D&D 5E No longer interested in 5e now

[Erdrick Dragin]

After reading Monte's latest "Legends&Lore" article, I'm going to have to say I'm no longer interested in 5th Edition or "D&D Next" or whatever.

Why? Because of this very part:

"To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play. In short, let's talk about style and D&D."

Sorry, but, I care less about playing a D&D game with mixed styles. I just want my edition of game to continue getting support, in fact, I want all 4 editions getting support. That's the best way to go, and it'd be more than profitable than any new edition could accomplish. This is because you capture every generation of D&D gamer ever to exist to come throwing their money at you for products for their preferred edition.

I was hoping more along the lines of everyone gets to play their edition as is and supported, or everyone plays their edition at the same time with some sort of set of rules to help with that, and also continues getting support for the 4 editions like new game material and campaign books.

So screw 5E, it'll bomb like 4E because now instead of leaving everyone in their own camp and giving each camp their own "rations", so-to-speak, you're trying to accomplish getting 4 different and resentful camps to all sit in one big tent and eat at the same table and be happy with it.

This is going to fail hard, IMO. A DM like me, I run 3.5e with a few of my own houserules and, therefore, everyone at my table must abide by the same thing.

Exactly why is it WotC's business to convince me that I should include "1e-style" or "4e-style" gamers at MY table? We like our edition choice at our table and all we ever wanted was to, once in awhile, see a NEW 3E PRODUCT for our games. That's all we ask. We have what we want, and so does every other gamer, just continue to give us more of what we like.

Again, support the 4 editions. This "uniting" crap is silly. I believe taking the "best" of all 4 Editions and blending them into some weird soupy goo is very poor and very sloppy game design. Leave what is alone and support them.

Just like it was stupid to take everything in an MMO and blend them into a TTRPG. You can see how well 4E did because of that mistake.

 

[Sunseeker]

You ask for the impossible and then complain that you're not getting it? That's not unreasonable at all...

 

[Wycen]

Well, ok. I don't see how anyone could make a game which would let different editions, especially as different as 1E and 4E are, at the same table at the same time, but maybe that's just me. The tables and cross referencing I imagine would be involved may appeal to those who liked Friday Night Firefight and stuff like that, but then we'd be looking rules up and not playing, though it would of course be mitigated by those rules lawyers who use their power for good, not evil, but whatever.

 

[Crothian]

I've run Paranoia games where each player character was using a different rule set. It was a lot harder to do then you'd think.

 

[Piratecat]

I've tried it with MnM as well. It's a giant pain in the butt.

I'll also add that your rant is understandable, but I think it's really misinformed. Until you see what they're actually doing with the rules, anything else is guesswork.

 

[Halivar]

Somehow, I don't think they mean player A is using THAC0, player B is using rolled saves as opposed to defenses, and player C is using NWP's instead of skills.

I think people are taking the L&L article and extrapolating ludicrous worst-case-scenario's from it. I think the very part you quoted speaks against this:

"To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time."

 

[Kynn]

This is going to fail hard, IMO. A DM like me, I run 3.5e with a few of my own houserules and, therefore, everyone at my table must abide by the same thing.

I think someone needs to start collecting and archiving the various reasons that people decide to give up on 5e and declare it a failure more than a year before it comes out.

If I were you, I'd hang around just for the ride. At least that way you can express your opinion, plus have a nice schadenfreude-filled laugh at WotC iffenwhen your prediction comes true.

Unless...

Just like it was stupid to take everything in an MMO and blend them into a TTRPG. You can see how well 4E did because of that mistake.

... not sure if u trollin'.

 

[trancejeremy]

I believe it was Frank Metzner that would run his games with characters from any of a number of game systems.

But he is/was apparently a legendary DM.

But yeah, I'm starting to think this is not going to work out well.

I don't think people want a new game that can vaguely simulate their preferred choice, they'd much rather have their preferred choice. And to a degree, thanks to the OGL, they can (unless you are a 4e fan). 3e fans have Pathfinder, and old school fans have a lot of OSR stuff...

I really don't see why WOTC couldn't support three editions of the game. TSR supported 2 distinct lines and several setttings. Yeah, they ran out of money, but then again they also put out a lot of other dubious products. Just limited support for past editions probably would sell out, as long as they were competently done (which I guess is a problem).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That was fast.

I understand what you're looking for, but I don't know why you'd ever think you'd find it.

Obviously it would be pointless to tell you "maybe you should try playing it before you write it off based on speculation".

Have fun playing your preferred edition!

 

[kitsune9]

I've run Paranoia games where each player character was using a different rule set. It was a lot harder to do then you'd think.

But I bet it was funny though. Paranoia was one of those games where reading the rulebook was really funny. Just don't tell the computer.