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

[Zardnaar]

Its not like they are going to come out and say that D&DN sucks though so they will put the best spin on it they can. I do not think they are lying but the surveys do miss a few things and tend to have leading questions in some ways.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

""...maintaining a consistently high level of participation..."

What does that mean to you? They don't ask how often you're playing, or how many hours you play each session. All they could be talking about is quantity of people participating. "High Level" says to me "Lots and lots of people". I don't think that requires magical insight, to draw that conclusion. Can you at least admit that's one rational reading of the sentence?

Could be anywhere from 50 to 200 people so I wouldn't call that lots and lots of people.

Do you honestly think they are going to go out in public and say they aren't getting very much participation?

I'm not admitting to anything because I know first hand how corporations work and I kind of find it funny how much you actually believe what they say.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Its not like they are going to come out and say that D&DN sucks though so they will put the best spin on it they can. I do not think they are lying but the surveys do miss a few things and tend to have leading questions in some ways.

Corporations have PR people for a reason. You can exaggerate your figures without actually lying about them. It's all in how it's worded.

 

[Campbell]

Corporations don't work in any one certain way. A corporation is a legal entity formed for the purpose of engaging in commerce, but it is still made up of people with different belief systems and attitudes. Leadership, culture, and and the way corporations deal with the greater body politic vary dramatically. Costco has a fundamentally different way of doing things then Walmart. Ask anyone who has worked at both Google and Microsoft if their experiences were fundamentally similar.

 

[GreyLord]

Really? In previous test packs, modularity has been in backgrounds and skills; in the current test pack it is explicit in feats. Plus there are other optional rules (also modular) for Unusual races, custom backgrounds, experimental rules for attunement, etc. All of this fulfills the promise of modularity in different ways.

Does it do so in the way you want? Probably not. But mischaracterizing what is there will not help your case.



I find it incredible that anyone would expect to like every rule in a game. Since you are on a food analogy kick, let's go with another one:

In daycare, when they are handing out popsicles, "you get what you get". don't like orange but prefer grape or cherry? too bad: you get what you get. You can choose not to eat the popsicle you are given (though very few pursue this option, because popsicles like rpgs can be awesome), and some will like what they get more than others. But you know what? In the end, they're still giving out popsicles because most people like most of what's there.

I've seen modularity, granted...BUT NOT this modularity that is compatible with other editions people harp about. I can convert something from 3e to 4e just as easily as I can for D&DN...which means...to me...D&DN currently has as much backwards compatibility as 3e does to 4e, or 1e does to 3e.

I think people WANT it to be compatible, and so they MAKE THE EFFORT TO make it compatible...but overall it's no more compatible than any other edition has been with another (with the exception of 1e and 2e and BECMI/BX which were actually much more compatible with each other than anything that's come later).

BUT, I can see that there could be modularity from very simple to very complex if WotC so desires it.

 

[Mistwell]

Could be anywhere from 50 to 200 people so I wouldn't call that lots and lots of people.

No they said previously it's in the thousands. And they're saying continuing high level of participation. So, you'd have to assume they are lying when they say that, to think it's not lots and lots of people. And even if you think they are lying (and it seems you do), you can't go telling people they are engaged in magical insight when they disagree with you about a conspiracy theory and simply believe the public statement made.

Do you honestly think they are going to go out in public and say they aren't getting very much participation?

I think you're suggesting a conspiracy theory, with no basis other than conjecture, regarding multiple high level employees all lying repeatedly on behalf of a public corporation, which has legal consequences due to FTC regulations. If you're going to engage in that sort of thing then don't tell others their engaging in "magical insight" when they draw a rational conclusion from public statements made. Again, Occams Razor is on my side on this one, not yours.

I'm not admitting to anything because I know first hand how corporations work and I kind of find it funny how much you actually believe what they say.

You know how all corporations work? Really, you're actually speaking on behalf of all corporations in the world? I run a corporation, and have worked for many, including as general counsel for a large one. There is no prayer we would have ever lied to our potential and actual customer base concerning the level of participation we had in a test. None - not at any of them, and particularly not with a public company. When I have advised as an attorney, I make sure the executives understand the serious legal consequences of such lies. While I am sure there are some who lie, the default assumption should be that when multiple people in charge of a test run say they are getting lots of people saying they like the test, it's likely true. It's the simplest explanation.

But again, bottom line, don't tell people they're engaged in magical insight when the basis of your own belief is conspiracy theories. There is a far higher burden on you, than there is on me, for that sort of claim.

 

[fjw70]

I've seen modularity, granted...BUT NOT this modularity that is compatible with other editions people harp about. I can convert something from 3e to 4e just as easily as I can for D&DN...which means...to me...D&DN currently has as much backwards compatibility as 3e does to 4e, or 1e does to 3e.

I think people WANT it to be compatible, and so they MAKE THE EFFORT TO make it compatible...but overall it's no more compatible than any other edition has been with another (with the exception of 1e and 2e and BECMI/BX which were actually much more compatible with each other than anything that's come later).

BUT, I can see that there could be modularity from very simple to very complex if WotC so desires it.

The promised modularity was not compatibility with older editions but the ability to recreate the style of older editions and mix and match stuff from editions.

 

[MerricB]

The promised modularity was not compatibility with older editions but the ability to recreate the style of older editions and mix and match stuff from editions.

This entirely. Over and over and over again they said it. Next being compatible with other games was never a goal.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

4E is my preferred edition but I still believe building Next from scratch would NOT have been the right thing to do.

Clearly the market wants a more traditional version of D&D - and I realise the definition of traditional is quite problematic - so I can understand why WotC chose to make Next into something more like Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition rather than a genuine fifth edition.

 

[Bluenose]

4E is my preferred edition but I still believe building Next from scratch would NOT have been the right thing to do.

Clearly the market wants a more traditional version of D&D - and I realise the definition of traditional is quite problematic - so I can understand why WotC chose to make Next into something more like Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition rather than a genuine fifth edition.

If that's really what they're trying to do, they haven't been terribly successful. 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. So while it may have some traditional names attached, what happens when you play is some way away from what traditionally would happen.