D&D 5E I want D&D Next to be a new edition, not just an improved version of Edition X

[Mercurius]

In tihe "Toolbox Edition" that I started, [MENTION=18615]Harlekin[/MENTION] made some interesting comments that I felt were worthy of exploring in a new thread.

I think this is the key argument. What most here apparently would like to see is their favorite edition with some incremental improvements. The fear is that the inherent weakness of the modular approach will outweigh any improvement they may manage.

It seems quite likely that I will look at the finished product with all modules and say "Not bad, it almost does what I want as well as 4ed". And then go back to playing 4ed. And I expect most fans of every other edition to do the same.

My approach and hope for 5E is quite different. I don't want an incrementally improved version of a specific edition. What I want is a new edition, one that hopefully takes the best elements of other editions and re-works them into a new whole. This may be because I don't really have a favorite edition; or rather, my favorite edition is the one that I'm playing (and my preference tends to follow sequential, chronological order).

I was glad to see 4E come out. It had (has) its problems, and the general feeling of it--especially the power-centered combat--has made me long for a more traditional D&D experience and turn to Pathfinder. But back in 2008 I was happy to see and try a new version of D&D, and for the last four years have played and enjoyed it (and still play it).

I was really glad when 3E came out. I hadn't played in the late 90s at all and my interest was re-kindled when I discovered Eric Noah's red-on-black website of 3e news. In the opinion of many, including myself, not only did 3E re-invigorate the community through the OGL but it "fixed" what was a rather clunky, and anachronistic rules system in 2E. 3E, in my view, remains the largest quantum leap forward in D&D game mechanics.

Going back even further, I was excited when I first started reading about 2E in Dragon Magazine; I vaguely remember filling out a questionnaire that TSR had distributed through Dragon in an attempt to get feedback for 2E design. For my entire D&D career (beginning in 1981-82) I had only really played one edition of the game, AD&D, so the thought of a new edition was terrifically exciting. I was glad with the revision and enjoyed the new game for over half a decade.

The point of my brief little trip down memory lane is that every new edition of the game has been treated (by me) as an exciting moment, something to look forward to and enjoyed, not simply as an updated version of my previous edition of choice, but as a new iteration of the game that I've loved for 30 years.

I don't expect 5E to "out 4E" 4E, or do 3.5-style D&D better than 3.5 (or Pathfinder). What I expect--and hope for--is a new, unique form of the game that fulfills the stated design goals of core simplicity and open-ended modularity, able to embody the style of any variation of the game that one desires, if not out-do any particular style or iteration of the game. A game that is flexible and customizable without being overly complex.

In other words, I don't want 5E to be a souped up version of 4E or an attempt to erase 4E from memory and be the game that 4E "should" have been if it had followed from 3.5 more closely. I don't want 5E to be 4E with a makeover or Pathfinder on steroids. We already have Pathfinder, we have 4E - they will always exist, always be playable, and are "complete" games in themselves. But I want to keep going; I want to see what's over the next horizon (of D&D game design and play). I want 5E.

So if you're perfectly happy with Edition X, I see no reason to stop playing Edition X. Just don't expect 5E to be "Edition X, the Improved Version," because it won't be. If that's what you want you're (probably) going to be disappointed. In other words, I say either embrace change or play the game that you already love, but don't expect 5E to be just a revamped version of any edition, because from what I've gathered from the designers, it is much more ambitious than that.

Or, to put it another way, let's prevent some predictable disgruntlement and nerdrage and let 5E be a new version of the game and, better yet, embrace it as such.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I guess it really depends on what you mean by "new game". I think people learn by doing, and it is quite possible to improve things incrementally. It is not going to happen when you go back to square one every time.

I'd be perfectly happy with new elements coming into the game with 5e, if they add something. I'm also perfectly happy with existing elements being retained because they work fine. For those things that apparently don't work fine many are STILL improvements on what came before, so why not just make them even better? Even things that many people seem to feel don't work are often perfectly good but don't work because of something else or some plainly obvious minor issue that can be easily fixed.

Progress builds on progress. You don't build a house by laying a foundation, finding one brick out of place and ripping the whole thing up and starting over.

But anyway, what IS a 'new game'? Just how much different from the 'old game' does it have to be before it is a new game and not a revision of an old game?

 

[El Mahdi]

Why are the two concepts mutually exclusive...?

No Edition of D&D has ever been a completely new edition of D&D, not even 4E (though I guess one could make the argument that Chainmail and OD&D were...). There were a lot of things that survived from past editions in 4E.

Why can't 5E be the best of edition X and be a new edition?

I don't expect 5E to "out 4E" 4E, or do 3.5-style D&D better than 3.5 (or Pathfinder).

I don't necessarily expect this to happen, but I do think it's possible and have great hope that that is exactly what they can pull off. I think they're moving in the right direction so far, but it's a long way to the finished product yet, so we'll have to wait and see. But this is definitely the direction in which my hopes lay...

 

[hanez]

Totally disagree. I want an improved edition. If I wanted a new game, there are lots of options available.

 

[Hassassin]

Isn't this just a question of how many things they should change?

IMO, the number of changes matters very little in comparison to the specific things they change and how they do that. They could make a handful of important changes to 4e and it might become my favorite edition. Or they could change a thousand things about 3e and not improve it at all. Or the other way around.

I don't care how different they make it, only how good.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm pretty sure I never said "new game," but "new edition" or "new version of the game." Without re-reading my OP, if I wrote "new game" I only did so once or twice, and wrote "new edition" much more. That's what I meant.

[MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION], you're right - they're not mutually exclusive. It is probably a matter of degree, really. But my point is simply that if we're hoping that 5E is an improved version of 4E or a reboot and revision of 3.5, or a resurrection of AD&D or BECMI or OD&D, then we're almost certainly going to be disappointed. But if we're hoping 5E is a new iteration of the game that is able to play in the style of those editions, then we're likely to be pleased. I hope, at least!

My further point is that we're only going to be happy with 5E to the degree that we can embrace it as a new edition of the game, not a rehashing or revision of our preferred edition. Why set ourselves up for disappointment? Let's nip that in the bud!

 

[El Mahdi]

..But my point is simply that if we're hoping that 5E is an improved version of 4E or a reboot and revision of 3.5, or a resurrection of AD&D or BECMI or OD&D, then we're almost certainly going to be disappointed. But if we're hoping 5E is a new iteration of the game that is able to play in the style of those editions, then we're likely to be pleased. I hope, at least!

My further point is that we're only going to be happy with 5E to the degree that we can embrace it as a new edition of the game, not a rehashing or revision of our preferred edition. Why set ourselves up for disappointment? Let's nip that in the bud!

I agree 100%!

I have found from reading these threads and posts throughout this Forum, that there really are glass half-empty and glass half-full people. I agree with you completely that we need to try at keep the optimism up as much as possible, and definitely try to clarify and keep people focused on what Monte and Company are saying, and not just rumors and opinions people read in others posts.

Keep the Faith!

 

[Libramarian]

I'm pretty sure I never said "new game," but "new edition" or "new version of the game." Without re-reading my OP, if I wrote "new game" I only did so once or twice, and wrote "new edition" much more. That's what I meant.

Incremental improvement is what new editions do by definition, though.

You clearly want a new game, and NOT merely a new edition. Just say it

My thought on the matter is that pleasing the bored hardcore with new shiny, instead of maintaining brand integrity, sacrifices the long-term health of the game for short term gain.

WotC should encourage some hardcore D&Ders to play a different game once in a while when they get bored, instead of mutating D&D to keep them interested at the cost of alienating casual and new players.

 

[Mercurius]

Incremental improvement is what new editions do by definition, though.

You clearly want a new game, and NOT merely a new edition. Just say it

My thought on the matter is that pleasing the bored hardcore with new shiny, instead of maintaining brand integrity, sacrifices the long-term health of the game for short term gain.

WotC should encourage some hardcore D&Ders to play a different game once in a while when they get bored, instead of mutating D&D to keep them interested at the cost of alienating casual and new players.

Interesting points and I agree in that "brand integrity" is important and shouldn't be sacrificed for "new shiny," but disagree with your implication that they are mutually exclusive.

And no, I don't want a new game - I want a new edition, but with the understanding that the last two new editions (not sub-editions) were significant changes from the prior edition. 4E was a huge change from 3.x; I wouldn't call it a new game, but it was a significant change - as was 3E from 2E.

So yeah, I want more of a 2E-to-3E or 3E-to-4E change, not a 1E-to-2E change or a Holmes-to-Metzner-to-BECMI change. Is that a new game? Depends. But part of my point is that a lot of the kerfuffle in past edition changeovers is that there is a small, but vocal (and often vitriolic) minority that simply wants an incremental change. Many of these folks think that D&D ceased being D&D in 2000 (or 2008), rather than simply changed into a new form (for better or worse).

The problem brewing with 5E is that WotC has said that it will accommodate play "in the style of" other editions, but many folks have seemingly (mis-)interpreted that to mean that it will emulate and even improve upon/revise their favorite edition. I've heard people speculate (hopefully) that D&D Next will be a cleaned up version of AD&D or even a revamped version of OD&D, or a revised version of BECMI. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it happening.

If everyone realizes that D&D Next is being designed as a new edition that accommodates a wide variety of play styles, then we all should be fine. But if people continue to wishfully think that it will revive and improve upon their favorite edition--whatever edition that is--then they'll be disappointed.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If 5E feels like and plays like D&D, I'll be happy -- but I'd prefer an evolutionary rather than revolutionary design.