no, really...what exactly is up with you people?

153 posts / 0 new
Last post
look, i don't think either side of this silliness is going to get what it's most afraid of: neither another ground-up, do-over, baby-out-with-the-bathwater reimagining of the whole game, nor a complete thac0-&-racial-level-caps throwback to the 70's/80's.

the core game is going to be simple, maybe even simplistic, which makes it feel a lot like early editions of the game.  but i actually have a lot of enthusiasm for the modular rules idea - i don't expect there to be a module for every little thing i might want in the game, but i've been houseruling since i learned what rpg's were, and i don't mind making my own modules.  i fully expect to see built-in modules for alternate casting systems, complex fighters, variant rangers/paladins/bards, and a billion other things, but the core rules that the game is built on SHOULD feel a little retro by themselves - because they're BY THEMSELVES and not modified in any way, and all the simplistic core has to answer to is the basic premises of dungeons & dragons.

and YES, i'm anxious to see some of these modules in action too; i'm sick of waiting for the next playtest packet, and i wish they'd release stuff in smaller, more frequent bursts.  but just because i haven't seen it doesn't mean it's all going to be terrible (or vaporware), any more than it means it'll all be great.  i do firmly believe that there will be plenty of innovation, plenty of nostalgia, and plenty of PLENTY OF room to make the game your own.

why (and this is addressed to all factions of the edition wars) do you people insist that everything is all-or-nothing in any particular direction, when the BASIC IDEA of d&d next is that it should be more smoothly customizable than essentially any previous version of the rules?  all day, every day, you argue and complain and fight tooth and nail over what is the "best" or "right" way to do something (or, more often, what is the "worst" and "wrong" way), when each and every one of you has (and has always had) the freedom to make these decisions at your own dang'd table!

advocating certain options is good.  mechanical feedback is good.  "doing it this way led our group to get this result" is good.  fighting over the ONE RIGHT ANSWER to everything is not just bad, it's not just immature...it's counter to the basic stated goal of the entire d&d next project.

and so help me, if i have to listen to one more person say, "well, if [thing] is part of the core rules, i certainly won't be playing ddn..."

...

...okay, i've vented.  now everybody attack me so i can get all p&^%$d off again...
Sorry to dissapoint you but I won't attack. Instead I agree 100%. Or make it 200%. The amount of hissy fits and emotion levels around here could suggest we are discussing how to save humankind from inevitable doom, and not, just, you know, a *game* (especially since most of the hissy-fitters seem to already have a favourite game of their own which they repeatedly proclaim to be better than anything they can hope from 5ed, so it's not like their world is doomed and ruined if DnDN fails).
I don't know, for me it looks like a kid who thinks the best way to get a toy is to start crying and shouting at the shop till everybody's looking.

Now that I had a hissy fit about hissy fits myself I can calm down as well
Just imagine me posting one of my previous whinges about whinging here. You're role-players, I'm sure you can all imagine that.

So yes, I agree.

Z.
As Rejnwyrd pointed out, what a lot of posters here seem so worried about is irrelevant since they have their preferred gaming system/edition anyway.  What would be nice is if people could orgranize group-buys to get out of print books back in the print shop (sort of like OOTS and Kickstarter) for games no longer in print, or if WoTC would loosen the chains after 5 or 10 years after a particular edition is out of print and offer the texts in PDF form online to the fanbase for free (after all, if you're not publishing them anymore, then you're obviously not concerned about making money off of them so you might as well give them away).

The great thing about 4e though is that I DIDN'T HAVE TO BUY IT!  It didn't cost me a dime.  I still have all my 3.x stuff and my AD&D 1e and 2e stuff (for when I really wanna go retro), and that is good enough for me.

What I'm looking forward to in 5e, like the OP, is the modularity being built in - so I can pick up the same game and play it differently (which we all pretty much do anyway - finding a compatible gaming group is often harder than finding that special person because people have different gaming styles) than other people.  What I'm really hoping for/looking forward to is seeing some of the modules that this Community itself comes up with - I spent years on the What's a DM To Do? boards and met some great gamers (Wrecan, Fixxxer, Doug_C to name a few) who are ultra-imaginative and will produce great things in the form of combat modules, or spell-casting modules, or skill modules.  I only hope that WoTC will keep enough stuff OGL to enable module development - they should even hold contests for module development.

It doesn't matter what people want - right now we can agree on one thing - there is an edition that we like regardless of how 5e looks, and while we may tweak it to varying degrees, we have it as a fallback position in case we don't like 5e and decide not to buy it.

It's really that simple.
When you say you people, do you mean me?
When you say you people, do you mean me?



Schizophrenic or just possessed?
    I've removed content from this thread because edition warring is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
after all, if you're not publishing them anymore, then you're obviously not concerned about making money off of them so you might as well give them away

They're worried that if those out of print books compete with the latest incarnation of D&D then the new D&D will fail.

It is the only reason that the 3.5e books were taken down and the 2nd ed and 1st ed books suffered as collateral damage.

I would love to see WotC be brave enough to compete with themselves, but I don't find it likely.

look, i don't think either side of this silliness is going to get what it's most afraid of: neither another ground-up, do-over, baby-out-with-the-bathwater reimagining of the whole game, nor a complete thac0-&-racial-level-caps throwback to the 70's/80's.

the core game is going to be simple, maybe even simplistic, which makes it feel a lot like early editions of the game.  but i actually have a lot of enthusiasm for the modular rules idea - i don't expect there to be a module for every little thing i might want in the game, but i've been houseruling since i learned what rpg's were, and i don't mind making my own modules.  i fully expect to see built-in modules for alternate casting systems, complex fighters, variant rangers/paladins/bards, and a billion other things, but the core rules that the game is built on SHOULD feel a little retro by themselves - because they're BY THEMSELVES and not modified in any way, and all the simplistic core has to answer to is the basic premises of dungeons & dragons.

and YES, i'm anxious to see some of these modules in action too; i'm sick of waiting for the next playtest packet, and i wish they'd release stuff in smaller, more frequent bursts.  but just because i haven't seen it doesn't mean it's all going to be terrible (or vaporware), any more than it means it'll all be great.  i do firmly believe that there will be plenty of innovation, plenty of nostalgia, and plenty of PLENTY OF room to make the game your own.

why (and this is addressed to all factions of the edition wars) do you people insist that everything is all-or-nothing in any particular direction, when the BASIC IDEA of d&d next is that it should be more smoothly customizable than essentially any previous version of the rules?  all day, every day, you argue and complain and fight tooth and nail over what is the "best" or "right" way to do something (or, more often, what is the "worst" and "wrong" way), when each and every one of you has (and has always had) the freedom to make these decisions at your own dang'd table!

advocating certain options is good.  mechanical feedback is good.  "doing it this way led our group to get this result" is good.  fighting over the ONE RIGHT ANSWER to everything is not just bad, it's not just immature...it's counter to the basic stated goal of the entire d&d next project.

and so help me, if i have to listen to one more person say, "well, if [thing] is part of the core rules, i certainly won't be playing ddn..."

...

...okay, i've vented.  now everybody attack me so i can get all p&^%$d off again...



1. Simple retro clone core sounds terrible to me, I want something new and exciting, not a bunch of tired old sacred cows stapled together.
2. I have no faith that the promises of "modularity will fix" it are anything more than vaporware.
3. History has shown us that complaining works.
...whatever

1. Simple retro clone core sounds terrible to me, I want something new and exciting, not a bunch of tired old sacred cows stapled together.
2. I have no faith that the promises of "modularity will fix" it are anything more than vaporware.
3. History has shown us that complaining works.




You and me both, especially on the new and exciting thing. Modularity, to me, is just big preset groups of house rules, that will, when put together in various combinations, invariably break the game.  How does modularity work with organized play? I'm sure we'll end up with the lowest common denominator.  Which will suck, because its just the core and you get 4 classes and 5 races and zero options.  Problem with complaining is that the squeakiest... and right now the squeakiest is the the dollars being spent and all the various clones of all the various editions. The way I figure there are clones of every edition now. WotC (or maybe their Hasbro overlords) covets those dollars and DDN is a reaction to that.  


You got to wonder if they are kicking themselves of the OGL now, since it basically made all of those clones possible.  Do you think that the developers who pushed for the OGL knew.  Knew that they could use it to continue making sellable content after they left WotC.  Knew that it would let them compete against their former employers in the open market forever.  Now who was it that was the key figure behind the OGL?


TjD


why (and this is addressed to all factions of the edition wars) do you people insist that everything is all-or-nothing in any particular direction, when the BASIC IDEA of d&d next is that it should be more smoothly customizable than essentially any previous version of the rules?  all day, every day, you argue and complain and fight tooth and nail over what is the "best" or "right" way to do something (or, more often, what is the "worst" and "wrong" way), when each and every one of you has (and has always had) the freedom to make these decisions at your own dang'd table!



In theory, I agree with you. In details...
There is no "right way" or "wrong way" - but for ONE thing only in 5E : how modularity will be managed. What will be modular - and how modules will be made and used.
If the Core defines elements that are present in every games, and modules then may be grafted on this core, then everything that could, or should be, a module - because players don't agree on what they want from the game - must be out of the core.

Granted, we don't know exactly how the current playtest is "built" : is it the core rules ? Or a combination of core rules AND a given series of modules ( the "old school"module from the character sheets)?
If they are the core, then there are many things that are dividing for the community. Fighter ridiculousness. Vancian wizards. Player skill emphasis. Rudimentary combat. And so on. Not that they are wrong, just that they are not for everybody, just for one subset of players.
If they are a module, then there is no problem.
That's why we NEED, ansolutely NEED to see modules in action in future playtest, and as soon as possible. We NEED to see a playtest with core rules, and old school module rules, and "4E module" rules, and be able to test if it works well in each combination.

But this is the theory. Mearls already confirmed that modules won't be exactly what we expected. Magic system is not a module - specific classes are linked to a specific magic subsystem, making the classes themselves modules, with all the consequences it can have. And Wizards/Vancian is Core. Conversely, "Dumb Fighter + player improvization" is Core, with possible module grafting.
So there is a lot of doubt, for many of us, about the whole "modularity" concept - in fact the name "module" seems to only be what other editions would have called "optional rules and classes", not what we hoped : alternative rules for the same things that you can combine according to your taste, like having all spellcasters being vancian OR AEDU or something else if you wanted so. Or having Martial classes bieng, or not, mechanically as rich as spellcasters, according to your tastes.

We still NEED to see modules at work - but they already don't look anymore as the solution they were meant to be to the problem of how many different ways there are to like playing D&D. Because it seems a lot of the choices that the players should make themselves through modules are already made for them in the core rules. And if these choices are the ones that are important to you, well, you are NOT happy with the core rules - and the game. Either because it is too much 4E-y, or because it is not enough, you will see both opinions here.

Wait and see? Yes. But what we see now does not presage well of what we will see later. It looks like a missed opportunity to really make a true modular D&D. It rather feels like building a D&D version for a specific subset of players, and then trying to graft on it things that can make it more palatable to other subsets, and I don't think it is a good idea.
If you don't like fish soup, you can add all the spices you want in it, the result will still be fish soup.

Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
The probem right now is twofold. 

The first is 4e fans were spoiled. One audience got everything they wanted out of 4e, all the changes they'd always wanted, such as the removal of vancian and addition of powers to the fighter. All their complaints were answered at the cost of about half the playing audience.

Now WotC s taking a middle ground approach, giving both sides something. Which sucks if you had been getting everything and now only get half. Which leads us to the second part of the problem: we've only seen one half. No non-Vancian casters and no fighter maneuvers. Things will quiet down when those are released.  
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

Modularity is being presented currently as merely additions to a fixed core, not subtractions or remove/replace. If they are going to insist on building things into the core skeleton of the game that I hate(Vancian magic, mother may I, 3E multiclassing), things that have consequences beyond their immediate impact to the game as a whole while limiting modularity to where it can't remove and/or replace these things(to say nothing of the deeper design consequences), why shouldn't I be angry?
...whatever
The probem right now is twofold. 

The first is 4e fans were spoiled. One audience got everything they wanted out of 4e, all the changes they'd always wanted, such as the removal of vancian and addition of powers to the fighter. All their complaints were answered at the cost of about half the playing audience.

Now WotC s taking a middle ground approach, giving both sides something. Which sucks if you had been getting everything and now only get half. Which leads us to the second part of the problem: we've only seen one half. No non-Vancian casters and no fighter maneuvers. Things will quiet down when those are released.  

Half ain't good enough. Why on earth would I play half a game when the whole one is already sitting on my shelf? Now, if we're talking half my game plus half new and amazing, that sounds interesting, but we're not. We're talking half my game plus half tired old crap I was glad to be rid of and have zero desire to go back to. Screw that.

...whatever
Really, OP, I don't see what you're talking about. Everyone here is always rationBWAAHAHAAAAAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeeeeeehhhh I can't do it.
As long as people refuse to accept that people can rationally have an opinion that differs from their own "One True D&D" we'll have threads like this.
...whatever
To the OP: I really don't like the playtest and voted "very dissatisfied".

I don't bear any hatred towards Mearls and his crew. I sincerely hope they can do a good job so that D&D can still thrive in coming years, but honestly I see no incentive in it so far, compared to what I get from 4th edition and to me the direction Mearls is taking is wrong.
If you want to unite the fan base you need a system that can be played by all D&Ders, not the "mathematical average" of the existing editions which is what they are doing today, taking a piece from edition X and a piece from edition Y.

I will give you an example. Let's look at the fighter first and then at the wizard.

1) Fighter

The fighter has a "stamina" pool with some points depending on his level, that refreshes completely with a "long rest" and partially with a "short rest".
A basic attack does not use any stamina points.

Module "A": you can use Z stamina points to make an extra attack a part of your action. This is the playtest fighter

Module "B": you can use W stamina points to make an attack and if you hit you push/pull/slide/stun/vaporize/whatever your enemy with W depending upon the effect inflicted.
This looks like the narrative module.

Module "C": you can use N stamina points to make this Tome of Battle/4e style maneuver that you have to learn in some way. This looks like 4e.

2) Wizard

The wizard has a mana pool with some points depending on his level, that refreshes completely with a "long rest" and partially with a "short rest".

A basic spell (you can have a short list) does not use mana points.

Module "A": you can use M mana points to cast a given spell (looks like a 3e sorcerer with some more flexibility) from the list you know (and give rules how to add a spell to the list).

Module "B": you can use K mana points to memorize a spell you can cast at any time from the list you know (and give rules to add a spell to the list and to memorize it). This is a Vancian caster that gets some extra points/spells at each "short rest", and has some extra flexibility as he's not tied to X spells per spell level.

Module "C": you know a small fixed list of spells and you can use P mana points to cast one of them. This is the "PEW-PEW" caster.

Then give different options for what a short and long rest mean, thus giving the DM tools to pace her adventure. By balancing the effects of long and short rests you can try to address the 5-minute workday issue, and by choosing one module for the fighter and one for the wizard you'll be able to decide what the balance between them is.

A fighter/wizard will have a stamina and a mana pool depending on his level in each class so you can get some 3.x like multiclassing and you can then maybe look at feats that let you exchange points in one pool for points in another, maybe in Gish theme.

A solution like this one could preserve the spirit of each edition and not favour one playstyle as you can choose what you want.

If 5e would do something similar or any other solution that will get the same result then I'll jump on board immediately.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

The probem right now is twofold. 

The first is 4e fans were spoiled. One audience got everything they wanted out of 4e, all the changes they'd always wanted, such as the removal of vancian and addition of powers to the fighter. All their complaints were answered at the cost of about half the playing audience.

Now WotC s taking a middle ground approach, giving both sides something. Which sucks if you had been getting everything and now only get half. Which leads us to the second part of the problem: we've only seen one half. No non-Vancian casters and no fighter maneuvers. Things will quiet down when those are released.  

Half ain't good enough. Why on earth would I play half a game when the whole one is already sitting on my shelf? Now, if we're talking half my game plus half new and amazing, that sounds interesting, but we're not. We're talking half my game plus half tired old crap I was glad to be rid of and have zero desire to go back to. Screw that.


Which is EXACTLY the problem.
4e was all your game and half my game and none of anyone who prefered an older edition's game. So we went off and found our own games, and there wasn't enough left over sales to support your game. So your game died, while mine is still going strong.

Now WotC is offering a split of your game and my game hoping to get everyone on board. Which would have sold like gangbusters in 2008 and prevented Pathfinder from even getting past the design phase. But now, after being spoiled by a game that was all yours, comprimising seems anthema. 

Which is silly and selfish. What's the end result? 5e sells poorly and D&D goes away and now no one gets a game. Is that worth it? Is that the desired outcome?
Even the diest of die hard Pathfinder fans don't want that as they know strong competition is good for the industry and pushes both to be better.

Isn't half a game better than no game? Isn't something always better than nothing?

If you don't want to join in and play that's just fine, as the end result for you is the same either way: no game. But don't spoil for everone else, especially the next generation of gamers that hadn't had a game yet, that has no voice, and needs there to be a D&D in the future. 
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

The probem right now is twofold. 

The first is 4e fans were spoiled. One audience got everything they wanted out of 4e, all the changes they'd always wanted, such as the removal of vancian and addition of powers to the fighter. All their complaints were answered at the cost of about half the playing audience.

Now WotC s taking a middle ground approach, giving both sides something. Which sucks if you had been getting everything and now only get half. Which leads us to the second part of the problem: we've only seen one half. No non-Vancian casters and no fighter maneuvers. Things will quiet down when those are released.  

Half ain't good enough. Why on earth would I play half a game when the whole one is already sitting on my shelf? Now, if we're talking half my game plus half new and amazing, that sounds interesting, but we're not. We're talking half my game plus half tired old crap I was glad to be rid of and have zero desire to go back to. Screw that.


Which is EXACTLY the problem.
4e was all your game and half my game and none of anyone who prefered an older edition's game. So we went off and found our own games, and there wasn't enough left over sales to support your game. So your game died, while mine is still going strong.

Now WotC is offering a split of your game and my game hoping to get everyone on board. Which would have sold like gangbusters in 2008 and prevented Pathfinder from even getting past the design phase. But now, after being spoiled by a game that was all yours, comprimising seems anthema. 

Which is silly and selfish. What's the end result? 5e sells poorly and D&D goes away and now no one gets a game. Is that worth it? Is that the desired outcome?
Even the diest of die hard Pathfinder fans don't want that as they know strong competition is good for the industry and pushes both to be better.

Isn't half a game better than no game? Isn't something always better than nothing?

If you don't want to join in and play that's just fine, as the end result for you is the same either way: no game. But don't spoil for everone else, especially the next generation of gamers that hadn't had a game yet, that has no voice, and needs there to be a D&D in the future. 

Umm... No?

You act as though my only choice is to accept this supposed half-game or nothing. You act as though telling WotC to screw off and continue playing 4E isn't one of the choices. 5E needs to do better than be half my game and half old crap I hate if it doesn't want me to choose to tell it to screw off and continue playing 4E, and I think there are enough people like me that 5E will be a sales failure if things turn out that way.

...whatever

Which is EXACTLY the problem.
4e was all your game and half my game and none of anyone who prefered an older edition's game. So we went off and found our own games, and there wasn't enough left over sales to support your game. So your game died, while mine is still going strong.

Now WotC is offering a split of your game and my game hoping to get everyone on board. Which would have sold like gangbusters in 2008 and prevented Pathfinder from even getting past the design phase. But now, after being spoiled by a game that was all yours, comprimising seems anthema. 

Which is silly and selfish. What's the end result? 5e sells poorly and D&D goes away and now no one gets a game. Is that worth it? Is that the desired outcome?
Even the diest of die hard Pathfinder fans don't want that as they know strong competition is good for the industry and pushes both to be better.

Isn't half a game better than no game? Isn't something always better than nothing?

If you don't want to join in and play that's just fine, as the end result for you is the same either way: no game. But don't spoil for everone else, especially the next generation of gamers that hadn't had a game yet, that has no voice, and needs there to be a D&D in the future. 

Umm... No?

You act as though my only choice is to accept this supposed half-game or nothing. You act as though telling WotC to screw off and continue playing 4E isn't one of the choices. 5E needs to do better than be half my game and half old crap I hate if it doesn't want me to choose to tell it to screw off and continue playing 4E, and I think there are enough people like me that 5E will be a sales failure if things turn out that way.


The fact that you refer to it as "old crap" doesn't exactly denote an open mind. Just because an idea is old doesn't make it less valuable. Just because a game element isn't brand new doesn't mean it isn't a valid source of inspiration.
We need a new message board fallacy that states "Any source of inspiration - be it a video game or old edition - is just as valid and potentially good as a brand new idea." Deriding a mechanic because its source is 1e is EXACTLY as silly as deriding an idea because it came from World of Warcraft.

Here are WotC's options:
1) WotC stops making D&D RPGS. This is bad.
2) WotC tries to make an RPG that attracts a wider audience than 4e. This is neutral and can be good or bad. 
3) WotC keeps going like they have for the past two years (pretending things are great and selling 4e books that don't move enough copies). WotC eventually has to cancel the D&D brand. Functionally the same as #1 only likely with more lay-offs and ends the entire brand not just the RPGs. 

Here is every player'soptions:
1) Keep playing your current edition. That's fine. Bow out gracefully but don't try and influence a game you have no intention of buying. 
2) Plan on purchasing the game. Equally fine, and - of course- you should have some influence over your future purchase.
3) Find a new game. Just as fine as any of the others. There any many games on the market. 
4) Make your own game. Many people are trying to use the OGL to make a 4e retroclone. 

What is not a valid option is to tell "WotC to screw off and continue playing 4E" while continuing to complain on the message boards.
Nothing personal, but that's a jerk move. Back when 4e launched I spent too much time complaining about 4e and lamenting the loss of 3e, and that was a jerk move back then. I was a jerk. I wish I could go back in time, smack me up the head and say "Oy, Jester. Stop being a jerk."

Okay, admittedly there is a 5th player option:
5) Hope to buy the game. You continue posting and offering advice in the hopes the edition will  be something you like.
Now, for that option, feedback is a good idea. As long as it's constructive and accepts the realities prompting this new edition:  WotC needs more players - including old players - to be sustainable. That this edition has to be broader, bigger, than any one edition prior. And while it may only be "half your game" that will be half of a much larger whole.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 



2) WotC tries to make an RPG that attracts a wide audience than 4e. THis is neutral and can be good or bad. 

 



And this is where the problems begin : chosing what can make it more succesful/attractive than 4E.
And this is what is debated on these forums ( and a lot of others ).

This said, your Fallacy is useful, but I would add a caveat : there are no bad ideas in absolute. But there are ideas that are better than others when you have specific goals for the game you create (commercial goals or design ones).

Remember Tunnel Seventeen !

@Jester, I see lots of people supporting the modern game design, rather than supporting that 5E be just a copy of 4E. This is not going to happen. 

But for the players that like modern design and solutions for the old problems, it’s our right to complain if we think the system doesn´t work. This is not being a jerk, it´s being honest.

Most of the posts I see from 4E people seem to be valid complaints about a non functional system from their points of view, that´s what the playtest is for. I see some poop throwing coming from the opposite side, though. No one from the 4E side ever told old editions are not RPG, but I constantly listen it from the opposite side, which is very offensive, imo.

About the OP: Yes we will complaint; I think it´s still time to complaint. That´s what the playtest is for. I want to be presented a game that works, not only works, but is be pretty awesome and makes 4E obsolete. Then I will absolutely stop complaining. =)


Which is EXACTLY the problem.
4e was all your game and half my game and none of anyone who prefered an older edition's game. So we went off and found our own games, and there wasn't enough left over sales to support your game. So your game died, while mine is still going strong.

Now WotC is offering a split of your game and my game hoping to get everyone on board. Which would have sold like gangbusters in 2008 and prevented Pathfinder from even getting past the design phase. But now, after being spoiled by a game that was all yours, comprimising seems anthema. 

Which is silly and selfish. What's the end result? 5e sells poorly and D&D goes away and now no one gets a game. Is that worth it? Is that the desired outcome?
Even the diest of die hard Pathfinder fans don't want that as they know strong competition is good for the industry and pushes both to be better.

Isn't half a game better than no game? Isn't something always better than nothing?

If you don't want to join in and play that's just fine, as the end result for you is the same either way: no game. But don't spoil for everone else, especially the next generation of gamers that hadn't had a game yet, that has no voice, and needs there to be a D&D in the future. 

Umm... No?

You act as though my only choice is to accept this supposed half-game or nothing. You act as though telling WotC to screw off and continue playing 4E isn't one of the choices. 5E needs to do better than be half my game and half old crap I hate if it doesn't want me to choose to tell it to screw off and continue playing 4E, and I think there are enough people like me that 5E will be a sales failure if things turn out that way.


The fact that you refer to it as "old crap" doesn't exactly denote an open mind. Just because an idea is old doesn't make it less valuable. Just because a game element isn't brand new doesn't mean it isn't a valid source of inspiration.
We need a new message board fallacy that states "Any source of inspiration - be it a video game or old edition - is just as valid and potentially good as a brand new idea." Deriding a mechanic because its source is 1e is EXACTLY as silly as deriding an idea because it came from World of Warcraft.

Here are WotC's options:
1) WotC stops making D&D RPGS. This is bad.
2) WotC tries to make an RPG that attracts a wider audience than 4e. This is neutral and can be good or bad. 
3) WotC keeps going like they have for the past two years (pretending things are great and selling 4e books that don't move enough copies). WotC eventually has to cancel the D&D brand. Functionally the same as #1 only likely with more lay-offs and ends the entire brand not just the RPGs. 

Here is every player'soptions:
1) Keep playing your current edition. That's fine. Bow out gracefully but don't try and influence a game you have no intention of buying. 
2) Plan on purchasing the game. Equally fine, and - of course- you should have some influence over your future purchase.
3) Find a new game. Just as fine as any of the others. There any many games on the market. 
4) Make your own game. Many people are trying to use the OGL to make a 4e retroclone. 

What is not a valid option is to tell "WotC to screw off and continue playing 4E" while continuing to complain on the message boards.
Nothing personal, but that's a jerk move. Back when 4e launched I spent too much time complaining about 4e and lamenting the loss of 3e, and that was a jerk move back then. I was a jerk. I wish I could go back in time, smack me up the head and say "Oy, Jester. Stop being a jerk."

Okay, admittedly there is a 5th player option:
5) Hope to buy the game. You continue posting and offering advice in the hopes the edition will  be something you like.
Now, for that option, feedback is a good idea. As long as it's constructive and accepts the realities prompting this new edition:  WotC needs more players - including old players - to be sustainable. That this edition has to be broader, bigger, than any one edition prior. And while it may only be "half your game" that will be half of a much larger whole.

Complaining about 5E isn't the same as complaining about 4E. At the time of the 4E edition wars, 4E was a done deal. 5E is still in development and subject to change. I see myself as complaining to initiate positive change. Why the hell wouldn't I complain under these circumstances?

...whatever

1. Simple retro clone core sounds terrible to me, I want something new and exciting, not a bunch of tired old sacred cows stapled together.
2. I have no faith that the promises of "modularity will fix" it are anything more than vaporware.
3. History has shown us that complaining works.




You and me both, especially on the new and exciting thing. Modularity, to me, is just big preset groups of house rules, that will, when put together in various combinations, invariably break the game.  How does modularity work with organized play? I'm sure we'll end up with the lowest common denominator.  Which will suck, because its just the core and you get 4 classes and 5 races and zero options.  Problem with complaining is that the squeakiest... and right now the squeakiest is the the dollars being spent and all the various clones of all the various editions. The way I figure there are clones of every edition now. WotC (or maybe their Hasbro overlords) covets those dollars and DDN is a reaction to that.  


You got to wonder if they are kicking themselves of the OGL now, since it basically made all of those clones possible.  Do you think that the developers who pushed for the OGL knew.  Knew that they could use it to continue making sellable content after they left WotC.  Knew that it would let them compete against their former employers in the open market forever.  Now who was it that was the key figure behind the OGL?


TjD




Well the person who was the mind behind the OGL is profitting from it now by attaching himself to Paizo.  I for one, am very glad he did it.  I don't care one wit about WOTC's profits, I care about getting the game I want.  And Ryan Dancey made that possible with the OGL.

If not for the OGL I would be stuck playing an unsupported game in AD&D or 3rd edition.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Re:  Modularity and Organized Play

It will work the same as it does now.  LFR, Encounters, Lair assault.  Three different organized play structures, two different organizations doing the organizing, three completely different rulesets and structures.  Yet somehow people don't show up with their level 8 CharOp badass to the first week of Encounters.

Every organized play group must put together a set of rules, even now.  Take the LFR Campaign Guide.  It's got nearly as many rules in it as PHB, and people understand it, accept it, and build their characters within those limitations.  The same will happen in Next, only instead of having to spell out all of the subtle variations, you'll be able to say things like "We're using skill system B, magic item system A, and the non-XP-based progression path C" and have people understand what that means.

In short, modularity is not a threat to organized play in any way, shape, or form.  Organized play already deals with it, and deals with it well.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
@Jester, I see lots of people supporting the modern game design, rather than supporting that 5E be just a copy of 4E. This is not going to happen. 

But for the players that like modern design and solutions for the old problems, it’s our right to complain if we think the system doesn´t work. This is not being a jerk, it´s being honest.



Define "modern game design". Has game design fundamentally and radically changed in the last five years? Ten years? Thirty? There's some alternate theories and expansions and new ideas, but the basics are unchanged. 

And what kind of game design? Most RPGs other than D&D have dropped maps, miniatures, and the like and embraced player narrative control and shared storytelling. Really, 4e with its manipulatives had the design of 1995-2000 eurogames. 

Most of the posts I see from 4E people seem to be valid complaints about a non functional system from their points of view, that´s what the playtest is for. I see some poop throwing coming from the opposite side, though. No one from the 4E side ever told old editions are not RPG, but I constantly listen it from the opposite side, which is very offensive, imo.


Really? I see a whole lot of lengthy debates and intractable arguments that mostly devolve into whines regarding Vancian magic and fighters without powers. Just introducing Vancian magic seems to be a "non functional system" to many. 

About the OP: Yes we will complaint; I think it´s still time to complaint. That´s what the playtest is for. I want to be presented a game that works, not only works, but is be pretty awesome and makes 4E obsolete. Then I will absolutely stop complaining. =)


No. A playtest is to test by playing. Complaining has NOTHING to do with it. They're fine tuning the game in regards to how much of a presence Advantage should have, how many powers monsters need to have, how much healing there needs to be in the game, and the like. Most of the complaints are related to things that have already been decided upon and are taking time and space and energy away from current problems to be adressed.  

Complaining about 5E isn't the same as complaining about 4E. At the time of the 4E edition wars, 4E was a done deal. 5E is still in development and subject to change. I see myself as complaining to initiate positive change. Why the hell wouldn't I complain under these circumstances?


Some things are in development and subject to change. When in a beta test you don't expect the developers to suddenly switch graphic engines or completely change their system. Complaining isn't producting, and offers no constructive criticism or useable feedback.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

Except we're not in a beta test.  Just about everything is subject to change, still.  If you really want to compare it to software design, I'm not even sure we're at "alpha" yet.  This playtest certainly isn't even remotely close to complete enough to be called an alpha.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Except we're not in a beta test.  Just about everything is subject to change, still.  If you really want to compare it to software design, I'm not even sure we're at "alpha" yet.  This playtest certainly isn't even remotely close to complete enough to be called an alpha.



Yes we are in beta test even if Wotc won't admit it.  Why?  By making the DDN announcement in January, Wotc and Hasbro effectively shot their current product (DnD 4e) in the head.  No one wants to further invest in a product that is about to become obsolete.  That means that in order for the new product to come out in a reasonable period of time (about a year is the top end of reasonable), we HAVE to be in beta test and that means DDN is a lot closer to it's final form than the devs want to admit.

-Polaris


Yes we are in beta test even if Wotc won't admit it.  Why?



Because you say so obviously

 
By making the DDN announcement in January, Wotc and Hasbro effectively shot their current product (DnD 4e) in the head.



Making an announcement does not = the playtest being a beta test.

 
No one wants to further invest in a product that is about to become obsolete.  That means that in order for the new product to come out in a reasonable period of time (about a year is the top end of reasonable), we HAVE to be in beta test and that means DDN is a lot closer to it's final form than the devs want to admit.



Your assumptions don't make it a beta test, either. 



Except we're not in a beta test.  Just about everything is subject to change, still.  If you really want to compare it to software design, I'm not even sure we're at "alpha" yet.  This playtest certainly isn't even remotely close to complete enough to be called an alpha.



Yes we are in beta test even if Wotc won't admit it.  Why?  By making the DDN announcement in January, Wotc and Hasbro effectively shot their current product (DnD 4e) in the head.  No one wants to further invest in a product that is about to become obsolete.  That means that in order for the new product to come out in a reasonable period of time (about a year is the top end of reasonable), we HAVE to be in beta test and that means DDN is a lot closer to it's final form than the devs want to admit.

-Polaris




Awesome, pure conjecture about their business model.

No this isn't a beta test yet this is hardly even alpha testing yet.  Believing it is anything beyond that is tinfoil hat teritory.  The next packet could be an alpha, but that is unlikely.  A beta is essentially a finished product.  This is nowhere even close to that.

 
Beta test vs not beta test is a form vs function debate.

Because of the timelines and perceived deadline pressures, it's not a big jump to conclude this is beta-territory.

Because the content was so limited its not hard to conclude this is a pre-alpha stress-test on the core theory.

It's kind of a semantic debate, so, meh.

-Brad



Yes we are in beta test even if Wotc won't admit it.  Why?



Because you say so obviously

 
By making the DDN announcement in January, Wotc and Hasbro effectively shot their current product (DnD 4e) in the head.



Making an announcement does not = the playtest being a beta test.

 
No one wants to further invest in a product that is about to become obsolete.  That means that in order for the new product to come out in a reasonable period of time (about a year is the top end of reasonable), we HAVE to be in beta test and that means DDN is a lot closer to it's final form than the devs want to admit.



Your assumptions don't make it a beta test, either. 






I like the part where he said aliens will suck our brains out with straws unless we place tinfoil on our head accordingly...

In all seriousness, I want concrete proof, not conspiracy mumbo jumbo.  No one is insane to publish a game when it's 20% finished!  Say what you want, but I doubt this thing will be ready till 2014 (Fall/Winter 2013 the earliest).  I don't think we're quite in alpha.  There's still so much to go and we've only scratched the surface, the first draft, the bare minimum.

The Knights of W.T.F. may as well be ghosts, but the message still stays;

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
  • PRAISE THE SUN!



Most of the posts I see from 4E people seem to be valid complaints about a non functional system from their points of view, that´s what the playtest is for. I see some poop throwing coming from the opposite side, though. No one from the 4E side ever told old editions are not RPG, but I constantly listen it from the opposite side, which is very offensive, imo.


Really? I see a whole lot of lengthy debates and intractable arguments that mostly devolve into whines regarding Vancian magic and fighters without powers. Just introducing Vancian magic seems to be a "non functional system" to many.



If you can't understand why making Vancian magic the core form of magic in the game bothers the players who don't like Vancian magic, then I'm not surprised that the debates seem lengthy and intractable to you.

Making something as simple as fighter powers modular would be fine for a lot of 4e fans.  However, when we then turn around and see that the more complex Vancian magic is being proposed as core, it becomes hard to believe that WotC is really striving for a simple set of basic core rules.
Beta test vs not beta test is a form vs function debate. Because of the timelines and perceived deadline pressures, it's not a big jump to conclude this is beta-territory. Because the content was so limited its not hard to conclude this is a pre-alpha stress-test on the core theory. It's kind of a semantic debate, so, meh.




No a beta test fulfills a very very specific role in the testing schedule.  What we got is not a beta and never could be.  If it were a beta it would have had all of the art with it as well.  They would have been asking us to note any small typos.  We would have had the books in their full format.  That is a beta test.  Untill we get to that point this is not a beta test.  They don't even know how they are going to be packaging this whole system.  that would be worked out in a beta.  there is nowhere near enough development for this to be anywhere near a beta.  The percieved time constraints is a false assertion because it assumes the person making the assertion knows anything of what they are talking about.  Unless it is one of the devs saying so I will believe noone's assessment of the release schedule and what needs to come out when.
look, i don't think either side of this silliness is going to get what it's most afraid of: neither another ground-up, do-over, baby-out-with-the-bathwater reimagining of the whole game, nor a complete thac0-&-racial-level-caps throwback to the 70's/80's.


The problem with this statement is that one player's baby is another player's bathwater.  Vancian magic?  It's my bathwater, but some people cherish it like a baby.  Less controversially, assuming magic items in the balance of the game is also my bathwater (whether this comes in 4e's "math fixing" form, or AD&D 2e's "load the fighter down with magic so he can pretend to be equal to the wizard while pretending not to be one" form).

...okay, i've vented.  now everybody attack me so i can get all p&^%$d off again...


That . . . doesn't sound healthy.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.




Most of the posts I see from 4E people seem to be valid complaints about a non functional system from their points of view, that´s what the playtest is for. I see some poop throwing coming from the opposite side, though. No one from the 4E side ever told old editions are not RPG, but I constantly listen it from the opposite side, which is very offensive, imo.


Really? I see a whole lot of lengthy debates and intractable arguments that mostly devolve into whines regarding Vancian magic and fighters without powers. Just introducing Vancian magic seems to be a "non functional system" to many.



If you can't understand why making Vancian magic the core form of magic in the game bothers the players who don't like Vancian magic, then I'm not surprised that the debates seem lengthy and intractable to you.

Making something as simple as fighter powers modular would be fine for a lot of 4e fans.  However, when we then turn around and see that the more complex Vancian magic is being proposed as core, it becomes hard to believe that WotC is really striving for a simple set of basic core rules.




Vancian magic is modular within the system.

Don't like vancian magic at all...Ban the wizard...vancian magic is gone from the system. 



No. A playtest is to test by playing. Complaining has NOTHING to do with it. They're fine tuning the game in regards to how much of a presence Advantage should have, how many powers monsters need to have, how much healing there needs to be in the game, and the like. Most of the complaints are related to things that have already been decided upon and are taking time and space and energy away from current problems to be adressed. 




Yes, that´s exactly what I´m doing and lots of other people are doing as well. See this tread, where I put the reasons why I did not like the playtest. I think they are valid. Thanks.

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






Most of the posts I see from 4E people seem to be valid complaints about a non functional system from their points of view, that´s what the playtest is for. I see some poop throwing coming from the opposite side, though. No one from the 4E side ever told old editions are not RPG, but I constantly listen it from the opposite side, which is very offensive, imo.


Really? I see a whole lot of lengthy debates and intractable arguments that mostly devolve into whines regarding Vancian magic and fighters without powers. Just introducing Vancian magic seems to be a "non functional system" to many.



If you can't understand why making Vancian magic the core form of magic in the game bothers the players who don't like Vancian magic, then I'm not surprised that the debates seem lengthy and intractable to you.

Making something as simple as fighter powers modular would be fine for a lot of 4e fans.  However, when we then turn around and see that the more complex Vancian magic is being proposed as core, it becomes hard to believe that WotC is really striving for a simple set of basic core rules.




Vancian magic is modular within the system.

Don't like vancian magic at all...Ban the wizard...vancian magic is gone from the system. 


That is really only an acceptable answer if the wizard class itself has no flavor locked into it.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.




Most of the posts I see from 4E people seem to be valid complaints about a non functional system from their points of view, that´s what the playtest is for. I see some poop throwing coming from the opposite side, though. No one from the 4E side ever told old editions are not RPG, but I constantly listen it from the opposite side, which is very offensive, imo.


Really? I see a whole lot of lengthy debates and intractable arguments that mostly devolve into whines regarding Vancian magic and fighters without powers. Just introducing Vancian magic seems to be a "non functional system" to many.



If you can't understand why making Vancian magic the core form of magic in the game bothers the players who don't like Vancian magic, then I'm not surprised that the debates seem lengthy and intractable to you.

Making something as simple as fighter powers modular would be fine for a lot of 4e fans.  However, when we then turn around and see that the more complex Vancian magic is being proposed as core, it becomes hard to believe that WotC is really striving for a simple set of basic core rules.




Vancian magic is modular within the system.

Don't like vancian magic at all...Ban the wizard...vancian magic is gone from the system. 


That is really only an acceptable answer if the wizard class itself has no flavor locked into it.




so far it doesn't look to have any flavor applied to it really.  I mean there is the spell book but that is so modifiable it doesn't matter.  It's just a name for their spells known list, and a focal item they need to prep spells.  You could call it their staff or psi crystal and its all the same.

Most of the posts I see from 4E people seem to be valid complaints about a non functional system from their points of view, that´s what the playtest is for. I see some poop throwing coming from the opposite side, though. No one from the 4E side ever told old editions are not RPG, but I constantly listen it from the opposite side, which is very offensive, imo.

 
Really? I see a whole lot of lengthy debates and intractable arguments that mostly devolve into whines regarding Vancian magic and fighters without powers. Just introducing Vancian magic seems to be a "non functional system" to many.

 
If you can't understand why making Vancian magic the core form of magic in the game bothers the players who don't like Vancian magic, then I'm not surprised that the debates seem lengthy and intractable to you.

Making something as simple as fighter powers modular would be fine for a lot of 4e fans.  However, when we then turn around and see that the more complex Vancian magic is being proposed as core, it becomes hard to believe that WotC is really striving for a simple set of basic core rules.


Someone else responds to this perfectly, I'll repeat them:


The problem with this statement is that one player's baby is another player's bathwater.  Vancian magic?  It's my bathwater, but some people cherish it like a baby.  Less controversially, assuming magic items in the balance of the game is also my bathwater (whether this comes in 4e's "math fixing" form, or AD&D 2e's "load the fighter down with magic so he can pretend to be equal to the wizard while pretending not to be one" form).


Part of complaining about 5e should be picking the battles you can win. It's not your game, it's all of our game and we need to share. There needs to be compromises from both sides. If 4e hadn't been so radically different this would be easier and it would be much easier to slip in 4e-isms without subtracting from all the 1e-3e elements.


Vancian magic is a core part of the game. It's odd and weird and illogical but very uniquely D&D. While I'm not the biggest fan of Vancian magic (I was very happy with my 3e copy of Unearthed Arcana) I do not dispute its place in the game any more than I dispute Lawful Good paladins with 18 Charisma.


 


No. A playtest is to test by playing. Complaining has NOTHING to do with it. They're fine tuning the game in regards to how much of a presence Advantage should have, how many powers monsters need to have, how much healing there needs to be in the game, and the like. Most of the complaints are related to things that have already been decided upon and are taking time and space and energy away from current problems to be adressed. 


 

Yes, that´s exactly what I´m doing and lots of other people are doing as well. See this tread, where I put the reasons why I did not like the playtest. I think they are valid. Thanks.


I guess I'll reply there. 

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

The problem with this statement is that one player's baby is another player's bathwater.  Vancian magic?  It's my bathwater, but some people cherish it like a baby.  Less controversially, assuming magic items in the balance of the game is also my bathwater (whether this comes in 4e's "math fixing" form, or AD&D 2e's "load the fighter down with magic so he can pretend to be equal to the wizard while pretending not to be one" form).

Part of complaining about 5e should be picking the battles you can win. It's not your game, it's all of our game and we need to share. There needs to be compromises from both sides. If 4e hadn't been so radically different this would be easier and it would be much easier to slip in 4e-isms without subtracting from all the 1e-3e elements.


Vancian magic is a core part of the game. It's odd and weird and illogical but very uniquely D&D. While I'm not the biggest fan of Vancian magic (I was very happy with my 3e copy of Unearthed Arcana) I do not dispute its place in the game any more than I dispute Lawful Good paladins with 18 Charisma.



I agree with you about picking one's battles, that's why all I want is a series of rules modules for changing the subsystems.  Ideally, it'd be cool to have all of them interchangeable at launch. However, I'm also a realist.  I just want one thing. at launch (I want the rest to come later) that vancian can be swapped out for.  It really shouldn't be that hard.  I mean, vancian has always been close to a spell point system anyway, and it would go a long way to proving that WotC actually cares about making all of the classes usable by people with different preferences in resource management.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.