How do you feel about the future of D&D after the official announcements?

[Ahnehnois]

What innovative stuff by Monte are you thinking about? An I overlooking something obvious? For me, Monte is a strict classic RPG guy who has never been interested in modern RPG design goals. Moreover hiring him back to WOTC best serves as a signal of continuity to 3.x, not as a way to innovate the game.

I hesitate to ask what you're defining as "modern". Between Arcana Evolved and the Book of Experimental Might, I'd say Monte's name is on some of the most significant (and significantly advanced) d20 books released after 3e. I think they hired him because he understands the 3.X architecture and may have some ideas on how to improve it. Although I admittedly haven't read FantasyCraft or some of the other 3.X derivatives, I don't think I've ever seen a more "modern" rpg than 3.5 D&D.

I would loosely define "modern" as a game with a unified ruleset, equal emphasis on combat and noncombat activity, a strongly reality-based design, and highly modular design (the "toolkit" mentality). I would define "classic" as being focused on the Chainmail-esque tactical miniatures combat in a dungeon setting, using many discrete subsystems and esoteric rules, and without making many explicit attempts within the rules to model reality or to encourage activities other than combat. By these definitions (the ones that I just made up which no one else is bound to), the announced 5e plans (and Monte Cook's work) are pretty modern.

 

[Tinner]

Negative.

And that's not just a little negative. That's a BIG negative!

Their stated design goal is patently un-possible. (Note - that's even LESS possible than impossible.) The "Everything to Everyone" concept has been a failure for every game that has tried it. The closest thing that came to success at that goal is probably GURPS, and most of the people buying GURPS books are really just getting sourcebooks to use with homebrew games.

I have strong doubts that this player feedback is actually going to be used. Morrus even posted that he has already played 5e. That seems to imply that at least the initial design work is DONE. And it was done without fan feedback. I really doubt that the design team is going to be willing/allowed to scrap that work if the fan feedback is against it. As such, I'm assuming that the fan feedback is just a PR gimmick to try to win back fans.

There has been NO information about what the licensing will be for 5e. IIRC the term that has been used for 5e is GSL. The GSL has been an abject failure compared to the OGL. Even considering revising the GSL is a terrible idea. Scrap it and come up with something new. Better yet, go back to the OGL and while you're at it, liberate those few IP monsters that the OGL kept back. Really, is there ANY evidence that keeping the Beholder and Ilithid out of the OGL honestly made WotC ANY money?

IMO there is really no need for a new edition, other than for WotC/Hasbro to make more money. Can't fault them for that. Who doesn't want to make money? But for my money, I have a great edition of D&D. It's called Pathfinder, and they've been taking their fans' voices into account for several years now. The books come out on time, and look great. They have a deep line of products and accessories. I really don't need 5e, any more than I needed 4e. 5e would have to be so amazingly revolutionary to convince me to switch now as to be inconceivable.

All that said, I did sign up to help playtest. Hope springs eternal, and I recognize that the hobby needs D&D to stay healthy. Maybe they can pull it off. Gygax and Arneson pretty much caught lightning in a bottle when they created the game. Maybe it can happen again? Maybe 5e will be so incredible we all unite behind it and gaming becomes as big and mainstream as it was in the 80's?

Sorry, but I doubt it.

 

[mxyzplk]

I am neutral. Everything they are saying seems good, but I am concerned that maybe their mouth is writing checks their ass can't cash.

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

I voted neutral. I like what they are currently saying. I am extremely skeptical about them actually DOING it (or at least, doing it RIGHT).

I'll wait and see.

 

[God]

I just can't bring myself to care anymore, to be honest. WotC lost me as a customer with 4th edition, which basically shat on all the things (campaign settings and accrued canon, OGL, Dungeon and Dragon mags, etc) I loved most about D&D as a brand. For D&D as a game, I've got Pathfinder.

If life had a reset button and they could return it all to 2007, maybe ... but I don't think even Monte Cook can bandage this one. I think it's more likely to fracture the player base even more and could make things difficult for Pathfinder, which is the real spiritual successor in my opinion.

As long as Hasbro has ultimate control, I just don't trust them to do the right thing for the game.

 

[Gadodel]

I've been gaming since 1979. I will always use whatever edition is out. And when I feel like it, I will use any past edition too. It's about having fun with friends. The dice, the mechanics, the setting-well, they are just a bonus. I just like dungeon delving. As long as someone is helping me come up with cool or new ways to do it, I will buy their product!

 

[Spinachcat]

Negative.

The stated goals are impossible.

What D&D needs is a heavily marketed VTT that lets people play D&D 24/7, but unlike MMOs, the VTT would offer a human element and the ability to have a character truly affect their game world in a big way.

But instead of embracing the digital future, WotC is going to slap together another dead tree edition to battle it out with the very entrenched and fractured remnants of the hobby.

The OSR isn't coming to 5e, the 3e crew has Paizo and thanks to the OGL, the 4e crew will have some company to cater to them as well. Regardless of how modular 5e may be, it won't be 1e, 3e or 4e and that's what fans of 1e, 3e and 4e want.

That said, I am very interested in playtesting 5e out of my curiosity for new RPGs. I really love checking out new RPGs, regardless of the name brand or company.

 

[jbear]

I voted neutral.

I'd like to be positive. I wish D&D a long and healthy life in whatever form it may manifest.

I will watch with interest and happily participate in the playtest and share my thoughts and experiences/opinions. I will continue to play 4e and Pathfinder, both editions I enjoy.

But I think some RPG fans like to be negative/unreasonable about things and inflict their own issues onto as many people as they can reach. I do believe this is a vocal minority, but I have my doubts as to whether "5th Idition" will achieve what it sets out to, though I do honestly hope that it does.

It would be wonderful to think that they could come up with a system so perfect and flexible that it literally was able to satisfy every gamers proverbial itch. As Macchiavelli said, set your sights high, far beyond your capabilities and even if you shoot lower you will have reached far further than you would have otherwise.

But as I do have doubts and reservations, til I see, I will remain quietly neutral.

 

[Jhaelen]

Negative.

The stated goals are impossible.

That's my feeling as well. Trying to create a single 'iteration' appealing to fans of every edition is a lofty goal indeed. Imho, there's too little common ground for this to work. Either they have to focus on a certain period/style or they'll end up with a (bad) GURPS clone.

 

[irontyrant]

I picked positive. I will give WOTC one more chance,even though they tried to kick us older gamers to the curb. I find the angst and nerd rage emanating from the 4E crowd delicious. 5E will look nothing like 4E guaranteed. I look forward to all the 4E crowd having to deal with what those of us who like other editions had to deal with when WOTC had their antics with 4E.