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

[D'karr]

The thing which [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION] said was stupid was the joke about yelling severed limbs back on. I don't think you have to be biased to see the comment as silly.

BINGO! I guess I was being clear within the context of the various conversations after all.

 

[Mournblade94]

I keep seeing things like this being said. Ironically, it seems that this time around it's mostly from 4E fans, while in the past it seemed to be those who were anti-4E.

This is simply a function of the fact that one 'group' feels what they like is being threatened. 3rd edition grognards in 2008 lost something. Now 4e fans are in danger of losing something. Proving once again the edition war is a two sided endeavor. Somehow the side with the new feels like they are in the 'right' for some reason and the ones that lost are just being disruptive.

The edition wars were pretty vicious for two reasons, all emotional (Of which I was a part as well.) 1) one group has LOST something, and they are protesting
2) the other group is happy with the new thing, and responding that the thing was LOST was worse and those that did not sign on should see that.

I don't know if there is anyway to get around it, I mean this happens in many aspects of life but it is specifically a first world problem. How lucky are we that our 'problems' derive from which edition is going to be supported rather than how we are going to eat this week?

 

[Mournblade94]

I agree that we (the D&D fans) should not make the same mistakes as before. I hope that WotC has learned that lesson too. The fans will have D&D for as long as they want, whether WotC publishes it or not. WotC are the ones that suffer financially without the fans.

Thankfully the OGL by Ryan Dancey and crew made D&D Immune to corporate failure.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Exactly. Honestly the statements of Mike et al are somewhat secondary. The proof is in the pudding so to speak, and the DDN pudding lacks the ingredients required to make a 4e-like game. I don't doubt that if you gutted it hard enough to you could build such a game on the basic mechanics, but you'll have to so far down as it stands now that you'd effectively be barely any better off than starting at zero, and calling that and the game they are aiming at now both by the same name wouldn't mean much. If that's a plan WotC has there's no way for us to tell from the actual playtest material.

That's where we end up at Mike's statements, which have included stating there will not be alternate class mechanics, that martial healing is 'shouting severed limbs back on', and the whole rest of the litany of things that have come up here. None of those exactly precludes a 4e-like set of options, game designers change their minds, get some new religion, or get replaced, all the time, and WotC as a whole can't be held to any specific statements about what products it MIGHT or MIGHT NOT make months or years down the road. All we can say is that DDN currently doesn't support 4e-like play, Mike etc don't talk like they consider that sort of play to be something they care for, and some things they've said are most naturally construed to mean that there isn't planned to be a significantly reworked set of options such that 4e-like play would be possible.

@El Madhi IMHO the evidence has been presented, along with an analysis and interpretation of it. As Pemerton says you are welcome to critique our analysis and provide an alternative one, but the whole "people are being disingenuous, there's no evidence" line is simply not going to fly. Nobody is being deceptive or deliberately twisting anything. IMHO nobody is being overly biased on our side. In fact if anything could it possibly be that you've dug yourself in so hard that you can't see the logic of any other position anymore? I kind of feel like that's the case here. If we're wrong, then argue the facts, not the people.

 

[D'karr]

First, it wasn't snark. So you got that one wrong.

Okay.

Then.

Doing so is a communication technique used to avoid misunderstanding. Perhaps you've never encountered it before, but it's a very useful tool in making sure communication is clear, and is most definitely not snark. It goes kind of like this: "So, what I'm hearing is.... Is that correct?"

For someone that says that they are not using snark, it sure sounds a lot like it, and condescending too.

I also find it interesting that instead of responding with a clarified answer, you decided to respond with a statement simply saying it was clear all on it's own.

In other words, a non-answer.

Cool. That's your perogative.

I did not feel that it was necessary to further clarify. What I said was clear - "we and WotC", in the same paragraph even. So jumping to the conclusion that I was saying that the responsibility was all Mearls was incorrect and I pointed that out, and I didn't see a need to expand on it.

My confusion is due to the absence of anything in your post about having learned the lesson yourself (only that you agree we shouldn't make the same mistakes), yet you do continue to make the same mistakes yourself (posting in the same manner and applying bias in the same way as those that attacked you and your favorite edition), and then focusing your statement almost entirely on Mearls situation and responsibilities (again, avoiding any mention of yours).

And here you go again, here you make assumptions. Who is talking about attacking any editions? I was not butthurt when TSR put out 2e, or WotC put out 3.0. I was not butthurt when WotC put out 3.5 or 4e, and I sure as heck am not going to be butthurt when they put out DDN, 6.x, 10i, or the next 70 editions. I'm not posting any bias. I'm not blaming WotC or even Mearls for anything. I simply said what I meant. We the fans need to not get our panties in a bunch, and WotC should stop saying stupid things. Is there more context needed to that?

However, instead of making an assumption that you were intentionally trying to avoid including yourself in having that responsibility, and intentionally not addressing your current perpetuation of those same mistakes, I instead rephrased and asked for clarification; to which you decided to reply with actual snark (not just percieved).

No, no snark, just a clear answer to your question. Did you get it incorrectly? Yes you did. Then I quoted exactly what you had quoted and there was no snark there either. If you took that as snark, I don't know what to say to you. I'm not being defensive in this, I have said - and you quoted, exactly what I meant.

So, this time I do not prefer an answer; and I consider this part of the conversation finished as far as I'm concerned.

That sounds good.

Game On. Play What You Like. See You Around the Boards. Etc., Etc.


Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong

Yep, same to you.

 

[innerdude]

. . . The proof is in the pudding so to speak, and the DDN pudding lacks the ingredients required to make a 4e-like game. I don't doubt that if you gutted it hard enough to you could build such a game on the basic mechanics, but you'll have to so far down as it stands now that you'd effectively be barely any better off than starting at zero, and calling that and the game they are aiming at now both by the same name wouldn't mean much. If that's a plan WotC has there's no way for us to tell from the actual playtest material.

AEDU and tactical, grid-based combat "are 4e," at least as we know it.

Someone else said it in one of the other threads (AbdulAlhazred? Kamikaze Midget?), but most of the rest of 4e is just cleaned-up 3e---changes to skills, 1/2 level added to checks rather than the various, random modifiers per class, healing surges (previewed as "second wind" in Star Wars Saga), etc.

And the "DDN pudding" right now lacks the ability to support the AEDU structure, as both D&DN system and 4e AEDU mechanic are currently constituted.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[pemerton]

AEDU and tactical, grid-based combat "are 4e," at least as we know it.

I personally don't agree with this - not that it's wrong, but it leaves stuff out.

If I had to boil down 4e to a single essence, I would say it is the encounter/challenge as the site of action resolution.

AEDU feeds into that, but on its own doesn't achieve it.