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

[AbdulAlhazred]

One of the big selling points of 4E, and one of the reasons I like it so much, is that it *was* a brave new take on D&D and really stuck its neck out there.

Now, many people didn't like it, and many people did. We have a more divided community than ever. But, I can't fault 4E for going for broke. This is what I want from professional game designers, and it's when I most eagerly give them my hard-won dosh.

I don't want an incremental take on 4E, even though it would probably be a game I would really like, because I already have 4E. It's not going anywhere. My current campaign will probably continue through the release of 5E. Instead, I want for 5E what I want from every edition, and what for the most part I've actually been given over the years (3.5 excluded, but I don't consider that a genuine edition change anyway): a modern take on the D&D experience I love.

Yeah, I both agree with you, and at the same time disagree with you, lol. hehe.

I was really disappointed in 2e. 1e had been around for a dozen years, was a bit dated even when it was released, and was WAY long in the tooth. We'd tapped it pretty hard. Its limitations were heavily in evidence and we'd grown rather impatient with them. Then along came 2e and was basically a big fat nothing. Oooooh! THAC0!!!!!! WOW! At best you can say it was a slight incremental improvement on 1e. IMHO I'd have much rather have had a game that made some real significant changes to the game. So, 1e -> 2e, I agree with you.

4e -> 5e is a totally different situation. 4e hasn't been around for years, and is already a radical update to the system. It is also far from perfected, yet a vast improvement over 3e. I don't need 5e to be some radically new thing. I've barely scratched the surface of 4e frankly. I'd love to see 4e perfected into a 5e and I have not even the slightest trace of interest in what was in AD&D. Played and ran it for 25 years and more. If it has some ideas that can be mined for 5e, great, by all means. I just don't need to go back, and I want to see the current direction carried forward. It can be improved in so many ways and holds such vast promise.

So, when it comes to 5e I don't exactly agree with you. I think 4e -> 5e should be bigger than 1e -> 2e in some ways, but I'm perfectly fine with it being fundamentally an incremental evolution of 4e. I can still hope that such a game will actually be the main line of 5e development.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, when it comes to 5e I don't exactly agree with you. I think 4e -> 5e should be bigger than 1e -> 2e in some ways, but I'm perfectly fine with it being fundamentally an incremental evolution of 4e. I can still hope that such a game will actually be the main line of 5e development.

I see it as partially something done in fits and spurts. It's good for them to push hard, because otherwise they don't learn. Yet, there is also time for a consolidation phase, to take larger advantage of what has been learned. Plus, there is spreading out over other areas with those lessons, instead of pushing ahead in the old areas. Those are all possible "directions" without "retreat"--go forward, consolidate, or lateral movement.

I don't think it is a knock on 4E to describe it as an ambitious push to claim some new ground, which has left it a bit exposed. So rather than abandon that ground, shore it up, widen the front, and make sure the rear areas that were already covered aren't neglected, either.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I see it as partially something done in fits and spurts. It's good for them to push hard, because otherwise they don't learn. Yet, there is also time for a consolidation phase, to take larger advantage of what has been learned. Plus, there is spreading out over other areas with those lessons, instead of pushing ahead in the old areas. Those are all possible "directions" without "retreat"--go forward, consolidate, or lateral movement.

I don't think it is a knock on 4E to describe it as an ambitious push to claim some new ground, which has left it a bit exposed. So rather than abandon that ground, shore it up, widen the front, and make sure the rear areas that were already covered aren't neglected, either.

Yeah, it WAS ambitious. I think what they sort of didn't understand was that you don't just knock out such a big change to the game and get it perfect right off. I don't know if there were also issues with the design process or what. It just seems to me that taking another huge leap right away is sort of asking for another awkward transition. Likewise making some stab at pretending to be an OSR clone isn't going to move the product forward. Lots of things can change. I just think a lot of things are fine and would not even be issues in a revised system. Improving things is mostly an incremental process in the long run. The basics are there.

 

[BobTheNob]

For me, 4e had alot of things I liked and alot of things I disliked. I would be different from Abdul in so far as the proportion of things I liked, whilst probably greater, didnt form a solid enough base for 5e IMHO.

Im happy to learn from 4e, but I agree with the OP. I want 5e to be a new edition that leans on the strengths of all editions that proceeded it. It may be a little Frankenstein in the end, but none of us can speculate that will be a good or bad thing till we see it.

 

[prosfilaes]

But, I can't fault 4E for going for broke.

I've never thought it a bright idea to take your flagship product, and do radical new experimental changes to it. Intel is still around only because it avoided sinking too much money into the i432 or Itanium; x86 sucks, and sucks bad, but it sells. Say whatever you want about D&D 3, but it's been one of the best-selling games on the market since its release.

 

[WarlockLord]

I agree with all those who say "avoid radical change". That killed 4e and fractured the fanbase.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've never thought it a bright idea to take your flagship product, and do radical new experimental changes to it. Intel is still around only because it avoided sinking too much money into the i432 or Itanium; x86 sucks, and sucks bad, but it sells. Say whatever you want about D&D 3, but it's been one of the best-selling games on the market since its release.

Of course 'no radical change' would be 5e is a lot like 4e at this point.

I think the fact that WotC did make a radical change from 3.5 tells us a lot. There were already really fundamental problems. Not that 3.5 was exactly failing, but imagine you have a basic product that hit its peak in 1982 and has been on a downward slide since then. The product has a certain loyal core following, but most of the similar products have changed over the years. Even with some upticks when some limited updates were made, the basic trend in your product is towards older users, less users, and less and less overall brand recognition.

I think they could have continued to make 3e and tweaks of 3e for a long long time, but to Hasbro spending some money to gamble on a hit really isn't that big a deal. A hit makes you a lot more money. A miss probably still makes money and carries little real downside.

Seems to me they decided to go for it while 3.5 was still reasonably popular but also must have been obviously trending down and showing that pretty soon they'd have to do something anyway. It was time for a shakeup.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I don't think it's being particularly conservative to want a game carrying the moniker "Dungeons and Dragons" to actually show responsibility and respect to the game's heritage, and be authentic to it's original design.

If you want a new Fandabydoobee-Whizz-Child-Offspring-Of-D&D RPG, then you should call it that, and not just stand on the shoulders of a giant to sell it.

 

[prosfilaes]

Of course 'no radical change' would be 5e is a lot like 4e at this point.

Sure, but the rules are different now; WotC's dominance has a solid competitor.

I think the fact that WotC did make a radical change from 3.5 tells us a lot.

I don't think so. One could explain it as simply wanting to evade the OGL.

The product has a certain loyal core following, but most of the similar products have changed over the years.

That's irrelevant. That's key to the analogy; D&D, like x86, was not best, but it was the standard. It's easy for people at the bottom to change and innovate, but first place is selling compatibility and can't afford to change too fast. They don't want to be playing at the bottom for the best new fantasy RPG; they want to be selling the fantasy RPG everyone already knows.

Even with some upticks when some limited updates were made, the basic trend in your product is towards older users, less users, and less and less overall brand recognition.

I'm not seeing what they did to fix that. As far as I can tell, 4E sold in the same market as 3E. With the exception of the D&D boardgames, how have they grabbed non-roleplayers, or at least tried to?

 

[delericho]

I have two somewhat poorly defined requirements of 5e:

- It has to feel like D&D (to me)

- It has to do the job significantly better than my current favourite edition (3.5e)

If 5e fails the first of these tests, I may well play it, but I'll treat it like just about any other non-D&D game - I'll play it a bit, but spend most of my time doing other things.

If 5e fails the second of these tests, then I'll just stick with 3e.

But I honestly don't care* whether they simply make incremental improvements to an existing edition, or they take the game apart and rebuild it from the foundations. Either it meets my two requirements, or it doesn't.

* Personally, I think they're more likely to succeed if they rebuild the game - I found Pathfinder to be an improvement on 3.5e, but not "better enough" to force a switch, and I think the 3.5e engine has some fundamental problems that make making significant improvements is probably not possible. But I'm willing to be proven wrong on that one.