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

[Mistwell]

It's not about scoring points. It's about point out how "not such a good idea" Next is with regards of trying to bring elements from multiple editions into one game.

Lots and lots of people like it.

You not liking it, doesn't equate with it being a bad idea. If the game is a success, then it was a good idea. If it's a failure, then it was a bad idea. You can hate the game, and it can still be a good idea and a success. You can love the game, and it can still be a bad idea and a failure. The game isn't dependent on any one person liking it or disliking it.

Right now, they've run multiple levels of surveys and tests to determine if the game is likely to be a good idea and a success. And those surveys and tests are all saying it will be a good idea and a success. Now maybe they will have been wrong, but I think it's fair to assume that their surveys and tests are more likely to accurately represent the world of D&D players than the personal experiences of any one person.

And, if any one person is representative of the world of D&D more than others, I think the odds are it would be one of the paid consultants they are using, and not someone simply posting to an internet message board. It's not impossible that it's the later, I'd just bet it's the former.

My point is - maybe you will end up not liking 5e because of damage on a miss (if it even makes it into the final game), but the game will still end up being a good idea and a success. And that's OK. You don't have to like it. There are lots of choices for you, and I am sure you will find something you will like.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Lots and lots of people like it.

You not liking it, doesn't equate with it being a bad idea. If the game is a success, then it was a good idea. If it's a failure, then it was a bad idea. You can hate the game, and it can still be a good idea and a success. You can love the game, and it can still be a bad idea and a failure. The game isn't dependent on any one person liking it or disliking it.

Right now, they've run multiple levels of surveys and tests to determine if the game is likely to be a good idea and a success. And those surveys and tests are all saying it will be a good idea and a success. Now maybe they will have been wrong, but I think it's fair to assume that their surveys and tests are more likely to accurately represent the world of D&D players than the personal experiences of any one person.

And, if any one person is representative of the world of D&D more than others, I think the odds are it would be one of the paid consultants they are using, and not someone simply posting to an internet message board. It's not impossible that it's the later, I'd just bet it's the former.

My point is - maybe you will end up not liking 5e because of damage on a miss (if it even makes it into the final game), but the game will still end up being a good idea and a success. And that's OK. You don't have to like it. There are lots of choices for you, and I am sure you will find something you will like.

Here we go with your magical insight on these so called "lots and lots of people".

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

If that is your idea of modular then 3rd and 4th edition can be added to the list.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

4e taught them that a lot of people don't want something different.

We will see on the modularity. I think they will pull it off but only time will tell.

It wasn't so much about being different with regards to 4th edition, it just wasn't a good difference.

 

[Mistwell]

Here we go with your magical insight on these so called "lots and lots of people".

There is nothing magical about it. Multiple WOTC executives have said multiple times it's testing very well. You have to assume a conspiracy of lying, in a manner that would directly harm their jobs if 5e fails, to think otherwise.

Occam's Razor says they're right. No magic to it.

Here, take today's article:

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

[Read as: lots and lots of people]

"The results of the last round of playtesting were overwhelmingly positive."

[Read as: overwhelmingly like it]

 

[Kobold Stew]

If that is your idea of modular then 3rd and 4th edition can be added to the list.

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense as a response to either of the answers you cite. One-line answers to detailed posts are not likely to advance the conversation in any case. You might not be aware, but it reads as dismissive, as if you were not actually engaged in a discussion.

I was not describing my idea of modularity. You claimed not to have seen modularity in the play test rules, and so I showed it to you. It's not my idea of modularity, it's the way the concept has been consistently presented throughout the play test process.

 

[MerricB]

So why would a person who isn't a fan of 4th edition want to play a game that contains elements of 4th edition in it?

There are a lot of people on this board who don't like AD&D but love 3E, which has many elements of AD&D in it.

Because 4E and 3E share elements, does that mean that people who hate 4E also hate 3E?

 

[Zardnaar]

On the WoTC boards there is not a lot of 3rd ed fans playing D&DN so it could be testing positive with people who do not like 3rd ed for example. They are all probably busy playing PF. D&DN is kind of fun at lower levels and its not terrible but there is a difference between liking a free playtest and dropping money on a new edition.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

There is nothing magical about it. Multiple WOTC executives have said multiple times it's testing very well. You have to assume a conspiracy of lying, in a manner that would directly harm their jobs if 5e fails, to think otherwise.

Occam's Razor says they're right. No magic to it.

Here, take today's article:

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

[Read as: lots and lots of people]

"The results of the last round of playtesting were overwhelmingly positive."

[Read as: overwhelmingly like it]

There is absolutely nothing there that even hints at "lots and lots of people".

You are just seeing what you want to see.

 

[Mistwell]

There is absolutely nothing there that even hints at "lots and lots of people".

You are just seeing what you want to see.

""...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?