D&D 5E If it fails, this is one reason why...

[GreyLord]

First, before beginning, this is NOT an edition war, do not bring it into this thread.

This is also my opinion on why D&D next may have a sharp drop off in sales after the initial core...

Originally I thought Next was going to be a game which had compatibility with ALL editions of the game. It would not simply be something trying to "emulate" the feel of games, but an actual game where someone who wanted to play 1e, could sit side by side with someone who wanted to play 3e.

At the worst, I thought perhaps you'd have different groups, one playing a 1e game, another a 3e game, but the core of the game would be the same, hence the same game, but different options in use.

Instead, what's now being presented is a completely new and different game. Instead of being compatible it's "recreating the feel" of the game.

I don't know how many others like me are out there, but I could care less about a new game that emulates the feel, I want a game that is compatible with all the games I've played previously called D&D, or at least compatible with many of them (I've played most of D&D since OD&D...inclusive to 4e and am currently what one may term as a rabid PF fan).

I don't need yet another new game that "emulates" the feel of another edition or game, I already have those by the dozen. I have the entire OSR movement for the older style D&D, I have PF for the 3e/3.5 (actually I like PF better then 3e/3.5 truth to tell) and 4e is still so recent I really am not concerned about that one (yet....).

I think D&D NEXT does a fine job at creating the feel of an old style game, but it's NOT OD&D/BECMI or AD&D. OSR does a better job at that to tell the truth and are even closer in style. If it's the feel, we already have other games such as DCC, or C&C to do that. I don't want a completely new game again...I WANT D&D...aka...the old rules compatibility.

Or at least the new rules (3e/3.5) with complete compatibility...then again, if WotC simply did that...I'd probably stick with PF at this point anyways.

The problem is, in picking to emulate rather than compatibility...it doesn't give me any incentive to play their new game...because it's just that...a new game. It doesn't have any catch to it. 3e had new rules and smoother play in areas...4e had more tactics and easier monsters...but the NEXT doesn't seem to have anything unique to offer in and of itself...and in trying to emulate other games...as a NEW game rather than one that is compatible...it doesn't offer enough in the emulation arena to actually attract me more than other games that are already on the market.

So when it comes out, if it is what it's appeared in the playtests...I'm probably going to stick with PF, and C&C...along with my normal AD&D games...and not transfer to D&D NEXT in all likelihood (that doesn't mean I will or will not pick up a copy of the core rules...still do not know if I'll do that or not), not because I don't want D&D to succeed, but because I have no use for a new ruleset that doesn't do anything more exceptional, or better, then what I already have.

Is there anyone else leaning this way, or feeling this way. Basically, I don't need a new ruleset just to get a new ruleset, especially if it doesn't offer anything new or unique to the picture I already have?

 

[MortalPlague]

At the worst, I thought perhaps you'd have different groups, one playing a 1e game, another a 3e game, but the core of the game would be the same, hence the same game, but different options in use.

I still think this is what we'll end up with. 1st Edition tables can pick up the 'Basic Game' (no subclasses, no feats, etc), while 3rd Edition tables could pick the 'skill points' module and the option to cherry pick subclass features.

I want a game that is compatible with all the games I've played previously called D&D, or at least compatible with many of them

Or at least the new rules (3e/3.5) with complete compatibility...then again, if WotC simply did that...I'd probably stick with PF at this point anyways.

I think you're showing the problem with your own argument here... If they don't innovate, why would anyone upgrade?

...but the NEXT doesn't seem to have anything unique to offer in and of itself...

I'll disagree there. There are a lot of elements which are borrowed or similar to past editions of D&D, but there's enough here to make it different.

At a glance:

• Bounded accuracy - not everyone's a fan of it, but no other edition of D&D has featured it in such a way. I quite like it myself; in practice it's been really interesting at the table. It also means there's no default assumption of magic items / armor, so getting a magic sword actually IS a leg up on the game's math.
• Advantage / disadvantage mechanics - It's sleek, it's simple, and it's fun at the table.
• Backgrounds - skills being divorced from class choice is a small, yet fundamental change that no other edition has done.
• Legendary monsters - We haven't seen anything but the Legends & Lore preview, but only 4th edition even came close to this. And solo monsters didn't usually come with a lair stat block.

There's more, but D&D Next does bring new ideas to the table. Whether you find them to your liking or not is another story.

 

[lutecius]

Originally I thought Next was going to be a game which had compatibility with ALL editions of the game. It would not simply be something trying to "emulate" the feel of games, but an actual game where someone who wanted to play 1e, could sit side by side with someone who wanted to play 3e.

At the worst, I thought perhaps you'd have different groups, one playing a 1e game, another a 3e game, but the core of the game would be the same, hence the same game, but different options in use.

I'm not sure what you mean by "compatibility with all editions of the game" but I don't think it's possible. Even if you could strip down the rules of every edition to a common core, the numbers would still be too different and the volume of required modules would be ridiculous. A group who wants to play a fully 1e compatible game or a 3e compatible game would be better served by, you know, playing 1e or 3e (or pathfinder).

 

[wedgeski]

Honestly I think what you were looking for was never going to be the case.

But I do think that DDN has done a good job of evoking old-school play and also has enough of the shinies to entice players looking for a more modern experience. In fact I'm quite surprised at how well it has done this.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I guess the possible reason for failure might be the lack of new ideas and concepts.

Let's face it, D&DN will never be as Gygaxian as 1e, as game-world-rich as 2e, as "complete" as 3.5e, as well supported with adventures as Pathfinder, or as tactically oriented as 4e. So a fan of such a system will find 5e as like but not quite like their favourite. And if you take something away from your ideal game, what has been added to make up for it?

By the way: is it just me turning deaf or has the sound of fanfare of "how D&DN will united all fans of D&D" really faded in the background?

 

[Weather Report]

For me it's shaping up to be the 2.5 I wanted back in 2,000, and the ease of converting pre-4th Ed material is a big seller for me - I am having a blast converting monsters from pre-4th Ed to 5th Ed (2nd Ed monsters are the best).

 

[jodyjohnson]

By the way: is it just me turning deaf or has the sound of fanfare of "how D&DN will united all fans of D&D" really faded in the background?

I believe the process of creating DDN was hoped to unite the fanbase. Not unite as in "get them all to play the same edition (i.e. DDN)", but to get all fans of each edition to agree that we are all playing D&D.

Even when our styles don't match or we vehemently disagree on some GNS issue. When one group's taking pies from Orcs (and the only good orc is a dead orc) and another is waxing eloguent with the Duke (and his wife), we are all playing D&D.

If you use the 6 ability scores, races, classes, a d20, have HP (or an analogue) and whatever else they established as 'the Core', you are playing D&D. Maybe the DDN playtest process can't get the fanbase to the point where 'that's not D&D' is no longer a barb to toss. However, if the majority of the time we can just agree to disagree and go back to playing whatever flavor of D&D floats our boat then it will be a success.

Sure they want lots of people to buy the books, but in the end DDN will just be another flavor of D&D. The target is to make it the version that is easiest to season towards your exact preferred playstyle and the easiest to learn since probably B/X.

WotC is in the ongoing process to 'spaghetti sauce-ify' D&D. They can't just throw 12 different versions out at once to hit every favored flavor of D&D. They have to release them one at a time. 4e probably marks one border where D&D can be defined but it is still D&D.

OD&D is D&D
AD&D is D&D
B/X is D&D
BECMI is D&D
AD&D 2e is D&D
3.0 is D&D
3.5 is D&D
4E and 4EE are D&D
Pathfinder is 'D&D'
OSR is 'D&D'
13th Age is probably 'D&D' (no personal experience)
Whatever home-brewed hack of any edition is 'D&D'

They are all D&D, the problem is they aren't all MY D&D and then we want MY D&D to be everyone's D&D. If we can get past that it will have succeeded.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I've seen people here say that they're currently using Next to run 1E modules with minor adjustments. For myself, I'm currently preparing a Forge of Fury (one of my favorite modules of 3E) run with minimal adjustments as well, most of them related to the number of players, not the overall adventure. I don't know, but I believe it's hard to ask for more compatibility than that. Am I going to be able to take my 2E kits out of Complete Fighter's and use them straight as subclasses? Probably not, but I never expected that when we started discussing a compatible game.

Cheers,

 

[Weather Report]

At this point they are all bleeding into each other for me, save 4th Ed, please. no offence, don't yell at me, I am not edition warring, I do not hate 4th Ed, I DMed it for 2-years, fantastic game, but a marked departure of what came before (on many levels), very much a part of Rob Heinsoo's (met him, nice, obviously bright guy) personal vision.

 

[DEFCON 1]

- 1E has a table of static saving throws groups into weird categories based strictly on the level of the person rolling.
- 3E has three saving throws based off of three ability scores, each of which grant a bonus to a roll trying to reach a number that is based off of the attacking person/thing.
- 4E changed those saving throws into three defenses that you must roll higher than to hit.

How anyone could actually believe you could create any one set of rules that would be compatible with all three of these completely different mechanical methodologies is beyond me.