A Modest Proposal to Unify the Fanbase without D&D Next

62 posts / 0 new
Last post

I posted a blog last night on my Neuroglyph Games site.  In it, I wrote a proposal to WotC asking them to consider an alternative to publishing yet another edition of D&D.  I even included a link to a petition on Change.org, and I’m hoping to get some grassroots support from those in the D&D community who are not favoring D&D Next to sign on.

Please check out the blog here:

A Proposal & Petition: Say YES to DUNGEONS & DRAGONS / Say NO THANKS to D&D NEXT 

And remember: Supporting ALL D&D EDITIONS means supporting ALL D&D FANS!

Whenever I see "A Modest Proposal" and it's not about eating our young (or your young), I get a bit sad.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Whenever I see "A Modest Proposal" and it's not about eating our young (or your young), I get a bit sad.

I'm a bit looser in my hopes, so I'm fine as long as the idea is an absurd one that is supported by cold logic.

The metagame is not the game.
I signed this petition; I have lost the will to stomach yet another edition of D&D. I could go the rest of my life playing 0e-4e along with various retro-clones for house-ruling.  This is really the only chance they have of getting any support from me.
Whenever I see "A Modest Proposal" and it's not about eating our young (or your young), I get a bit sad.

Heh, it probably is better to avoid that title unless it is a satire.



Re OP, it is possible for WotC to launch D&D Next *and* support previous editions, including 4e, at least passively by dedicating online forum space for each edition, maintaining online compendiums and character generators, linking to on-site and off-site SRDs including Osric and Pathfinder, linking to off-site character generators, providing downloadable pdfs of historical content, linking to directories to online and local hobby shops, and being a venue for indy publishers to advertise their products.

D&D Next has something unique to offer. It is the first edition that community feedback is influencing from the ground up. I want as many people as possible to enjoy this edition. I am eager to see how it turns out.
Haldrik, the community involvement has yet to be proven. ;)
published one latest, did exactly one survey.
By the time they publish the game, this might have gone up to three or four. Not that much, one will see whether they even manage to get their primary goal right before they even involve the community: to build a core that appeals to more than just one group of their gamers but to all.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
I'd still like 5e because no prior edition is perfect for me.  But with print on demand technology being what it is, I'd suggest WOTC support prior editions by reselling all old stuff at a minimum.  

I could also see the running an adventure module app store where they take a cut and sell adventures for all different versions.  

Sometimes I think WOTC is a totally greedy company without a heart and sometimes I think they are completely inept at seeing easy money right in front of their faces.

 
OR- give us rules to readily convert into this new system from our old ones materials- and i guess back if you want.

accept that some things won't transfer (specific spells and powers and possibly monsters)

and make things that will be close enough to fill the niche and keep moving forward

I want to run some pathfinder adventures in DNDnext because... well the stories are good.  but I don't enjoy pathfinder's system as a DM. (and I DO enjoy next)
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Sometimes I think WOTC is a totally greedy company without a heart and sometimes I think they are completely inept at seeing easy money right in front of their faces. 

There's no inherent contradiction in that.  

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I want DnD Next to be released. Judging by the playtest packet it has great potential.

 
D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

I'd still like 5e because no prior edition is perfect for me.  

 



The implication here is that somehow 5e will be the edition where they finally get it perfect.

It won't be.  Assuming it's released in the year there will be a 5.5e or 6e in roughly 5 years.

If for no other reason than because the profit model that Hasbro expects requires consistent expenditure of money from the playerbase.  Once the stuff that we really WANT to see they start publishing things with a low adoption rate.

Everyone buys the supliment with barbarians, druids and monks in it, very few people buy the suppliment with the rules for Spellfire or psionics or whatever else they get around to printing in their 4th+ year on an edition.  The exception here possibly being published adventures.
Republishing the varied old systems without any attempt to create a mechanism which would allow them to share resources is not "unifying the fanbase." Your petition is incorrectly titled. Declined.
I think the best way to unify the fan base is to make a great game while not making fans of the previous editions feel left behind.  Not an easy task.
I signed the petition. I want them to keep supporting 4e, and I don't see why they shouldn't continue supporting the pther editions as well.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
From the perspective of a player who understands all of the editions and understands what they like or the player who's happy with the edition they play and that's good enough for them, the proposal makes a lot of sense. (Although there's no edition that I don't think wouldn't benefit quite a bit from a bit of revision; it's inevitable). From the perspective of a new customer - something that I think that they're at least vaguely interested in, whatever evidence may exist aside, I'm pretty sure that publishing four (or three, since supporting 3.5 is mostly pointless at this point) distinct editions that vary from each other in ways totally unpredicted by their names and not in any way that's internally consistant or that makes any sense as how you would divide things up if you were starting from scratch and planning to support three or four systems at the same time, I'm pretty sure that this is the most confusing strategy possible. The 1e family, 2e, 3.5 and 4e have the rules they have not because they were each designed to appeal to a different sort of customer and to work in concert to give you lots of coverage and a variety of offerings, which is what you'd want your four products to do if you were offering four different products, but for crazypants historical reasons. They're vaguely coherant products, but not remotely coherant as a product line. (You'd also probably have to rename them, since I'm pretty sure it's weird to market three products and call them "1" "2" and "4", when those numbers don't suggest anything meaningful about their relationship.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Republishing the varied old systems without any attempt to create a mechanism which would allow them to share resources is not "unifying the fanbase."

I'd've thought the mechanism would be obvious, since off-label suplements have been doing it since the 70s: put 'conversion rules' in the back of the book.  

For instance, 4e is done, but WotC is still going to put out some 'edition neutral' suplements while they try to get 5e figured out.  All sorts of setting material can be mechanics-independent.  Even adventures could be, with mechanical stats for different eds in apendixes or on-line.

Perfectly viable - and nothing new.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

In theory, DDN *will* be the conversion rules of which you speak. But as Lesp notes, this proposal would absolutely poison the well for new players. A few resales to aging fans of previous editions vs. the potential of killing the game entirely for lack of new players? The risk isn't worth the meager payoff. Anyone who wants the old stuff can find it on ebay.
I'd still like 5e because no prior edition is perfect for me.  

 



The implication here is that somehow 5e will be the edition where they finally get it perfect.

It won't be.  Assuming it's released in the year there will be a 5.5e or 6e in roughly 5 years.

If for no other reason than because the profit model that Hasbro expects requires consistent expenditure of money from the playerbase.  Once the stuff that we really WANT to see they start publishing things with a low adoption rate.

Everyone buys the supliment with barbarians, druids and monks in it, very few people buy the suppliment with the rules for Spellfire or psionics or whatever else they get around to printing in their 4th+ year on an edition.  The exception here possibly being published adventures.



My only point is that none of the currently existing editions is perfect FOR me.  So I'm open to trying 5e in the hope that it gets closer to that perfect game for me.  And thats right now.  I think in 2000 maybe 3e was perfect at the time for me.  I don't have to buy any edition.  If they ever do produce the perfect game forever then they'll likely go out of business since the succeeding editions won't sell.





In theory, DDN *will* be the conversion rules of which you speak. But as Lesp notes, this proposal would absolutely poison the well for new players. A few resales to aging fans of previous editions vs. the potential of killing the game entirely for lack of new players? The risk isn't worth the meager payoff. Anyone who wants the old stuff can find out on ebay.



Well first off, D&D 4E did more for getting new blood into D&D than any other edition you could name - although one might argue that Pathfinder is adding tons of new OGL gamers as well.  But it's one of the reasons I recommend in my petition to compile and condense the material into what might truly be called 4.5, and keep it around as the flagship product.  Rather selfish of me, I know, since I am, and always will be, a die-hard 4E fan - I finally found the edition that makes me happiest.

And secondly, "resales to aging fans" shows a complete lack of regard for the reality of the gaming demographic out there.  Sure I suppose you want to just ignore the younger hipsters playing AD&D and 2nd Edition for that retro experience.  And let's knock all those "aging" Penny Arcade fans who surged into D&D 4E, leaving their MMOs behind - they're positively ancient, right?  And of course, there are all the 3.5 and Pathfinder players currently scavenging the internet for old products for their games and buying up everything Paizo tosses out to the marketplace - surely these antique gamers would never want to see WotC republish material and start generating new content again for their favorite settings.  Oh heck no... they're crumbling to dust as we speak.

Hop off the D&D Next high horse, friend, and realize that the gaming community is NOT clamoring for a new edition of D&D.   Next is not the answer to reach all the D&D fans.  Let folks play the edition they want to play, and provide them with content to keep them gaming and happy.
In theory, DDN *will* be the conversion rules of which you speak. But as Lesp notes, this proposal would absolutely poison the well for new players. A few resales to aging fans of previous editions vs. the potential of killing the game entirely for lack of new players? The risk isn't worth the meager payoff. Anyone who wants the old stuff can find out on ebay.



Well first off, D&D 4E did more for getting new blood into D&D than any other edition you could name - although one might argue that Pathfinder is adding tons of new OGL gamers as well.  But it's one of the reasons I recommend in my petition to compile and condense the material into what might truly be called 4.5, and keep it around as the flagship product.  Rather selfish of me, I know, since I am, and always will be, a die-hard 4E fan - I finally found the edition that makes me happiest.

And secondly, "resales to aging fans" shows a complete lack of regard for the reality of the gaming demographic out there.  Sure I suppose you want to just ignore the younger hipsters playing AD&D and 2nd Edition for that retro experience.  And let's knock all those "aging" Penny Arcade fans who surged into D&D 4E, leaving their MMOs behind - they're positively ancient, right?  And of course, there are all the 3.5 and Pathfinder players currently scavenging the internet for old products for their games and buying up everything Paizo tosses out to the marketplace - surely these antique gamers would never want to see WotC republish material and start generating new content again for their favorite settings.  Oh heck no... they're crumbling to dust as we speak.

Hop off the D&D Next high horse, friend, and realize that the gaming community is NOT clamoring for a new edition of D&D.   Next is not the answer to reach all the D&D fans.  Let folks play the edition they want to play, and provide them with content to keep them gaming and happy.

There you have it. That "I'm only going for Nexts design ,sell me what you want, I'll never play anything but whats shiney and new" attitude is laughable at best and very sad at worst. Seems an elitist view to me. But this is the same guy who just asked me to stop speaking and rage quit rather than be honest about my opinions of Next and the likelyhood that it can't unite the fanbase as a whole. Now here is this thread making sense and sure enough he's on his high horse and talking down to others all over again. I love this idea. Reprint and release all the past editions and contine support for all of them. This will garner alot of buisness and revenue for WOTC. The 1e. reprint is a step in the right direction.
Agreed in the reprints.

I'll be picking up a shiny "new" AD&D this month.

But I'll also be keeping a very close eye on Next and if it is good it will sit next to my other core books.

I have "the big 3" 2e,2e players option, 3e, 3.5e, and even 4e on my shelf. Admittedly my supplements are very few on the last two but that could change for Next and I'd really like to both gain a good AD&D collection and expand my 2-3e with brand new books.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

In theory, DDN *will* be the conversion rules of which you speak.

Perhaps metaphorically, but actually - no, not in the least.

But as Lesp notes, this proposal would absolutely poison the well for new players. A few resales to aging fans of previous editions vs. the potential of killing the game entirely for lack of new players? The risk isn't worth the meager payoff. Anyone who wants the old stuff can find it on ebay.

I think the same could be more truely said of the current design direction of 5e.  It's drowning in nostalgia and re-animating sacred cows, it could end up extremely un-apealing to new gamers - particularly compared to 4e, which is about the easiest full-edition of the game to learn.  

Re-publishing and supporting old lines wouldn't 'poison the well, ' at all, it'd just harvest some revenue from the same folks 5e is trying to coax back into the fold, while leaving the flagship current ed to continue to involve and improve and provide a modern face to potential new players.

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

In theory, DDN *will* be the conversion rules of which you speak.

Perhaps metaphorically, but actually - no, not in the least.  

Still, I think, that is an important goal. The ability to translate a character or adventure from any other edition into 5e. The less noise happens in this translation, the more valuable 5e will be.
No thanks. I am excited about D&D Next. I want to see it released.
Whenever I see "A Modest Proposal" and it's not about eating our young (or your young), I get a bit sad.

I was really hoping this was gonna be a nod to A Modest Proposal. I'm more sad that it's not that, than the lack of efficient cannibalism.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
Whenever I see "A Modest Proposal" and it's not about eating our young (or your young), I get a bit sad.

I was really hoping this was gonna be a nod to A Modest Proposal. I'm more sad that it's not that, than the lack of efficient cannibalism.


Ah, the tragedy of pop-culture references that get detached from their referents.

Z.
A nice idea, albeit a pipe dream.

Still, Not signing as even though I can already tell 5e will have its flaws, so too did every previous edition. And which set of flaws are the most live-with-able is going to vary from person to person. I'd rather see mutliple version of the game that appeal to different people than them say "nope, just republishing old stuff, not making anything new"

Now if they wanted to make 5e AND republish old stuff, I'd be all for that. I think me hitting the lottery twice in one day is more likely than that happening, but its a nice though.
A nice idea, albeit a pipe dream.



“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” – Mark Twain
----------

Perfectly sums up my feelings on the matter.  I'd rather try to make change happen, than do nothing and regret the consequences.
No thanks, I look foward to seeing what WoTC is doing with the game I love. So far they aretaking their time, getting feedback (hopefully not excusevely from here), and attempting to create a great product.

I havnt purchased any books since 3rd and quit frankly im ready to spend some money on my hobby. while we currently play 4th I dont own one single book, quite frankly DDI did to well of a job in gathering information. They also posted the info onto DDI way to soon after a books release making it not neccissary to own one.

No, Ill stay right here in the 5e hype rallying wizards for what I think will be an amazing game. If im wrong after buying the core books (which I will, which is more then i can say for 4th), I have 3.5 and 4th to play no hard feelings.


However, I can get behind the reprints and universal support for all editions in addition to the release of 5e.



Quite frankly im tired of all you do0msayers out there, who have glanced/played a miniscule fraction of an idea of a game and are already throwing your hands in the air. The playtest required one simple thing from us. Play it and tell us of the core rules work. Whether you liked it or not was part of it sure, but not neccisarily what the test was about. This process will continue for probably another year or so, what we are looking at now is nothing to what it will be. And I for one am hella excited.


Keep up the good work WoTC!............and please lower the price on the minis gameMoney Mouth
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
A nice idea, albeit a pipe dream.



“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” – Mark Twain
----------

Perfectly sums up my feelings on the matter.  I'd rather try to make change happen, than do nothing and regret the consequences.





not to be rude but arnt you suggesting we do the exact opposite of this quote, by denying the new, not trying something new, exploring, dreaming, and discovering new possibilities? 
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
For instance, 4e is done, but WotC is still going to put out some 'edition neutral' suplements while they try to get 5e figured out.  All sorts of setting material can be mechanics-independent.  Even adventures could be, with mechanical stats for different eds in apendixes or on-line.

Perfectly viable - and nothing new.



I've been saying they should do that for months now...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
No thanks, I look foward to seeing what WoTC is doing with the game I love. So far they aretaking their time, getting feedback (hopefully not excusevely from here), and attempting to create a great product.

I havnt purchased any books since 3rd and quit frankly im ready to spend some money on my hobby. while we currently play 4th I dont own one single book, quite frankly DDI did to well of a job in gathering information. They also posted the info onto DDI way to soon after a books release making it not neccissary to own one.

No, Ill stay right here in the 5e hype rallying wizards for what I think will be an amazing game. If im wrong after buying the core books (which I will, which is more then i can say for 4th), I have 3.5 and 4th to play no hard feelings.


However, I can get behind the reprints and universal support for all editions in addition to the release of 5e.



Quite frankly im tired of all you do0msayers out there, who have glanced/played a miniscule fraction of an idea of a game and are already throwing your hands in the air. The playtest required one simple thing from us. Play it and tell us of the core rules work. Whether you liked it or not was part of it sure, but not neccisarily what the test was about. This process will continue for probably another year or so, what we are looking at now is nothing to what it will be. And I for one am hella excited.


Keep up the good work WoTC!............and please lower the price on the minis gameMoney Mouth



Apparently many people don't understand that a play test is not to see if something works, but rather how easy it is to break it.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Apparently many people don't understand that a play test is not to see if something works, but rather how easy it is to break it.


Up to a point. But I wouldn't test-drive a Ferrari by going green-laning in it, much less by whacking the bodywork with my trusty sledgehammer. Even though those activities would be very effective tests of the vehicle's resilience.

As a playtester, I want to find out if the game breaks in regular use, not whether a sufficiently ingenious rules-lawyer can ruin it. After all, it's not like M:tG where I have to wait for an official ruling (or WoW where I'd have to wait for a patch). If I find an exploitable error in casual play, I as DM can ban it right there. While I strongly believe that the Rules As Written should work, and a playtest should reveal if they don't, I'm not in the business of tearing them to pieces and dancing on their remains.

Z.
Apparently many people don't understand that a play test is not to see if something works, but rather how easy it is to break it.


Up to a point. But I wouldn't test-drive a Ferrari by going green-laning in it, much less by whacking the bodywork with my trusty sledgehammer. Even though those activities would be very effective tests of the vehicle's resilience.

As a playtester, I want to find out if the game breaks in regular use, not whether a sufficiently ingenious rules-lawyer can ruin it. After all, it's not like M:tG where I have to wait for an official ruling (or WoW where I'd have to wait for a patch). If I find an exploitable error in casual play, I as DM can ban it right there. While I strongly believe that the Rules As Written should work, and a playtest should reveal if they don't, I'm not in the business of tearing them to pieces and dancing on their remains.

Z.



that's funny because that exactly what they do when they test cars. They even go so far as to crash them into a brick wall going 70mph with test dummies.

See if this were the final product and the only point was to test how fun it is you would be right. Right now they are in pre-alpha stage and need to test every part of it. That's what a play test is. Its not like the previous PR play tests they've put out in DDi where they are fully created and just want your opinion on whether its fun or not. Those tests they were more like previews...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


Well first off, D&D 4E did more for getting new blood into D&D than any other edition you could name



1st edition AD&D.  I win.

...And let's knock all those "aging" Penny Arcade fans who surged into D&D 4E, leaving their MMOs behind ...



Evidence?





Well first off, D&D 4E did more for getting new blood into D&D than any other edition you could name



1st edition AD&D.  I win.

...And let's knock all those "aging" Penny Arcade fans who surged into D&D 4E, leaving their MMOs behind ...



Evidence?




+1


lol, I remmeber when our high school teacher had us read A Modest Proposal, then write one of our own to solve a problem in society. FUn times.


Well first off, D&D 4E did more for getting new blood into D&D than any other edition you could name



1st edition AD&D.  I win.

...And let's knock all those "aging" Penny Arcade fans who surged into D&D 4E, leaving their MMOs behind ...



Evidence?



I really feel sad reading snarky posts like this.  It does nothing to advance the argument, or offer anything but derision for other opinions.

Seems to me that trying to herd all D&D gamers into one edition has never worked.  Bottom line is that we have seen the D&D community fractured over and over again, as populations looked at the new edition and said "No Thanks".  That means with each iteration, part of the community becomes alienated from the corporation making the products, and can no longer enjoy support of their game system.  

And it's guarenteed to happen again with D&D Next.

So I'll keep plugging the petition, and hope that there are enough gamers tired of buying a stack of rules books for edition after edition, and want a stack of content books and products instead.




I'm not really sure it's possible to have edition-neutral (or even RPG-neutral) material. Campaign settings are probably the only exception to this. What good is a Player's Guide to Faerun if it doesn't include material to create characters that fit right in the Forgotten Realms. Of course they could describe organizations the PCs could join but  that's a lot of work left up to the DM for something that historically was done for you. I know I got used to being lazy and have stuff done for me. Actually, that's what I pay for and the reason I play D&D and not GURPS.

Now concerning reprinting all the former editions, I know I didn't continue playing D&D when 4th edition came out even though I own dozens of 2nd editions books and nearly all 3.5 books. Who would want to go back to playing AD&D now that 3rd edition (thank you Tome of Battle) and 4th edition showed us the goodies fighters can have. I wouldn't play 3rd edition again because my gaming group knows pretty much all there is to know about that edition and because being a DM for high level PCs is a major pain in the arse. I wouldn't play 4th edition again beause magic is so unbelievably lame (personal opinion, no need to comment).

On paper, D&D Next is perfect for me. If they really manage to create this plug and play modular game they're promising, it will be exactly what I need. A set of rules I can use to create my custom edition of D&D. I'll be able to have the old school feel of AD&D I love so much with the all the goodies of 3rd edition and 4th edition.

Call me enthousiastic but I like the direction D&D Next is going. I trust the game designers for not screwing up D&D Magic again (yes, I'm sure vancian can be balanced), I trust the game designers for not screwing up encounter design (they learned with 4th edition) and I trust the game designers for making fighters a bit more fun than "press triangle to attack" (because they already did in the past two editions).

Bottom line, I can't wait for the next D&D Next playtest package! And if you listen to Mr Mearl's podcasts, you'll learn that I'm not the only one.
Now concerning reprinting all the former editions, I know I didn't continue playing D&D when 4th edition came out even though I own dozens of 2nd editions books and nearly all 3.5 books. Who would want to go back to playing AD&D now that 3rd edition (thank you Tome of Battle) and 4th edition showed us the goodies fighters can have.

Ummm, someone like me I guess ? Are you seriously implying that no one sane would go back to play older versions of D&D ? Have you heard about OSRIC ? How about Myth & Magic ? I personally went back to 2E myself for various reasons and I'm 100% sure I'm not the only one out there.

Problem is right now is that I want to buy old modules/books and right now my only options are resorting to piracy or buying old/damaged versions of the books. And both of these options doesn't give WotC a dime. They should really go with releasing their old books in PDF format at least with a POD option if the demand is high enough for certain books. I mean, a RPG system like GURPS that only has a very small fraction of customers than D&D can currenlty thrive in that business model, why can't WotC ?

I mean whether you like 5E or not, why would it block you from wanting to buy the 1E Manual of the Planes or use the Mystara Gazeteers for your campaign setting ? Anyone with any interest into buying old D&D stuff should sign this petition.

Ummm, someone like me I guess ? Are you seriously implying that no one sane would go back to play older versions of D&D ? Have you heard about OSRIC ? How about Myth & Magic ? I personally went back to 2E myself for various reasons and I'm 100% sure I'm not the only one out there.



I never said only a crazy person would go back to playing AD&D... It is my favorite edition after all... I just said that the edition is lacking too much to be played without being heavily house ruled to incorporate the more recent D&D options. All these house rules would add-up to a brand new original game called "my version of D&D Next". I might as well let the pros take care of it, especially since most players are suspicious of house rules. 

I read the OSRIC books. Isn't it just a reprint of the older editions?


Problem is right now is that I want to buy old modules/books and right now my only options are resorting to piracy or buying old/damaged versions of the books. And both of these options doesn't give WotC a dime. They should really go with releasing their old books in PDF format at least with a POD option if the demand is high enough for certain books. I mean, a RPG system like GURPS that only has a very small fraction of customers than D&D can currenlty thrive in that business model, why can't WotC ?



I would be very happy with on-demande printing too. But I wouldn't want WoTC to allocate too much resources on this if it's at the expense of new developments.


I mean whether you like 5E or not, why would it block you from wanting to buy the 1E Manual of the Planes or use the Mystara Gazeteers for your campaign setting ? Anyone with any interest into buying old D&D stuff should sign this petition.



I want to buy something new that we haven't seen before. Signing these kinds of petitions before D&D Next is on the market is sending WOTC the wrong message.