Uniting the Editions: How well did this playtest packet do?

[Advilaar]

This is, I think, going to be a pretty big deal for the 4e fans (myself included). The sooner they can get something out that shows the potential for solid tactical, gridded combat, the sooner they will start winning over 4e players en masse.

Winning over the 4e DMs is a matter of getting encounter design tools up to snuff.

The 4e fan in me is eagerly awaiting some of these things. The 2e fan in me...

My point exactly with 4e!!! The tactical aspect of 4e is without peer. The encounter/daily/at will is genius.

But, the design tools are flawed. In 3.5, ANYTHING is possible. dragon PCs? check. Earth Elemental archers? check. But with 4e, hard to happen. Also skill challenges need to DIAF.

4e tactics, the flexibilty and depth of 3e without the unnecesary complex, with the simplicity of 2e.

Although I do not want "modifier hell" with my tactics that exists in 4e and 3e.

 

[JeffB]

In short, I think WotC could do more to appeal to DMs coming from 4th edition in addition to players, because I feel like 4E made a very large effort to make things easier on (and more fun for) the Dungeon Master but DnD Next has taken none of these lessons to heart, at least at this stage of the playtest.

This is critical to me. Personally I never ran 4e as a tactical combat game with adventure filler as many detractors think. To me it was FUN to DM, and it made prep much easier, and at times fun as well. When running combat, the monsters were more fun as well because of newer varied attacks/powers. Running PFBB for my son at about 3rd level now, I am already getting bored in combat and so is he. I have my issues with 4e on the PC side of things, , but I really enjoyed it from the DM perspective.

DM support, which includes tools (electronic and otherwise) for easy prep, solid adventure material, flexibility/framework systems I can mold/re skin, and easy to run but flavorful monsters ( I dont mean a page of fluff text) are the things that ultimately will determine whether I am on board with next. On the DM side of the coin, C&C has been doing what we are seeing in NEXT, and has been for 5 or 6 years.

 

[Ahnehnois]

3e respondents are about 2/3 positive about the new edition. I have an intuition that a lot of Pathfinder's appeal lies in the relationship between Paizo and is customers and the work culture of Paizo itself, which is why I phrased the poll question that way. I hate Pathfinder, Golarion and their adventures, but I love Paizo the company. My spare money these days is going to their flip mats and singles of their miniatures (thanks for making a medusa mini without arrows!)

I think this is a problem because you've conflated the PF and 3e crowds; these are two separate player bases, both significant in size.

Like you, I don't particularly like the PF setting and even the game itself is a mixed bag but like Paizo. Some 3e players might be a bit squirrely about voting the Paizo option in the poll however, which I suspect is why this response skews positive towards 5e.

From a 3e perspective, I still don't see a game that is an evolution of the rules or moves them forwards; the best that can be said is that it has some old-school strengths and it isn't as big of a step backwards for players and especially DMs as 4e was. Even as successful as many of the d20 offshoots have been, I still can't believe that WotC hasn't tried to look at 3e, address its problems, and create a new and better version of D&D; that would revolutionize things the same way the original 3e release did.

 

[pauljathome]

But 60% of poll respondents or so are onside with this playtest, .

Be VERY careful about interpreting an internet poll.

Thats 60% of the people who care enough about 5th edition to be following New Horizons at all and who care enough to wade through the myriad of threads since the new playtest materials were released and who care enough to respond to a poll are onside with this playtest.

I'd claim that is a very self selecting set of people that is likely to be very strongly biased towards people who like DndNext (or what they've seen of it so far, at least). Combined with some people who absolutely loathe it .

What you're not going to get are the people who are in the "Meh, I don't care" category. Who are very likely a significant majority at this point.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Plus the poll itself is badly written. The answers are all weighted. The only mature answers are positive about 5e.

Notice, I like 1e and I will play 5e compared to "I'm too old school for this" Clearly a weighted responce

I wanted to say, I prefer 4e and think this needs a lot of improvment to win me over. I look and didn't see an answer that meant that it litterally did not occur to me that "Why make a lesser game for the gognards" was supposed to be that. So I voted the on the fence answer. I also like 3.x so I though about answering with that, but I'm not the Piazo fan so once again that answer didn't occur to me


Why not equal poll choices, and next time, multiple choice.

I enjoy 1e, 2e
I enjoy 3.x
I enjoy 4e
I enjoy Pathfinder

I'm happy with the direction of 5e
I'm not happy with the direction of 5e
5e is still on the fence for me.

I could have gave an honest vote to that, and I think I'm not alone.

 

[tlantl]

Would you play an full version of the playtest packet as a regular game?

No!

what do your poll answers have to do with the question?

The playtest has some serious issues that need work. I like some of it, other's not so much.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Where's the option for "Why make a lesser game to please the 3e/4e fans?"

 

[Dannager]

Where's the option for "Why make a lesser game to please the 3e/4e fans?"

Wrong answers were not included in the poll.

 

[Mircoles]

All I see is the return of a lot problems that caused me to quit playing past editions of D&D.

The only thing of any interest in D&Dnext is the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, the rest is of no interest.

Been there, done that and I'm not doing it again. A game needs to change to evolve and there just isn't enough change in D&D if D&Dnext is where it's going.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So the primary goal of this edition is to get the majority of gamers from the different factions to sit down at a table together.

I don't think this is the primary goal at all. The primary goal is to get the majority of gamers from different factions to buy the product, and then sit down and play it with like-minded friends.

On that criteria, I'm still wait and see, but think it has promise. That is, I like where I think they want to go, but still somewhat doubt their ability to get there (not least because it is a difficult goal).

I don't think anything could get me to sit down with folks from some factions--I wouldn't have fun, and they wouldn't have fun with me there. Why inflict that on them or me?

I care relatively little for the tactical side, except I do want at least a handful of good options for each character. On the DM prep side, I want a similar ease as to what 4E provides, or I'm unlikely to like it. This really is key for me. I'm pretty much done spending hours jumping through hoops to finagle fiddly subsystems to make adventures. Either the D&D system prep work keeps me focused on the more interesting work of locations, NPC motivations, etc.--or at least provides me quick short cuts to get there--or I'm not running it. Otherwise, if I'm in the mood for doing all that fiddly work, I'll pick a system that makes it pay off better, like Hero or GURPS.