It's time to show us the tactical module

This playtest has been going on for a while now and it looks like the core system is starting to come together. Sure the rogue needs to be overhauled and each class needs to be tweaked, but the guts of the system are quite apparrant. I think that now is the time for WotC to give us a taste of what to expect from the tactical module they keep referring to.

How is it going to work? Will be like the system in 4e where each class gets powers or it will it be more like the 3.5 system with a multitude of rules to cover flat footed/touch/grapple/etc. ?

This module is critical to winning over the fans of 4e and more modern RPG's and therefore I think it's critical that WotC gives us a chance to playtest it before it gets published. 
I'd like to see some reason for a person who thinks 4E was a better game than earlier editions to buy 5E. If the tactical module is just a rehash of the 3E grid and generic maneuver rules, it's not going to be what fixes 5E for alienated 4E fans.
...whatever
The Tactical Module probably doesn't exist yet.
I'm sure they'll put it out for playtest when they are ready to do so, and not beforehand.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Here's the thing.  The tactical combat module is a myth.  If it's a module, then it has no chance of winning over 4e fans.  You can't just slap on flanking and rules for using a grid and call it tactical.  4e worked as a tactical game because it was designed from the ground up as a tactical game, with action economy, resource management, enough HP that combats lasted enough rounds to bother set up a strategy, class roles fostering cooperation, and a suite of powers that created and exploited situations, bonuses, and penalties.  To add that level of tactical depth to Next, the "tactical module" would have to be bigger than the core rulebook, and rewrite substantial portions of it (in particular, the entirety of the monster manual).  I'm not saying class roles were awesome or a limited menu of AEDU powers was made of win, but they were integral to making 4e the tactical game that it was.  I'm not even saying that a tactical game is better than a non-tactical game, or that you couldn't make a tactical game without taking the 4e route.  But I really don't think you can make Next into a tactical game with a couple of AoE templates and a list of suggestions for how to model a few extra situational bonuses/penalties/actions.  And I really don't think we're going to get more than that, because at that point you're making a whole new edition, not a module.  More of a basic vs advanced thing, hopefully with a relatively easy way to convert characters back and forth.  
Here's the thing.  The tactical combat module is a myth.  If it's a module, then it has no chance of winning over 4e fans.  You can't just slap on flanking and rules for using a grid and call it tactical.  4e worked as a tactical game because it was designed from the ground up as a tactical game, with action economy, resource management, enough HP that combats lasted enough rounds to bother set up a strategy, class roles fostering cooperation, and a suite of powers that created and exploited situations, bonuses, and penalties.  To add that level of tactical depth to Next, the "tactical module" would have to be bigger than the core rulebook, and rewrite substantial portions of it (in particular, the entirety of the monster manual).  I'm not saying class roles were awesome or a limited menu of AEDU powers was made of win, but they were integral to making 4e the tactical game that it was.  I'm not even saying that a tactical game is better than a non-tactical game, or that you couldn't make a tactical game without taking the 4e route.  But I really don't think you can make Next into a tactical game with a couple of AoE templates and a list of suggestions for how to model a few extra situational bonuses/penalties/actions.  And I really don't think we're going to get more than that, because at that point you're making a whole new edition, not a module.  More of a basic vs advanced thing, hopefully with a relatively easy way to convert characters back and forth.  


I think the tactical rules module is viable, it will just offer a little less of the tactical expereince than 4e did.  This is probably necessary since even a fair number of 4e players and DMs said that combat took too long.  However, you are right that you can't just slap grid rules on the thing and call it a day.  You need to go back and add options that interface with terrain and the grid.  At the moment, this seems to be something they could do through maneuvers, rogue skill tricks, and possibly as just an option for anyone using CE dice.

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.

Here's the thing.  The tactical combat module is a myth.  If it's a module, then it has no chance of winning over 4e fans.  You can't just slap on flanking and rules for using a grid and call it tactical.  4e worked as a tactical game because it was designed from the ground up as a tactical game, with action economy, resource management, enough HP that combats lasted enough rounds to bother set up a strategy, class roles fostering cooperation, and a suite of powers that created and exploited situations, bonuses, and penalties.  To add that level of tactical depth to Next, the "tactical module" would have to be bigger than the core rulebook, and rewrite substantial portions of it (in particular, the entirety of the monster manual).  I'm not saying class roles were awesome or a limited menu of AEDU powers was made of win, but they were integral to making 4e the tactical game that it was.  I'm not even saying that a tactical game is better than a non-tactical game, or that you couldn't make a tactical game without taking the 4e route.  But I really don't think you can make Next into a tactical game with a couple of AoE templates and a list of suggestions for how to model a few extra situational bonuses/penalties/actions.  And I really don't think we're going to get more than that, because at that point you're making a whole new edition, not a module.  More of a basic vs advanced thing, hopefully with a relatively easy way to convert characters back and forth.  


Yup man Im on a roll today just wait and somebody posts my opinon for me
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Here's the thing.  The tactical combat module is a myth.  If it's a module, then it has no chance of winning over 4e fans.  You can't just slap on flanking and rules for using a grid and call it tactical.  4e worked as a tactical game because it was designed from the ground up as a tactical game, with action economy, resource management, enough HP that combats lasted enough rounds to bother set up a strategy, class roles fostering cooperation, and a suite of powers that created and exploited situations, bonuses, and penalties.  To add that level of tactical depth to Next, the "tactical module" would have to be bigger than the core rulebook, and rewrite substantial portions of it (in particular, the entirety of the monster manual).  I'm not saying class roles were awesome or a limited menu of AEDU powers was made of win, but they were integral to making 4e the tactical game that it was.  I'm not even saying that a tactical game is better than a non-tactical game, or that you couldn't make a tactical game without taking the 4e route.  But I really don't think you can make Next into a tactical game with a couple of AoE templates and a list of suggestions for how to model a few extra situational bonuses/penalties/actions.  And I really don't think we're going to get more than that, because at that point you're making a whole new edition, not a module.  More of a basic vs advanced thing, hopefully with a relatively easy way to convert characters back and forth.  

This.

The weight that modules have to carry is too great. I don't see how you can slap on a module and change the game so much, yet have the core function almost unhindered. I fear people expecting modules to do so much are going to be disappointed.

Here's the thing.  The tactical combat module is a myth.  If it's a module, then it has no chance of winning over 4e fans.  You can't just slap on flanking and rules for using a grid and call it tactical.  4e worked as a tactical game because it was designed from the ground up as a tactical game, with action economy, resource management, enough HP that combats lasted enough rounds to bother set up a strategy, class roles fostering cooperation, and a suite of powers that created and exploited situations, bonuses, and penalties.  To add that level of tactical depth to Next, the "tactical module" would have to be bigger than the core rulebook, and rewrite substantial portions of it (in particular, the entirety of the monster manual).  I'm not saying class roles were awesome or a limited menu of AEDU powers was made of win, but they were integral to making 4e the tactical game that it was.  I'm not even saying that a tactical game is better than a non-tactical game, or that you couldn't make a tactical game without taking the 4e route.  But I really don't think you can make Next into a tactical game with a couple of AoE templates and a list of suggestions for how to model a few extra situational bonuses/penalties/actions.  And I really don't think we're going to get more than that, because at that point you're making a whole new edition, not a module.  More of a basic vs advanced thing, hopefully with a relatively easy way to convert characters back and forth.  


Yup man Im on a roll today just wait and somebody posts my opinon for me



Yeah, I post a lot less latey because I find that if I just wait a day someone reliably makes my point for me.
Here's the thing.  The tactical combat module is a myth.  If it's a module, then it has no chance of winning over 4e fans.  You can't just slap on flanking and rules for using a grid and call it tactical.  4e worked as a tactical game because it was designed from the ground up as a tactical game, with action economy, resource management, enough HP that combats lasted enough rounds to bother set up a strategy, class roles fostering cooperation, and a suite of powers that created and exploited situations, bonuses, and penalties.  To add that level of tactical depth to Next, the "tactical module" would have to be bigger than the core rulebook, and rewrite substantial portions of it (in particular, the entirety of the monster manual).  I'm not saying class roles were awesome or a limited menu of AEDU powers was made of win, but they were integral to making 4e the tactical game that it was.  I'm not even saying that a tactical game is better than a non-tactical game, or that you couldn't make a tactical game without taking the 4e route.  But I really don't think you can make Next into a tactical game with a couple of AoE templates and a list of suggestions for how to model a few extra situational bonuses/penalties/actions.  And I really don't think we're going to get more than that, because at that point you're making a whole new edition, not a module.  More of a basic vs advanced thing, hopefully with a relatively easy way to convert characters back and forth.  


I think the tactical rules module is viable, it will just offer a little less of the tactical expereince than 4e did.  This is probably necessary since even a fair number of 4e players and DMs said that combat took too long.  However, you are right that you can't just slap grid rules on the thing and call it a day.  You need to go back and add options that interface with terrain and the grid.  At the moment, this seems to be something they could do through maneuvers, rogue skill tricks, and possibly as just an option for anyone using CE dice.


I think this sumerizes the issue. There will likely be a module that adds tactical play to the game, and makes some combats a much more tactical experience. Or some combats, as you can save it for the boss fights and set piece encounters. And it will likely play a lot like a streamlined and slightly simpler version of 4e. 
But will it be as tactical as 4e, with it's interconnecting powers, firm roles, and the like? No, probably not. 

I don't think that's a bad thing. 5e shouldn't be 4e version two any more than it should be 1e v.2 or 3e v.2. Especially since the changes needed to make the game replicate one make would make it incompatible with other games. And, since there's already a 4th Edition available in stores why make a new version of 4th edition? Just play 4th edition. Or Dungeon Command. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Core, in its current state, couldn't handle a tactical module.  I doubt it could handle any modules at all, really.  It's still pretty rickety. 

 

 

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

At this stage I'd prefer they get the objects that go on the mat right before they go trying to shove what they've got onto one. Really, tactical rules should come dead last 'cause they require all the working parts to be interacting properly to sort out how one might introduce the elements people want. If they went and designed it now then it's likely they'll have to go and redo all the work in a few months.


What they could do is release a few fighting styles, schemes, traditions and domains that specifically deal with the things people are describing here: maneuvers that rely on your team mates, terrain and positioning to work. They could also release a class or two that specifically deal with these kinds of abilities. Basically they could tip their hand a little bit without releasing a full blown module.


And I don't believe that it'll be like 4e, no. Probably it'll be a more down and dirty version that doesn't account for as much but is a lot faster to resolve.

While I can see how the general core concepts are done, the core isn't done and isn't balanced mathematically just yet.  I would rather have them address this before tackling the tactical module...
Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.



so current edition players are the sacrificial lamb of this edition to please a demography that is very unlikely to follow...
Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.

so current edition players are the sacrificial lamb of this edition to please a demography that is very unlikely to follow...

The official line is that 5e is D&D for everyone whose ever loved D&D, and that it'll take the best from each past edition.  The way its being designed and promoted, though, seems to be working from the same sort of assumptions Alter_Boy makes, above. 


 

 

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

It would be very interesting to see the survey's overall trend with the first two questions of what D&D did you start with and what is your favourite verison of D&D.


I expect it'd be pretty eye opening.


Another good reason for them to hold off on going after the die hard 4e fans is they've still got 4e stuff. If 4e is supported in organised play and generally still gets attention then there's no reason for the 4e fans to switch anyway.


Fact is, they want as many pepole playing D&D as possible, not just one edition.


It would be very interesting to see the survey's overall trend with the first two questions of what D&D did you start with and what is your favourite verison of D&D.


I expect it'd be pretty eye opening.


Another good reason for them to hold off on going after the die hard 4e fans is they've still got 4e stuff. If 4e is supported in organised play and generally still gets attention then there's no reason for the 4e fans to switch anyway.


Fact is, they want as many pepole playing D&D as possible, not just one edition.


Support for 4e has already ended.  No new 4e products are going to be produced.  LFR is no longer run by WotC.   The last season of Encounters was Essentials in the style of 5e, with fast, trivial combats and unstructured exploration and interaction, and the next season will allow the option of running as a 5e playtest.  


 

 

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

Support for 4e has already ended.  No new 4e products are going to be produced.  LFR is no longer run by WotC.   The last season of Encounters was Essentials in the style of 5e, with fast, trivial combats and unstructured exploration and interaction, and the next season will allow the option of running as a 5e playtest.  



Thought they said it was for both? Either way I stand by my statement that they probably assume the serious 4e fans will just carry on playing 4e at least for the first couple of years.


edit: actually, they probably assume they'll just play 4e forever, considering how many folks are out there still playing AD&D.

Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.


If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.
Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.


If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.



Pretty much this.  The people that are saying the game shouldn't be capable of evoking 4E (or any other edition, really) right out of the box, and if (optional) elements from said edition (Warlords, Tieflings and Dragonborn, etc) appear in the game, that they would quit are a demographic not worth pursuing.  Because the list of unforgivables is going to be different for each person, and if they don't want to play that bad, they will manufacture reasons not to.  These people are forgettable.
I was under the impression that parts of The Sundering would be written as adventures for 4th Edition.

I don't consider "tactical D&D" and 4th Edition to be one and the same, honestly.  While 4E is one of my least favorite Editions, I desire tactical D&D.  I just consider tactics to be more than gridded combat, forced movement, status effects, group Feats, and knocking prone.  I consider tactics to be a discussion between players about how to best approach a situation and how each character might help bring that outcome about.  I consider tactics to include characters helping other characters achieve those goals in the ever changing chaos of an Encounter.  To me, tactics are more of a factor of roleplaying than of ruleset.
Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.


If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.



Pretty much this.  The people that are saying the game shouldn't be capable of evoking 4E (or any other edition, really) right out of the box, and if (optional) elements from said edition (Warlords, Tieflings and Dragonborn, etc) appear in the game, that they would quit are a demographic not worth pursuing.  Because the list of unforgivables is going to be different for each person, and if they don't want to play that bad, they will manufacture reasons not to.  These people are forgettable.


Even though I usually disagree with all the "lack of 4e" rage, leaving out something that big would be a pretty dumb mistake on their part. I can guarantee you of all the people who don't care about/want the tactical module, the amount of them that are rational enough to go "It's optional therefore I don't have to use it." vastly outwiegh the "It shouldn't exist" crowd :P 

It should 100% exist as an option, and a pretty core option as well. Anything less is 100% unacceptable. The only exception I see is that they decide to release it as its own book just so that it gets the space it deserves. If they really want to add a slew of new content and rules, it might be better off its own 200+ page book than stuck somewhere in the PHB. It just might get more breathing room and attention that way. 
My two copper.
Chakravant: Actually, Storm at Baldur's Gate will be neutral/proto-5ed.

 
If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.



You're forgetting that, when certain people hear the phrase "evoke styles of all versions of D&D", they mentally excise the edition they don't like from that grouping. You see, if they don't like it, it was never really D&D. Which would be a problem, except these people also like to buy a lot of RPG products, and they're willing to throw more of their personal time into championing/denouncing games as loud and as often as they can.

When it comes to money, it doesn't matter how unreasonable your customers are. If they are your best bet for profit, you aim your product at them. 

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

Another thing to consider is that advertising a tactical module would turn off a lot of people interested in DDNext. Even if it were just optional, they would be offended that it were even possible. So, if a tactical module could be made, it would have to come after their view of DDNext was solidified, perhaps after its release.


If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.



Pretty much this.  The people that are saying the game shouldn't be capable of evoking 4E (or any other edition, really) right out of the box, and if (optional) elements from said edition (Warlords, Tieflings and Dragonborn, etc) appear in the game, that they would quit are a demographic not worth pursuing.  Because the list of unforgivables is going to be different for each person, and if they don't want to play that bad, they will manufacture reasons not to.  These people are forgettable.


Even though I usually disagree with all the "lack of 4e" rage, leaving out something that big would be a pretty dumb mistake on their part. I can guarantee you of all the people who don't care about/want the tactical module, the amount of them that are rational enough to go "It's optional therefore I don't have to use it." vastly outwiegh the "It shouldn't exist" crowd :P 

It should 100% exist as an option, and a pretty core option as well. Anything less is 100% unacceptable. The only exception I see is that they decide to release it as its own book just so that it gets the space it deserves. If they really want to add a slew of new content and rules, it might be better off its own 200+ page book than stuck somewhere in the PHB. It just might get more breathing room and attention that way. 



Hence why the "it shouldn't exist" crowd are forgettable.  The one thing that needs to be kept in mind is that we don't even know if the PHB-DMG-MM model is what DDN will follow.  One tweet from Mike Mearls regarding the Dragonborn is that they will exist at launch, but he didn't outright say one way or another that they will be in the PHB, MM, or some other book.  The possibility of more than just the Core Three books is certainly there for launch.  One issue I have with that though is I don't really think the system will be all that viable if people have to buy a whole slew of other books to achieve gameplay similar to what they had in other editions.  Having to buy the PHB, Complete Races, and Complete Classes just to play my Dragonborn Warlord with the Magic-User theme doesn't seem very good, when I can play my Dragonborn Warlord with Wizard multiclass right out of the box in 4E.  This is one of the things 4E got horrifically wrong, I couldn't play a Half-Orc Barbarian, a 3E staple, right out of the box, I had to wait an entire calendar year to do so.

I really think that layout will play a huge part here.  They are going to have to use a fairly small font (not miniscule) to make all of the stuff fit into a 320 page book (the 2E, 3E, 3.5E, and 4E PHBs were all 320 pages, it is tradition).

I wonder how much D&D has cooked its own goose in this regard, 'cause 2nd edition was the only version that could truely be called an edition and not a totally different system derived from its predecessors.


Editions in textbooks and the like are supposed to revise and clarify. They're not actually supposed to be total rewrites.

You're forgetting that, when certain people hear the phrase "evoke styles of all versions of D&D", they mentally excise the edition they don't like from that grouping. You see, if they don't like it, it was never really D&D.


That's their own problem. Love or hate it, every edition of D&D has been D&D.


Which would be a problem, except these people also like to buy a lot of RPG products, and they're willing to throw more of their personal time into championing/denouncing games as loud and as often as they can.


What, and 4e fans and people who embrace all editions of D&D somehow can't buy a lot of RPG products and aren't willing to throw their personal time into their games?

When it comes to money, it doesn't matter how unreasonable your customers are. If they are your best bet for profit, you aim your product at them. 


When it comes to money, logic dictates appealing to all their fanbase makes more money than appealing to half the fanbase and telling the other half to go **** off.
Chakravant: Actually, Storm at Baldur's Gate will be neutral/proto-5ed.

 
If people are going to ragequit over Wizards actually following their desgin goals, the brand's better off without them.



You're forgetting that, when certain people hear the phrase "evoke styles of all versions of D&D", they mentally excise the edition they don't like from that grouping. You see, if they don't like it, it was never really D&D. Which would be a problem, except these people also like to buy a lot of RPG products, and they're willing to throw more of their personal time into championing/denouncing games as loud and as often as they can.

When it comes to money, it doesn't matter how unreasonable your customers are. If they are your best bet for profit, you aim your product at them. 



They claim to be attempting to unify the fanbase. You can't do that by catering to edition warrior hate. Either you or WotC is full of crap.

...whatever
They claim to be attempting to unify the fanbase. You can't do that by catering to edition warrior hate. Either you or WotC is full of crap.



Unifying the fanbase doesn't necessarily mean everyone playing 5e though. It kinda depends on your perspective. Personally, I think them claimin that is the same as them claiming that 4e would be the most "open" D&D yet: it's spin.

Unifying the fanbase doesn't necessarily mean everyone playing 5e though. It kinda depends on your perspective. Personally, I think them claimin that is the same as them claiming that 4e would be the most "open" D&D yet: it's spin.


Except if they want to egt the biggets fanbase possible, they are going to have to cater to as many people as they can, and the 4e fambase, regardless of whether it's the majority or not, is still big enough where telling them their ideas have no place in 5e will likely result in it's demise.

When it comes to money, logic dictates appealing to all their fanbase makes more money than appealing to half the fanbase and telling the other half to go **** off.



Right.  If they wouldn't have done that with the radical changes brought on in 2008 we wouldn't even be in this mess.


CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
I was under the impression that parts of The Sundering would be written as adventures for 4th Edition.

I don't consider "tactical D&D" and 4th Edition to be one and the same, honestly.  While 4E is one of my least favorite Editions, I desire tactical D&D.  I just consider tactics to be more than gridded combat, forced movement, status effects, group Feats, and knocking prone.  I consider tactics to be a discussion between players about how to best approach a situation and how each character might help bring that outcome about.  I consider tactics to include characters helping other characters achieve those goals in the ever changing chaos of an Encounter.  To me, tactics are more of a factor of roleplaying than of ruleset.



+1

If it is a module tailored for 4e fans, 'Grid Module' seems to fit better.  D&D tactics have been around for decades.

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


When it comes to money, logic dictates appealing to all their fanbase makes more money than appealing to half the fanbase and telling the other half to go **** off.



Right.  If they wouldn't have done that with the radical changes brought on in 2008 we wouldn't even be in this mess.




Genie is out of the bottle on that one. Now they have to please two groups, not one. 
...whatever
Six groups

ODD
1E
2E
3E
4E
New players

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


When it comes to money, logic dictates appealing to all their fanbase makes more money than appealing to half the fanbase and telling the other half to go **** off.



Right.  If they wouldn't have done that with the radical changes brought on in 2008 we wouldn't even be in this mess.




Genie is out of the bottle on that one. Now they have to please two groups, not one. 



I quite agree.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!

When it comes to money, logic dictates appealing to all their fanbase makes more money than appealing to half the fanbase and telling the other half to go **** off.



Right.  If they wouldn't have done that with the radical changes brought on in 2008 we wouldn't even be in this mess.




Not to mention with the massive ****storm that 4e got from it supposedly throwing former fans under the bus(note:I hadn't started playing 4e until long after that, so I wouldn't know what went on at that time), you'd think WoTC would want to avoid a similar fiasco.
Except if they want to egt the biggets fanbase possible, they are going to have to cater to as many people as they can, and the 4e fambase, regardless of whether it's the majority or not, is still big enough where telling them their ideas have no place in 5e will likely result in it's demise.



Oh I'll grant that they'd like everyone to keep buying their product. I'm just not convinced that anyone actually believes they will and so they're guaging what they consider to be acceptable losses. It's just a lot easier to spin it like so rather than to actually do it like so.


And I have no faith whatsoever in what anyone says to me when their motive is to sell me something. If they thought it'd get them customers they would go ahead and say virtually anything at all. Maybe Mearls and the guys actually designing the thing have integrity and are actually trying to make this crazy claim come true but I have serious doubts that their marketing people give a damn.


I also think there will be an honest attempt to allow for most playstyles to exist in the game system. I just don't think it's possible to unify a fractous group of people who are very much emotionally attached to their drug of choice.

Six groups

ODD
1E
2E
3E
4E
New players

The first 3 are pretty nearly interchangeable.  You have fans of classic D&D:  0D&D, BECMI, 1e/2e - game so similar you'd have to watch a group very closely to tell which they're running, and generally more similar to eachother than the campaigns of any two games running AD&D were likely to be.   Then you have modern D&Ders, /sharply/ divided by the irrational hatred and enduring spite of the 3.5 holdouts who started the edition war.  So that's 3 camps.  And, of course, the almost-always-overlooked new players, whom WotC has prettymuch explicitly written off when they evisioned 5e as D&D for everyone who's ever played D&D.  Clearly, with 4e 'failed' the 4e camp is out, and, just as clearly, new players don't matter.  So, for 5e, it's prettymuch just a matter of classic D&D and 3.5/Pathfinder fans hammering out their differences.

Thing is, apart from being unified in their hatred of 4e, they have very little in common.  Classic D&D was a vague, DM-driven system that no two groups played the same way, while 3.x enshrines the "RAW" as holy writ and is extremely player-centric.  Both hate 4e for being balanced, but each wants D&D broken in a very different way.  Classic D&Ders want a system so broken only DM intervention can fix it, which is "DM empowering," while 3.5 fans want an iron-clad 'RAW' with designed-in rewards for system mastery that are "player empowering."  

The noise coming from WotC has certainly been coming down on the side of "DM empowerment" - the D&D of classic-D&Ders - so far, but the playtest is drifting more and more towards 3e...

 



 

 

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

Six groups

ODD
1E
2E
3E
4E
New players

The first 3 are pretty nearly interchangeable.  You have fans of classic D&D:  0D&D, BECMI, 1e/2e - game so similar you'd have to watch a group very closely to tell which they're running, and generally more similar to eachother than the campaigns of any two games running AD&D were likely to be.   Then you have modern D&Ders, /sharply/ divided by the irrational hatred and enduring spite of the 3.5 holdouts who started the edition war.  So that's 3 camps.  And, of course, the almost-always-overlooked new players, whom WotC has prettymuch explicitly written off when they evisioned 5e as D&D for everyone who's ever played D&D.  Clearly, with 4e 'failed' the 4e camp is out, and, just as clearly, new players don't matter.  So, for 5e, it's prettymuch just a matter of classic D&D and 3.5/Pathfinder fans hammering out their differences.

Thing is, apart from being unified in their hatred of 4e, they have very little in common.  Classic D&D was a vague, DM-driven system that no two groups played the same way, while 3.x enshrines the "RAW" as holy writ and is extremely player-centric.  Both hate 4e for being balanced, but each wants D&D broken in a very different way.  Classic D&Ders want a system so broken only DM intervention can fix it, which is "DM empowering," while 3.5 fans want an iron-clad 'RAW' with designed-in rewards for system mastery that are "player empowering."  

The noise coming from WotC has certainly been coming down on the side of "DM empowerment" - the D&D of classic-D&Ders - so far, but the playtest is drifting more and more towards 3e...

 





I don't think they've written off 4E players or new players. I think they're just clueless and stupid.

I think everything else you just said is spot on.
...whatever

I don't think they've written off 4E players or new players. I think they're just clueless and stupid.



Just curious...why would you say something like this?
I realize that the anonymity of the internet grants people license to say things to people that they would typically never say in face to face situations (unless you're a title-carrying MMA fighter, that is), but when it comes down to insults at such a personal level, what is it you hope to accomplish?
Six groups

ODD
1E
2E
3E
4E
New players

The first 3 are pretty nearly interchangeable.  You have fans of classic D&D:  0D&D, BECMI, 1e/2e - game so similar you'd have to watch a group very closely to tell which they're running, and generally more similar to eachother than the campaigns of any two games running AD&D were likely to be.   Then you have modern D&Ders, /sharply/ divided by the irrational hatred and enduring spite of the 3.5 holdouts who started the edition war.  So that's 3 camps.  And, of course, the almost-always-overlooked new players, whom WotC has prettymuch explicitly written off when they evisioned 5e as D&D for everyone who's ever played D&D.  Clearly, with 4e 'failed' the 4e camp is out, and, just as clearly, new players don't matter.  So, for 5e, it's prettymuch just a matter of classic D&D and 3.5/Pathfinder fans hammering out their differences.

Thing is, apart from being unified in their hatred of 4e, they have very little in common.  Classic D&D was a vague, DM-driven system that no two groups played the same way, while 3.x enshrines the "RAW" as holy writ and is extremely player-centric.  Both hate 4e for being balanced, but each wants D&D broken in a very different way.  Classic D&Ders want a system so broken only DM intervention can fix it, which is "DM empowering," while 3.5 fans want an iron-clad 'RAW' with designed-in rewards for system mastery that are "player empowering."  

The noise coming from WotC has certainly been coming down on the side of "DM empowerment" - the D&D of classic-D&Ders - so far, but the playtest is drifting more and more towards 3e...

 
I don't think they've written off 4E players or new players. I think they're just clueless and stupid.

I think everything else you just said is spot on.

You thought Essenitals might turn out to be OK, too, initially.  ;)



 

 

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

Sign In to post comments