D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[Uller]

This thread has generated 350+ responses in 2 weeks. But there is no buzz for DDN...

 

[Neonchameleon]

Unified class attack bonuses like 4E, neo vancian being reskinned 4E daily powers replacing classic vancian that was in BECMI-3rd ed are also big ones. Second wind on the fighter,gonzo/annoying races (Dragonborn, tiefling, Kender), boring races with no racial penalty, over night healing etc.

You know, if that's what you consider a list of 4e things almost all 4e fans I know would say "Missing the point". To take two examples, overnight healing might have happened in 4e - but the important part of overnight healing was that fighters recover as fast as spellcasters rather than fighters having to rest up for weeks while spellcasters are ready to go the next morning. Second Wind might have been a thing in 4e - but giving it only to fighters very much changes its position within the game so it doesn't do what it should to satisfy 4e fans, while annoying people who don't want any traces of 4e.

And this is what I've noticed time and again about how D&D Next resembles editions of D&D. People who don't like 4e think it resembles 4e. People who don't like 3.5 think it resembles 3.5. People who don't like 2e think it resembles 2e. This is ... not the situation you want to be in.

And for the record 4e was, as far as I know, the only edition since the white box not to be plagued by Kender. (And as for 4e's races being boring, the ability to e.g. teleport or turn invisible made 4e races far far more distinctive than any other edition).

 

[billd91]

You know, if that's what you consider a list of 4e things almost all 4e fans I know would say "Missing the point".

And, in turn, maybe that's missing the point of the criticisms Zardnaar mentioned.

 

[BryonD]

You have to learn all the rules, or else wing it, or pause the game to figure it out. So if you wing it, you might as well play rules-lite. And if you pause the game, you're providing a significantly worse experience. Pick your poison.

I largely agree with what you have said. But I believe you have significantly cut out the sweet spot in this analysis. (I know for my unique personal case you have)

There is a real option to learn the bulk of the rules and get to a point where you grasp the rules and their spirit well enough that you can "wing it" when an outlier comes up without remotely being in rules-lite territory. Admittedly, the grey zone between your "learn all the rules" and my "learn enough of the rules" is going to vary significantly from one person to the next both in terms of simple how much of a challenge it is to adequately learn the rules and what a minimum standard of "enough" is.

But my rephrasing of your pick your alternatives would be:
You have to learn enough of the rules to run it with confidence, or else wing it frequently and inconsistently, or pause the game to figure it out.
If you wing it frequently you may as well play rules-lite And you won't achieve the full quality of what you could have either way. (Again, my personal values here) And if you pause the game, you're providing a significantly worse experience.

I think it is important to keep in mind that the very nature of RPGs (and particularly RPGs with fantastic elements, as most are) are going to routinely have outliers. So if you sit down at a table expecting the answer to every event to be between the covers of a book (memorized or not) then you are already going to provide a degree of worse experience. So I consider looking for that sweet spot of sufficient rules mastery to be a constructive part of improving the experience regardless of system.

 

[Wulfgar76]

And this is what I've noticed time and again about how D&D Next resembles editions of D&D. People who don't like 4e think it resembles 4e. People who don't like 3.5 think it resembles 3.5. People who don't like 2e think it resembles 2e. This is ... not the situation you want to be in.

I think these are knee-jerk opinions that come with not playing the game. I see a true hybrid that takes ingredients from all editions and blends them up into what tastes like pure D&D, or what D&D should have tasted like from the beginning.

 

[Rygar]

I think these are knee-jerk opinions that come with not playing the game. I see a true hybrid that takes ingredients from all editions and blends them up into what tastes like pure D&D, or what D&D should have tasted like from the beginning.

I disagree. WOTC really fragmented the player base with 4th edition, and divided it into two main camps. 3rd edition and 4th edition. 1st/2nd edition only players do exist, but I'm not convinced they're in large numbers.

Regardless, these camps read there's going to be a new D&D, and the result was...

1st edition - "If they put anything that wasn't in 1st in there, I'm not touching it".

2nd edition - "One whisper of feats or powers, and I'm out"

3rd edition - "If I see *any* of the mechanics that caused me to avoid 4th edition I'm going to argue against it"

4th edition - "They finally had it right, this is a waste of time, if it's not an evolved 4th edition I'm going to argue against it".

WOTC didn't help anything with their playtest. What they should have shown us is how we approximate each edition with their rules. What they did show us was a progression from 1st edition to 4th edition without any indication that the final results are options and not default assumptions. Since no one has a clue if they can get the game they want out of 5th, everyone assumes that what we saw in the last packet is the base game, and everyone armors up and goes to war based on the above.

If you watch closely, you can see this is true. Pick a random defining factor of an edition, write down a list of names by edition they preferred, post ito the WOTC boards a thread discussing that random defining factor, and you can literally watch as the list you prepared is exactly how everyone argues. No one is really evaluating features, everyone's evaluating which edition the feature came from over there.

 

[Mistwell]

I think the most significant thing to come from the Playtest and polling/survey data is this:

WOTC found that the overwhelming majority of players of D&D, don't behave like the negative people on the boards behave. The data says people of all edition-preferences who were asked about it (which represented a much higher number of people than those found posting on the boards) like the direction WOTC went with 5e.

We'll see if that plays out in sales initially, and ongoing.

 

[pemerton]

I think these are knee-jerk opinions that come with not playing the game. I see a true hybrid that takes ingredients from all editions and blends them up into what tastes like pure D&D, or what D&D should have tasted like from the beginning.

You are not the only person I have seen post that.

For me, I had basciallly that response to 4e.

Hopefully for WotC you're in the majority and I'm in the minority!

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think the most significant thing to come from the Playtest and polling/survey data is this:

WOTC found that the overwhelming majority of players of D&D, don't behave like the negative people on the boards behave. The data says people of all edition-preferences who were asked about it (which represented a much higher number of people than those found posting on the boards) like the direction WOTC went with 5e.

We'll see if that plays out in sales initially, and ongoing.

That makes sense to me. I can hardly imagine anyone in real life behaving like the negative people on the WotC boards behave. Actually, wait, yes I can, and they're all dicks I don't play with anymore (a very small percentage of total people I've played with).

 

[Sadras]

Regardless, these camps read there's going to be a new D&D, and the result was...

1st edition - "If they put anything that wasn't in 1st in there, I'm not touching it".

2nd edition - "One whisper of feats or powers, and I'm out"

3rd edition - "If I see *any* of the mechanics that caused me to avoid 4th edition I'm going to argue against it"

4th edition - "They finally had it right, this is a waste of time, if it's not an evolved 4th edition I'm going to argue against it".

1st edition is not really the true target market. In the majority these guys have stuck to what they have known all their lives despite the myriad of editions coming after them, so 5e was never gonna be the big draw card for them.

3rd edition - If WoTC can draw the burnt out DMs their players will follow. As for the players, you are right they wont switch unless they have to due to the DM. They love customizing their characters that they don't notice the crap-load of work their DMs have to do, IMO.

4th edition - I believe most are looking at 5e with blinkers on as they are waiting for the tactical module and it appears they are mistakenly equating tactical module with box-like powers. Sure there are those that are tired of the long combats at mid-high level and want a change so they will give 5e a chance.

2nd edition - This is the easiest group to cater for, they love their fluff, their story - mechanics come second, all they ask for is that its easy to run and that the mechanics are not so forcefully integrated which would make change difficult, in comparison to previous editions, (4e) or that not everything is codified (3e). From the posts I have seen 2ers are by far the most accepting group.

What they should have shown us is how we approximate each edition with their rules.

Agreed. This would have been better.