty flavors of Fighter, Wizard, and Fighter-Wizard all mashed together.
I want rules and guidelines for creating my own campaigns, and a single (generic) default setting. I do not want book after book of campaign settings to crowd my shelf.
And so on. I want more "Here's How," and less "Use This." With the right tools, I can make the game into anything that I or my players could ever want. Gimme those tools.
-----
I realize this makes me part of a very, very, (very) small minority in this part of the realm. Most people will want to be able to just open a book, grab the stats for a zombie, and go with it...and they will want it to be the same zombie stats that their friend used in his game last weekend. That's fine. McDonald's has the best-selling hamburger for the same reason.
And I also realize that my idea will not work at all from a sales point of view; Hasbro wants (needs?) to sell textbook after textbook full of monsters, races, classes, and everything else. It is not in their best interest to give us the tools we need to build for ourselves the things they hope to later sell us.
Ah well. That's my dream, anyway. It won't happen, at least not for a long while. So I'll buy the book and I'll play it for a couple of weeks, and then decide if it's the game for me. And if it isn't, well, it won't be the first time.
Last edited:
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
At the moment, I think that I am more likely to join a game as a PC than a DM for 5th Edition. There are too many things about the ruleset that I am paranoid about (I have not tried the playtest).
I would need the following things present at least in a Rules Module form if not in the core.
Robust Combat / Class Balance: I cannot guarantee every player shows up to every game. I do not want to put together an encounter that goes from trivial to TPK based on one player being at the table, and I do NEVER want to feel like I need to balance a combat based around the power set of a single character. This has the following consequences:
- I do not want to have 1st level fighters with absurdly min-maxed damage output from a single attack.
- I do not want to have spell casters that are either 'terrible untrained archers' at low levels after one encounter but can solo most encounters later due to using spell combos (the old fly + fireball + improved invis combo).
- I do not want 'Scry-Buff-Die' tactics to be a problem at any level of play
- I do not want a magic item christmas tree player.
- I do not want a fighter class where the only difference between 1st and 30th level are bigger +X to hit and damage numbers.
- I do not want a cleric is is a glorified combat medic
- I do not want a cleric that is the perfect synthesis of caster and melee combatant.
- I do not want 'save or suck' spells or effects that put players OR monsters entirely out of a fight.
- I do not want players looking for hordes of overlapping buffs via spells and magic items.
On the more positive note:
- I do want fighters to have a way to occasionally make area attacks (even if they are 'close burst').
- I want monsters and encounters that can be easily scaled up or down based on number of players at the table.
- I want Minions, or something mechanically identical
- I want all classes to be able to be useful outside of combat
- I want monster creation to not be tied to PC creation (ie, 4th edition monsters), but I want the option of creating a NPC / villain using PC abilities (ie, 3rd Edition monsters).
- I want spells / rituals that encourage creative / goofy problem solving.
- I want to create the threat of defeat in every balanced combat I put out (ie, no cake walks, if I am going to have players roll initiative, it had better carry the implied threat of impending peril).
- I want low level monsters to stay viable at higher levels.
- I want published adventures intended for 6th level characters to have combat encounters balanced for 6th level characters. This means I do not want to see any 10th level monsters showing up when my players are still 6th level.
As an aside, one thing I liked about 4th edition design is that all classes could benefit from new powers and abilities that were published later. Previous editions had spell casters benefit disproportionately from power creep. With 4th edition, all classes would benefit at about the same pace. Power creep sucks, but I would rather not have future products turn a balanced character into one I have to plan my adventures and encounters around.
END COMMUNICATION
I would need the following things present at least in a Rules Module form if not in the core.
Robust Combat / Class Balance: I cannot guarantee every player shows up to every game. I do not want to put together an encounter that goes from trivial to TPK based on one player being at the table, and I do NEVER want to feel like I need to balance a combat based around the power set of a single character. This has the following consequences:
- I do not want to have 1st level fighters with absurdly min-maxed damage output from a single attack.
- I do not want to have spell casters that are either 'terrible untrained archers' at low levels after one encounter but can solo most encounters later due to using spell combos (the old fly + fireball + improved invis combo).
- I do not want 'Scry-Buff-Die' tactics to be a problem at any level of play
- I do not want a magic item christmas tree player.
- I do not want a fighter class where the only difference between 1st and 30th level are bigger +X to hit and damage numbers.
- I do not want a cleric is is a glorified combat medic
- I do not want a cleric that is the perfect synthesis of caster and melee combatant.
- I do not want 'save or suck' spells or effects that put players OR monsters entirely out of a fight.
- I do not want players looking for hordes of overlapping buffs via spells and magic items.
On the more positive note:
- I do want fighters to have a way to occasionally make area attacks (even if they are 'close burst').
- I want monsters and encounters that can be easily scaled up or down based on number of players at the table.
- I want Minions, or something mechanically identical
- I want all classes to be able to be useful outside of combat
- I want monster creation to not be tied to PC creation (ie, 4th edition monsters), but I want the option of creating a NPC / villain using PC abilities (ie, 3rd Edition monsters).
- I want spells / rituals that encourage creative / goofy problem solving.
- I want to create the threat of defeat in every balanced combat I put out (ie, no cake walks, if I am going to have players roll initiative, it had better carry the implied threat of impending peril).
- I want low level monsters to stay viable at higher levels.
- I want published adventures intended for 6th level characters to have combat encounters balanced for 6th level characters. This means I do not want to see any 10th level monsters showing up when my players are still 6th level.
As an aside, one thing I liked about 4th edition design is that all classes could benefit from new powers and abilities that were published later. Previous editions had spell casters benefit disproportionately from power creep. With 4th edition, all classes would benefit at about the same pace. Power creep sucks, but I would rather not have future products turn a balanced character into one I have to plan my adventures and encounters around.
END COMMUNICATION
Last edited:
Actually, being in the minority actually makes this:
More feasible in my mind. I love to know how things work. I also love easy to use, plug-n-play type stuff. The small amount of custom stuff I did would in no way affect how much stuff I buy, because I am quite content doing a few different things for flavor but I am very busy and gaming time is mostly for read-throughs and then actually gaming.
Great ideas!
Good Adventures.
Really, I did not leave 4e behind because I thought it was beyond redemption (although some of my players did think exactly that) but because the published adventure were like pieces of s**t compared to paizos APs. So going PF was simply much easier if I wanted to have good adventure material (and a system that appealed to all of my players).
Really, I did not leave 4e behind because I thought it was beyond redemption (although some of my players did think exactly that) but because the published adventure were like pieces of s**t compared to paizos APs. So going PF was simply much easier if I wanted to have good adventure material (and a system that appealed to all of my players).
KidSnide
Adventurer
I think one of the best ways to win people over is to make it super-easy for people to run older D&D adventures with D&DN. I've playtested D&DN with some BECMI modules. They run well, but it takes a little work to figure out the details. It's the sort of thing that the fan base is perfectly capable of, but WotC would benefit if there was a single place to share and comment on conversions.
I would suggest:
1) Publishing conversion guides for various editions of D&D. Most of the time, you will just substitute monsters, but each edition's style of game has some quirks. For example, BECMI modules tend to have literal save-or-die poison traps and a gobs of treasure (probably there to provide xp).
2) Providing a web-based location for fans to post non-IP-violating conversions of existing adventures (organized in a sensible way), and allowing other fans to comment on the conversions they like. (WotC participating in commenting on or suggesting edits to conversions would be a place, but is hardly necessary.)
3) Providing a mechanism to buy PDFs of old adventures. This will allow new folks to make use of old adventures, build goodwill with old folks by providing support to earlier editions and encourage the use of D&DN with different styles of gameplay.
Personally, I think D&DN will have succeeded when it is relatively easy to run a Pathfinder AP using D&DN. That will show that it's possible to use D&DN to run a 3.x/PF style game, and that there is enough demand for the (hopefully faster and less finicky) D&DN rules system that folks want to use the great Paizo adventures with the D&DN rules.
-KS
I would suggest:
1) Publishing conversion guides for various editions of D&D. Most of the time, you will just substitute monsters, but each edition's style of game has some quirks. For example, BECMI modules tend to have literal save-or-die poison traps and a gobs of treasure (probably there to provide xp).
2) Providing a web-based location for fans to post non-IP-violating conversions of existing adventures (organized in a sensible way), and allowing other fans to comment on the conversions they like. (WotC participating in commenting on or suggesting edits to conversions would be a place, but is hardly necessary.)
3) Providing a mechanism to buy PDFs of old adventures. This will allow new folks to make use of old adventures, build goodwill with old folks by providing support to earlier editions and encourage the use of D&DN with different styles of gameplay.
Personally, I think D&DN will have succeeded when it is relatively easy to run a Pathfinder AP using D&DN. That will show that it's possible to use D&DN to run a 3.x/PF style game, and that there is enough demand for the (hopefully faster and less finicky) D&DN rules system that folks want to use the great Paizo adventures with the D&DN rules.
-KS
Call the line "Manual Monsters."
(I just made a clean double entendre, there, folks!)
That won't necessarily make me love 5Ed, but i'd buy 'em!
Crazy Jerome
First Post
In addition to what Balesir said, to really win me over the design has to display a few characteristics:
I've reached the point where incoherent vision, sloppy design and development, covered up with a coat of paint just really isn't fun for me. it creates the same kind of reaction that I had hunting a house, when I went in to a particular "show house" in a neighborhood by one builder and saw that they had tried to cover up bad carpentry and sloppy wiring with inexpert trim, with slopped on paint. If it's so bad that a guy like me who tinkers with it but isn't a professional can see it at a glance, then what is under the walls that I can't see? Once I start asking that question, I really can't relax and enjoy a game entirely. I don't trust it.
So tl;dr: Make a game I can trust to be what it says it is.
- I'm convinced that the designers have a clear vision.
- The mechanics and flavor are unified in pursuit of that vision.
- The development is tested and works.
- The advice is congruent with the game produced.
- The examples, adventures, tools, etc. support it well.
- No obvious padding and bloat. (Options done well that I don't need but that other people want are not padding or bloat. They are options that I don't personally care about. But even these I want done well, for the sake of good craftmanship.)
I've reached the point where incoherent vision, sloppy design and development, covered up with a coat of paint just really isn't fun for me. it creates the same kind of reaction that I had hunting a house, when I went in to a particular "show house" in a neighborhood by one builder and saw that they had tried to cover up bad carpentry and sloppy wiring with inexpert trim, with slopped on paint. If it's so bad that a guy like me who tinkers with it but isn't a professional can see it at a glance, then what is under the walls that I can't see? Once I start asking that question, I really can't relax and enjoy a game entirely. I don't trust it.
So tl;dr: Make a game I can trust to be what it says it is.
- Easy to learn and play.
- Easy character generation which encourages concept over build. (In other words, I imagine the character I want, pick the options that support my concept, and don't have to worry about ending up with a weak or overpowered PC as a result.)
- Robust but easily understood rules for common situations.
- Simple, versatile tools to help the DM adjudicate oddball corner-case situations.
- Works well in low-magic settings with economic and social systems bearing a passing resemblance to historical reality. (It does not have to provide such a setting, but when I build one, I don't want to be fighting the rules every step of the way.)
This is a stretch goal, but my ideal 5E would also be able to switch smoothly between what I'll call "skirmish mode" and "set-piece mode." The former is theater of the mind combat, fast-paced and loose, capable of resolution in 10-20 minutes; BD&D-style. The latter is the grand showdown, with battlemat and minis and all the tactical trimmings, possibly taking an hour or more to complete; 4E-style. I'm sure there will be modules to support both of these, and that's fine, but what I would really love would be if I could use them both in the same adventure. So the little fights would be skirmish mode--kill a few goblins, gank a sentry, et cetera--but for the big boss fights we would go to set-piece.
Last edited:
Black Knight Irios
Explorer
I don't need to be won over.
I will buy the 3 core rules anyway because I want to see the new rules 1st hand. And its new and shiny.
This has been the case so far for 3.x and 4E. Because no edition so far has ever felt perfect, so testing the next edition never seemed like a bad idea.
The one thing that is absolutely mandatory to keep my group and me playing the new edition is: An even more streamlined combat resolution system than 4E had.
I will buy the 3 core rules anyway because I want to see the new rules 1st hand. And its new and shiny.
This has been the case so far for 3.x and 4E. Because no edition so far has ever felt perfect, so testing the next edition never seemed like a bad idea.
The one thing that is absolutely mandatory to keep my group and me playing the new edition is: An even more streamlined combat resolution system than 4E had.
WheresMyD20
First Post
To begin with, D&D Next would have to fulfill its promise of letting me easily recreate the style of play from my favorite edition.
If things like at-will spellcasting and the character-engineering stuff (like having to deal with backgrounds, feats, themes, etc.) are hard-wired into the game system, then it's a non-starter.
If things like at-will spellcasting and the character-engineering stuff (like having to deal with backgrounds, feats, themes, etc.) are hard-wired into the game system, then it's a non-starter.
innerdude
Legend
Somebody XP Jerome for me. That's a great statement--I want to trust a game to be what it says it is.
Here's what I'd like to see:
I want at least one new character class in the core Player’s Handbook that has never been released before.
No matter what character class I play, I want some resources to manage and several meaningful options to choose from in a given round of combat.
I want monsters to be able to do nasty things to characters beyond hit point damage. I want to fight some monsters and be in genuine awe and surprise, and a little afraid, at what they can do.
I want all character classes to be relatively balanced and interact synergistically with each other in combat at all levels of play.
I want it to be easy to design and run adventures. I want to be able to completely wing it, let players make sweeping decisions, travel beyond preset corridors and whether my players square off against the Royal grand wizard, an emissary from another plane and his abyssal bodyguards, or the thieves’ guild I can say “Are you kidding me? Wow I never would have predicted this. Ok give me five minutes” and be able to set up virtually any battle or challenge that the story would dictate face the players and scale that battle to an appropriate challenge level from cakewalk to suicide mission.
Most of all I want something new. I don't want to go backwards and feel like I'm playing first edition again. I don’t want a game that is built on the foundation of a previous edition, any edition for that matter. I want a brand new game that is a new edition that completely stands on its own merits. I don’t want sacred cows. I want those cows turned into steaks and burgers and grilled and slathered with bbq sauce. I want a game that is not afraid to take some chances and anger some of it's fanbase in the hopes that the remaining players, and newcomers, will find it a better game than what has come before.
I want at least one new character class in the core Player’s Handbook that has never been released before.
No matter what character class I play, I want some resources to manage and several meaningful options to choose from in a given round of combat.
I want monsters to be able to do nasty things to characters beyond hit point damage. I want to fight some monsters and be in genuine awe and surprise, and a little afraid, at what they can do.
I want all character classes to be relatively balanced and interact synergistically with each other in combat at all levels of play.
I want it to be easy to design and run adventures. I want to be able to completely wing it, let players make sweeping decisions, travel beyond preset corridors and whether my players square off against the Royal grand wizard, an emissary from another plane and his abyssal bodyguards, or the thieves’ guild I can say “Are you kidding me? Wow I never would have predicted this. Ok give me five minutes” and be able to set up virtually any battle or challenge that the story would dictate face the players and scale that battle to an appropriate challenge level from cakewalk to suicide mission.
Most of all I want something new. I don't want to go backwards and feel like I'm playing first edition again. I don’t want a game that is built on the foundation of a previous edition, any edition for that matter. I want a brand new game that is a new edition that completely stands on its own merits. I don’t want sacred cows. I want those cows turned into steaks and burgers and grilled and slathered with bbq sauce. I want a game that is not afraid to take some chances and anger some of it's fanbase in the hopes that the remaining players, and newcomers, will find it a better game than what has come before.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
In other words, you want D&D to not be D&D.
Obryn
Hero
Next has to be both different and good.
I don't look at editions of D&D as being improvements, per se, though I think that's often an element in their design. I look at them as entirely new games. 1e, 3e, and 4e are all completely different games that just happen to share similar tropes; 3e didn't replace 1e/2e, it just offered a different way to play. Ditto, 4e.
I want Next to do two things.
(1) Be good at stuff that no previous edition is good at. Give me a new way to play and enjoy D&D that I didn't have before.
(2) Do it well, and do it whole-heartedly. I don't want the kind of half-measures that we're seeing with a lot of the Next design - where the company is worrying more about "iconic" than "good."
I love the D&Disms and callbacks to the early days of the game - I've been playing since they were fairly new - but I'll be frank. If it's not AD&D 1e, I think a lot of those D&Disms are just pretending anyway.
(3) Be easy and quick to DM. Without this, I have zero interest.
If I want to run one sort of game, I have 4e. If I want to run another sort of game, I have 1e. I love both of these games, and I love both playing and running them. If Next doesn't let me play games that are fundamentally different from either, it will lose me out of the gate. If it tries to do what 1e or 4e did and isn't a substantial improvement, it will lose me.
So yeah. I think all this talk of "better" is divisive. I'd rather talk about "different."
-O
I don't look at editions of D&D as being improvements, per se, though I think that's often an element in their design. I look at them as entirely new games. 1e, 3e, and 4e are all completely different games that just happen to share similar tropes; 3e didn't replace 1e/2e, it just offered a different way to play. Ditto, 4e.
I want Next to do two things.
(1) Be good at stuff that no previous edition is good at. Give me a new way to play and enjoy D&D that I didn't have before.
(2) Do it well, and do it whole-heartedly. I don't want the kind of half-measures that we're seeing with a lot of the Next design - where the company is worrying more about "iconic" than "good."
I love the D&Disms and callbacks to the early days of the game - I've been playing since they were fairly new - but I'll be frank. If it's not AD&D 1e, I think a lot of those D&Disms are just pretending anyway.
(3) Be easy and quick to DM. Without this, I have zero interest.
If I want to run one sort of game, I have 4e. If I want to run another sort of game, I have 1e. I love both of these games, and I love both playing and running them. If Next doesn't let me play games that are fundamentally different from either, it will lose me out of the gate. If it tries to do what 1e or 4e did and isn't a substantial improvement, it will lose me.
So yeah. I think all this talk of "better" is divisive. I'd rather talk about "different."
-O
Obryn
Hero
Frankly, 90% of WotC-published 4e adventures range from "bad" to "execrable", so even as a fan of 4e, I'm right there with you!
I even want to add to my list....
(4) Good published adventures that actually use the DMing advice in the DMG and which highlight the things the system is best at rather than shine a big spotlight on all their flaws. I like using published adventures for my first forays into a system, and the HPE series seemed specifically designed to drive people away from the game.
-O
As is Next looks like a fairly good game. Simple, straightforward. Somewhat iffy on a few points, but its still in beta, so there is always hope for a more polished final product. Its not something I can dislike on objective merit alone. This I won't deny.
That said... I see little hope of "winning me over" unless their "rules module" concept blows my goddamn mind, which none of the random hashing and preview material seems to indicate that it will. Before we even get into all of the little things which will more or less be instant turn offs for me, watered down fantasy GURPS stapled onto Castles and Crusades isn't my cup of tea, more or less.
Even if it was, we have to get past the fact that, while not objectively bad, Vancian Spellcasting has always been counter-intuitive for me, 3.x multiclassing IS an objective cluster- of Yog-Sothothian proportions, and all of the petty political B.S. that tempered the tone of the first four months of the game's life (Rarity rules to limp-wristedly single out Non-Tolkien fantasy as badwrong, hilarious anti-4e polling biases) will leave a bad taste in my mouth.
So, no, it probably won't win me over unless they do something to defy my expectations. I'll still play if offered and maybe even buy it, but I see little chance of this becoming my new BEST GAME EVER.
That said... I see little hope of "winning me over" unless their "rules module" concept blows my goddamn mind, which none of the random hashing and preview material seems to indicate that it will. Before we even get into all of the little things which will more or less be instant turn offs for me, watered down fantasy GURPS stapled onto Castles and Crusades isn't my cup of tea, more or less.
Even if it was, we have to get past the fact that, while not objectively bad, Vancian Spellcasting has always been counter-intuitive for me, 3.x multiclassing IS an objective cluster-
of Yog-Sothothian proportions, and all of the petty political B.S. that tempered the tone of the first four months of the game's life (Rarity rules to limp-wristedly single out Non-Tolkien fantasy as badwrong, hilarious anti-4e polling biases) will leave a bad taste in my mouth.So, no, it probably won't win me over unless they do something to defy my expectations. I'll still play if offered and maybe even buy it, but I see little chance of this becoming my new BEST GAME EVER.
Similar Threads
D&D General
What About Those Other D&D Settings?
