Living Dice Article: "Is It Really D&D Next?"

www.livingdice.com/6963/is-it-really-dd-...


"My only remaining worry is that the pillars of this new system will never be changed even if fan response proves them unpopular. One of these ideological foundations is the apparent obsession in recreating the perfect storm churned up by 3rd Edition, effectively disregarding the contributions of 4th Edition. The common complaint I’ve been reading recently is the similarity between this new edition with 3rd Edition and the lack of any carryover from 4th, peculiar considering the apparent assumed consensus that 4th Edition was a disaster on the same scale of New Coke and Highlander 2."

It sounds like the blogger has no experience with D&D out side of 3e and 4e. It definitely wasn't 3e that DDN reminded me of. In fact, the sheer fact that there is no vertical scaling of attack bonuses, skills, and saving throws is such a vast difference between 3e, I am puzzled how anyone could come to that conclusion.
www.livingdice.com/6963/is-it-really-dd-...


"My only remaining worry is that the pillars of this new system will never be changed even if fan response proves them unpopular. One of these ideological foundations is the apparent obsession in recreating the perfect storm churned up by 3rd Edition, effectively disregarding the contributions of 4th Edition. The common complaint I’ve been reading recently is the similarity between this new edition with 3rd Edition and the lack of any carryover from 4th, peculiar considering the apparent assumed consensus that 4th Edition was a disaster on the same scale of New Coke and Highlander 2."




Why would the people who like the direction their headed in complain about it? Many people are stating a preference for the implications of D&DNext.


I would never compare 4e to Highlander 2.

4e actually had some enjoyable parts in it.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I think 5th edition is trying to distance itself from 4th edition and associate itself with the concepts that all editions of D&D had in common.  I believe this is specifically a response to the fact that after everything was said and done, 4th edition did not do well.  Thats just my opinion, but I don't see any evidence in 5th edition that says "hey 4th edition was awsome, lets build from that", its more like "crap, how are we going to make a new edition and maintain the few 4th edition players while re-capturing the masses that have left the system".  Again just my observation here, but thats how I see this whole thing playing out.  By the time 5th edition comes out I doubt there will be much that is reckognizable from 4th edition in the game.

My Blog (The Gamers Think Tank)

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

I think 5th edition is trying to distance itself from 4th edition and associate itself with the concepts that all editions of D&D had in common.  I believe this is specifically a response to the fact that after everything was said and done, 4th edition did not do well.  Thats just my opinion, but I don't see any evidence in 5th edition that says "hey 4th edition was awsome, lets build from that", its more like "crap, how are we going to make a new edition and maintain the few 4th edition players while re-capturing the masses that have left the system".  Again just my observation here, but thats how I see this whole thing playing out.  By the time 5th edition comes out I doubt there will be much that is reckognizable from 4th edition in the game.

And  contrariwise I think you'll see more and more influence from 4e. The problem is that much of what is in 4e is a simple logical necessity of needs of the game. 5e's current attempt at a healing system for example is fail. It neither accomplishes what the 4e healing system did, nor is it really that much like AD&D healing. The problem here is AD&D healing was too limited and led to the heinous mess that was 3e healing. Inevitably if you work out the bugs in 5e's healing you end up with 4e's healing. You can go back to 2e healing, but that will just mean you finally end up with 3e healing again!

I could go on, but the problem is the 4e developers already thought through all of this and came to certain inevitable conclusions on a lot of points. Their EXACT solutions aren't sacred or necessarily the best, but the approach they took in every case is the logical and usually almost inevitable direction. Given that 5e is going to basically stay within the bounds of what has been in previous editions there's only one way it can go forward.

I won't even touch the whole 'popularity' swamp except to say that if WotC is going to pull off a success they don't need "a few" 4th ed players, because I've got news for you, there are a LOT of us. No, they will need 90% of us onboard. We're the ones that are actually spending money NOW. We're also the ones that aren't going to obsess over some obscure difference between 5e and 1e AD&D or whatever. It is already proven I'll buy a good game from them.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
www.livingdice.com/6963/is-it-really-dd-...


"My only remaining worry is that the pillars of this new system will never be changed even if fan response proves them unpopular. One of these ideological foundations is the apparent obsession in recreating the perfect storm churned up by 3rd Edition, effectively disregarding the contributions of 4th Edition. The common complaint I’ve been reading recently is the similarity between this new edition with 3rd Edition and the lack of any carryover from 4th, peculiar considering the apparent assumed consensus that 4th Edition was a disaster on the same scale of New Coke and Highlander 2."



And yet another 4e fan who seems to not have gotten the memo that the 4e-style things are being introduced later.

Seriously, people, they are adding 4e-styled things.  They said so several times.  There is no "consensus that 4th edition was a disaster" at WotC, no matter what the internet may lead you to believe.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Interesting insights.  Two things that jumped out to me:

"Defining something does not add complexity... Definitions allow homebrew DMs to redefine them. Definitions remove doubt..."


I totally agree with this.  I have a big problem with the skill system; not the adjudication of the DCs or which ability score to use, but rather that the skills are undefined.  I have only a vague sense of what sort of checks Natural Lore or Commerce apply to.


"In this new version, one monster can cast spells—because nothing says speedy combat like a DM having to flip through a Player’s Handbook."


I haven't played with this particular monster yet, but this makes me cringe.  I hope this is somehting that gets purged as the monsters are better defined.

I love D&D more than I could ever love a human child.

I won't even touch the whole 'popularity' swamp except to say that if WotC is going to pull off a success they don't need "a few" 4th ed players, because I've got news for you, there are a LOT of us. No, they will need 90% of us onboard. We're the ones that are actually spending money NOW. We're also the ones that aren't going to obsess over some obscure difference between 5e and 1e AD&D or whatever. It is already proven I'll buy a good game from them.


Such truth! 4E players are largely here because we've adapted to and valued the changes from edition to edition. We didn't walk away in a huff when gnomes and druids didn't make it into the first PH for 4E. We stuck around becuase we valued the underlying ideas, so we could be patient with some changes. I don't think that's the kind of audience you make no effort to keep, unless DDN is really just supposed to be a "Greatest Hits" nostalgia purchase for everyone who hated the new album.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

I think 5th edition is trying to distance itself from 4th edition and associate itself with the concepts that all editions of D&D had in common.  I believe this is specifically a response to the fact that after everything was said and done, 4th edition did not do well.  Thats just my opinion, but I don't see any evidence in 5th edition that says "hey 4th edition was awsome, lets build from that", its more like "crap, how are we going to make a new edition and maintain the few 4th edition players while re-capturing the masses that have left the system".  Again just my observation here, but thats how I see this whole thing playing out.  By the time 5th edition comes out I doubt there will be much that is reckognizable from 4th edition in the game.



Well, it's a shame WotC won't even hint at the real numbers and their trending. 

All indications were, for quite a while 4E was doing fantastically. It hit national bestsellers lists, which was a first for D&D that I recall. All of the releases topped the charts on Amazon, and according to the numbers of major distributors like Diamond/Alliance, in their trade periodicals.  Encounters, too, was a huge success, for that type of program especially (which historically...umm...suck).

You know when the numbers started to really plummet, as I recall? When WotC went from a steady (and perhaps too flooded) release schedule, to almost nothing for quite some time, followed by the release of...............Essentials. That was the brick wall that essentially destroyed 4E and thrust Pathfinder into the limelight. Now, Pathfinder according to the numbers Alliance, etc, was giving us retailers, was solid. But 4E was simply selling more, period. 

WotC, of course, will not confirm this, or the numbers and when they started to trend downwards. 

So...basically, as far as the data we retailers were given for a very long time, 4E was trucking along just fine, although the supplement release schedule should have been pulled back somewhat. Then Mike Mearls got ahold of the game, and released what ended up being an overall spectacular failure of a tweaking and relaunch of the game, and seems to be now working hard on effectively destroying what was learned and was a success with regards to 4E.

So...where, exactly, does the problem seem to actually lie? Not with 4E, with the data we retailers were given for years. Data given to us not by WotC, but rather by the leading distributor of the game to local brick and mortar stores (Alliance Games) and also the top online seller (Amazon). EDIT: Oh, and those were also the numbers we were given by the trade periodicals that compiled data from the brick and mortar retailers directly, and gave us the rough percentages of market share, and list of top 10 sellers in each genre of game and comic, RPGs being one of those genres, and D&D 4E always being top dog in it.

The blogger is wrong about PF players not playing next
I am a PF and 3.5 GM and my group Play-tested DnD Next last week the entire group had positive things to say, most of all a simpler combat so that the story can flow faster. Some of the players see a problem with protecting the wizard. Amazingly my PF group likes the way skills are done. Most of my games with PF for the last two years, have been fun, but... there is a lot of powercreep in PF, lots of bonus inflation just like 4ed, The battles take a long time the combat rules are not easy to learn, I basically had to train people all the time who thought they knew the rules, at high level battles take much longer, and high level casters can chessmaster any group. I missed some iconic D&D creatures that are copyrighted. Most of the players in PF take the same feats. the feats are pretty much obsalete cus it's assumed your going to have toughness, power attack, precise shot etc. I mention these issues 'cus I think DnD Next is addressing them. They won't win over all of the PF players but they will win me over if they stay the course they are on. We are all going to have to make some compromises to have One D&D we love. I'm willing to compromise that players start with a lot of hp, can heal on their own and can heal all hp with one day of rest. I guess I can compromise that theres not a vancian cleric, that would be a nice module though, hint.

Such truth! 4E players are largely here because we've adapted to and valued the changes from edition to edition. We didn't walk away in a huff when gnomes and druids didn't make it into the first PH for 4E. We stuck around becuase we valued the underlying ideas, so we could be patient with some changes. I don't think that's the kind of audience you make no effort to keep, unless DDN is really just supposed to be a "Greatest Hits" nostalgia purchase for everyone who hated the new album.



OK, not all 4e people want 4e to continue nor do we all think its features should be in 5e. I for one embraced 4e from day 1 and supported it heavily for the past 3+ years. I wrote/co-wrote 7 Living Forgotten Realms adventures and was a staunch supporter for the better part of its life-cycle.

However, I have grown to dislike almost everything about it and yearn for the look and feel of the D&D of old. I want a new coat of paint on the old D&D (pre-3e) and I think 5e is going to give us that. 

My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)

Seriously, people, they are adding 4e-styled things.  They said so several times.  There is no "consensus that 4th edition was a disaster" at WotC, no matter what the internet may lead you to believe.

See, the problem though, is that I want them to start with the 4th Ed stuff and build from there, not add it later on the back of a shaky 1st Ed system.  When 4th Ed was created, WotC didn't go "You know what would work? If we brought back a lot of game elements from 2nd Ed like THAC0 and negative armor classes, maybe go with Weapon/Non-Weapon Proficiencies, tack on some 3rd Ed elements later, and then polish it all up with a new mechanic or two like a AEUD power system for all the classes, and see where that takes us."

Instead they took the most current edition, used what they learned from it in the form of Positive Scaling on AC, a Skill List, workable options for the martial classes from the Tome of Battle, and then innovated things like turning Saves into static Defenses and balanced things using the new concept of the AEUD Powers system for class structure.  Then they added new things like Healing Surges as a limiter to healing to prevent some of the abuses of the past.

This is what I want to see in my DDN development.  I want to see them taking core concepts that worked from 4th Ed and using it as a base from which to evolve and innovate.  The concept of classes being shells and Themes and Backgrounds being the meat of a character is genius.  Think of all the work WotC doesn't have to do now developing more and more classes whole-cloth when they can just release a batch of Themes to be combined with the four core classes.  With Themes, you can build any class you can imagine by combining the meat of a Theme with a Class shell.  In another thread, we even talking about how tossing a Necromancer theme on a Fighter got us a Deathknight that people would be interested in.  Why make a Paladin whole-cloth when you can toss either a Knightly Theme on a Cleric or a Blessed Theme on a Fighter.  That way you get two variations off of the same class idea.  4th Ed already can handle this concept.  I can put a Wizard's Apprentice Theme on a Fighter to get a Fighter with some slight magical powers.  Sure, the system isn't built for this combination to be optimal, but could you imagine if it were in DDN?

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.


Seriously, people, they are adding 4e-styled things.  They said so several times.  There is no "consensus that 4th edition was a disaster" at WotC, no matter what the internet may lead you to believe.

See, the problem though, is that I want them to start with the 4th Ed stuff and build from there, not add it later on the back of a shaky 1st Ed system.  When 4th Ed was created, WotC didn't go "You know what would work? If we brought back a lot of game elements from 2nd Ed like THAC0 and negative armor classes, maybe go with Weapon/Non-Weapon Proficiencies, tack on some 3rd Ed elements later, and then polish it all up with a new mechanic or two like a AEUD power system for all the classes, and see where that takes us."

Instead they took the most current edition, used what they learned from it in the form of Positive Scaling on AC, a Skill List, workable options for the martial classes from the Tome of Battle, and then innovated things like turning Saves into static Defenses and balanced things using the new concept of the AEUD Powers system for class structure.  Then they added new things like Healing Surges as a limiter to healing to prevent some of the abuses of the past.

This is what I want to see in my DDN development.  I want to see them taking core concepts that worked from 4th Ed and using it as a base from which to evolve and innovate.  The concept of classes being shells and Themes and Backgrounds being the meat of a character is genius.  Think of all the work WotC doesn't have to do now developing more and more classes whole-cloth when they can just release a batch of Themes to be combined with the four core classes.  With Themes, you can build any class you can imagine by combining the meat of a Theme with a Class shell.  In another thread, we even talking about how tossing a Necromancer theme on a Fighter got us a Deathknight that people would be interested in.  Why make a Paladin whole-cloth when you can toss either a Knightly Theme on a Cleric or a Blessed Theme on a Fighter.  That way you get two variations off of the same class idea.  4th Ed already can handle this concept.  I can put a Wizard's Apprentice Theme on a Fighter to get a Fighter with some slight magical powers.  Sure, the system isn't built for this combination to be optimal, but could you imagine if it were in DDN?



With 4e, I don't think is was a progression of 3e/3.5e at all. I think they threw out just about everything we knew and loved about D&D and tried a completely different approach(content removed). I don't think you can deny that.

With 5e, they realized their mistake and are looking at finding the best of all editions, understanding what makes D&D what it is and then trying to improve on that. And some 4e mechanics are being incorporated because not all of 4e was bad, just most of it. lol


ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Edition Warring is against the Code of Conduct
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
It sounds like the blogger has no experience with D&D out side of 3e and 4e. It definitely wasn't 3e that DDN reminded me of. In fact, the sheer fact that there is no vertical scaling of attack bonuses, skills, and saving throws is such a vast difference between 3e, I am puzzled how anyone could come to that conclusion.



It's quite simple, they said they'd be pulling together elements from every edition, and since all of them were still D&D in some fashion or other, people see either what they want to see or what they don't want to see.

I see elements of 4e (at wills, dailies, "hit on miss" attacks, and even the flattened power curve - yes, that's 4e, which just had artificial power scaling instead, but everything was kept balanced all the same), of 3e (the d20 system), 2e (themes are like kits, although obviously 4e had them too), RC (the skill system), 0e (ability checks as saves is saves as ability checks inverted)... not really seeing any 1e in it, but I'm pretty happy about that. Depending on what you're familiar with, you'll see things differently.

(content removed). The difference is how they were presented.  In order to stay relevant in today's marketplace, WotC just happened to choose a more recognizable presentation method for the youth of today. 

Also I'm of the opinion that 4th Ed had more right going for it than wrong, but that's a debate for another thread.


ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Edition Warring is against the Code of Conduct

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.


(content removed)In order to stay relevant in today's marketplace, WotC just happened to choose a more recognizable presentation method for the youth of today.  


Also I'm of the opinion that 4th Ed had more right going for it than wrong, but that's a debate for another thread.




You're assuming what I would name as being ripped from an MMO. First, I would tell you that, although I've heard others say it's an MMO or like an MMO, that I've never read anything stating why and so my own opinion as to why might be completely different than anyone else's. At the very least they would be original thinking from my own experience and not taken from any other source.

Second, I fully embraced 4e when it came out and staunchly supported it for 3+ years as I wrote/co-wrote 7 LFR adventures. But looking back, I was just kidding myself about so many things. I dislike almost everything about it now. But, yes, that would be another discussion completely.

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)

(content removed)  In order to stay relevant in today's marketplace, WotC just happened to choose a more recognizable presentation method for the youth of today. 

Also I'm of the opinion that 4th Ed had more right going for it than wrong, but that's a debate for another thread.




You're assuming what I would name as being ripped from an MMO. First, I would tell you that, although I've heard others say it's an MMO or like an MMO, that I've never read anything stating why and so my own opinion as to why might be completely different than anyone else's. At the very least they would be original thinking from my own experience and not taken from any other source.

No I'm pretty much just assuming that whatever you could find, whether regurgitated from people who spout off that claim without knowing any better because it's a popular claim to make without having to back up anything by it, or you came across some legitimate ideas of your own, can be shown to be available in some form or another in previous editions of D&D.  Granted you'd first have to explain why any given mechanic or idea that you chose is linked to an MMO concept specifically and how it is a clear break from RPGs to that point (beings that you're the one making said accusation).



ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.


(content removed)The difference is how they were presented.  In order to stay relevant in today's marketplace, WotC just happened to choose a more recognizable presentation method for the youth of today. 

Also I'm of the opinion that 4th Ed had more right going for it than wrong, but that's a debate for another thread.




You're assuming what I would name as being ripped from an MMO. First, I would tell you that, although I've heard others say it's an MMO or like an MMO, that I've never read anything stating why and so my own opinion as to why might be completely different than anyone else's. At the very least they would be original thinking from my own experience and not taken from any other source.

No I'm pretty much just assuming that whatever you could find, whether regurgitate from people who spout off that claim without knowing any better because it's a popular claim to make without having to back up anything by it, or you came across some legitimate ideas of your own, can be shown to be available in some form or another in previous editions of D&D.  Granted you'd first have to explain why any given mechanic or idea that you chose is linked to an MMO concept specifically and how it is a clear break from RPGs to that point (beings that you're the one making said accusation).







(content removed)

1. 4e provided rules for every conceivable game mechanic, which made it predictable and boring instead of dynamic and fun
2. Too much healing. Characters could fight, heal up, fight, heal up, almost endlessly. No sense of danger at all. 
3. Too may race options
4. Too many class options
5. Too many powers/feats/paths, etc.
6. Stat blocks for monsters that could take up 1 or more columns on a single page
7. Immediate Interrupt and Reaction overkill
8. AoO
9. Too many conditions to track
10. Marking
11. Imbalance between PCs and monsters at higher levels
12. At-Will spells instead of traditional vancian style. The hybrid in 5e is better, but not ideal.
13. Tactical overload accumulated from so many of the above things that combat could take 1-2 hours to complete, which left little time for the other aspects of D&D that are fun (such as role-playing, exploration, puzzles, traps,  story, etc.)
14. Magic Items lost so much that it wasn't even like having a magic item
15. Monster powers that used to make them unique or deadly were dumbed down to wimpy effects.

I'm sure I could think of more, but those are the highlights.

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Edition Warring is against the Code of Conduct
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
(content removed)

1. 4e provided rules for every conceivable game mechanic, which made it predictable and boring instead of dynamic and fun
2. Too much healing. Characters could fight, heal up, fight, heal up, almost endlessly. No sense of danger at all. 
3. Too may race options
4. Too many class options
5. Too many powers/feats/paths, etc.
6. Stat blocks for monsters that could take up 1 or more columns on a single page
7. Immediate Interrupt and Reaction overkill
8. AoO
9. Too many conditions to track
10. Marking
11. Imbalance between PCs and monsters at higher levels
12. At-Will spells instead of traditional vancian style. The hybrid in 5e is better, but not ideal.
13. Tactical overload accumulated from so many of the above things that combat could take 1-2 hours to complete, which left little time for the other aspects of D&D that are fun (such as role-playing, exploration, puzzles, traps,  story, etc.)
14. Magic Items lost so much that it wasn't even like having a magic item
15. Monster powers that used to make them unique or deadly were dumbed down to wimpy effects.

I'm sure I could think of more, but those are the highlights.

Much of this list looks like a complaint list for 3rd Ed as well.  My earlier explanation of 4th Ed building off of 3rd Ed ideas seems about as accurate as it was when I previously made it.

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity




@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

(content removed)

1. 4e provided rules for every conceivable game mechanic, which made it predictable and boring instead of dynamic and fun
2. Too much healing. Characters could fight, heal up, fight, heal up, almost endlessly. No sense of danger at all. 
3. Too may race options
4. Too many class options
5. Too many powers/feats/paths, etc.
6. Stat blocks for monsters that could take up 1 or more columns on a single page
7. Immediate Interrupt and Reaction overkill
8. AoO
9. Too many conditions to track
10. Marking
11. Imbalance between PCs and monsters at higher levels
12. At-Will spells instead of traditional vancian style. The hybrid in 5e is better, but not ideal.
13. Tactical overload accumulated from so many of the above things that combat could take 1-2 hours to complete, which left little time for the other aspects of D&D that are fun (such as role-playing, exploration, puzzles, traps,  story, etc.)
14. Magic Items lost so much that it wasn't even like having a magic item
15. Monster powers that used to make them unique or deadly were dumbed down to wimpy effects.

I'm sure I could think of more, but those are the highlights.

Much of this list looks like a complaint list for 3rd Ed as well.  My earlier explanation of 4th Ed building off of 3rd Ed ideas seems about as accurate as it was when I previously made it.







Well, I only played 3e/3.5e for a brief time and hated it as well for its complexity, but a lot of what I said in that list is purely 4e nonsense only. Magic in 3e was traditional, monsters were traditional, magic items were traditional, healing was traditional, no at-wills, not required to use a battlemat/miniatures, etc.

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
(content removed)

1. 4e provided rules for every conceivable game mechanic, which made it predictable and boring instead of dynamic and fun
2. Too much healing. Characters could fight, heal up, fight, heal up, almost endlessly. No sense of danger at all. 
3. Too may race options
4. Too many class options
5. Too many powers/feats/paths, etc.
6. Stat blocks for monsters that could take up 1 or more columns on a single page
7. Immediate Interrupt and Reaction overkill
8. AoO
9. Too many conditions to track
10. Marking
11. Imbalance between PCs and monsters at higher levels
12. At-Will spells instead of traditional vancian style. The hybrid in 5e is better, but not ideal.
13. Tactical overload accumulated from so many of the above things that combat could take 1-2 hours to complete, which left little time for the other aspects of D&D that are fun (such as role-playing, exploration, puzzles, traps,  story, etc.)
14. Magic Items lost so much that it wasn't even like having a magic item
15. Monster powers that used to make them unique or deadly were dumbed down to wimpy effects.

I'm sure I could think of more, but those are the highlights.

Much of this list looks like a complaint list for 3rd Ed as well.  My earlier explanation of 4th Ed building off of 3rd Ed ideas seems about as accurate as it was when I previously made it.







Well, I only played 3e/3.5e for a brief time and hated it as well for its complexity, but a lot of what I said in that list is purely 4e nonsense only. Magic in 3e was traditional, monsters were traditional, magic items were traditional, healing was traditional, no at-wills, not required to use a battlemat/miniatures, etc.

I don't think you played 3.X enough (as you've admitted) to make such broad and sweeping generalizations.  All the things that I have bolded above are exactly the same complaints that could be made (and have been made) of 3rd Edition.

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

(content removed)

1. 4e provided rules for every conceivable game mechanic, which made it predictable and boring instead of dynamic and fun
2. Too much healing. Characters could fight, heal up, fight, heal up, almost endlessly. No sense of danger at all. 
3. Too may race options
4. Too many class options
5. Too many powers/feats/paths, etc.
6. Stat blocks for monsters that could take up 1 or more columns on a single page
7. Immediate Interrupt and Reaction overkill
8. AoO
9. Too many conditions to track
10. Marking
11. Imbalance between PCs and monsters at higher levels
12. At-Will spells instead of traditional vancian style. The hybrid in 5e is better, but not ideal.
13. Tactical overload accumulated from so many of the above things that combat could take 1-2 hours to complete, which left little time for the other aspects of D&D that are fun (such as role-playing, exploration, puzzles, traps,  story, etc.)
14. Magic Items lost so much that it wasn't even like having a magic item
15. Monster powers that used to make them unique or deadly were dumbed down to wimpy effects.

I'm sure I could think of more, but those are the highlights.

Much of this list looks like a complaint list for 3rd Ed as well.  My earlier explanation of 4th Ed building off of 3rd Ed ideas seems about as accurate as it was when I previously made it.







Well, I only played 3e/3.5e for a brief time and hated it as well for its complexity, but a lot of what I said in that list is purely 4e nonsense only. Magic in 3e was traditional, monsters were traditional, magic items were traditional, healing was traditional, no at-wills, not required to use a battlemat/miniatures, etc.

I don't think you played 3.X enough (as you've admitted) to make such broad and sweeping generalizations.  All the things that I have bolded above are exactly the same complaints that could be made (and have been made) of 3rd Edition.




#2: 3e had healing surges and second wind?
#3,#4,#5: Didn't 4e added even more or were there just as many in 3e all said and done?
#13: Nothing could be as bad as 4e in this regard
#14: I find this one hard to believe. I seem to recall the magic items were very similar to 1e/2e style magic items
#15: Like you would have the gaze of a medusa not turn you to stone on the first failed save? Or the removal of level drains? That sort of thing.

Doesn't matter. I'll concede that it was on some level a progression of 3e.

However, if 3e was that bad then why on earth would you want 5e to be a progression of a progression of a bad thing?

My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)


#2: 3e had healing surges and second wind?
#3,#4,#5: Didn't 4e added even more or were there just as many in 3e all said and done?
#13: Nothing could be as bad as 4e in this regard
#14: I find this one hard to believe. I seem to recall the magic items were very similar to 1e/2e style magic items
#15: Like you would have the gaze of a medusa not turn you to stone on the first failed save? Or the removal of level drains? That sort of thing.

Doesn't matter. I'll concede that it was on some level a progression of 3e.

However, if 3e was that bad then why on earth would you want 5e to be a progression of a progression of a bad thing?

Despite your concession, I'll answer these quickly anyway for the sake of completeness:

#2: 3.X had spellcasters that could crank out barrels of potions and wands of Cure X Wounds by the bushel.  Healing was never an issue.
#3,#4,#5:  I'm actually pretty sure that if you did the math right now, 3.X still has more options than 4th does on all accounts.
#13:  Options breed overload.  More options breeds greater overload.
#14:  Magical items were a dime a dozen in 3.X due to the very easy item crafting rules for them coupled with the Alchemist class whose sole purpose was to melt down magic item loot and make whatever items the party wanted to have.  3.X is where the specialty of magical items went to die.  4th just sorta carried on that trend.
#15:  Yes, though with other iconic D&D monster like the Tarrasque (who went from being the most deadly thing ever to being something a dragon could kill on a fair day).

The difference is that I don't see all of those things you are complaining about as so bad that they weren't worth being used as a base for innovation.  4th Ed wasn't perfect by any means, but it was a much more balanced and comprehensive product than its predecessors.  I'd hate to see some of the work and the lessons that were learned along the way go to waste.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.



#2: 3e had healing surges and second wind?
#3,#4,#5: Didn't 4e added even more or were there just as many in 3e all said and done?
#13: Nothing could be as bad as 4e in this regard
#14: I find this one hard to believe. I seem to recall the magic items were very similar to 1e/2e style magic items
#15: Like you would have the gaze of a medusa not turn you to stone on the first failed save? Or the removal of level drains? That sort of thing.

Doesn't matter. I'll concede that it was on some level a progression of 3e.

However, if 3e was that bad then why on earth would you want 5e to be a progression of a progression of a bad thing?

Despite your concession, I'll answer these quickly anyway for the sake of completeness:

#2: 3.X had spellcasters that could crank out barrels of potions and wands of Cure X Wounds by the bushel.  Healing was never an issue.
#3,#4,#5:  I'm actually pretty sure that if you did the math right now, 3.X still has more options than 4th does on all accounts.
#13:  Options breed overload.  More options breeds greater overload.
#14:  Magical items were a dime a dozen in 3.X due to the very easy item crafting rules for them coupled with the Alchemist class whose sole purpose was to melt down magic item loot and make whatever items the party wanted to have.  3.X is where the specialty of magical items went to die.  4th just sorta carried on that trend.
#15:  Yes, though with other iconic D&D monster like the Tarrasque (who went from being the most deadly thing ever to being something a dragon could kill on a fair day).

The difference is that I don't see all of those things you are complaining about as so bad that they weren't worth being used as a base for innovation.  4th Ed wasn't perfect by any means, but it was a much more balanced and comprehensive product than its predecessors.  I'd hate to see some of the work and the lessons that were learned along the way go to waste.



Well, after dealing with 4e for 3+ years, I don't want too much of that in any D&D game ever again. I truly believe 2e should be the hard base and that improvements and ideas from other editions should be added from there and then new ideas from that point. Anyway, I just want the best D&D we've ever had. I want to have fun in D&D again. So far, from the 5e playtesting, that has been the case.
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
(content removed)

1. 4e provided rules for every conceivable game mechanic, which made it predictable and boring instead of dynamic and fun



3E, 2E and 1E had so many rules upon rules upon rules and charts upon charts upon charts for everything from social situations, to how NPCs reacted to you, to random encounters up the wazoo, to professions and crafting and skills and buildings and owning kingdoms and property and followers and armies and more, to dozens and dozens of planes and demiplanes and the unique mechanics inherent to each and every one, including what lived there and how to survive when it was even possible, and so much more, in book after book. Plus, casters with literally hundreds upon hundreds of pages of rules, while martial classes could take up a couple dozen pages for all of them combined in terms of rules for them.

2. Too much healing. Characters could fight, heal up, fight, heal up, almost endlessly. No sense of danger at all.



Except when you couldn't, because you ran out of surges. As opposed to, I dunno, unlimited, cheap, easy to make by the PCs themselves healing potions that ensure that after every fight, you heal up, without even a limiting factor to how many times it happens in a day.

3. Too may race options



As opposed to the dozens upon dozens of races and subraces spread out between each previous edition.

4. Too many class options



As opposed to the multitude of classes and subclasses and wildly different mechanics with little cohesion between them, requiring you to know nearly as many subsystems as classes. 

5. Too many powers/feats/paths, etc.



As opposed to hundreds and hundreds of pages of powers for casters, and just how many prestige classes and feats in 3E, with wild disparity in power level, and many with complicated prerequisites?

6. Stat blocks for monsters that could take up 1 or more columns on a single page



As opposed to stat blocks for monsters that could take up multiple PAGES in a book.

7. Immediate Interrupt and Reaction overkill

As opposed to swift and immediate action overkill.

8. AoO



As opposed to...AoOs. -_-

9. Too many conditions to track



As opposed to keeping track of as many unique effects as there are spells, with nearly as many inherent conditions on top of said enormous number of unique effects.

10. Marking



As opposed to no one being able to prevent monsters from getting where and when they want and wreaking havoc with little to no actual repercussions.

11. Imbalance between PCs and monsters at higher levels



As opposed to imbalance between PCs and PCs at lower-middle to higher levels...in addition to radical disparity between monsters, with some total pushovers, and others able to save-or-die a whole party into oblivion with a little luck, and no real trouble.

12. At-Will spells instead of traditional vancian style. The hybrid in 5e is better, but not ideal.



As opposed to running out of spells in the early levels and pulling out a crossbow (therefore no longer feeling at all magical), or at higher levels ending encounter after encounter with a small handful of spells that no non-caster could hope to compete with, trivializing or allowing the bypassing of an enormous % of encounters.

13. Tactical overload accumulated from so many of the above things that combat could take 1-2 hours to complete, which left little time for the other aspects of D&D that are fun (such as role-playing, exploration, puzzles, traps,  story, etc.)



As opposed to...little to no real battlefield tactics for non-casters. That, and as opposed to combat taking...1-2 hours to compete as players look up what spell of their many, many one-shot spells, some taking up a page or more of text in a book just to explain. 

14. Magic Items lost so much that it wasn't even like having a magic item



As opposed to having bags and bags of magic items that trivialize nearly as much content as spells can, while also having power levels ranging from nearly pointless to off-the-charts powerful and world-changing. I'm all for magic items feeling magical. I'm not for items that take a character and single-handedly ramp up its power level dramatically, or make encounters trivial, or allow characters to completely, trivially, and instantly bypass enormous amounts of content your DM took the time to work on for hours, days, even weeks.

15. Monster powers that used to make them unique or deadly were dumbed down to wimpy effects.



Except for all the monster powers unique to a given monster, and combinations of powers that give monsters a unique feel, while not requiring a half a page or more to explain how a single power on a single monster even works to begin with, but instead able to create vast differences with considerably less text than previous editions. As opposed to monster powers that with a single lucky roll of a die take a carefully thought out campaign, a carefully considered story, and an adored character with months or years of development, and utterly kills it, or the whole party, in one go, first round, before anyone or anything else even gets to act, having the raw power to completely derail the campaign instantly.

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity
Well, after dealing with 4e for 3+ years, I don't want too much of that in any D&D game ever again. I truly believe 2e should be the hard base and that improvements and ideas from other editions should be added from there and then new ideas from that point. Anyway, I just want the best D&D we've ever had. I want to have fun in D&D again. So far, from the 5e playtesting, that has been the case.

Which is kinda funny, and sort of telling about how different people can percieve things, because I grew up on 2nd Edition, hated the change to 3rd, and when 4th came out, I was happy to see a game that gave me the feel of 2nd Ed again. 

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

I started with the red/blue boxes and found 1st edition to be my favorite.  Second did make some changes but not many.  The only thing I didn't like about it was that they took out the gnome and half-orc.  I thought that 3.0 when it first came out to be a great change but after the first three books the rules got out of hand and was IMO never playtest thoroughly like the core books were.  However, I hated its complexity as well and the more I played the more I hated it.  Oh, and if you think this is bad go try Pathfinder, they turned the dial way up on complexity and power gaming. I pretty much agree with everything you guys have been discussing, that is to say what you dislike about third and fourth edition.  I have only DM'ed one session so far for the play test and it was a lot of fun.  We got through like 5 encounters in one session!  What do you all think of the new rules?
 
Well, after dealing with 4e for 3+ years, I don't want too much of that in any D&D game ever again. I truly believe 2e should be the hard base and that improvements and ideas from other editions should be added from there and then new ideas from that point. Anyway, I just want the best D&D we've ever had. I want to have fun in D&D again. So far, from the 5e playtesting, that has been the case.

Which is kinda funny, and sort of telling about how different people can percieve things, because I grew up on 2nd Edition, hated the change to 3rd, and when 4th came out, I was happy to see a game that gave me the feel of 2nd Ed again. 




I didn't change right to 3e myself. I took a break for a few years and when I went back and bought 3e it was way too complex for me to really sink my teeth into. I sort of just tried to play like 2e and not worry so much about all the crap that had been added, but it was a pain.

I loved the changed to 4e because it gave me a fresh start and no one was ahead of me on day 1. So, that was cool and I embraced it. I really did like a lot of stuff at first, but over the years, it just lost it's D&D feeling, the complexities were apparent, the imbalances stuck out, the combat grinds were horrible, etc. It in no way felt like 2e ever to me.
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
(content removed)


-snip-

I'm sure I could think of more, but those are the highlights.


The only one of those that 3.5 didn't have was marking, which is actually debateable since an early form of the idea was coming in with the Knight.  And marking isn't even an MMO mechanic, it is specifically a mechanic that only works with a DM there to make judgements for the monsters.  

Several of your points are true of AD&D as well.

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
(content removed)

The only one of those that 3.5 didn't have was marking, which is actually debateable since an early form of the idea was coming in with the Knight.  And marking isn't even an MMO mechanic, it is specifically a mechanic that only works with a DM there to make judgements for the monsters.  

Several of your points are true of AD&D as well.



(content removed)Those were just the reasons I don't like 4e or 3e for that matter. No edition of D&D is perfect, but in order of preference I would list them as follows:

2e
1e
Basic
4e
3e/3.5e

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
www.livingdice.com/6963/is-it-really-dd-...


"My only remaining worry is that the pillars of this new system will never be changed even if fan response proves them unpopular. One of these ideological foundations is the apparent obsession in recreating the perfect storm churned up by 3rd Edition, effectively disregarding the contributions of 4th Edition. The common complaint I’ve been reading recently is the similarity between this new edition with 3rd Edition and the lack of any carryover from 4th, peculiar considering the apparent assumed consensus that 4th Edition was a disaster on the same scale of New Coke and Highlander 2."



And yet another 4e fan who seems to not have gotten the memo that the 4e-style things are being introduced later.

Seriously, people, they are adding 4e-styled things.  They said so several times.  There is no "consensus that 4th edition was a disaster" at WotC, no matter what the internet may lead you to believe.

Not to sound cynical or anything like that but:

1) I don't know that such modules will come to be. Yes, WotC has made noises about it, but they've said many things in the past which they were never able to actually do. I think I can be pretty sure core 5e will be released. I have no idea if or when any supplements will or won't appear.

2) A lot of what makes 4e what it is isn't just some layer of rules on top of any old core system. It is the sum total of the whole thing. Exception based design with logical and consistent rules, clear and easy to understand presentation, etc. Those things aren't something you can add in a supplement.

As for what WotC thinks of 4e, it is anyone's guess. I'm not sure I really care except in as much as it colors their perception of what should be in 5e and what priorities they give to things.
That is not dead which may eternal lie

We got through like 5 encounters in one session!  What do you all think of the new rules?

As I have posted elsewhere on these forums, I wasn't terribly impressed by the amount of combats one could go through in a short time-span.  I could easily emulate the same combats in 4th Ed using minion monsters for a bulk of the forces (there's really no difference between a 1hp minion and a 1-3hp kobold/goblin/rat when half the party does 3 damage minimum whether they hit or miss) and sprinkled in some real monsters as needed.  What I want to see is a higher level solo fight at about 9th or 10th level with a dragon and some underling monsters to test how long combats really work in DDN.  Also seeing how characters look pre-gen at that level would give me a better idea of if WotC learned their lessons about combat paralysis due to too many options every turn.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

Not to sound cynical or anything like that but:

1) I don't know that such modules will come to be. Yes, WotC has made noises about it, but they've said many things in the past which they were never able to actually do. I think I can be pretty sure core 5e will be released. I have no idea if or when any supplements will or won't appear.

2) A lot of what makes 4e what it is isn't just some layer of rules on top of any old core system. It is the sum total of the whole thing. Exception based design with logical and consistent rules, clear and easy to understand presentation, etc. Those things aren't something you can add in a supplement.

As for what WotC thinks of 4e, it is anyone's guess. I'm not sure I really care except in as much as it colors their perception of what should be in 5e and what priorities they give to things.



Actually, they've stated publicly that the core books will contain all the essential modules/options and they won't be in separate books/supplements. That's not to say that once they release the core books that new modules and supplements won't appear, but I believe that they are essentially promising that all these edition-related modules will be in core books as options. I would assume that includes 4e style stuff, but maybe I'm wrong.

And just to point out, I am not for them appearing in core books, but I believe that is the intent.
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
(content removed)

I am really enjoying the game again thanks to the playtest material. If this playtest hadn't come along just now I was going to go back to playing 1e or 2e and would have had fun there as well. But this is more fun because it has improvements and some new mechanics that I like so far.


ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)

Guys, don't harp on Tom for his list.  We've already gone over it and he conceded the point.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

(content removed)

Also, if you think I don't understand 4e for some reason, then check out my LFR adventures. I wrote 5 and co-wrote 2 others. One is just coming out and my last one will appear at Gen Con this year. I even helped to co-write an Epic adventure. Look at my signature for the ones I wrote. The released ones can all be downloaded from the LFR community site.

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
Not to sound cynical or anything like that but:

1) I don't know that such modules will come to be. Yes, WotC has made noises about it, but they've said many things in the past which they were never able to actually do. I think I can be pretty sure core 5e will be released. I have no idea if or when any supplements will or won't appear.

2) A lot of what makes 4e what it is isn't just some layer of rules on top of any old core system. It is the sum total of the whole thing. Exception based design with logical and consistent rules, clear and easy to understand presentation, etc. Those things aren't something you can add in a supplement.

As for what WotC thinks of 4e, it is anyone's guess. I'm not sure I really care except in as much as it colors their perception of what should be in 5e and what priorities they give to things.



Actually, they've stated publicly that the core books will contain all the essential modules/options and they won't be in separate books/supplements. That's not to say that once they release the core books that new modules and supplements won't appear, but I believe that they are essentially promising that all these edition-related modules will be in core books as options. I would assume that includes 4e style stuff, but maybe I'm wrong.

And just to point out, I am not for them appearing in core books, but I believe that is the intent.

Yeah, well, it is all pretty nebulous. For one thing I take what WotC says as a statement of intent. When it comes down to the guy who's editing a book deciding which stuff he's got to cut to make it into 200 pages who knows?

Beyond that, what does it mean to say that there will be '4e stuff' (or any other edition stuff, lets be fair) in 5e? 4e has healing surges, 5e has hit dice, is that a 4e thing? Wizards have at-will powers, is that a 4e thing? There is something called a theme in 5e, does that mean it has support for 4e type play (and Theme is really just 'kit' with a new name, so what really does it mean that it is there at all). You could have basically nothing of 4e in your game and still SAY "look at all this 4e stuff, be happy!" while none of it is meaningful at all.

I don't doubt that WotC would like to support everyone, and I have no particular reason to think my preferences would go under the bus before someone else's. OTOH the game that we're playtesting has really not a whole lot in common with 4e. It could definitely evolve into a form that supports 4e style play pretty well, and it isn't bad. OTOH if all they do is extrapolate what is there now into a finished system it probably won't even come close to meeting my expectations for 4e support. Again, you can't just lay some AEDU classes on top of another system and have it be 'like 4e'. 4e was about a game that made sense in a design sense, heck that actually for the 1st time in D&D history HAD a design.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
(content removed)

Also, if you think I don't understand 4e for some reason, then check out my LFR adventures. I wrote 5 and co-wrote 2 others. One is just coming out and my last one will appear at Gen Con this year. I even helped to co-write an Epic adventure. Look at my signature for the ones I wrote. The released ones can all be downloaded from the LFR community site.

Not saying you don't know 4e. OTOH there's a question of knowing and understanding. What I say may raise some eyebrows, but IMHO WotC doesn't even slightly understand 4e. The people that wrote 4e don't seem to understand it. Most of the people that I see posting about it don't seem to understand it. Me? I clearly understand how to keep getting really fun games out of it. I don't know what that means, but all the things you have on your list? They are either irrelevant to me or mostly aren't issues.

And honestly? I think I read through KotS and one time I ran one adventure from Dungeon, though I ended up making quite a few changes. I can't comment on yours, they could be great, but I just find that what I want to do is not usually all that well suited to pre-written modules. I've read a few others from various places. I didn't get the impression any of the authors really had a very good feel for what the strong points of 4e are and how to leverage them. Now and then someone comes close, but not THAT close.

ORC_Jubjub: Edited-Continuity
That is not dead which may eternal lie
And honestly? I think I read through KotS and one time I ran one adventure from Dungeon, though I ended up making quite a few changes. I can't comment on yours, they could be great, but I just find that what I want to do is not usually all that well suited to pre-written modules. I've read a few others from various places. I didn't get the impression any of the authors really had a very good feel for what the strong points of 4e are and how to leverage them. Now and then someone comes close, but not THAT close.




I think one of the issues about pre-made mods is the inclusion of skill challenges - they work best when a home DM crafts it to a set of DCs based on his party and makes it organic to the game. A lot of pre-made mods, particularly early ones failed the 2nd part and almost by definition, it won't do well with the 1st unless the party is very balanced.
And honestly? I think I read through KotS and one time I ran one adventure from Dungeon, though I ended up making quite a few changes. I can't comment on yours, they could be great, but I just find that what I want to do is not usually all that well suited to pre-written modules. I've read a few others from various places. I didn't get the impression any of the authors really had a very good feel for what the strong points of 4e are and how to leverage them. Now and then someone comes close, but not THAT close.




I think one of the issues about pre-made mods is the inclusion of skill challenges - they work best when a home DM crafts it to a set of DCs based on his party and makes it organic to the game. A lot of pre-made mods, particularly early ones failed the 2nd part and almost by definition, it won't do well with the 1st unless the party is very balanced.

Well, I don't know. Maybe some SCs can be made without reference to a party, but they do tend to be pretty tailored to the specific details of things in my own game often. I find that SCs don't really work that well as stand-alone things, but instead mostly need to have a bit larger scope than say a combat encounter. You can make some puzzle type challenges that are more small scale, but there are only so many of those you can do in an adventure.

Actually I think most of the adventure part of it has to do with the sort of action that 4e really supports well. For instance to me a suitable scenario would be a party leaping onto a bunch of mine carts and zooming through a mine while bad guys approach from other rail lines and the duke it out until they come to a switch and OH NO the ranger shot the switch lever with an arrow and the orcs went off into the abyss! Think some pure action adventure story. THAT is the sort of stuff 4e does incredibly well. The party barely escapes from the collapsing mine and right into the hands of the evil baron!

Not to say my games are light on RP or anything like that, we have plenty of "we're hanging out in town gathering information and spying on the thieve's guild" sort of games too (well, it would HAVE to have a bar fight of course...). I just see adventure after adventure in DDI and published modules full of rooms and encounters where you stand around in a room and have a fight.

My greatest advice for people wanting to make good fun 4e adventures is to go watch some adventure movies first. Now take those scenes, change some stuff around to fit your concept, and go with it. And PLEASE have cool concepts. A dungeon is OK now and then, but that old slogging through rooms and corridors thing... Seen that in any movies? I haven't... ;)
That is not dead which may eternal lie