D&D 5E So why are you buying 5th edition?
It is very tiresome responding to people who don't take the time to first read the posts that they choose to fabricate mythical passages therein. But here we go.
Admin here. I'm going to take the rare step of addressing this publicly instead of privately, because this is a fairly egregious example of a problem we'd like to avoid.
There's a number of problems in this post. The biggest is that to a neutral third party, the poster ends up sounding snide and supercilious. The post is full of vicious little insults that are perhaps calculated to be just under the line of actionable. Luckily, that line swings a bit, and it swings a lot more when I read a post and want to boot the new member for rudeness. We hate posts like this. The first sign of someone who is "trying to win" is using a stream of multi-quotes. Along with that, here's a few examples of things to avoid:
Avoid any more posts like this. PM me if this is in the least bit unclear. And everyone else, please take this as an object lesson for what kinds of posts not to write. Thanks.
-- Piratecat
Henry responded to the first part so I'll add only that with each new system, the barrier to joining role playing games has increased due to information overload. Lumping on options is not the same as artfully creating an organized system to make the range of options and mechanics for using them a relatively simple task.
How many new rules and ways of doing things are there in 2e then 3e then 3.5, then 4e? If there were only a "couple of small bonuses" there would not be dozens of published books for the game. A new player comes to the table and sees a field of books, all unfamiliar to the new participant. Here take this one, or this one, or this one has some cool stuff…. AD&D adoption could be handled with one book; about a dozen pages of reading could get you going. Things are now more complex and therefore need to be better organized for quick starts. WotC has failed in this aspect. 1e is not better, it has small barriers to entry. 2e-4e are not worse, they have steeper learning curves.
It is likely just you. I've not posted a single thing about ruleless AD&D.
Thanks for showing a little bit restraint although not quite enough patience to be on target. A short winded off post is much better than long winded and angry off post.
I won't apologize for you deciding to be hurt when you failed to read what I actually wrote and mistakenly assume that your generation is being singled out in an attack when that is so very far from the truth. Now I'll respond to the other words you've put in my mouth.
I never said options are bad. I said that presenting them in a haphazard manner is a barrier to entry into the game, and frankly it is also a bit of a pain in the butt for even us experienced players to manage the materials. Options are great, most of them came from older generations by the way.
I never said they were well organized, but comparatively, they have less steep learning curves as already discussed above.
I never made such a comment.
Clammoring? No. But as someone that enjoys the game and would like to see it thrive, the barriers to entry need to me minimized and therefore, quite obviously, character creation should be streamlined. Is that not desirable for players and the game producers as well? Do you not want more people to join the ranks or are you simply satisfied that you've got what you want? WotC hired me specifcally to help bring new players into the game so I do know quite a bit about this topic.
Rebuttal requires you to respond things that were actually stated.
I made no such statement. I have no contempt for "anything new". New is good, it keeps us inspired, interested, and having fun.
I made no such statement. I have no contempt for large numbers of options for the same reasons in the previous answer. Options are great and even better when they are presented in a well organized fashion.
Oh boy. First, no, I observed that it is a quality. In fact, each successive generation tends to follow this pattern of self interest and expedient demands, yours, mine, and the one's who came before. Second, I don't in any manner blast anyone for favoring an edition that provides options and ways to be creative. These things are great. I love them and I'm glad there is a market for people who enjoy the specific iteration of D&D. However, 4e play is vastly different in mechanic than previous editions. This is a fact. IMO, WotC would be best served building on 4e for an admittedly tactical game and also rebuild the D&D game with all the fun options and fluffy and crunchy stuff but in a highly logical organized manner
As you displayed so little regard for actually reading posts, thereby making false attributions, while also failing to civily ask for clarifications where they may be helpful to quell your misguided passions, your post is firmly in the category of forum clutter. The most powerful and useful communication tool is the asking of a question.
I agree whole heartedly that they are generalizations; I believe I even inserted a disclaimer for the on-edge sensitive souls in here. And as I said above, every generation fits the build to an extent that, in my observation, increases over time. I'll skip the socio-cultural details for why this occurs and state simply that there is consistently a generation gap from which generalizations are readily observed regarding play styles and gaming interests. That's not bad, it simply is. The existing span of age in players that now exists simply makes the play style differences more apparent than ever. A unified system can be created, but it needs dedicated thought to organize to work across generations. However, it can't be both full-on tactical and full-on non-tactical but can span nearly all the main interests. Again, a separate tactical game would be a better bet.
------------
@ Boredgremlin, theredrobedwizard, Savevsdeath - you guys come across as unnecessarily bent out of shape. You were so angry that your darkside rage took down ENWorld for most of Sunday.
Nary an item you stated resembled anything I had posted or implied. You can be insulted, feigned or otherwise, or you can increase your perception scores a bit ( lighten up, that's funny) and perhaps not continue down an unproductive communciation path. If something in a post strikes you as incendiary, as some of your reactions seem to indicate, then it is better to ask for clarification rather than assume the worst of intent. In this medium of brevity that forums are, you cannot expect dissertation length explanations on every iota of content or intention, particularly when the forums are so active and brevity is appreciated. Words do not always translate when presented sparingly. I will apologize if my post was not entirely clear, although I am sure way too much was read into it. This is common fare for web conversations.
We are all excited about the prospects of continued support for our beloved game. Many of us have insights and ideas to share for the betterment of all. Only a few people seem to voice a my-version-or-the-highway attitude, and even that can be interpreted in positive light as mission accomplished for some of the existing products. Presumably we want to continue to play and have options and widgets galore to our own tastes. But the direction WotC has taken in game development makes a single unified product impractical and I believe unnecessary.
To further allay your misguided sentiments toward me, I have no issues with 4e players or the 4e game. Why would I? But admittedly, 4e is fundamentally different than all previous D&D systems. It should be a distinct tactical oriented game focused even further along the path than it is now. Many people like them and the market for them is growing. I like them too, but not for role playing. 4e has been a source of great revolt precisely because it targets a non-traditional role playing audience but is couched as a role playing game when it is not purely so and WotC knows this. The 4e target audience is the grown up CCG audience. They are characterized as I have done, like it or not. If it were not true, there would not be millions of people playing such games. This is not character assassination but in fact appreciation for what they tend to enjoy. So being insulted is bizarre; game companies gave you what you wanted. Hurrah for you and for game producers. Everyone wins.
The problem that was created, for our little corner of the world, came about when WotC entered into a business decision to decrease and/or drop support for traditional systems while untruthfully suggesting that 4e is just another evolutionary step. When I was employed by WotC I saw the beginnings of the shift in attitude toward their target market. They chose to push into the tactical game market and be less focused on the traditional aspects. They output more content but didn't put in the effort to keep it cohesive. Thus, edition wars and a mess.
I believe that there is enough variety in role playing and role playingesgue games for everyone to enjoy. I also believe that WotC has not been exemplary in catering to the span of game styles and has thrown more into the same pot rather than laying out distinct well made recipes. I love having options, so does everyone from grondard and gronerd to newbie. Having them presented to the players in a disorganized fashion is something we don't like.
So back to my original point, if 4e serves as the basis of a 5e system it will alienate a lot of potential customers. There is a wide enough gap between 1e and 4e play style and mechanics that there should be two systems, just as there is Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. Not a lot of people buy Semi-Diet Pepsi because it is too much of what they don't want and too little of what they do want.
Admin here. I'm going to take the rare step of addressing this publicly instead of privately, because this is a fairly egregious example of a problem we'd like to avoid.
There's a number of problems in this post. The biggest is that to a neutral third party, the poster ends up sounding snide and supercilious. The post is full of vicious little insults that are perhaps calculated to be just under the line of actionable. Luckily, that line swings a bit, and it swings a lot more when I read a post and want to boot the new member for rudeness. We hate posts like this. The first sign of someone who is "trying to win" is using a stream of multi-quotes. Along with that, here's a few examples of things to avoid:
It is very tiresome responding to people who don't take the time to first read the posts that they choose to fabricate mythical passages therein.
Sounds like someone has Alzhiemers setting in. [EDIT: you hadn't said this. My apologies. - PCat]
Thanks for showing a little bit restraint although not quite enough patience to be on target. A short winded off post is much better than long winded and angry off post.
I won't apologize for you deciding to be hurt when you failed to read what I actually wrote and mistakenly assume that your generation is being singled out in an attack when that is so very far from the truth. Now I'll respond to the other words you've put in my mouth.
Rebuttal requires you to respond things that were actually stated.
As you displayed so little regard for actually reading posts, thereby making false attributions, while also failing to civily ask for clarifications where they may be helpful to quell your misguided passions, your post is firmly in the category of forum clutter.
...oh, and so very many more. If someone said these to my face in a discussion, I'd probably kick them out of my house for being a jerk. EN World is my house. If you're going to be here to talk about the game we love, you're damn well going to be respectful to other members. That means not sinking to personal attack and sarcastic barbs when they don't agree with you.Sounds like someone has Alzhiemers setting in. [EDIT: you hadn't said this. My apologies. - PCat]
Thanks for showing a little bit restraint although not quite enough patience to be on target. A short winded off post is much better than long winded and angry off post.
I won't apologize for you deciding to be hurt when you failed to read what I actually wrote and mistakenly assume that your generation is being singled out in an attack when that is so very far from the truth. Now I'll respond to the other words you've put in my mouth.
Rebuttal requires you to respond things that were actually stated.
As you displayed so little regard for actually reading posts, thereby making false attributions, while also failing to civily ask for clarifications where they may be helpful to quell your misguided passions, your post is firmly in the category of forum clutter.
Avoid any more posts like this. PM me if this is in the least bit unclear. And everyone else, please take this as an object lesson for what kinds of posts not to write. Thanks.
-- Piratecat
Henry responded to the first part so I'll add only that with each new system, the barrier to joining role playing games has increased due to information overload. Lumping on options is not the same as artfully creating an organized system to make the range of options and mechanics for using them a relatively simple task.
How many new rules and ways of doing things are there in 2e then 3e then 3.5, then 4e? If there were only a "couple of small bonuses" there would not be dozens of published books for the game. A new player comes to the table and sees a field of books, all unfamiliar to the new participant. Here take this one, or this one, or this one has some cool stuff…. AD&D adoption could be handled with one book; about a dozen pages of reading could get you going. Things are now more complex and therefore need to be better organized for quick starts. WotC has failed in this aspect. 1e is not better, it has small barriers to entry. 2e-4e are not worse, they have steeper learning curves.
It is likely just you. I've not posted a single thing about ruleless AD&D.
Thanks for showing a little bit restraint although not quite enough patience to be on target. A short winded off post is much better than long winded and angry off post.
I won't apologize for you deciding to be hurt when you failed to read what I actually wrote and mistakenly assume that your generation is being singled out in an attack when that is so very far from the truth. Now I'll respond to the other words you've put in my mouth.
I never said options are bad. I said that presenting them in a haphazard manner is a barrier to entry into the game, and frankly it is also a bit of a pain in the butt for even us experienced players to manage the materials. Options are great, most of them came from older generations by the way.
I never said they were well organized, but comparatively, they have less steep learning curves as already discussed above.
I never made such a comment.
Clammoring? No. But as someone that enjoys the game and would like to see it thrive, the barriers to entry need to me minimized and therefore, quite obviously, character creation should be streamlined. Is that not desirable for players and the game producers as well? Do you not want more people to join the ranks or are you simply satisfied that you've got what you want? WotC hired me specifcally to help bring new players into the game so I do know quite a bit about this topic.
Rebuttal requires you to respond things that were actually stated.
I made no such statement. I have no contempt for "anything new". New is good, it keeps us inspired, interested, and having fun.
I made no such statement. I have no contempt for large numbers of options for the same reasons in the previous answer. Options are great and even better when they are presented in a well organized fashion.
Oh boy. First, no, I observed that it is a quality. In fact, each successive generation tends to follow this pattern of self interest and expedient demands, yours, mine, and the one's who came before. Second, I don't in any manner blast anyone for favoring an edition that provides options and ways to be creative. These things are great. I love them and I'm glad there is a market for people who enjoy the specific iteration of D&D. However, 4e play is vastly different in mechanic than previous editions. This is a fact. IMO, WotC would be best served building on 4e for an admittedly tactical game and also rebuild the D&D game with all the fun options and fluffy and crunchy stuff but in a highly logical organized manner
As you displayed so little regard for actually reading posts, thereby making false attributions, while also failing to civily ask for clarifications where they may be helpful to quell your misguided passions, your post is firmly in the category of forum clutter. The most powerful and useful communication tool is the asking of a question.
I agree whole heartedly that they are generalizations; I believe I even inserted a disclaimer for the on-edge sensitive souls in here. And as I said above, every generation fits the build to an extent that, in my observation, increases over time. I'll skip the socio-cultural details for why this occurs and state simply that there is consistently a generation gap from which generalizations are readily observed regarding play styles and gaming interests. That's not bad, it simply is. The existing span of age in players that now exists simply makes the play style differences more apparent than ever. A unified system can be created, but it needs dedicated thought to organize to work across generations. However, it can't be both full-on tactical and full-on non-tactical but can span nearly all the main interests. Again, a separate tactical game would be a better bet.
------------
@ Boredgremlin, theredrobedwizard, Savevsdeath - you guys come across as unnecessarily bent out of shape. You were so angry that your darkside rage took down ENWorld for most of Sunday.
Nary an item you stated resembled anything I had posted or implied. You can be insulted, feigned or otherwise, or you can increase your perception scores a bit ( lighten up, that's funny) and perhaps not continue down an unproductive communciation path. If something in a post strikes you as incendiary, as some of your reactions seem to indicate, then it is better to ask for clarification rather than assume the worst of intent. In this medium of brevity that forums are, you cannot expect dissertation length explanations on every iota of content or intention, particularly when the forums are so active and brevity is appreciated. Words do not always translate when presented sparingly. I will apologize if my post was not entirely clear, although I am sure way too much was read into it. This is common fare for web conversations.We are all excited about the prospects of continued support for our beloved game. Many of us have insights and ideas to share for the betterment of all. Only a few people seem to voice a my-version-or-the-highway attitude, and even that can be interpreted in positive light as mission accomplished for some of the existing products. Presumably we want to continue to play and have options and widgets galore to our own tastes. But the direction WotC has taken in game development makes a single unified product impractical and I believe unnecessary.
To further allay your misguided sentiments toward me, I have no issues with 4e players or the 4e game. Why would I? But admittedly, 4e is fundamentally different than all previous D&D systems. It should be a distinct tactical oriented game focused even further along the path than it is now. Many people like them and the market for them is growing. I like them too, but not for role playing. 4e has been a source of great revolt precisely because it targets a non-traditional role playing audience but is couched as a role playing game when it is not purely so and WotC knows this. The 4e target audience is the grown up CCG audience. They are characterized as I have done, like it or not. If it were not true, there would not be millions of people playing such games. This is not character assassination but in fact appreciation for what they tend to enjoy. So being insulted is bizarre; game companies gave you what you wanted. Hurrah for you and for game producers. Everyone wins.
The problem that was created, for our little corner of the world, came about when WotC entered into a business decision to decrease and/or drop support for traditional systems while untruthfully suggesting that 4e is just another evolutionary step. When I was employed by WotC I saw the beginnings of the shift in attitude toward their target market. They chose to push into the tactical game market and be less focused on the traditional aspects. They output more content but didn't put in the effort to keep it cohesive. Thus, edition wars and a mess.
I believe that there is enough variety in role playing and role playingesgue games for everyone to enjoy. I also believe that WotC has not been exemplary in catering to the span of game styles and has thrown more into the same pot rather than laying out distinct well made recipes. I love having options, so does everyone from grondard and gronerd to newbie. Having them presented to the players in a disorganized fashion is something we don't like.
So back to my original point, if 4e serves as the basis of a 5e system it will alienate a lot of potential customers. There is a wide enough gap between 1e and 4e play style and mechanics that there should be two systems, just as there is Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. Not a lot of people buy Semi-Diet Pepsi because it is too much of what they don't want and too little of what they do want.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless I see something in 5e previews that's an absolute deal-breaker for me, I'll buy at least the initial core rulebook or rulebooks (whatever format that happens to be). Since I'd been advocating that WotC get moving on 5e -- despite really being a fan of classic 4e (because while I rather like the game, enough people in my regular group don't that we don't play it; I was hoping for a 4e-inspired game that everyone I play with could accept) -- it would be a bit hypocritical to do otherwise. Whether I get more beyond that will depend on
- how much I like the game
- whether I'm actually playing it
- whether or not something like D&Di is around (in 4e I didn't buy a lot of rulebooks after I got a subscription)
- how much I like the game
- whether I'm actually playing it
- whether or not something like D&Di is around (in 4e I didn't buy a lot of rulebooks after I got a subscription)
Vorpal Puppy
First Post
The release of 5e will mark the third time in roughly ten years that the same company has tried to get me to buy the same books that cover the same material I've been familiar with since my 12th birthday in 1987. How many rulesets do I really need to pretend I'm an elf?
I can afford the new books, but I would feel like a fool for buying them. I can understand buying into yet another system if that's what it takes to play, because I love D&D. But I am lucky to be in a good group that's enjoying what we're playing now.
It's also unlikely I will buy 6e when it comes out in 2018.
I can afford the new books, but I would feel like a fool for buying them. I can understand buying into yet another system if that's what it takes to play, because I love D&D. But I am lucky to be in a good group that's enjoying what we're playing now.
It's also unlikely I will buy 6e when it comes out in 2018.
(I apologize for singling your post out, I am using it as a generalization of a commonly shared sentiment.)
I don't understand the resentment for buying a new edition. People buy the newer version of a product all the time. A lot of people don't hesitate to buy the newest electronics or the most recent video game sequel. Most important of all, no one is forced to do so. I am not a advocate of consumerism for consumerism's sake, but there should be a sense of curiosity that does not include immediate cynicism.
I wonder if the D&D community is broken and not because of any particular failings of WotC and their efforts. Refusing to buy a product 6 years from now (the hypothetical 6e mentioned in the quote) seems irrational. You know nothing about it or what WotC will be like during that time.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I am really sorry to read such statements, not buying the new edition in fear of beeing fooled.
Actually I hesitated to buy the 3.5 phb for this reason... but only because it really had not content i could not get for free... (3.0 + srd was ok).
I will buy it, because it offers a cleaned up modular rules system that fixes issues i have with 2nd, 3rd or 4th edition. And offers a better and fresher play experience (but if this statement is true can only be decided in the future)
Actually I hesitated to buy the 3.5 phb for this reason... but only because it really had not content i could not get for free... (3.0 + srd was ok).
I will buy it, because it offers a cleaned up modular rules system that fixes issues i have with 2nd, 3rd or 4th edition. And offers a better and fresher play experience (but if this statement is true can only be decided in the future)
Vorpal Puppy
First Post
But electronics are quickly outmoded by more powerful devices and sequels are a different game entirely. I don't think D&D is really comparable to either of those. Books can last a lifetime. When I play D&D now it's pretty much the same as when I played in the 1980s. People may use a phone app to roll dice and the DM might have a laptop instead of a stack of books, but the critical elements are the same. Each new update is just a new way to play the same game.
I don't object to updated versions of the game, just the pace at which they have come out since Hasbro bought Wizards in 1999. I think these repeated attempts to get people to buy the same books are not good for the long-term health of the brand. I was being sarcastic when I said 6e would come out in 2018, but how many of you doubt that within 5 years of 5e's launch date there will be some new attempt to get you to buy a new Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual? I don't think it much matters how successful this new edition is at bringing players back together. Does it not bother you that we D&D players are continually asked to buy updates of these same rules that we have spent so much money on in the past? Obviously it does trouble me. Perhaps I am just getting cantankerous in my middle age.
'Broken' is one of my least favorite words as it is usually applied to D&D, but that's another post entirely and you are not using it in terms of rules anyhow. It's a good question and I think the answer depends on your perspective. From Hasbro's perspective the audience is fragmented, thus denting their chances at maximizing their millions from successive editions of the game. You might say the audience is broken from that perspective. From my perspective there are more options than ever before, and tons of good material that I could never hope to get through in my lifetime. I also have a stable group, which makes things seem sunnier. On the other hand there is the Edition War vitriol. There can be no doubt that as a whole, we D&D fans are a finicky, tough bunch to please.
I'm sure people will disagree with this, but ultimately I don't think the D&D brand is totally necessary for the survival of fantasy roleplaying anymore. I think that in the future, the same kinds of people who play now will find their way to some other game (Pathfinder? Something new?) should 'D&D' ultimately get mothballed. Perhaps our numbers will further dwindle, but people will still publish things and in my opinion the game, under whatever name, will remain vibrant.
Please give yourself a cookie if you read all that.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Yesterday i played 4rd edition DSA. It was fun, but obviously it is not as someone would write a modern RPG.
4e lasted a very short time. That at last is true. But better innvoate than stagnate. And actually, what can wizards lose?
TSR died, because it tried to hold to an edition longer than possible. So did the german distributer of DSA. You need to strike the right balance of innovation and backwards compatibility.
The only mistake wizards did, was removing support of 3rd edition alltogether, especially when they also removed older edition pdfs. People don´t react well to beeing pushed to a new edition.
If wizards put out a new edition and makes a new, what do they lose? DDI will get them money, no matter which edition you use. If they would even start supporting pathfinder now and then on their website, everybody would win.
4e lasted a very short time. That at last is true. But better innvoate than stagnate. And actually, what can wizards lose?
TSR died, because it tried to hold to an edition longer than possible. So did the german distributer of DSA. You need to strike the right balance of innovation and backwards compatibility.
The only mistake wizards did, was removing support of 3rd edition alltogether, especially when they also removed older edition pdfs. People don´t react well to beeing pushed to a new edition.
If wizards put out a new edition and makes a new, what do they lose? DDI will get them money, no matter which edition you use. If they would even start supporting pathfinder now and then on their website, everybody would win.
Similar Threads
