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

[Neonchameleon]

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.

On the other hand I was one of those who responded to the playtest survey (I guess most of us were). And as far as I was concerned those questions were rigged to achieve positive feedback - and not even subtly rigged (I'm a statistician by training).

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!

Seconded - on all counts.

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.

Remember that most 2nd edition players haven't given money to WotC in a long time. They need to make a game that's enough better than home group games of heavily houseruled 2e that it's worth relearning the rules - a much harder challenge than I think you think.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I disagree. WOTC really fragmented the player base with 4th edition, and divided it into two main camps. 3rd edition and 4th edition. [SNIP] No one is really evaluating features, everyone's evaluating which edition the feature came from over there.

This whole argument rests on the premise that there are two camps: 3e/PF players who love it and hate 4e, and, 4e players that love it and hate 3e/PF – and that each camp is fanatically loyal to their own game, and despises the other.

I think these two camps are in the minority of RPG players, but are the loudest voices on message boards. I contend the reality is more complex and nuanced.

Anecdotally, all the players I know play and prefer one or the other, but are constantly annoyed by the problems inherent in each respective edition. Their loyalty is certainly not rigid to any edition, and they are mostly open to whatever one the DM wants to play – and are more than willing to give D&D Next a test drive.

For my part, I am weary of both editions, and find both of them tiresome to play for different reasons. I suppose I am part part of the target audience that WotC is looking for: a longtime D&D player who is looking for a simpler more fluidly immersive game that still captures the essence of D&D.

Incidentally, I began playing/DMing during 2e, and look most fondly on that edition for the experience it delivered.

 

[Wulfgar76]

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".

5th edition - "Wow, this really does feel like D&D, and it's pretty fun to play. I'm actually enjoying this more than my previous preferred edition."

 

[Neonchameleon]

5th edition - "Wow, this really does feel like D&D, and it's pretty fun to play. I'm actually enjoying this more than my previous preferred edition."

And you seem to think that "feel like D&D" is something everyone cares about. I care about whether something is a good and enjoyable game that does what it sets out to do. For that matter if I were to say "Wow, this really does feel like D&D," the second half of my sentence would be "a hack and slashy combat fest full of disconnected rules and subsystems that were clunky and rickety by the standards of the 1990s and that I need to beat into shape with a hammer to make workable."

 

[Wulfgar76]

And you seem to think that "feel like D&D" is something everyone cares about. I care about whether something is a good and enjoyable game that does what it sets out to do.

So does D&D Next do that or not?
Or is DDN "an unenjoyable game that fails in what it sets out to do"?

FYI, "Feel like D&D" is a colloquialism meant to describe a universal gaming experience that captures the essence of all editions of D&D. Things like the 6 ability scores, classes, races, combat, spells, etc. Obviously creating "an enjoyable game that does what it sets out to do" is a pretty basic goal that only a simple person would need verbalized.

For that matter if I were to say "Wow, this really does feel like D&D,"

I didn't come up with the term, the DDN marketing team did, but it seems to chafe you for some reason.

the second half of my sentence would be "a hack and slashy combat fest full of disconnected rules and subsystems that were clunky and rickety by the standards of the 1990s and that I need to beat into shape with a hammer to make workable."

I can't tell which edition you are crapping on with this. But if it's D&D Next, I would say you are engaging in some baseless hyperbole. If you are talking about 3.5/PF, then I might be inclined to agree with you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I can't tell which edition you are crapping on with this. But if it's D&D Next, I would say you are engaging in some baseless hyperbole. If you are talking about 3.5/PF, then I might be inclined to agree with you.

as a fan for almost 20 years I can say it might be every edition he is describeing... atleast 2e, 3e, 3.5, and 4e...

 

[Ichneumon]

... the second half of my sentence would be "a hack and slashy combat fest full of disconnected rules and subsystems that were clunky and rickety by the standards of the 1990s and that I need to beat into shape with a hammer to make workable."

You say it like it's a bad thing.

 

[SkidAce]

Yes, I agree with [MENTION=98772]Ichneumon[/MENTION], you've described a strength. Something you can mold to fit any table.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

And you can put me in the same group as [MENTION=98772]Ichneumon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION]. Sounds like an awesome game to play! xD

Cheers,

 

[innerdude]

For my part, I am weary of both editions, and find both of them tiresome to play for different reasons. I suppose I am part part of the target audience that WotC is looking for: a longtime D&D player who is looking for a simpler more fluidly immersive game that still captures the essence of D&D.

Someone already made that game. They just named it "Savage Worlds" instead of "D&D."

(Like you, I am / was part of that same target audience.)