This past week has been pretty chaotic across just about every gaming media service on the web, especially forums.
One growing trend I see occurring revolves around many players handing down a hard coded list of deal makers and breakers, and with the wide variety of players spanning all of the various editions, I wouldn't expect anything less.
However, I do think many players are getting caught up in the idea that D&D Next is an edition that has to swing one way or the other.
And even though WotC has tried to make it pretty clear, this is not the intent, I think it's difficult for fans to overcome much of the EW arguments that have popped up over the last decade or two.
But the thing to keep in mind, is that, even if you want one thing in the game and someone else wants the opposite, WotC is trying to design this edition to encompass both, and hopefully will be successful.
Even if one concept becomes the basis or core of the game, through modularity and options, hopefully everyone will have something that allows them to play the game how they best see fit and have fun. And from what Monte and Mearls has stated, this is the goal with D&D Next.
Now, I'm sure some fans are turning their nose up at this idea, that an edition for unity is crazy and even impossible. But, quite honestly, how do we know? I would think that fans would at least want to give it a try, working WITH WotC through playtest and feedback, instead of against them. Really, what harm can it do?
The worst case scenario is that it doesn't work, in which case fans of early editions still have their games to fall back on, 3.x fans still have PF to play, and 4E fans still have their 4E material to keep on chugging along. But best case scenario it does work and everyone now has an in-print game system capable of catering to all players and all styles at any table.
But it only works if everyone is willing to put in their opinions and feedback in a positive manner, instead of bashing something negatively.
For instance, instead of saying "X rule from early editions sucks and I won't buy or play this new game if it has it", say, "I'm not really a fan of rule X, I'd really like to see an option or module that handles X rules differently."
Modularity and options are the key to making this a success, but only if we think of it this way, instead of "my side vs. your side".
I think WotC is going to be completely accepting of input, just as long as it's not done in an adverse way.
Just my two cps.
One growing trend I see occurring revolves around many players handing down a hard coded list of deal makers and breakers, and with the wide variety of players spanning all of the various editions, I wouldn't expect anything less.
However, I do think many players are getting caught up in the idea that D&D Next is an edition that has to swing one way or the other.
And even though WotC has tried to make it pretty clear, this is not the intent, I think it's difficult for fans to overcome much of the EW arguments that have popped up over the last decade or two.
But the thing to keep in mind, is that, even if you want one thing in the game and someone else wants the opposite, WotC is trying to design this edition to encompass both, and hopefully will be successful.
Even if one concept becomes the basis or core of the game, through modularity and options, hopefully everyone will have something that allows them to play the game how they best see fit and have fun. And from what Monte and Mearls has stated, this is the goal with D&D Next.
Now, I'm sure some fans are turning their nose up at this idea, that an edition for unity is crazy and even impossible. But, quite honestly, how do we know? I would think that fans would at least want to give it a try, working WITH WotC through playtest and feedback, instead of against them. Really, what harm can it do?
The worst case scenario is that it doesn't work, in which case fans of early editions still have their games to fall back on, 3.x fans still have PF to play, and 4E fans still have their 4E material to keep on chugging along. But best case scenario it does work and everyone now has an in-print game system capable of catering to all players and all styles at any table.
But it only works if everyone is willing to put in their opinions and feedback in a positive manner, instead of bashing something negatively.
For instance, instead of saying "X rule from early editions sucks and I won't buy or play this new game if it has it", say, "I'm not really a fan of rule X, I'd really like to see an option or module that handles X rules differently."
Modularity and options are the key to making this a success, but only if we think of it this way, instead of "my side vs. your side".
I think WotC is going to be completely accepting of input, just as long as it's not done in an adverse way.
Just my two cps.
