D&D 5E Why (and how) 5E can succeed

[Mercurius]

Very good. This I am fine with. Now if you can use this kind of moderate language all the time, there will be more worthwhile discussion about your actual points, rather than posts reflexively decrying your statements in the first place because you used language many of us do not feel was factually correct.

Hmm. This smacks dangerously close to language police. I think you're missing the other side of it that, first of all, your issue with my language is based upon a misunderstanding of my intention and usage, which even upon clarification you wouldn't back down on. Furthermore, I disagree that I was using "failure" in a "factually incorrect" manner. First of all, I was expressing a subjective perspective - which isn't about "facts" as much as it is about opinion. The word "failure" seems correct for how I used it. I gave very specific parameters for what I meant, and you keep turning it into something else.

"I think 3E was more successful creatively to do X than 4E and here's why 5E should probably go in that direction..." is a discussion we can have and can look at all sides. "4E failed and thus 5E should do X..." degenerates immediately to the argument of whether 4E "failed" or not and who gets to define it, and thus missed the entire point.

But why did it devolve? And what part did you play in that? You're taking no responsibility, putting it entirely on my word usage.

A word has a charge depending upon how it is used and how we interpret it. It isn't enough, in my opinion, to say "I took issue with your word usage, so please use different words." If we're going to engage in meaningful dialogue there has to be some flexibility.

By now most of us should know where the discussion will immediately go if you put 4E and "failure" in the same sentence. If a poster does so, it's because they intentionally want to piss people off. And it doesn't matter how many times they parrot "I'm not trying to start an edition war here!"... yes, yes in fact they are.

Man, you've got to stop telling me what my intentions are! Can you see how condescending that is? "What you're actually trying to do is this." No, I'm not. You have the right to not believe me, or even to think that I have some sub-conscious agenda, but that's not going to get us very far and, in the end, you're just railing against a strawman. This, I think, is the main (although not only) reason "edition wars" are started - by people that falsely accuse others of edition warring.

 

[howandwhy99]

Hey, I completely agree 5e can succeed and really really want it to. (You didn't have to call me out specifically)

 

[Mercurius]

Hey, I completely agree 5e can succeed and really really want it to. (You didn't have to call me out specifically)

LOL. It took me a minute to figure out what you meant. Touche.

 

[Johnny Champion]

AD&D Fan with Hope for Next

I am currently running an ongoing campaign in D&D Next with older players from AD&D as well as several 20+ year old players that are familiar with 4E rules. As a DM, I can see both sides. But ALL of us have enjoyed Next so far, but to be fair, we have added many more elements from AD&D to supplement the last play test material (PTM) to give it a better feel. Though many elements seem to be lost from AD&D, Next is our hope for new material, new monsters, interesting books and actively supported content that is NOT 4E. Our thoughts are we can homebrew the parts we don't like. We just hope that the release version will be a little more towards AD&D than the last PTM. It seems that the manner in which they are developing Next is a good sign that they have listened. I for one am looking forward to the release and plan on playing it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Man, you've got to stop telling me what my intentions are! Can you see how condescending that is? "What you're actually trying to do is this." No, I'm not. You have the right to not believe me, or even to think that I have some sub-conscious agenda, but that's not going to get us very far and, in the end, you're just railing against a strawman. This, I think, is the main (although not only) reason "edition wars" are started - by people that falsely accuse others of edition warring.

If you used language in your original post that you knew could be construed as an edition war to the point that you actually had to couch your opinion by stating outright "I'm not trying to start an edition war!"... how exactly did you think people would react to your post? You had two choices when you wrote that first piece. You could have either toned down the rhetoric to the point where there was little to no question that you were just throwing out was just some ideas for discussion about 5E... or do what you did, which was use language that most of us on these boards knows will cause arguments about the definition of "failure" and whether it applies in 4E's case. You've participated in those arguments. Almost all of us on these boards knows about these arguments. And if you know them, but choose to use those words together anyway... you really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction.

But you know what? If you've now been truly blindsided with this... that the idea that even talking around the concept of "the failure of 4E" would generate conflicting opinions and arguments on the matter... then my apologies. I've been giving you way too much credit. I thought you were pretty tied in to what gets talked about here, but perhaps you just haven't been paying as much attention as it seems like you have.

But let's also not forget that in the first case you disagreed with me. My original post said nothing at all about what you had said and was purely expository on my part of what "success" and "failure" could or should be defined as. You chose to argue MY point and in fact changed your language as you did so. You chose to redefine or clarify what you originally meant to say, so don't get mad at me for pointing that fact out.

 

[Mercurius]

If you used language in your original post that you knew could be construed as an edition war to the point that you actually had to couch your opinion by stating outright "I'm not trying to start an edition war!"... how exactly did you think people would react to your post?

I guess I should have realized that some would misunderstand what I was saying.

... you really shouldn't be surprised by the reaction.

The only thing I'm surprised about is that you continue to misunderstand what I am saying, even after I've clarified it a couple times.

But you know what? If you've now been truly blindsided with this... that the idea that even talking around the concept of "the failure of 4E" would generate conflicting opinions and arguments on the matter... then my apologies. I've been giving you way too much credit. I thought you were pretty tied in to what gets talked about here, but perhaps you just haven't been paying as much attention as it seems like you have.

Again, I think you misunderstood, and somehow still misunderstand, what I mean by "failure of 4E." You refuse my definition of failure--as if there's one proper usage of the word, rather than contextually shifting meanings.

But let's also not forget that in the first case you disagreed with me. My original post said nothing at all about what you had said and was purely expository on my part of what "success" and "failure" could or should be defined as. You chose to argue MY point and in fact changed your language as you did so. You chose to redefine or clarify what you originally meant to say, so don't get mad at me for pointing that fact out.

Wow, this is just flat-out misleading. My original response to you was mainly in reference to your statement that "Any other talk is nothing more than opinions on whether the person liked the game or not." This was seemingly in reference to my OP. I was pointing out that you were mistaken, that what I was saying was not, in fact, based upon whether I liked 4E or not, that my usage of "failure" was not about liking or disliking 4E, but what I perceive to be a failure to thrive and be sustainable.

The bottom line, Defcon, is that I hear you being defensive about 4E and all of this hullabaloo is seemingly because you feel slighted about what I said, which is based upon a misunderstanding of what I said. Until you are willing to relate to what I actually said and meant, you're going to continue having this beef - because you think I'm slighting 4E. So if you are content with being outraged based upon your lack of comprehension, that's your right. But that leaves us at an impasse, so maybe its time to move along.

 

[sunshadow21]

@TerraDave , nice post. It makes me wonder What If scenarios if how WotC had done things with 4E had been different. In other words, if they hadn't flummoxed the PR and other aspects around the game itself. As McLuhan said, the medium is the message.

I've wondered that often myself. There is a lot to like in the actual 4E system, but in the end, there was too much both in the system itself and surrounding the system that was just a pain, and most people just stopped bothering with it after a while. It wasn't D&D enough to overcome it's shortcomings as a story telling system, making other similar non D&D story telling systems equally or more attractive, and it lacked the mechanical grit that 3.x had, meaning that it lost that fanbase as well.

It will be very interesting to see how well they can turn the ideas they have for 5E/Next/whatever (many of which have a tremendous amount of promise) they end up calling it into a fully functional, well implemented game. In the end, the big difference between 3.x and 4E was that while 3.x had it's flaws and its weak points, the package as a whole worked reasonably well. More importantly, at least at first, it did not favor either the player or the DM; this changed as it progressed, but in the crucial early period, both sides of the screen could find plenty to enjoy, and when the changes did occur, they were driven largely by the community, not in an shift in the actual rules being written, which were more of an effect than a cause. 4E, on the other hand, had several cool and well implemented ideas, but the system as a whole just kind of fell flat, and the distribution and marketing systems supporting it really fell flat. It also never truly appealed to the players, putting almost all the emphasis on the DMs. If they can make the system as a whole work in a way that appeals to both players and DMs, then having weaknesses in spots won't be a problem; if they have to highlight very specific subsystems to hide systematic weaknesses, or end up focusing solely one side of the screen rather than the balance between both sides, it's going to be in trouble, no matter how cool those subsystems are.