Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="malkav666" data-source="post: 5839571" data-attributes="member: 70565">I am not  so certain that I want something new and shiny and not an improvement of something I already like. When 3.x came out it didn't really do it for me tbh. I tried it and when the dust settled it ended up being my favorite style of D&D, but at first glance I was sure it was not my boat. When 4e came out I felt the same way, the only difference is that after playing it I liked it less than at first glance.I too started D&D with AD&D, and I find that most of the other D&D editions regardless of innovations have the same type of pacing and structure that allowed me to run games in the same flavor as what I started with except for 4e. I don't mean to be mean, but if 5e is an update to 4e and has 4e written on the core of it, I will almost certainly give it a pass. Thats not a trash on folks who like that type of play either, if 5e ended up in fact being exactly that (a direct update of 4e that is) i'd be cool with it, as there is a market for that type of game, I'm just not a member of that market.I think in the end though with the idea of a modular system you have to have a base, and in this case it needs to be a base that can appeal to most of the D&D audience. To me that seems like a hard sell. I have played D&D-ish games of various editions with many groups over the years and the pace and overall feel of the different editions can be very marked. And preference of edition and rules bits is at the forefront of that differentiation of taste IMO.I think overall; they would be better off with a strong overhaul and improvement (ala new edition) of an older version of the game with a few style elements added in to cater to fans of newer editions, with perhaps some strong splat support for those play styles post release. In my opinion (and it should be read as such) that gets them the largest chunk of active D&D flavored players. As much as I like 3e I don't think it should be the core of a successful new edition. An updated 3e is a game I would by in a heartbeat but there is such a strong divide between the 3e and 4e fan base that close modeling of either of those editions I think will end up as an immediate deal breaker for fans of the edition that got left out, and would also not gain wotc any of the old edition players.I think if they model it after an older edition they have a decent shot at the older edition folks, and I don't think that diehard 3e or 4e fans have an immediate negative reaction to the older editions like they do with 3e or 4e respectively (depending of course on which one of those they favor). I don't of course think they should reprint verbatim an older edition and sell it as 5e. There is a lot of room for clean up and even improvement (retroclones have shown this in many cases depending on who you ask) in older editions without abandoning the core concepts of those editions mechanically.I do feel like they need to have an edition to update and build from or they need to make a brand new game and call it D&D. I think they really tried to break the mold and present a new take on the game with 4e.I also think they failed to present a game that played at a similar pace and delivered a comparable experience to everything that came before it (not to read as an implication to whether this departure was considered a feature or by mistake). Im not saying this is bad design, or that its not D&D. It has all the credentials to be called D&D, there are d20s, dragons, exp, +1 swords, and magic missiles. And Im not saying that some DMs didn't defy that statement and deliver very different experiences to their groups. I am just speaking about the actual play experiences of me and mine from both sides of the screen. In my groups collective experience the pace of the game is very different than all of the other editions. Once again Im not hating, but just stating how I interpret the major differences with the system. It ended up delivering a brand new experience to my 4e tables, and it wasn't even a bad experience. It just happened to be that it wasn't the experience that I was looking for when I sit down to play D&D. Most of the adventures I had bought and personally designed over the years needed a hard update not just in stats of the challenges, but in overall structure and flow to even be used in our 4e games. I just wasn't willing to make those updates for a game that didn't really deliver on my own expectations of what D&D is.I am personally looking for a less iconoclastic approach to the next edition of D&D than what 4e was. I want my cows back. I am cool with new approaches on herding the cows, or some of the cows chewing on the ruffage in the side bars, I am even willing to check out some new additions to the herd. But those cows were sacred for a reason. I may not personally like all of them but in many ways both good and bad they are a part of the definition of D&D to me. They are what makes D&D not some other fantasy tabletop game, and are in my opinion a very valid part of D&Ds brand identity, although respectfully, a lot of them could use some clean up and improvement.D&D has a long, colorful, and often strange heritage. I would like the next edition of the game to embrace that heritage, and deliver a game that proudly displays it rather than shys away from it pretending like we won't notice. When I started playing D&D it was done with some graph paper, some pennies and various other tokens robbed from lesser games, and some cheetos. Those nights are the ones I treasure above all others in my history of gaming. Maybe I just didn't know better. But I have found time and time again when I break out the old books and play those games it still works the same. Its a good experience and it is the core of D&D to me. I want a game that delivers that at its inception. I am not opposed to expanding that core with splat. But I wan't the basis of the game to be grounded in its rich history rather than in something recognizable as D&D in mostly name with some framework hand-me-downs.But at the end of the day I guess I just want something that is simple at its heart with the option to make it more complex as I see fit. I want the usual suspects as far as critters and classes are concerned. They can put whatever they want in splat but the core should be immediately recognizable to anyone whos ever played D&D of any edition. Sure, I want some new options and refinements as well, but not at the expense of losing all of the old options or the themes or feel of them.I think that if they want to include everyone they will have to have to core resemble an older edition and add in options to make newer concepts interact with that core rather than vice versa. But meh, what do i know? The $120 dollars that I may spend on the core is worth no more and no less than the $120 bucks you might spend.Like I said: its a hard sell. But I will be playtesting when they finally make it happen like many of you. I like to think that a new edition of D&D would be a game that I would enjoy, but I don't really need it to be. I have great options currently. If 5e ends up being a great option (whether it is a new game in the guise of a new edition or an update of whatever edition/s) then I will support it with my dollars. If its not a great option for me then I will continue doing what I am doing now: Playing D&D.love,malkav</blockquote>

Verification