Unfortunate, simple logic...

Premise: D&D Next is attempting to 'unite' all previous versions of D&D.

Conclusion:  Failure 

After reading the posts in the forums (albeit the vocal contributors are rarely the majority in any given realm... take talk radio for example) it seems clear that you can't please everyone.  It seems to me that players who like 4th, like 4th above all other editions, the same can be said for those who liked, and stuck with, previous editions.

The biggest problem with gaming of this nature is greed.  You start with a basic game (Any game, a board game like Agricola even).  People like it, its successful, they want MORE of it (Greed).  The game company thinks about this... the game is pretty complete as it is, and people like it... but... MORE game means more $$, so they come up with an expansion (Greed), or if they can't, they come up with a newer, 'better', game and resell the original game (Greed).  Someone said they are trying to re-create WoW.  Something that will stand the test of time.  To me it seems like they are trying to create a MtG phenomena, where people play regardless of the absurd costs of 4 new sets a year.  A self-cycling game.

Instead of changing the game again (though I LIKE what I've seen of Next so far, and I'll try it when it comes out) the simplest solution is this:

Instead of shoehorning people from edition to the 'Next' by not supporting previous editions, support them all.

Instead of making new 'rules', make new Worlds/Campaigns/Dungeon Crawls/Sandboxes/Tactical scenarios/Etc and have a small, dedicated group of people who can 'translate' each W/C/S/Ts/etc. into every edition if there's a call for it.  I believe Ravenloft to be the ultimate example of this already, having had success across multiple editions/styles.
You're making conclusions about a system based on a playtest that's maybe 5% complete, and even that part isn't finalized?

Uh huh.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
He's not the first.  He won't be the last.

WotC: "Hey guys, DDN will be a MODULAR system.  That means it's a basic, rules-light edition that people can plug their own flavor into through MODULES.  That mean's it's NOT MEANT TO BE A COMPLETE ANSWER to every single gamer's needs in its basic form.  Okay?  Got that?"


Random forum poster: "Hey look, DDN!  I bet it's a complete gaming system with every answer to every single gamer's needs in its basic form and doesn't use modules or anything like that to achieve its goals!  Hey, this isn't what I thought!!  Refund!  Refund!!!"


WotC: "But it was free..."


 

......

Instead of making new 'rules', make new Worlds/Campaigns/Dungeon Crawls/Sandboxes/Tactical scenarios/Etc and have a small, dedicated group of people who can 'translate' each W/C/S/Ts/etc. into every edition if there's a call for it.  I believe Ravenloft to be the ultimate example of this already, having had success across multiple editions/styles.



+1

Everything else...not so much.

I would buy a splat book that was entirely based on how to forge a sword.  A real life demonstration coupled with a fantastic story of drama, deceit, tragedy, and coolness.  Think of the beginning of movie Conan the Barbarian.  The one with Arnold.

"It was a time when the oceans drank Atlantis...."

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

You're making conclusions about a system based on a playtest that's maybe 5% complete, and even that part isn't finalized?

Uh huh.

I'm making a conclusion based on the Responses to the Playtest, not the playtest itself, which I mentioned I liked.    I still stand by the idea that supporting all the editions is a simpler, more attainable solution than trying to create one game system to encompass all players.

Given the number of discussion threads where there appear to irredeemable divides, what other conclusion is there? 
There is not enough information to draw a conclusion.  A grain of salt goes a long ways when reading most of our posts.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

All of my experience on these forums has taught me that, no, this group will never collectively agree on anything. Ever.  
You're making conclusions about a system based on a playtest that's maybe 5% complete, and even that part isn't finalized?

Uh huh.

I'm making a conclusion based on the Responses to the Playtest, not the playtest itself, which I mentioned I liked.    I still stand by the idea that supporting all the editions is a simpler, more attainable solution than trying to create one game system to encompass all players.

Given the number of discussion threads where there appear to irredeemable divides, what other conclusion is there? 



As you yourself state, the most vocal contributers are rarely the majority, so let's take that to its logical conclusion by not overreacting to the current spate of forum flame wars.  A modular game design has a strong potential to satisfy many different types of players.  The kernel module at the heart of the system is necessarily minimalist and will therefore tend to resonate most deeply with old-school players.   We have yet to see any of the other modules, however, so it is really premature to draw any conclusions about how those modules will resonate with different types of players.  The greatest source of anxiety right now seems to come from the 4E fanbase.  This is not lost on the game designers, and I am confident that they are taking steps to address it.  Let's try to have some faith in these guys!  The whole point of a modular design is that it does not require a universal consensus among different types of players.  Different groups with different tastes will be able to run very different games.
Leugren, good post, and I mostly agree.  I have faith in the designers (More when MC was on board because I generally agree with his gaming philosophies and have enjoyed his products in the past) what I have lost my faith in, is the gaming public and the gaming companies (NOT the designers).  Perhaps I should stop reading the forums.  :: Grin ::

That said, I still think, my solutions is the simplest, and most likely to succeed.  Players would win, designers would win, and even though they probably don't think so, because they will feel they are spreading wider a net then they need (despite evidence to the contrary) they would win as well because instead of threatening current loyalties (all the people who love their system more than any other) they would solidify them all.  Imagine how happy AD&D and 2E people would be to have new product?  And imagine how happy the 4E people would be to not have their current fun threatened?
The OP reminds me of a post I saw... I think it was on Reddit, but maybe I am mistaken; it could have been on these boards... by someone in a similar industry, who said basically the exact same thing. 

He noted how epublishing is changing the way publishing works. He noted that Pathfinder doesn't make much money on their rules books; rather, the adventure paths are where the cash cow is. So I don't think the reactions that some people have had to the OP's point are particularly charitable. It is actually a reasonable suggestion.  It involves a paradigmatic shift in Wizards' publishing model... but to simply dimiss the OP as a 'sky is falling' reaction to the playtest is missing the point, IMHO.

 

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

All of my experience on these forums has taught me that, no, this group will never collectively agree on anything. Ever.  



We all like maps!

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Leugren, good post, and I mostly agree.  I have faith in the designers (More when MC was on board because I generally agree with his gaming philosophies and have enjoyed his products in the past) what I have lost my faith in, is the gaming public and the gaming companies (NOT the designers).  Perhaps I should stop reading the forums.  :: Grin ::

That said, I still think, my solutions is the simplest, and most likely to succeed.  Players would win, designers would win, and even though they probably don't think so, because they will feel they are spreading wider a net then they need (despite evidence to the contrary) they would win as well because instead of threatening current loyalties (all the people who love their system more than any other) they would solidify them all.  Imagine how happy AD&D and 2E people would be to have new product?  And imagine how happy the 4E people would be to not have their current fun threatened?

@Amorby

Fair enough.  Your solution is always there as a fallback in case the current effort fails.  For my part, I will cross my fingers that they succeed, since I want this game to continue evolving.