Zardnaar
Legend
Do you think the changes in D&DN will be severe enough to provoke a backlash or apathy a'la 2008 all over again? BECMI was not that different from AD&D although it had different fluff. When 1st ed went to second ed the changes were not that severe. 3.0 was different mechanically but they were doing back flips in regards to things like Greyhawk in the lead up to 3.0 and the book used the Greyhawk Pantheon. 3.5 was an evolution of 3.0, Pathfinder was an evolution of 3.5 but they changed the fluff and tweaked the mechanics.
It seems the fanbase will tolerate mechanical change or fluff changes. 4E of course changed both and we know how that ended up. D&DN is another built form the ground up version of D&D. Put simply it doesn't have the same pedigree as the other editions and this was a problem 4E had as well. It has bits and pieces but it is not an evolution of 4E or 3.5 the risk being fans of either edition may all go meh.
New players will not care to much either way but D&DN is not simple like BECMI was. It is probably more complex that 2nd ed was at launch although 2n ed bloated later. It is less complicated than 3rd and 4E though not by a massive amount. For me to buy an edition of D&D it has to get me enthusiastic about it and convince me it is a better option that what I am playing. AD&D offered multiclassing and new classes over BECMI, and 3.0 had a nice marketing campaign in Dragon. Since I passed on 4E I am not really a fan of the remaining designers either as most of them had minimal experience working on 3.5 and I do not think any of them worked on AD&D or TSR in any major capacity.
So for me there is a disconnect already between what I expect/want and on these boards alone let alone enworld I know I am not alone and I was a very loyal and large spender on D&D averaging around 25 products a year for 15 years. I'm just not feeling it yet and while others are arguing over things like damage on a miss I'm more concerned about things I do not like such as this neo vancian spellcasting mechanics as I kind of liked the old way better.
It seems the fanbase will tolerate mechanical change or fluff changes. 4E of course changed both and we know how that ended up. D&DN is another built form the ground up version of D&D. Put simply it doesn't have the same pedigree as the other editions and this was a problem 4E had as well. It has bits and pieces but it is not an evolution of 4E or 3.5 the risk being fans of either edition may all go meh.
New players will not care to much either way but D&DN is not simple like BECMI was. It is probably more complex that 2nd ed was at launch although 2n ed bloated later. It is less complicated than 3rd and 4E though not by a massive amount. For me to buy an edition of D&D it has to get me enthusiastic about it and convince me it is a better option that what I am playing. AD&D offered multiclassing and new classes over BECMI, and 3.0 had a nice marketing campaign in Dragon. Since I passed on 4E I am not really a fan of the remaining designers either as most of them had minimal experience working on 3.5 and I do not think any of them worked on AD&D or TSR in any major capacity.
So for me there is a disconnect already between what I expect/want and on these boards alone let alone enworld I know I am not alone and I was a very loyal and large spender on D&D averaging around 25 products a year for 15 years. I'm just not feeling it yet and while others are arguing over things like damage on a miss I'm more concerned about things I do not like such as this neo vancian spellcasting mechanics as I kind of liked the old way better.