D&D 5E (2014) Will there be such a game as D&D Next?

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Obryn]

That's what D&D Next is.

This edition is not, and will not, be a better edition, let alone THE BEST edition. I don't understand how this false perception remains or propagates.

The thing is... For my full support, it will have to be the best at *something*. That's why I buy games these days - because they are zeroed in on a goal and try to be the best tool possible to achieve that goal. I don't simply need another way to play D&D. I need a *new* way to play D&D.

I have several editions and several more non-D&D games I can use to run a good campaign in the fantasy genre. I am only looking seriously at systems which bring something new to the table, right now.

-O

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Obryn]

So you're saying you already have a version of D&D that you can use for when you're playing with non-4E players? A game that can give you the general feel and experience of 4E while still providing the others in the group the same concerning their preferred feel and experience?

Man, I'm seriously intrigued! That sounds like one seriously cool version of D&D. Pray tell, what edition of D&D is that...?

No, I have other non-D&D games for that, which don't have the baggage. Savage Worlds, for one. And I still love AD&D and RC, too; they aren't disappearing.

I wish Next and its fans well, but I don't need to play it if it's not my cup of tea. I'll be in for the core game at least. We'll see from there.

-O

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, I have other non-D&D games for that, which don't have the baggage. Savage Worlds, for one. And I still love AD&D and RC, too; they aren't disappearing.

I wish Next and its fans well, but I don't need to play it if it's not my cup of tea. I'll be in for the core game at least. We'll see from there.

-O

Yup. Honestly HYPOTHETICALLY I could see running a 2e game, there are people I know that like 2e, I have the material, and I know I can make it do what I want. TRUTHFULLY though? They're going to come over and I'm going to say "yeah, 4e" and they're just not going to care that much, and they'll end up having more fun than with 2e unless they're seriously stubborn (which none of my friends are). So, yeah, in theory I might want to run something besides 4e, but I HAVE that something else, and its unlikely to ever ACTUALLY happen. If it DID actually happen and everyone wanted to play 5e because "hey, it will do pretty much what 2e will and we're not that invested in 2e anymore" then DOUBLE HYPOTHETICALLY we might buy it. Anyone who thinks somehow I'm obliged to pretend that 5e matters to me "because split in the community" when nobody gave a flying pancake about that 4 years ago is just not living in the real world. I have NO SUCH OBLIGATION. I'm obliged to be civil and not overly critical of other people's tastes etc, which I think I have been, but I am not obliged to buy, play, like, or say nice things about DDN.
[MENTION=39633]Elm[/MENTION]adhi, yes, Mike said those things. I've followed his various tweetings and etc closely enough to see that. He said well over a month ago, more like 3 months ago, that the core rules were "largely complete" and "there would be no more major changes, just tweaks". That is of course almost certainly the case as if you think about it they have to now design all the other classes, all the rest of the various spell lists, backgrounds, specialties, feats, items, etc on top of those core rules. This is a long process that requires all these things to be playtested as well. You can't do all that stuff until you have a core system that you aren't going to make serious changes to. Remember, they have to finish tweaking that core, write up all the rest of the material that goes along with it, playtest all that material, finish playtesting the tweaks to the core stuff at the same time, reflect all those tweaks in the other stuff, come up with guidelines for adventures, write adventures, etc.

All of this has to be done on a schedule and order where each thing can be completed, checked, released to production, etc with plenty of headroom for (at the latest) August of 2014. That means actually the core book material needs to be 100% finished about a year from now. It isn't that there couldn't IN THEORY be time to make many huge changes to it, but you simply can't do that when if the stuff core stuff changes then everything on top of it has to go back through development and QC etc all over again. That's why Mike says the rules are largely complete, they are. They've made the major decisions. If you don't like the direction that DDN has taken that is not overall going to change.

Obviously if there is one minor part of DDN you don't like, well, sure, you can hope it is going to change. Now, suppose you want a game with unified class mechanics? No amount of hopeful thinking will make DDN into that game, it is simply not happening. Why, logically do you then insist I have to get on board with DDN? I have nothing in the way of a reason to desire that game. Again, hypothetically I might play it, but unless WotC makes some version of it that suites my tastes I probably won't. It isn't some sort of sour grapes thing, it is just that I buy what I like in games and there are elements ALREADY built into DDN that I stated to the designers right at the start weren't exciting to me. Not surprisingly it isn't on my buy list at this point.

 

[Obryn]

And your response is actually screw em'...?

Man, that's seriously jaded and heartless...

No. I'm not planning on spamming boards telling everyone how crappy Next is, unlike some folks for the past 5 years re: 4e. No way; as I've said I wish WotC and Next fans the best, but I don't feel a pressing need to be among their number right now.

But I think you have a funny idea of the dynamic here. It's not my job to be an enthusiastic booster first. That's not my responsibility, and I'm not going to be scolded about it. WotC needs to show me something to ignite my enthusaism. As of this moment, that's sorely lacking, and every bit of new information lessens - rather than increases - my interest.

As I've said, I'm in for the core, pretty much period. I hope it's a good game; I hate buying bad ones. That's WotC's opportunity to sell me on any additional material - not this 2-year lead-in extended playtest.

-O

 

[Alan Shutko]

Fwiw I am currently playing in a 2e game, was recently running a PF game and have an RC one-shot lined up when the new baby takes less time. And there is a big overlap between the groups.

 

[pemerton]

My statement is about going into the process with the mindset that D&D Next's goals are impossible

<snip>

Writing D&D Next off at this point is tantamount to looking at the uncompleted girder skeleton of a building, and deciding that the building is going to be too ugly for one's preferences and unable to fufill one's needs. That is a completely illogical assumption.

<snip>

At this time, any ideas on our parts as to the absolute direction of D&D Next, or musings of what the final product will look like, are nothing but half-informed guesses at best.

As to content, we have probably about half (at best) of the classes that will be included, much less than half of the races that will be included (probably more like 1/3), and probably about half done with the rules for the Standard version. They've practically not even started on the Advanced version (where I'd expect to find the majority of 3E and 4E concepts), nor have they started on the optional modules yet (which I expect a fairly significant amount, somewhere on the level of the quantity provided in 3E Unearthed Arcana, give or take a bit).

In my post upthread, I explained what, from my point of view, D&Dnext is missing: a mechanical structure that underpins solid pacing both within and across encounters, and does so without intrapartay imbalance both for groups that play the 5-minute day and for groups where the GM regulates the availability of extended rests.
[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] elaborated on my point, and I agree with what he said: the power structure that underpins balance and pacing considerations also underpins monster design, adjudication of ad hoc actions, damage, etc, and in general makes the game very easy to run in the sort of player-driven, seat-of-the-pants style I enjoy.

No amount of class design or race design is going to change the fact that D&Dnext does not have this. Its classes are deliberately built on an assymetric model, balanced around a hypothetical "adventuring day" that the mechanics do not enforce. Furthermore, the reason why D&Dnext has assymetric classes and a lack of mechanical enforcement of the adventuring day is obvious: it's because the designers have become allergic to overtly metagame mecahnics in the wake of the significant hostility to such mechanics in 4e.

For the Advanced modules to generate a play experience anywhere in the neighbourhood of 4e, they would have to tackle the above issues - for instance, via very sophisticated techniques for enforcing the adventuring day at the metagame level. (I'm thinking of something comparable to the role of the Doom Pool in Marvel Heroic RP.) The problem is, at every point the game seems to lack the structures on which to hang such a mechanic - for instance, its monster and NPC design seems to have returned to pre-4e norms (and ad hocery) rather than the systematic specification and sclaing that characterise 4e.

Not only is there no obvious capacity to build on that sort of a Advanced module, Mearls has said not a word about any such thing. The talk of advanced modules is all about domain rulership, wound systems and facing in combat. These have absolutely nothing to do with my 4e experience.

NOBODY said they were going to build a "better" ranch house. What they did say is they're building a prefab modular house that has the versatility to be put together as whatever type of house one prefers!

And what I'm saying is that there is basically no evidence that this claim is in fact true. Or even feasible.

It's not necessary nor predetermined that such splitting must take place

The "split" exists. There is a (large) group of D&D players who won't tolerate overt metagame mechanics in their game, and who (as far as I can tell) rely on more or less overt GM force, plus very strongly enforced social contract, to play the role in their games that metagame mechanics might otherwise play (such as handling fighter/wizard balance issues, enforcing the "adventuring day", etc). D&Dnext will be their game.

But just as those players have excellent reasons for not enjoying 4e, some 4e players will have excellent rasons for not enjoying D&Dnext.

• Some players will prefer D&D Next and for all intents and purposes "switch" to 5E.
• The number of players that "unite" with gamers that prefer editions other than the one's they do, will greatly outnumber those that "switch".
• That unity will result in a "lessening" of the split we currently see in the fan base.

The only wrench in the gears of the above scenario are those that will choose to never, ever, EVER support, participate in playtesting, or play D&D Next...for whatever reason.

<snip>

Writing Next off at this early of a point, and choosing to not share the experience you've acquired is "getting out of the way".

Also, it seems to me that choosing to stay split, when the opportunity is available to mend that split, and then suggesting that somebody else is responsible for (or will be responsible for) increasing that split, is truly unfair and disingenuous.

The "split" that you are describing is, for me, like the "split" between those who enjoy Wagnerian opera (like me) and those who don't (like my partner). My way of dealing with that split is to not play very much Wagner while my partner is in the room. But when I'm enjoying my Wagner, it doesn't intefere with my enjoyment that there are others out there who don't like it.

Moving from simile to the case itself, the "split" in the D&D fanbase is obviously a commercial and marketing problem for WotC. But I don't feel myself under any special moral obligation to help them solve that problem. And I especially don't feel myself under any obligation to play a game I don't enjoy in order to keep them afloat commmercially.

And as [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] pointed out, I even moreso feel no such obligation, given that those who have actually caused WotC's commercial problem, namely, those who have stopped playing the game WotC produces and have stopped buying its products, have had a tendency to spend the last 4 years telling me that (i) I hate D&D, and (ii) I'm not really a roleplayer, and (iii) that my game is crap.

I know you think that this time it is different - that 4e was in some way divisive, whereas D&Dnext will be unifying. But that's not how it looks to me. 4e wasn't divisive - it's just that it offered a game experience that some wanted and others didn't. So those others didn't buy it or play it. And D&Dnext likewise will offer a game experience that some want and others don't. And those others won't buy it or play it. And I anticipate being one of them.

As for "sharings of experience", I'm one of the more prolific 4e posters on these boards. If WotC wants to know what (at least some) 4e players enjoy about 4e, they just have to look at threads like "Pemertonian scene framing" or "Why I like skill challenges".

So you're saying you already have a version of D&D that you can use for when you're playing with non-4E players? A game that can give you the general feel and experience of 4E while still providing the others in the group the same concerning their preferred feel and experience?

As I've already indicated, I personally don't think that it is possible to have a game that gives A the general "feel and experience" of 4e while giving someone else a funamentally non-4e experience. For me, as I posted upthread, the imprtant features of 4e go to pacing, resource management and the like. These are collective things.

It's like saying a game will at one and the same time give player A the feel of player-driven, scene-framing play and give player B the feel of GM-driven, Adventure Path play. Just because I can say the words doesn't mean I'm describinb an actually feasible state of affairs.

But for the married couple where the husband prefers a ranch house, and the wife prefers a victorian, you can put together the components in a way that feels like a ranch house to the husband and a victorian for the wife.

<snip>

Will it be better than a place that would individually be perfect for each individual? Of course not; but since rooming together is a priority for them, it's the best solution.

I am not in this situation. So if that's what D&Dnext has to offer, I don't need its services.

That is unless you prefer to not play D&D at all, any edition of D&D, if you find yourself unable to play 4E for whatever reason.

Over the course of my GMing career I have run B/X, 1st ed AD&D, smatterings of 2nd ed AD&D and 3E, and 4e for the past four years. I also spent nearly 20 years GMing Rolemaster using mostly D&D story elements (Greyhawk and Oriental Adventures especially). And I have GMed other systems too.

I enjoy fantasy RPGig very much, including its gonzo D&D version. But I have no particular attachment to D&D as a mechanical system. I came back to D&D with 4e because the system offered me something I was looking for - gonzo fantasy with robust mechanics to reduce the need for GM force in pacing and adjuciation. When my 4e game finishes I'm hoping to run Burning Wheel, using some of the Penumbra d20 modules as story elements. (They have a gritty tone that I think will suit Burning Wheel.) If WotC puts out any decent adventures for D&Dnext I'll happily buy them, but won't feel any special compulsion to run them using that system: when I had a brief stint at GMing 3E I was running old classic D&D adventures (some stuff from an old White Dwarf, plus Castle Amber); when I ran Bastion of Broken Souls (a 3E module) it was in Rolemaster; and when I ran Night's Dark Terror (an old B/X module) it was for 4e.

If we all contribute, D&D Next has a very good chance of accomplishing the goals set down for it

<snip>

All it needs is cooperation, an optimistic attitude towards it (rather than choosing to be pessimistic...and that is a choice), and seeing D&D Next for what it is: for some, a new and preferred edition; for the rest, a suitable tool for use with groups that aren't unified by edition preference. It's as simple as that. No need for more edition warring. No need to repeat the fiasco of the switch from 3E to 4E. No need or cause for any angst or vitriol.

I don't have any angst or vitriol. All I'm saying is that I'm looking at a game which has very little to offer me.

Over the course of 2008 it became very clear to me, between the WotC information and my reading of Worlds & Monsters, that 4e was a game I was interested in playing. In particular, it became clear that it was a game that took the insights of indie RPG design, and the importance of the metagame, seriously. So what you are calling a "fiasco" was, for me, a time of optimism in fantasy RPGing.

It seems equally clear to me now that D&Dnext is not such a game, and I have no cause to be optimistic about it from my point of view. It's none of my business, of course, what games others play. All I'm pointing out is why D&Dnext seems to offer little to me as an RPG.

 

[Obryn]

Fwiw I am currently playing in a 2e game, was recently running a PF game and have an RC one-shot lined up when the new baby takes less time. And there is a big overlap between the groups.

Yep, and that's the quandary exactly. You're not exactly starved for options. It's not like your group needs Next in order to all play at the same table.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - I think the missing link here is that you and I found that 4e fixed our problems with other systems - it was a nice hybrid between narrative-style and trad-style gaming. The sort of play experience I'm after in a new D&D (keeping in mind I enjoy other playstyles, too, and already have those games) isn't anywhere in evidence so far. It's not really a preference I feel the need to budge on right now; my group and I are happy with the games we're playing, and a new game needs to audition for time rather than just getting slotted in because it's D&D.