I liked 2E, 3E, and 4E because they were different

I am unexcited by D&D Next. Here's why:

I've been playing D&D for over 20 years, since my big brother got me interested in OD&D. The first books I owned were 2E and I loved them. Later, in college, I got into 3E and enjoyed that as well, and a few years ago when 4E came out I bought those books (after being off the D&D wagon for a few years) and they got me into D&D all over again.

I don't really have a favorite edition, but I do know that what I loved about each edition was the new stuff it brought to the table. The way each edition revised some of my expectations and had some new ideas that made me think about the possibilities of pen and paper roleplaying differently, while still keeping enough of the core sense of D&D to be recognizable. I'm an inveterate house-ruler, so for the most part the problems with each edition didn't bother me too much--I'd just create house rules to paper over them and fix them, then be on my way. I never bothered with 3.5 edition because by the time it came out I had already modified so many aspects of 3E that I did not feel the need to buy someone else's modifications.

Enter D&D Next. At first I was excited because there are few things in life I love more than opening a new RPG book. Looking at the materials, though, I see very little that looks new. Just rehashed stuff from old editions cobbled together inelegantly.

And the forums are mostly full of people arguing over which edition D&D Next should resemble. Well, here's a novel idea: maybe it shouldn't resemble any of the previous editions. Maybe it should really be D&D Next, not D&D Previous.

Anyone else feel this way?
Yeah that's almost exactly how I am feeling.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
The problem is that by and large, D&D fans (being the poster child of a Broken Base) firmly believe in They Changed It, Now It Sucks.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
I am unexcited by D&D Next. Here's why:

I've been playing D&D for over 20 years, since my big brother got me interested in OD&D. The first books I owned were 2E and I loved them. Later, in college, I got into 3E and enjoyed that as well, and a few years ago when 4E came out I bought those books (after being off the D&D wagon for a few years) and they got me into D&D all over again.

I don't really have a favorite edition, but I do know that what I loved about each edition was the new stuff it brought to the table. The way each edition revised some of my expectations and had some new ideas that made me think about the possibilities of pen and paper roleplaying differently, while still keeping enough of the core sense of D&D to be recognizable. I'm an inveterate house-ruler, so for the most part the problems with each edition didn't bother me too much--I'd just create house rules to paper over them and fix them, then be on my way. I never bothered with 3.5 edition because by the time it came out I had already modified so many aspects of 3E that I did not feel the need to buy someone else's modifications.

Enter D&D Next. At first I was excited because there are few things in life I love more than opening a new RPG book. Looking at the materials, though, I see very little that looks new. Just rehashed stuff from old editions cobbled together inelegantly.

And the forums are mostly full of people arguing over which edition D&D Next should resemble. Well, here's a novel idea: maybe it shouldn't resemble any of the previous editions. Maybe it should really be D&D Next, not D&D Previous.

Anyone else feel this way?



I feel that whatever they release will be different.  How much different?  I don't know.  But, I do know it'll be different, and different + new often equates to fun for many people, myself included.  So it'll be fun for many, but the real question is how long?

And just to be fair, at its core, all D&D games have been similar and often share "rehashed" rules. 
I really enjoy following published D&D lore, from edition to edition even.  I like seeing how the stories change, are re-imagined (as I call it), or even how they stay the same (recognition is vital).

For instance, not long after 2E was released, I started playing in a Forgotten Realms campaign.  One of the most iconic archmages of the setting is The Simbul.  She was a Wizard back then.  When the preview articles for 3e first showed up in Dragon Magazine, it was mentioned that The Simbul was actually a Sorcerer; she had been all along (we just hadn't been paying close enough attention-- if you will ;)). 

In 4e, the Aasimar was re-imagined as the Deva.  The Tiefling was given a more 'iconic' look.  Both from the 2e setting, Planescape.  Also, the World Axis was a new take on D&D cosmology that I loved.  It supplanted the earlier Great Wheel, from 3e and before.

= = =

3e had some surprises but 4e had just the right mix as far as I'm concerned.  For the first time in a very long time, D&D felt fresh and new to me, not just more of the same ol', same ol'.

That might not appeal to everyone; in fact, I can imagine it even alienating some longtime fans.  I love the occasional twist though, seeing some things come into greater focus with a change in system.  If I didn't follow lore from game to game, I'd miss out on stuff like that.
/\ Art
Enter D&D Next. At first I was excited because there are few things in life I love more than opening a new RPG book. Looking at the materials, though, I see very little that looks new. Just rehashed stuff from old editions cobbled together inelegantly.

And the forums are mostly full of people arguing over which edition D&D Next should resemble. Well, here's a novel idea: maybe it shouldn't resemble any of the previous editions. Maybe it should really be D&D Next, not D&D Previous.

Anyone else feel this way?


Why can't it do both?

That's the potential strength of 5th Edition. It's designed to be retro and simple for the reason that it's hard to add simplicity to a complex game. But you can add complexity, you can add new ideas, and you can add new mechanics. 

They're starting with the bridge building, to win back the fans that never upgraded or fled to Paizo. They need to reconnect to the audience and get as many eyes on the project as possible.
But once the core game has been built they can do so much. Because it will have been designed to be so hackable and modular and customizable.  

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 


2e and 3.x were very similar. This is why 3.x stayed popular, it kept the spirit of DnD even with the changes who were mostly a question of rules sreamlining, clarification and unification rather than change all the crunch and the fluff.


4e was a huge break from the past and it seems people didn't enjoy that, as we all know. Now they are going back to DnD's roots and spirit offering continuity of fluf (remains to be seen) and sophistication (just how the warlock class has evolved (new Mearls article) shows lots of sophistication) of mechanics yet staying inline with what is DnD (different ways of playing classes insead of all of them being the same).

Will it be to late to salvage fans who moved on and followed PF who kept the old spirit alive and still innovated?




There were a lot of changes from 2e to 3e that people complained about. For many people it broke the "spirit of D&D" as you would say. Don't you remember all the "3e is too video-gamey it's just a tabletop version of Diablo!" threads?

Also, speak for yourself. Many people loved the changes in 4e, such as myself. I'm glad it changed so many things that bothered me about 2e and 3e.

Ultimately, I agree with OP. I don't want a reprint of 4e with errata. I don't want a mish-mash of retro systems trying way too hard to evoke nostalgia. I want a fresh and innovative rpg system. Unfortunately, it looks like that isn't going to happen.


2e and 3.x were very similar. This is why 3.x stayed popular, it kept the spirit of DnD even with the changes who were mostly a question of rules sreamlining, clarification and unification rather than change all the crunch and the fluff.


4e was a huge break from the past and it seems people didn't enjoy that, as we all know. \




I disagree. I remember the edition wars from 2nd to 3rd.

In reality I think what we see is this....

For some people, 3e changed so much that it wasn't "D&D anymore" to them or that it simply wasn't the kind of D&D they wanted to play. For others, the things that changed were actually improvements or changes that weren't too major and to them it still felt like D&D...only updated.

For some people, 4e changed so much that it wasn't "D&D anymore" to them or that it simply wasn't the kind of D&D they wanted to play. For others, the things that changed were actually improvements or changes that weren't too major and to them it still felt like D&D...only updated.

Now the one thing I will say....based on the longevity of 3.x compared to the seeming longevity of 4e....it would seem that more people may've felt that way about 4e than 3e, but neither can honestly be stated that they didn't cause changes, that they didn't have similarities, or that it "isn't D&D".

It's unquestionable both had changes, unquestionable that both kept some things the same or similar, and whether or not it's "D&D" in the sense it's typically stated is an entirely subjective notion that varies from person to person.


2e and 3.x were very similar. This is why 3.x stayed popular, it kept the spirit of DnD even with the changes who were mostly a question of rules sreamlining, clarification and unification rather than change all the crunch and the fluff.


4e was a huge break from the past and it seems people didn't enjoy that, as we all know. \




I disagree. I remember the edition wars from 2nd to 3rd.

In reality I think what we see is this....

For some people, 3e changed so much that it wasn't "D&D anymore" to them or that it simply wasn't the kind of D&D they wanted to play. For others, the things that changed were actually improvements or changes that weren't too major and to them it still felt like D&D...only updated.

For some people, 4e changed so much that it wasn't "D&D anymore" to them or that it simply wasn't the kind of D&D they wanted to play. For others, the things that changed were actually improvements or changes that weren't too major and to them it still felt like D&D...only updated.

Now the one thing I will say....based on the longevity of 3.x compared to the seeming longevity of 4e....it would seem that more people may've felt that way about 4e than 3e, but neither can honestly be stated that they didn't cause changes, that they didn't have similarities, or that it "isn't D&D".

It's unquestionable both had changes, unquestionable that both kept some things the same or similar, and whether or not it's "D&D" in the sense it's typically stated is an entirely subjective notion that varies from person to person.




I'd put the longevity mostly on the fact that PF supports 3.5 and the fact that WOTC refused to move into the moder PDF era. Along with the initial failure of the online tabletop. I think if they had had the TT out of the door they would have experienced much more success.

Potentially...but you could counter that the fact there was such a demand to make PF feasible and profitable in and of itself says something regarding those old players views on the revolutionary update to the game compared to the evolutionary update provided by PF. That said, it goes round and round and round and no real way to prove on sides opinion over the other.
I also like different versions of D&D, and I'm not expecting Next to be a retro clone, or some kind of Castles & Crusades hybrid either. It will be its own thing.
Children believe what we tell them, they have complete faith in us. I ask of you a little of this childlike simplicity, and to bring us luck, let me speak four truly magic words: "A long time ago...." (Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast) Winner of You Build the Character #12, YbtC #22, YbtC #24, YbtC #28 and YbtC #35 Winner of You Make the... Contest #8

There were a lot of changes from 2e to 3e that people complained about. For many people it broke the "spirit of D&D" as you would say. Don't you remember all the "3e is too video-gamey it's just a tabletop version of Diablo!" threads?




Yeah, the big change from 2E to 3E, was rules lite to rules heavy. 1E/2E were heavily based on DM arbitration, where as 3E had the "rule for everything" mentality. This led to way more page flipping than prior versions of D&D. I hardly ever opened the 2E books durng play, save to check a spell description sometimes. With 3E, I felt the game had a ton of page flipping. Whether you're trying to climb a wall, force a door or jump a pit, you were probably going to have to look something up in 3E.

It also introduced the magic item shop concept and "gold in a jar" magic item creation, which many people (myself included) utterly despised.

Magic items themselves were also severely nerfed, 2Eers remember when things like the hammer of thunderbolts and girdle of giant strength were huge items to find. In 3E, the girdle was just a +2 to hit and damage, and the hammer was just another magic weapon.
I want D&DNext to be as diferent from former editions of D&D as possible, i want new stuff, showing inovation.  In short, i want D&DNext to left behind 1e-4e as much as 4e left behind 1e-3.x

I want to get excited for new stuff, new posibilities never seen before...in the end, there is nothing really exiting about next, the only new thing was combat expertise dices and that turned out to be a dud.
I want D&DNext to be as diferent from former editions of D&D as possible, i want new stuff, showing inovation.  In short, i want D&DNext to left behind 1e-4e as much as 4e left behind 1e-3.x

I want to get excited for new stuff, new posibilities never seen before...in the end, there is nothing really exiting about next, the only new thing was combat expertise dices and that turned out to be a dud.



More or less my current thoughts, I think further exploration of the combat expertise dice is good though, I also like the basic advantage/disadvantage system as well as the ditching of a skill list (which they undid).
I disagree. I remember the edition wars from 2nd to 3rd.



I keep these two post bookmarked just because.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
I want D&DNext to be as diferent from former editions of D&D as possible, i want new stuff, showing inovation.  In short, i want D&DNext to left behind 1e-4e as much as 4e left behind 1e-3.x

I want to get excited for new stuff, new posibilities never seen before...in the end, there is nothing really exiting about next, the only new thing was combat expertise dices and that turned out to be a dud.



"Next" was a terrible name for it. It should have been D&D 5E or D&D Classic. "Next" implies some new revolution in how the game works and is played, but D&DN is actually the opposite of that. We're not moving forward, it's actually more about looking like prior editions.

It's not particularly surprising honestly, given that the #1 complaint about 4E was that it was too different. Now the goal has become to make an edition that's more familiar to older players.
If that's true, why is it that every convention I go to (4 a year) has tables and tables of 4e, while Pathfinder and 3.0 and 1st edition have few tables?  On Encounters night we have upwards of 40 people at the gaming store.  Pathfinder night, about five.  Then there's Lair Assualt as well.  I rarely participate in that, but know that it's generally full.  Just look at the conventions and notch the D&D tables versus the Pathfinder.  I know that's just my observation, but it seems a valid question.  No one knows how many books are sold or how much money Wizards makes because of Habro's book keeping.     

That is a false argument. There was nerd rage when 3.0 came out, but it died down, unlike it did with 4e. Plus there is a question of popularity that transfer into profitability. The longivity of 3.x, still going 12 years after it's release thanls to Paizo, as opposed to 4e's 3 year run, points to the lack of profitability and thus popularity of 4e.

The reasons are simple, 3.x was a continuity of 2e, as opposed to 4 e that was a break.


Okay, lets not kid ourselves here, there's actually a ton of 1E/2E retroclones: Castles and Crusades, Hackmaster, OSRIC, Dark Dungeons, Old school hack, etc.

Saying that the old guard all converted over to 3E is just not accurate. The 2E to 3E changeover seems to have left quite a lot of people behind as well, judging by the mass of retroclones out there.

The pro-3E crowd just seems alot more vocal, mostly because more of them are part of the internet generation.
If that's true, why is it that every convention I go to (4 a year) has tables and tables of 4e, while Pathfinder and 3.0 and 1st edition have few tables?  On Encounters night we have upwards of 40 people at the gaming store.  Pathfinder night, about five.  Then there's Lair Assualt as well.  I rarely participate in that, but know that it's generally full.  Just look at the conventions and notch the D&D tables versus the Pathfinder.  I know that's just my observation, but it seems a valid question.  No one knows how many books are sold or how much money Wizards makes because of Habro's book keeping.     



Yeah, there's no good data to prove why 4e had a shorter lifespan. I think one thing that is worth thinking about is opportunity cost. As in, could WotC make more money giving D&D's budget to Magic:TG and shelving any RPG development?

They probably realized that there is still money in D&D, given all the backlog of material and the novels. Planescape gave us Torment and FR gave us Balder's Gate and Neverwinter, so the CPRG market has potential for sure. Having the D&D players as marketing voices is like how Marvel has comic fans to tout the Avengers.

But it's better to have a wider group if what you want are mouth pieces for games, novels, and maybe (hopefully) a film that isn't trash. It's also nice to have them paying monthly fees into the DDI, promoting setting material and setting articles on their blogs and websites.

Finally, gamers teach new gamers, so the more gamers who you have buying your product the more you'll have bringing the next generation into the fold. It's better to stave of[f] the depletion of gamers before worrying about expansion, which is where 4e possibly erred with its "old stuff sucks" marketing. (The system, reading through it with less prejudice now, is good.)

TL;DR: Next is a means to get as many gamers under the WotC fold as possible, in order to promote D&D products tangentially connected to the actual TTRPG.


Anyone else feel this way?


No.  I have a good 30-50 different RPGs sitting on the bookshelf or pdf.  They all have different new things.  There are hundred of RPGs out there with all kinds of novel new ways of doing things.  Whenever I have an inkling for something different, there is an ample buffet.

D&D is my favorite RPG because I like where it has been.  I want DDN to be a blend of the various editions into a smooth whole.
Anyone else feel this way?


No.  I have a good 30-50 different RPGs sitting on the bookshelf or pdf.  They all have different new things.  There are hundred of RPGs out there with all kinds of novel new ways of doing things.  Whenever I have an inkling for something different, there is an ample buffet.

D&D is my favorite RPG because I like where it has been.  I want DDN to be a blend of the various editions into a smooth whole.


Amen to that. 

All editions have something to offer.  

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


Why can't it do both?

That's the potential strength of 5th Edition. It's designed to be retro and simple for the reason that it's hard to add simplicity to a complex game. But you can add complexity, you can add new ideas, and you can add new mechanics. 

They're starting with the bridge building, to win back the fans that never upgraded or fled to Paizo. They need to reconnect to the audience and get as many eyes on the project as possible.
But once the core game has been built they can do so much. Because it will have been designed to be so hackable and modular and customizable.  



I hope that you are right, and what's coming will seem more ineresting than what we already have. I like the idea of a modular system, since a modular system should be easy to home rule. I don't really see any sign of this promised awesomeness right now, but I plan to stick around and keep glancing through the packets as they are released in hopes that I will see something that makes it look worth playing.

All editions have something to offer.  


We can agree on that at least!

Though I'm not really sure that grabbing rules randomly from them and sticking them awkwardly together is necessarily a good idea. Still, might work. Will wait and see.
Modular-good
Random- Very, very bad.
5E is not even in beta yet, so if you want innovation, then post ideas the will push the game forward, if you like specific versions of D&D, then state what you like about it. Above all else be patient and understanding, if 5E does not turn out exactly like you want, you still have the previous editions. The hard part is reaching a common ground, as everyone is looking for something different.

If you decide a specific edition is the be all, end all, then best avoid any topic related to 5E.  

 
Anyone else feel this way?



No, not really.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours