D&D 5E Should Next have been something completely new and made from scratch?

[MerricB]

Here is a L&L article from almost how years who talking about the goals of DDN and no where does it talk about being compatible with earlier editions. Instead it talks about a modular system that could recreating the style of each earlier edition.

Here's a later article, where Mike sets out the limitations of what modularity we can expect:
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128

In particular, there are certain rules that you can apply to only some characters, but there will be systems that require everyone at the table to use them.

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

If you attempt the same things in Next that you attempt in 2e, and have the same die rolls, you get some very different results of those actions.

To me, a Gygaxian heart would imply a certain range of results, a certain set of probabilities, that would be apparent when the dice hit the table. I do not see those probabilities in Next.

Can I ask what you have in mind? Thetwo most obvious difference I can see are (i) between the success chances for checks based on "roll under stat" and the success chance for checks based on "achieve DC with roll plus mods, and (ii) between the saving throw success chances in AD&D and the saving throw success chances in Next.

This is of course a maths issue, and we're told that the maths is still in flux while the designers concentrated on the feel. All I can say is, if what happens isn't part of the feel then it seems like calling things by the "right" names is more important than making them mean anything.

I think there is a part of the player base, and probably a non-neglibible part, for whom the numbers on the PC sheet are more important as a source of "feel" and a marker for certain ingame capabilities or dispositions, than they are as resources to be put to work via action resolution. For these players, I think "what happens based on the maths of action resolution" is not such a big part of "feel".

 

[Bluenose]

Can I ask what you have in mind? Thetwo most obvious difference I can see are (i) between the success chances for checks based on "roll under stat" and the success chance for checks based on "achieve DC with roll plus mods, and (ii) between the saving throw success chances in AD&D and the saving throw success chances in Next.

Those are two of the more obvious ones. For inntance, a 2e Fighter's worst saving throw improves by 11 points from 1st to 17th level, and that improvement isn't offset by many saves at increased difficulty; a 3e Fighter's best save improves by 10 points from 1st to 20th, and that is against DCs which increase dramatically. Is it any wonder their ability to resist spells is lower?

Less obviously, the consistency that was applied to how stats work is one factor that led to a huge inflation in hit points for both PCs and opponents. Now this is partly compensated for by increased damage dice and by critical hits, and very largely reversed by the Power Attack feat. Unfortunately the result of using that last is to create a situation where anything is a one round kill with hit points largely irrelevant, and the only reliable protection against attacks is having magic available to stop those attacks landing at all. Armour and hit points are much less relevant and it's highly unlikely that a mid-high level Fighter will survive several rounds in combat with a dragon of similar power; in part because it's much more likely that the dragon won't survive that long anyway, it's saving throws being compromised compared to earlier editions, and it's own hit points and armour not being particularly helpful to it's survival.

Of course the answer to theses changes is found in the form of magic items, at least according to some of the people who defend 3e against charges of not being like earlier editions. Compare the gear that equips 3e pre-generated characters with those from A/B D&D, and the inflation on both number of items and size of bonus is very noticeable. And highly undesirable if your twenty year old homebrew campaign setting is one where magic items are supposed to be rare.

I think there is a part of the player base, and probably a non-neglibible part, for whom the numbers on the PC sheet are more important as a source of "feel" and a marker for certain ingame capabilities or dispositions, than they are as resources to be put to work via action resolution. For these players, I think "what happens based on the maths of action resolution" is not such a big part of "feel".

Somehow I think that's what the phrase "D&D in name only" was coined for. As long as the names seem right, who cares about the play.

 

[McTreble]

For all of you, in ANY ONE of these threads who claimed they haven't seen enough modularity, enough 4th edition mechanics, enough Vancian spellcaster options, etc... This was only the CORE game. It was only ever sold as a playtest of the CORE game. Yes, they peppered in some wild ideas that might become something else later, but just because you haven't seen tactical rules, or kingdom building rules or (haha) RP rules, doesn't mean they aren't coming. As far as I know, WotC has always stood by that idea, so please consider that long term approach before you start the whining machine. Also, for any of you who complain that WotC just "went ahead" and made decisions without presenting a poll and asking what we wanted about this or that, or even major issues... get over it. It's not your company; they want our input, but not on EVERYTHING. They took a huge risk in this transparency, giving away a product and admitting to no revenue stream for at least a year, but that's not enough for some of you. You want to be consulted on every decision (Don't get me started on the inane "damage on a miss" arguments that exist lately) no matter how minute. Maybe Mearls should ask all the neckbeards which hand he should use to wipe next time?

 

[pemerton]

Don't get me started on the inane "damage on a miss" arguments that exist lately

I think we need a poll on whether or not to get you started on "damage on a miss" arguments!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This makes no sense; they did make an entirely new game from scratch. While it's true that they wanted to make the edition feel like AD&D, they aren't pulling any mechanics or traits from it. Rather, they have lowered the power creep of 4E, lifted the creativity of 2E, and shaken up the flexibility classes of 3E to create a new edition.

Ultimately, we're playing Dungeons & Dragons, and they need to stick to certain aspect of that system. We're going to have classes, Armor Class, Hit Points, the core ability scores, skills, and everything else that goes along with playing D&D. What differs from edition to edition is the balance of those elements and what the leveling process is throughout.

If you want to play a game like Shadowrun, Call of Cthulu, Warhammer 40K, Mutants & Masterminds, or L5R then play goes games. It's not WotC job to make a clone of those games to draw in customers; it's their job to make each edition of D&D something that people will enjoy playing (not all people, but enough).

But they are essentially trying to clone bits of other editions and cram them together into one game, While that execution may be new, it's not a "from scratch" ruleset.

 

[the Jester]

Would it have been better if D&D Next was a completely new game that the designers created from scratch?

Not if they want to call it D&D.

 

[athos]

Would it have been better if D&D Next was a completely new game that the designers created from scratch?

Better is too subjective a term. I think some people would like it more, it would be more of a gamble though, look at how they screwed the pooch on 4e; people get upset when you change the things they love about the game. Right now 4e is their market, do they really want to risk losing those people, like they lost the 3.5ers. I mean when 3.5 was at it's height of popularity, they pulled the rug out from under it. Imagine when WoW was at the height of it's popularity if they decided to completely change it... bad business decision? Yeah.

With 4e, they were trying to cash in on the WoW market. With 5e, they are trying to keep the people that like 4e, and bring back those that liked the earlier editions that have mostly moved on to Pathfinder or other games. No matter what you do, you aren't going to please everyone. But, I do think it is better to lead than to chase.

And, I don't think the corporate drones they have at WotC and Hasbro are smart enough to come up with something completely new and different and wonderful. If they could have made a WoW and made billions of dollars, don't you think they would have? Disclaimer: I have never played WoW, I tried once and a rat killed me in a forest before I could do anything, so I gave up on it. It isn't my cup of tea, I am too slow for twitch games. There are millions of players of it though, so it is obviously very successful and profitable.

Pen and paper gaming is a truly unique hobby that combines social and tactical elements, it is not something that you can plug in a formula and just get oodles of money. Even if you hit on the perfect recipe, how many players could you attract? A million? More?

It's a tough industry, to succeed in it, I think you need to love the game more than money. What is it they said, "Do what you love and the money will follow"? I think that applies to RPGs more than most industries. Anyway, that is my 2 cents.

 

[Mistwell]

That's EXACTLY how they presented it to me when they first did their original presentation. It appears things have changed.

Link?

 

[GreyLord]

Oh, this is grand, something happened and caused a double post...wonder if there was an IE update recently? I'll have to check.

 

[GreyLord]

Link?

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130107

I don't have a link where he specified that statement...I only have what they arranged it into later...at which point they at least infer some compatibility.

To start with, here are our two guiding principles. These ideas guide everything we do.
1.Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.
2.Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one.

So what do these mean in detail? Well, read on.

The Core Elements of D&D

Over the years, the D&D tabletop RPG has undergone several dramatic revisions. The rules for the game today look very little like the game of 6 years ago, or the game of 15 years ago, or the game of 25 years ago. That's an outlier in the world of tabletop games. Although plenty of games introduce new content, such as a new set of cards for a TCG or a new unit for a miniatures game, few games rebuild their core rules from the ground up.

Changing the rules of a game in a fundamental way creates rifts within your community. There are the obvious gaps between people who play a new version and those who stick with the old one, but there are more subtle issues at work. Someone who stopped playing your game 10 years ago and wants back into it must start over from scratch. Why go back to a familiar game if you find out that it isn't really familiar anymore?

So, the first big picture goal is to make a version of D&D that speaks to the recognizable elements of the game. Anyone who played D&D in the past, even decades ago, should be able to step into D&D Next with ease. D&D Next must provide a home for the variety of play styles supported across the history of D&D, with rules terms and procedures that D&D players recognize and understand. What that actually means will be covered in part two, but the design implication is that D&D Next should deliver the primary strengths that each edition brings to the table. If an edition was good at something, D&D Next needs to do a good job of providing it.

So what do they do...create yet ANOTHER version which is incompatible with everything else?

Doesn't really make sense considering their goals.

But hey...if their goal was to unite gamers the had a decent idea of what they needed to do.

They threw it out with the kitchen sink unfortunately.

Instead they created a game that met the goal of modularity with increasing complexity...but not really one that recreated the feel of the older editions.

Will that work once again like it has before (ala 3e...ala...4e) I don't know...we'll see.

 

[Mistwell]

This:

That's not really what I've been talking about. They promised us that a 4th edition style wizard would be sitting at the same table as a 3rd/2nd edition style one. They made it sound like it was a puzzle where you could add or take whatever you wanted in order to play a particular style of edition.

Is not this:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130107

To start with, here are our two guiding principles. These ideas guide everything we do.
1.Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.
2.Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one.

So what do these mean in detail? Well, read on.

The Core Elements of D&D

Over the years, the D&D tabletop RPG has undergone several dramatic revisions. The rules for the game today look very little like the game of 6 years ago, or the game of 15 years ago, or the game of 25 years ago. That's an outlier in the world of tabletop games. Although plenty of games introduce new content, such as a new set of cards for a TCG or a new unit for a miniatures game, few games rebuild their core rules from the ground up.

Changing the rules of a game in a fundamental way creates rifts within your community. There are the obvious gaps between people who play a new version and those who stick with the old one, but there are more subtle issues at work. Someone who stopped playing your game 10 years ago and wants back into it must start over from scratch. Why go back to a familiar game if you find out that it isn't really familiar anymore?

So, the first big picture goal is to make a version of D&D that speaks to the recognizable elements of the game. Anyone who played D&D in the past, even decades ago, should be able to step into D&D Next with ease. D&D Next must provide a home for the variety of play styles supported across the history of D&D, with rules terms and procedures that D&D players recognize and understand. What that actually means will be covered in part two, but the design implication is that D&D Next should deliver the primary strengths that each edition brings to the table. If an edition was good at something, D&D Next needs to do a good job of providing it.

So what do they do...create yet ANOTHER version which is incompatible with everything else?

Doesn't really make sense considering their goals.

But hey...if their goal was to unite gamers the had a decent idea of what they needed to do.

They threw it out with the kitchen sink unfortunately.

I am not seeing where they implied or said it would be compatible with everything. That's impossible. Just descending rather than ascending AC makes it impossible to be directly compatible, and that's just one of dozens of directly incompatible rules that cannot possibly work at the same table at the same time without some level of conversion by someone.

Instead they created a game that met the goal of modularity with increasing complexity...but not really one that recreated the feel of the older editions.

It definitely unquestionably feels like older editions to me, and that has been the most common reaction I've seen from other playtest reports I've read. Review after review after review says it feels like an older edition. If it doesn't feel like an older edition to you, then I am sorry you are not getting that same sense that so many of us seem to be getting.

 

[GreyLord]

Well, I expect that they will be sorely disappointed. From most of my experience it does NOT feel like the older editions. However, luckily they still are getting my money because they've let AD&D be republished/sold. However, I get the AD&D feel from AD&D...the 3.5 games from Pathfinder...so even with 5e NOT replicating that type of game really (and from those who still actively play those games, I've only heard two or three say it actually FEELS like that type of game, most seem to be sticking with what they have already, and the lapsed players have shown NO interest (still) in picking up D&DN.

For the new gamers and lapsed gamers it will depend on the advertising they do (just like it did with 3e), and we have no idea on how that will work (yet).

BUT...they made it seem like it would be compatible, and it's not. It was in the speeches and presentations they did...so NO...I don't have a link to their presentations.

They have talked about the feel...all we can speak on is ourselves and those we know...and that includes you.

For me, it doesn't feel like the old D&D, any of them. It's a mash of different ideas they had...which has created a totally new game of what they considered core ideas...but combining all of that idea doesn't make a game that feels like the old games...more like a game that feels like none of them. AS I said, most of those I've talked to in my own circles don't seem to have great favoritism towards DDN as far as switching. Many may give it a try when it's released, but the only ones that seem somewhat more on board would be the 3e players not playing PF, and some of the 4e players that have not been put off by WotC.

That's my own small circle though, I can't speak for any beyond that currently. We'll see what the WotC survey guru's tell us and see what they come up with as time draws closer for them to update the board.

 

[MJS]

D&D Next can also get off my lawn. And pull up its pants.

 

[Sadras]

Instead they created a game that met the goal of modularity with increasing complexity...but not really one that recreated the feel of the older editions.

I can’t agree with you there. Explain to me where this increasing complexity comes into play.

Backgrounds?!
Skills/Proficiencies?
Feats or Attribute Boost?
Rituals?

I’m failing to understand how modular play, which they mentioned quite early on in their presentation of 5E so do not imply it like it’s some kind of surprise, is somehow making this game more complex.
I remember a PHB and DMG which had a multitude of blue boxes with various additional and granular rules which could be integrated with the core system. Perhaps what is needed is the D&DN design team to place a big blue watermark over the entire rule book so it could be more accepted.

It seems with the introduction of a granular system like 3.x and a balanced system like 4e players have forgotten how it was like to be creative and make D&D with whatever system your own. Sad, but true. Perhaps we have too many "lost" Grognards or too many lazy neo-DMs, I don't know.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

BUT...they made it seem like it would be compatible, and it's not. It was in the speeches and presentations they did...so NO...I don't have a link to their presentations.

They never said it would be compatible even once. Trust me, I've listened to everything they've ever said. They said they'd try to make it as easy to convert as possible, but never said you'd just be able to use old stuff. A couple of times they said that the mechanics would be close enough that you could likely run older adventures with minimal conversion. They said you'd be able to play 2e STYLE characters at a table with 3.5e STYLE characters. Which is possible. One person can just roll stats and choose a race and class, ignore backgrounds entirely and never pick feats or use proficiencies. Another person can create a custom background, take feats to customize their character, and multiclass.

For me, it doesn't feel like the old D&D, any of them. It's a mash of different ideas they had...which has created a totally new game of what they considered core ideas...but combining all of that idea doesn't make a game that feels like the old games...more like a game that feels like none of them. AS I said, most of those I've talked to in my own circles don't seem to have great favoritism towards DDN as far as switching. Many may give it a try when it's released, but the only ones that seem somewhat more on board would be the 3e players not playing PF, and some of the 4e players that have not been put off by WotC.

To me, the core of 2e (my first version of D&D) was:
-fast play with a minimal amount of mechanics getting in the way of the game
-most of the game being in description with periodic stat checks to accomplish things
-fast character creation that didn't require much expertise. Just pick a race and class and write down what abilities they give you.

Which is pretty much the feeling I get from D&D Next. The mechanics are far from identical, but compare this to my experience with both 3e/3.5e/4e where focus on the mechanics was pretty much the entire point of the game and it feels MUCH more like 2e than any of those editions.

A rough example of play:

2e:
"I search the door for traps."
"Alright, make your find traps roll."
"I make it."
"Alright, you find a trap."
"I disable it. I make my roll."
"Alright, you disable it. On the other side are some Orcs. Roll for initiative."
"You go first, what do you do?"
"I move over and attack the Orc on the left. I hit AC -2 for 10 points of damage."
"He dies. Next person goes."

3e/3.5e:
"I search the door for traps."
"Are you a Rogue? Do you have the ability to find magic traps?"
"Yes. I make a 35 because of the magic item I have on as well as this feat that adds +5, as well as my PrC feature that adds another +5, does that make it?"
"Yes, that would make every trap DC in this entire dungeon. And the ones I will design for characters 10 levels above you."
"I disable it with a 40 because of a bunch more feats and class features."
"Alright, you disable it. On the other side of the door are a bunch of Orcs."
"Orcs? What are they wearing? Do they look higher than first level?"
"One of them has full plate on and a tower shield. One of them is in robes and has a staff with a glowing gem in it and is wearing a necklace. The rest all have Hide Armor and axes. Roll for initiative."
"Wait. Shouldn't we get a surprise round since they were unaware of our presence when we opened the door?"
"No, you weren't aware of their presence either. The rules state that if neither side is aware of each other's presence then there is no surprise round. Roll for initiative."
"Alright, I go first. I move over to the one in the back and attack."
"Then these two get Attacks of Opportunity."
"No they don't, they haven't acted yet."
"Oh, right. This one can, however, since he has the feat that allows him to. He attacks and hits for 10 damage."
"Wait, I didn't know he could do that. I tumble through his threatened squares then. I succeed."
"Fine, he doesn't hit you."
"I attack, using power attack for 5 points. Also, I activate my feat that means if I hit, I will knock him down. I hit AC 35 and do 55 points of damage."
"He dies...and is knocked down I suppose."
"Since he died, that triggers my other feat and allows me a free move over to the next Orc and I attack him as well. I hit AC 33 and do 45 damage."
"He dies too. Next."

4e:
"I search the door for traps. I get a 25."
"You find the trap."
"I disable. I get a 30."
"You disable. On the other side are a bunch of Orcs."
"I make my knowledge check. I get a 30. I know everything about them."
"This one over here is an Orc Shaman. He has the ability to cast curses and shoot fire. He has resistance to fire. This one over here is an Orc Barbarian. He hits really hard and knocks people down with his attacks. These are Orc Soldiers and wear heavy armor and their defenses go up when they are next to each other. Roll for initiative."
"I activate my daily power that gives me +10 to initiative. I go first. I use 'Speed of the Gods' in order to move 10 squares over to him then make a Close Burst 5 attack that hits these 4 Orcs. I hit only 2 of them. They both take 15 damage and are Dazed and have a -2 to hit until the start of my next turn."
"This Orc takes his Immediate Reaction to getting hit and hits you back. He hits AC 23 for 15 damage."
"I use my encounter power 'Unnecessary Toughness' and reduce the damage by 10."
"Alright, next person."

D&D Next:
"I search the door for traps."
"Alright, make your find traps roll."
"I get 17."
"Alright, you find a trap."
"I disable it. I get 19."
"Alright, you disable it. On the other side are some Orcs. Roll for initiative."
"You go first, what do you do?"
"I move over and attack the Orc on the left. I hit AC 16 for 10 points of damage."
"He dies. Next person goes."

So far, in actual play D&D Next is absolutely the closest to older editions out of anything since 2e.

 

[Sadras]

So far, in actual play D&D Next is absolutely the closest to older editions out of anything since 2e.

Chun-Li says: Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup-yup-yup-yup...etc

 

[Brock Landers]

Chun-Li says: Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup-yup-yup-yup...etc

And I say "thank god", the 2.5 I have been longing for...

 

[Dausuul]

Would it have been better if D&D Next was a completely new game that the designers created from scratch?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Hell no.

Answer with explanation: Dungeons and Dragons is an established franchise. A franchise is a deal between the publisher and the fans. The publisher gets guaranteed sales; the fans get to know what they're signing up for when they lay down their money. New offerings in the franchise should be iterations on the old, polishing and improving and refining. If you make a completely new game and sell it under the name of the old, the fans are going to be justifiably angry when they discover that you broke the deal. Not only did you sell them something that wasn't what they signed up for, you also took away support for "their game," and insulted that game by implying it was no good and unsalvageable.

Now, it's conceivable that you could produce something that was so much better than the old game that most of the fans swallow their anger, make the switch, and become happy fans of the new game. But it's very hard to do that, because different people want different things out of a game. Much more likely, you split the fanbase, get some, and drive away the rest. That was what 4E did.

If you're going to make a new game, give it a new name and make it a new thing. 5E is in the unfortunate position of coming after an edition that already "broke the deal," so it can either double down on the new version or try to reconcile with fans of the old. Publishers in this position usually end up taking the latter course, while picking out the most popular elements from the new version. That seems to be what WotC is doing. But breaking the deal a second time would be suicide.

 

[landovers]

(...) you also took away support for "their game," and insulted that game by implying it was no good and unsalvageable.

Now, it's conceivable that you could produce something that was so much better than the old game that most of the fans swallow their anger, make the switch, and become happy fans of the new game. But it's very hard to do that, because different people want different things out of a game. Much more likely, you split the fanbase, get some, and drive away the rest. That was what 4E did. (...)

I agree WotC would never make the "mistake" they made with 4e again. I love 4e for being bold and new, it brought me back to the hobby, but if anything 4e and Pathfinder (for entirely different reasons) have shown that most RPG gamers dislike change. I personally would be all over a totally different reboot of the mechanics with each edition. On the long run things ought to improve as the designers learn from the past, right? Alas, not many agree, and that's the entire reason WotC is going for "a D&D edition for everyone". I think this will be harder to pull off than to make a better game without biases towards the past (you risk being a jack-of-all-trades, master of none), but they have no choice. If they did not acknowledge their fanbase that took off with 4e right now they would likely lose those gamers forever.

Right now WoTC has at least promised something for everyone of us (fans of all editions), so I feel we're sort of cautiously waiting to see, giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'd wager the playtest feedback has been all over the place, contradictory and frustrating to analyse. I'd not want to be on their skin right now.