What I Would Do For D&DN

96 posts / 0 new
Last post

 Not sure if this question has actually been asked before in this way. What do you want from D&DN in a broad sense and how would you do it? My big ones.

1. Easy to DM. Look at pre 3rd ed D&D for this and 4th ed as well.
2. Better class balance than 3.5. Doen't have to be perfect but it has to be better than 3rd ed.
3. Has to resemble pre 4th ed D&D at least on the surface. Alot more liberal on the mechanics.
4. Has to incorporate some of the positive changes 4th ed had.

 Those are the big goal posts for me at least. How would I do it? I wold probably look at creating a fusion of 2nd ed and 3rd ed. Feats, skills, etc would be retained along with the pre 4th ed class structure which the current playtest rules indicates to be the case anyway.

 Around about now I am probably going to bget my head bitten off for not appealing to 4th ed players needs. 4th ed is very different from BECM-3.5 but I think one can at least get some of the design goals from 4th ed regarding things like class balance encounters design and things like the recharge mechanic. Elements of 4th ed can be seen in the playtest packets beastiary and the current verison of the fighter class even though it doesn't have powers as such.

 The classes and races would also be more inclusive. Some of the 4th ed posters here have indicated that on release 4th ed made a mistake in not having all of the 3.5 races and classes in the core book. 3.0 had al of the 2nd ed classes available day 1 for example. This means that the core book should have 14 classes (11 3.5 ones, Warlord, Warlock and Assassin) which the developers have already indcated is the case. That also means the Dragonborn will be a core race and if I were the developers I would add the Dragonborn to a future playtest packet sooner rather than later. At least get the 4th ed players interested  and do it soon even f the Dragonborn is only based on the 4th ed one. When editons change personally I do not expect a 3.0 elf to be the same as a 2nd ed elf bt I do expect it to resemble one.

 The current play test rules also indicate that vancian casting is coming back which is good for me but I understand other gamers do not like vancian. I do not no if they will have a non vancian wizard option in the PHB but 4th ed classes such as the Warlord and Warlock would be prime candidates for a refined AEDU class. Perhaps AEDU would be better recieved if it was used sparingly on certain classes that did not exist as such in earlier ediitons and they could tweak the stucture as well to take up less room. I don't think they will be able to include AEDU options for every class due to space limits in the D&DN PHB- compare it with the 4th ed PHB and how much space the 8 classes took up there (over 100 pages, D&DN is going to have 14 core classes). The Sorcerer is another class you could do as AEDU. That would give the 4th ed players 3/14 classes which consider that there is 5 versions of D&D seems about fair (1st-4th+ BECM). Its not ideal from a 4th ed payers PoV but its is better than nothing IMHO and I do not thin you are gogin to get 8 AEDU classes let alone 14 in the core rules goign by the playtest packet class design options.

 If one cannot fit in some 4th ed style classes they could also have 2 PHB on release and let each group decide what version they want to use although I doubt they would do this due to confusion over what PHB to use or sell. The first 5th ed splatbook released should be focused on 4th ed players with perhaps an AEDU option for every class. Normally the 1st book released for a new edtion is a class type book focused on martial characters (Complete Fighters Handbook, Sword and Fist, Martial Power). Its probably no secret on these forums what my perosnal preference is when it comes to D&D but if I was playing a D&DN I have to admit a 4th ed inspired Warlord class doing similar things to a 4th ed warlord sound appealing even in say a Pathfinder game- PF doesn't have a warlord equivilent let alone an AEDU one.

Thats more or less it. Right now I do understand why 4th ed players are raging about D&DN. Elements of 4th ed are there but I wonder over the logic of putting a class like the Monk into a playtest packet before the Warlord. Hopefuly the next playtest packet will have 2-3 more classes in it and the races need help ASAP and that would be a good time to add the Dragonborn IMHO. It seems obvious that the 4th ed players are not getting alot but give them something at least. I'm more interested in both the Warlock and Warlord than the Monk and I suspect most 3.5/PF players do not care that much about the monk anyway (still sucks in PF),
For me personally, no maritial classes with encounter or daily powers ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. I can half-way rationalize a wizard having encounter/daily powers (I'll lean more towards encounter powers, daily powers are stretching it) but I simply can not for the life of me figure out why a fighter can do a move once per day, yet somehow regain his complete xp and sit on a stool for 10 hours and not be able to do the action again. I think expertise dice work wonderfully and make a lot more sense then having encounter and daily powers for martial classes.

And just to be fair, I don't like Vancian magic either, it simply doesn't make sense that a wizard can't cast another spell for 24 hours or can only memorize a spell once per 24 hours if he is doing nothing for 22 hours but resting.
Encounter powers could be optional though. 4th ed had things like feats unlocking powers IIRC. If you don't like encounter powers just don't take the feat.

 I don't mind them and smite evil as an encounter power I prefer than XYZ times per day. Some encounters powers in core could be fine and may make sense for certain classes.
My wants are pretty basic (in order of wantiness):

1) Easy to DM.  This is a must.  DMing shouldn't be seen as an excusive club, but as just another role at the table.  The easier and more accessable you make DMing, the more people will play. 

2) Fun, balanced classes that feel right from level 1.  No matter what class you play, you should be able to enjoy the game (this means you shouldn't be getting outshined by other classes all the time).  Along those lines, classes should be balanced.  Note that 'balanced' does not mean 'identical'.  Lastly, no one should ever have to say, "I can't wait until level X, then I'll REALLY start to feel like a Class A!"  Certainly you want players to look forward to gaining levels, but you also should be able to play any class at level 1 and feel like a member of that class.

3) Monsters built differently from PCs.  In my opinion, this gives the DM a lot more freedom when it comes to monster design, and that ties directly into #1, making the game easy to DM.

Really, that is all.  Unlike many on these boards, I don't need anything specific in D&D Next that was a part of other editions.  I can always play 4E with my friends (or 3.5, or 2nd, or anything).  I don't care about specific mechanics; I will never say, "If Next has BLANK it is a deal-breaker" or "If Next doesn't have BLANK it is a deal-breaker" (where BLANK refers to a specific mechanic, like vancian casting, encounter powers, martial healing, etc).  If the game is easy to DM, has fun, balanced classes, and (with lesser importance) has monsters that are built using their own rules, I will love the game.
Encounter powers could be optional though. 4th ed had things like feats unlocking powers IIRC. If you don't like encounter powers just don't take the feat.

 I don't mind them and smite evil as an encounter power I prefer than XYZ times per day. Some encounters powers in core could be fine and may make sense for certain classes.


I'd be okay with smite evil/turn undead etc. being encounter based. 
The recharge mechanic has to be one of my top three least favorite aspects of 4E.  As a DM, it is easier for me to have monsters built the same as PCs.  I often prefer my monsters have levels in order to better challenge the party.  Recharges are too random in that they are unreliable, making it hard for me to balance my monsters to the party challenge wise.  I honestly find the mechanic to be a sign of poor monster design.  It feels like since they couldn't make monsters enough of a challenge even after providing them with superior mathematical progression, they just added on a "roll for extra uber power" mechanic and called it good.

Recharges for monsters are on my list of deal breakers.  I dislike them to the extent that I will not buy DDN if they are included. 
The single biggest factor I want over how 4e plays now is combat being faster. Making HP lower and damage higher is a step in the right direction, but the whole 4e combat system needs fewer reactions and interrupts along with fewer at-will powers with complex side effects.

The second thing I want is getting a real wizard, which is to say a class built around flexibility of power range and rarely used dramatic powers. A class where strategic planning and thinking ahead are key attributes to success, which isn't pinned into a specific role or range of powers.

Everything after that is a matter of preference that I could work around or live with. Classes built on different power curves and different levels of complexity, more parity between monsters and PCs, easier adjustment to different party power levels, a leader class that isn't a healer, power levels low enough at 1st that the characters really feel like they are getting better rather then simply rolling more dice as they go up in level.



 Not sure if this question has actually been asked before in this way. What do you want from D&DN in a broad sense and how would you do it? My big ones.

1. Easy to DM. Look at pre 3rd ed D&D for this and 4th ed as well.
2. Better class balance than 3.5. Doen't have to be perfect but it has to be better than 3rd ed.
3. Has to resemble pre 4th ed D&D at least on the surface. Alot more liberal on the mechanics.
4. Has to incorporate some of the positive changes 4th ed had.



#1 and #4 I completely agree with, #2 I would want a little more balance than that. #3 is completely unimportant to me, and every sacrifice made to achieve it lessens the appeal of 5E to me.

I would add:

1. It needs to be modern, both mechanically and aesthetically. Sacrificing good gameplay for tradition is not an acceptable trade-off.
2. It needs to be dynamic, with different things happening and being done every turn
3. Everybody gets cool powers, not just the spellcasters
4. Weapon users must not be limited to at-will actions, and instead must have some sort of resource management.
5. It needs some tactical depth


 Those are the big goal posts for me at least. How would I do it? I wold probably look at creating a fusion of 2nd ed and 3rd ed. Feats, skills, etc would be retained along with the pre 4th ed class structure which the current playtest rules indicates to be the case anyway.



A game based on a fusion of 2E and 3E would be a dealbreaker for me. No amount of modularity would fix it. As a 4E core would be similarly unacceptable to a lot of people, 5E needs to be built on a new core, distinct from any previous edition.

 
Around about now I am probably going to bget my head bitten off for not appealing to 4th ed players needs.



You're really not.
 
4th ed is very different from BECM-3.5 but I think one can at least get some of the design goals from 4th ed regarding things like class balance encounters design and things like the recharge mechanic. Elements of 4th ed can be seen in the playtest packets beastiary and the current verison of the fighter class even though it doesn't have powers as such.

 The classes and races would also be more inclusive. Some of the 4th ed posters here have indicated that on release 4th ed made a mistake in not having all of the 3.5 races and classes in the core book. 3.0 had al of the 2nd ed classes available day 1 for example. This means that the core book should have 14 classes (11 3.5 ones, Warlord, Warlock and Assassin) which the developers have already indcated is the case. That also means the Dragonborn will be a core race and if I were the developers I would add the Dragonborn to a future playtest packet sooner rather than later. At least get the 4th ed players interested  and do it soon even f the Dragonborn is only based on the 4th ed one. When editons change personally I do not expect a 3.0 elf to be the same as a 2nd ed elf bt I do expect it to resemble one.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" /> The current play test rules also indicate that vancian casting is coming back which is good for me but I understand other gamers do not like vancian. I do not no if they will have a non vancian wizard option in the PHB but 4th ed classes such as the Warlord and Warlock would be prime candidates for a refined AEDU class. Perhaps AEDU would be better recieved if it was used sparingly on certain classes that did not exist as such in earlier ediitons and they could tweak the stucture as well to take up less room. I don't think they will be able to include AEDU options for every class due to space limits in the D&DN PHB- compare it with the 4th ed PHB and how much space the 8 classes took up there (over 100 pages, D&DN is going to have 14 core classes). The Sorcerer is another class you could do as AEDU. That would give the 4th ed players 3/14 classes which consider that there is 5 versions of D&D seems about fair (1st-4th+ BECM). Its not ideal from a 4th ed payers PoV but its is better than nothing IMHO and I do not thin you are gogin to get 8 AEDU classes let alone 14 in the core rules goign by the playtest packet class design options.



3/14 classes isn't good enough, and the core 4 classes must be flexible enough to accomdate all styles of play. There must be Fighters/Rogues who aren't limited to at-will spam and there must be non-vancian Wizards. The core 4 classes aren't allowed to suck. Better than nothing isn't good enough.

 If one cannot fit in some 4th ed style classes they could also have 2 PHB on release and let each group decide what version they want to use although I doubt they would do this due to confusion over what PHB to use or sell. The first 5th ed splatbook released should be focused on 4th ed players with perhaps an AEDU option for every class. Normally the 1st book released for a new edtion is a class type book focused on martial characters (Complete Fighters Handbook, Sword and Fist, Martial Power). Its probably no secret on these forums what my perosnal preference is when it comes to D&D but if I was playing a D&DN I have to admit a 4th ed inspired Warlord class doing similar things to a 4th ed warlord sound appealing even in say a Pathfinder game- PF doesn't have a warlord equivilent let alone an AEDU one.



If it takes until a PHB2, the ship will have already sailed and people will have given up on 5E already. It either works at launch or people will play something else.

Thats more or less it. Right now I do understand why 4th ed players are raging about D&DN. Elements of 4th ed are there but I wonder over the logic of putting a class like the Monk into a playtest packet before the Warlord. Hopefuly the next playtest packet will have 2-3 more classes in it and the races need help ASAP and that would be a good time to add the Dragonborn IMHO. It seems obvious that the 4th ed players are not getting alot but give them something at least. I'm more interested in both the Warlock and Warlord than the Monk and I suspect most 3.5/PF players do not care that much about the monk anyway (still sucks in PF),



Elements of 4E aren't enough. We want a whole game. It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of 4E, but it needs to deliver a similar experience. In addition, as a 4E player, I find myself willing to go forward, but not backward. I'm familiar with AD&D and 3E, and I don't want to play them anymore, and I don't want to play a 5E heavily based on them. I'd enjoy a 4E style game, and I'd enjoy a game that blazed new and interesting territory, but I have little desire to go back to the old.
...whatever
Could you elaborate on your opinion of tactical depth?  I like the thought of it as well, but I also find to some it is another way of saying "Gridded Combat", something I'm not keen on.
Could you elaborate on your opinion of tactical depth?  I like the thought of it as well, but I also find to some it is another way of saying "Gridded Combat", something I'm not keen on.



I would define tactical depth as having multiple interesting choices of what to do over multiple rounds and the situation changes over that time often by your own actions, and where making smart choices has more to do with your success than rolling dice.

Spamming deadly strike against things that die in 1-2 hits ain't it.
...whatever
The casualoblivion it is apparent that your demands are not going to be met with D&DN. Its clear that it is not going to be a reskin of 4th.

 There are 5 editions of D&D to draw elements from which means if 20% of D&DN is influenced by 4th ed you should be grateful. Anything  more that 20% is taking away from someone elses edition. That 20% doens't need to be a carbon copy of 4th ed (or 2nd ed or whatever)

 Right now there is a definate pre 3rd ed vibe to game rules but it retains the d20 mechanic 3rd ed introduced and there is a 3rd ed influence on say the cleric class with 4th ed infleunces on the others and in the beastiary and with things like the next packet with wizards being able to cast in armor.

 You are not going to get a refined 4th ed AEDU power structure or role system although you may get some elements of it like an AEDU class or two. Bascally stop asking for the impossible. I'm no getting 3.5 rekinned nor do I want 3.5 reskinned.
Could you elaborate on your opinion of tactical depth?  I like the thought of it as well, but I also find to some it is another way of saying "Gridded Combat", something I'm not keen on.



I would define tactical depth as having multiple interesting choices of what to do over multiple rounds and the situation changes over that time often by your own actions, and where making smart choices has more to do with your success than rolling dice.

Spamming deadly strike against things that die in 1-2 hits ain't it.

I'd love to play that game.  I haven't found any Edition of D&D that provides it, though.  How might terrain choices/use and combat tactics be better implemented, and combat choices be tweaked to provide something more than "This is the best version of 'I hit it.'."?

I'd love for D&D to get more tactical.
The casualoblivion it is apparent that your demands are not going to be met with D&DN. Its clear that it is not going to be a reskin of 4th.


It doesn't need to be a reskin of 4th, and I never said it did. I'm after the what when it comes to 4E, I'm very flexible on the how. I'm also very into the new and the exciting, as opposed to the been there and the done that.

 There are 5 editions of D&D to draw elements from which means if 20% of D&DN is influenced by 4th ed you should be grateful. Anything  more that 20% is taking away from someone elses edition. That 20% doens't need to be a carbon copy of 4th ed (or 2nd ed or whatever)



If only 20% of the D&DN I would end up playing at the table(assuming modular customization) is influenced by 4E, with the other 80% being influenced by earlier editions, I won't be playing or purchasing this edition. Suggesting I should be grateful for that much is insulting. Designing the game to have some flexibility(which is not currently the case I might add) need not take away from someone elses edition. The same goes for producing multiple lines of D&D, which is what they should be doing.

If D&DN isn't at least 80% either 4E or "new and awesome" then it isn't worth it. It currently is neither, not even 20%.

 Right now there is a definate pre 3rd ed vibe to game rules but it retains the d20 mechanic 3rd ed introduced and there is a 3rd ed influence on say the cleric class with 4th ed infleunces on the others and in the beastiary and with things like the next packet with wizards being able to cast in armor.


4E influences don't cut it. Pre 3rd ed vibe is old and stale, and icky.

 
You are not going to get a refined 4th ed AEDU power structure or role system although you may get some elements of it like an AEDU class or two. Bascally stop asking for the impossible. I'm no getting 3.5 rekinned nor do I want 3.5 reskinned.



An AEDU class(or something new and shiny that delivers a similar experience) or two isn't good enough. Not having a version of each of the core 4 classes worth playing isn't good enough. If this is impossible, than they should just quit right now.

...whatever
Could you elaborate on your opinion of tactical depth?  I like the thought of it as well, but I also find to some it is another way of saying "Gridded Combat", something I'm not keen on.



I would define tactical depth as having multiple interesting choices of what to do over multiple rounds and the situation changes over that time often by your own actions, and where making smart choices has more to do with your success than rolling dice.

Spamming deadly strike against things that die in 1-2 hits ain't it.

I'd love to play that game.  I haven't found any Edition of D&D that provides it, though.  How might terrain choices/use and combat tactics be better implemented, and combat choices be tweaked to provide something more than "This is the best version of 'I hit it.'."?

I'd love for D&D to get more tactical.



I get that out of 4E right now.
...whatever
Could you elaborate on your opinion of tactical depth?  I like the thought of it as well, but I also find to some it is another way of saying "Gridded Combat", something I'm not keen on.



I would define tactical depth as having multiple interesting choices of what to do over multiple rounds and the situation changes over that time often by your own actions, and where making smart choices has more to do with your success than rolling dice.

Spamming deadly strike against things that die in 1-2 hits ain't it.

I'd love to play that game.  I haven't found any Edition of D&D that provides it, though.  How might terrain choices/use and combat tactics be better implemented, and combat choices be tweaked to provide something more than "This is the best version of 'I hit it.'."?

I'd love for D&D to get more tactical.



I get that out of 4E right now.




 So don't upgrade to D&DN then. Your demands conflict with others so it wil be up to the final product  to see where the designers go with it. You don't even seem to comprehend others have different preferneces to you. Your best hope of a 4th ed lite module is to really convince non 4th ed users that it is a good idea and fun to make a reinfe version. The 20% idea would expose D&DN users to 4th ed style mechaics that would in theory work along side traditional D&D options. If a AEDU warlord for example was popular in the core rules a splat book could be made with AEDU options.

 Having things like that as an option that fans of other editions might like in small doses or on certain classes is probably the best way to ensure 4th eds legacy. There will be no Pathinder opition for you available and I don't think thye will use AEDU or something similar as the default rules which in effect would be 4.5 and create another round of edition wars. One 3.5 poster here said he is fine with smite evil as an encounter power. Its not that fact that 4th ed had things like at wills or encounters that was the problem with 4th ed.

 By claiming everything about D&DN is unacceptable to you from a 4th ed PoV is probably more likely to ensure you get nothing or very little. WoTC is under no obligation to meet your gaming needs they are gonna go where the $$$ are and current indications seem to be that is not 4th ed s approach to the game even if they are trinyg for better class balance in a different way.
Could you elaborate on your opinion of tactical depth?  I like the thought of it as well, but I also find to some it is another way of saying "Gridded Combat", something I'm not keen on.



I would define tactical depth as having multiple interesting choices of what to do over multiple rounds and the situation changes over that time often by your own actions, and where making smart choices has more to do with your success than rolling dice.

Spamming deadly strike against things that die in 1-2 hits ain't it.

I'd love to play that game.  I haven't found any Edition of D&D that provides it, though.  How might terrain choices/use and combat tactics be better implemented, and combat choices be tweaked to provide something more than "This is the best version of 'I hit it.'."?

I'd love for D&D to get more tactical.



I get that out of 4E right now.

In my current 4E game tactics really don't exist.  There is an obvious best choice for evrey action, and it is quite common to just go down the list, using relevant encounter powers until those are expended, then using at-wills until the enemies fall down.  It is quite rote to be honest.
 
I'd be interested in hearing how 4E isn't that for you.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
 So don't upgrade to D&DN then. Your demands conflict with others so it wil be up to the final product  to see where the designers go with it. You don't even seem to comprehend others have different preferneces to you. Your best hope of a 4th ed lite module is to really convince non 4th ed users that it is a good idea and fun to make a reinfe version. The 20% idea would expose D&DN users to 4th ed style mechaics that would in theory work along side traditional D&D options. If a AEDU warlord for example was popular in the core rules a splat book could be made with AEDU options.



Started out condescending, but then veered off into la-la land and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Yes, my demands conflict with others, but my demands don't conflict with what WotC has promised 5E will deliver. Now either 5E is failing or will be a failure for not delivering on their promise, or the promises are false and they are lying to us, which is what you are implying.

 
Having things like that as an option that fans of other editions might like in small doses or on certain classes is probably the best way to ensure 4th eds legacy. There will be no Pathinder opition for you available and I don't think thye will use AEDU or something similar as the default rules which in effect would be 4.5 and create another round of edition wars. One 3.5 poster here said he is fine with smite evil as an encounter power. Its not that fact that 4th ed had things like at wills or encounters that was the problem with 4th ed.


Small doses on certain classes doesn't add up to a game I have any desire to play, and in my opinion it doesn't add up to the "modular D&D for everybody" WotC is promising. The core 4 classes don't deliver 4E style play, and the core 4 should support all styles of play. If they need to make alternative versions of these classes so both can exist, thats what they need to do. If Wizard is vancian only and Fighter is at-will spam only, 5E is a failure. Its supposed to have options.

 
By claiming everything about D&DN is unacceptable to you from a 4th ed PoV is probably more likely to ensure you get nothing or very little. WoTC is under no obligation to meet your gaming needs they are gonna go where the $$$ are and current indications seem to be that is not 4th ed s approach to the game even if they are trinyg for better class balance in a different way.



If WotC doesn't bring the still-sizable 4E crowd on board with Next, it fails.
...whatever


If WotC doesn't bring the still-sizable 4E crowd on board with Next, it fails.



Unsupportable and irrellevant.  We have no idea how big any of the editions' crowds are nor whether their lack support will spell failure for Next.


If WotC doesn't bring the still-sizable 4E crowd on board with Next, it fails.



Unsupportable and irrellevant.  We have no idea how big any of the editions' crowds are nor whether their lack support will spell failure for Next.


For the edition itself, yes, you are correct.  For their design goal of uniting the fanbase, however, it will spell their failure.
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.



If WotC doesn't bring the still-sizable 4E crowd on board with Next, it fails.



Unsupportable and irrellevant.  We have no idea how big any of the editions' crowds are nor whether their lack support will spell failure for Next.



Actually this is supportable and very relevant.  4E for most of it's design life actually was the leading RPG and even now is number two.  Given that (apparently) there is a 50 million to start and 100 million sales goal (which no RPG in the history of RPGs has ever made btw), I don't see that Wotc can afford to lose a single demographic that plays DnD including 4E if DnD is going to survive as a business.

Consider that the Old School gamers already have OSR clones (or even old reprints) and since this crowd was largely pre-internet anyway, they have little incentive to switch.  The 3E Crowd has Pathfinder and the OGL/SRD which can never be revoked.  Thus 3.5 (in some form) will continue in perpetuity.  Thus there is little incentive to switch.

That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

As for ease of DMing, BECMI, 1e and 2e were NOT easy to DM.  All were constant excercises of "Mommy May I" gaming which is very difficult to DM well (at least consistantly well over the long term) and very difficult to prep.  3E was notoriously difficult to prep.  I would say that any game that is harder to prep then, yes, 4E is a non-starter.

Basically, a Hot Time Time Machine to the 1980s will not solve what is wrong with DnD.

-Polaris
Going by whats in D&DN so far they may be trying to capture the feel of earlier ediitons of the game but the mechanics are very different.

 THy may try and cpature the feel of 4th ed in terms of balance and things like that. Design space alone will limt any class varients of AEDU as 4th ed classes would require around 200 pages (14 classes X15). They did say the game would be modular, IDK if they commited to the when part.

 If they stripped out pargon paths, epic destinies and level 21-30 and refined them a but they may be able to get an AEDU class down to 5 pages each but that still leaves around 70 required pages on top of the normal classes so I do not seeing them doing that.


If WotC doesn't bring the still-sizable 4E crowd on board with Next, it fails.



Unsupportable and irrellevant.  We have no idea how big any of the editions' crowds are nor whether their lack support will spell failure for Next.



Actually this is supportable and very relevant.  4E for most of it's design life actually was the leading RPG and even now is number two.  Given that (apparently) there is a 50 million to start and 100 million sales goal (which no RPG in the history of RPGs has ever made btw), I don't see that Wotc can afford to lose a single demographic that plays DnD including 4E if DnD is going to survive as a business.

Consider that the Old School gamers already have OSR clones (or even old reprints) and since this crowd was largely pre-internet anyway, they have little incentive to switch.  The 3E Crowd has Pathfinder and the OGL/SRD which can never be revoked.  Thus 3.5 (in some form) will continue in perpetuity.  Thus there is little incentive to switch.

That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

As for ease of DMing, BECMI, 1e and 2e were NOT easy to DM.  All were constant excercises of "Mommy May I" gaming which is very difficult to DM well (at least consistantly well over the long term) and very difficult to prep.  3E was notoriously difficult to prep.  I would say that any game that is harder to prep then, yes, 4E is a non-starter.

Basically, a Hot Time Time Machine to the 1980s will not solve what is wrong with DnD.

-Polaris



Combine the theoretical lack of future alternatives with the fact that over the past 5 years or so, the 4E community have been the only D&D players consistently handing WotC money. There's no guarantee that 5E will bring the AD&D crowd back from AD&D and the retro clones, and there's no guarantee the Pathfinder kids will come back. The 4E community is low hanging fruit, and I don't think WotC can afford to ignore them.

...whatever
Going by whats in D&DN so far they may be trying to capture the feel of earlier ediitons of the game but the mechanics are very different.

 THy may try and cpature the feel of 4th ed in terms of balance and things like that. Design space alone will limt any class varients of AEDU as 4th ed classes would require around 200 pages (14 classes X15). They did say the game would be modular, IDK if they commited to the when part.

 If they stripped out pargon paths, epic destinies and level 21-30 and refined them a but they may be able to get an AEDU class down to 5 pages each but that still leaves around 70 required pages on top of the normal classes so I do not seeing them doing that.



There is nothing I have seen so far that indicates that 4E will be designed to be even remotely balanced and indeed that doesn't seem very important to the design team.  If you want good, solid mechanical balance in a game, the game has to be designed that way from the ground up with a dirt simple skeleton that demands it.

So far, about the only think I can say about the DDN system is that it isn't one let alone a balanced one.  I am seeing a collection of rules and mechanics, some good, some less so with no real system at all (and thus no real balance).  For example unless you are a spellcaster, there is no reason not to get the very highest Dex you can (and that's just one example).

-Polaris


If WotC doesn't bring the still-sizable 4E crowd on board with Next, it fails.



Unsupportable and irrellevant.  We have no idea how big any of the editions' crowds are nor whether their lack support will spell failure for Next.



Actually this is supportable and very relevant.  4E for most of it's design life actually was the leading RPG and even now is number two.  Given that (apparently) there is a 50 million to start and 100 million sales goal (which no RPG in the history of RPGs has ever made btw), I don't see that Wotc can afford to lose a single demographic that plays DnD including 4E if DnD is going to survive as a business.

Consider that the Old School gamers already have OSR clones (or even old reprints) and since this crowd was largely pre-internet anyway, they have little incentive to switch.  The 3E Crowd has Pathfinder and the OGL/SRD which can never be revoked.  Thus 3.5 (in some form) will continue in perpetuity.  Thus there is little incentive to switch.

That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

As for ease of DMing, BECMI, 1e and 2e were NOT easy to DM.  All were constant excercises of "Mommy May I" gaming which is very difficult to DM well (at least consistantly well over the long term) and very difficult to prep.  3E was notoriously difficult to prep.  I would say that any game that is harder to prep then, yes, 4E is a non-starter.

Basically, a Hot Time Time Machine to the 1980s will not solve what is wrong with DnD.

-Polaris



Combine the theoretical lack of future alternatives with the fact that over the past 5 years or so, the 4E community have been the only D&D players consistently handing WotC money. There's no guarantee that 5E will bring the AD&D crowd back from AD&D and the retro clones, and there's no guarantee the Pathfinder kids will come back. The 4E community is low hanging fruit, and I don't think WotC can afford to ignore them.




and yet that seams to be what they are doing

Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )


If WotC doesn't bring the still-sizable 4E crowd on board with Next, it fails.



Unsupportable and irrellevant.  We have no idea how big any of the editions' crowds are nor whether their lack support will spell failure for Next.



Actually this is supportable and very relevant.  4E for most of it's design life actually was the leading RPG and even now is number two.  Given that (apparently) there is a 50 million to start and 100 million sales goal (which no RPG in the history of RPGs has ever made btw), I don't see that Wotc can afford to lose a single demographic that plays DnD including 4E if DnD is going to survive as a business.

Consider that the Old School gamers already have OSR clones (or even old reprints) and since this crowd was largely pre-internet anyway, they have little incentive to switch.  The 3E Crowd has Pathfinder and the OGL/SRD which can never be revoked.  Thus 3.5 (in some form) will continue in perpetuity.  Thus there is little incentive to switch.

That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

As for ease of DMing, BECMI, 1e and 2e were NOT easy to DM.  All were constant excercises of "Mommy May I" gaming which is very difficult to DM well (at least consistantly well over the long term) and very difficult to prep.  3E was notoriously difficult to prep.  I would say that any game that is harder to prep then, yes, 4E is a non-starter.

Basically, a Hot Time Time Machine to the 1980s will not solve what is wrong with DnD.

-Polaris



Combine the theoretical lack of future alternatives with the fact that over the past 5 years or so, the 4E community have been the only D&D players consistently handing WotC money. There's no guarantee that 5E will bring the AD&D crowd back from AD&D and the retro clones, and there's no guarantee the Pathfinder kids will come back. The 4E community is low hanging fruit, and I don't think WotC can afford to ignore them.




and yet that seams to be what they are doing




Exactly.  IMHO this is one of the worst business decisions they could have made.  You can't write off an entire segnment of your customers (esp when they are your CURRENT customers) and expect to suceed.

Oh and to the poster above:  As for being modular, I see no evidence that DDN is actually modular.  A modular system needs to have a dirt simple, but incredibly robust core mechanic from which many alternative approaches can be bolted on.  The Champs/Hero system is a good example of this (but only one).  What I am seeing is a hodgepodge of disassociated rules that somehow are expected to play together.  This is indeed how 1e and 2e (and BECMI) really were like, but it's not the 1980s any more.

-Polaris

@MechaPilot: their monetary goals will be more important than their stated design goals.  Whilst I would love if sizable portions of all of the fans of the all of the previous editions love Next when it is published it still doesn't change that we have access to no accurate data that I am aware of on how many people are currently running 4th ed games, or any editions games.  Book sales can be a point of data but many people bought books from many editions and do not play them.  This is anecdotal (see my point later) but three of my regular players and myself bought books from 2nd-4th.  We haven't played since 2009.  Thus it stands that such claims are still irrelevant.  

@Polaris: we have no idea if that is their sales goal for Next.  It was supposedly their sales goal for 4E but that is largely hearsay.  We have no idea how many of the totality of 4e players like Next.  We have no idea how many players form other editions like Next.  There could be many many PF/3.5 players who are hungering for a change.  We can't know.  We have only the anecdotal evidence of a handful of very passionate players on these forums.  And anecdotal evidence given over the internet is garbage.  So yes if the devs alienate every single person who is playing 4e right now than they may fail financially.  But then maybe there are only a thousand 4e players.  We don't know.  Generally such claims of Next's failure are petulant and come from people who have chips on their shoulders and who bemoan Next endlessly.  More for purposes of playtesting dire predictions of failure are rendered even more pointless.  The only thing we can do is play the game and point out what we like and don't like.  Or not playtest and continue to play our favorite iteration of DnD.
It seems pretty clear to me that if you alienate your current customers, you almost certainly won't succeed since the customers you want to attract already have alternatives that they apparently like.  "A bird in the hand vs two in the bush" should come immediately to mind.

-Polaris
@MechaPilot: their monetary goals will be more important than their stated design goals.  Whilst I would love if sizable portions of all of the fans of the all of the previous editions love Next when it is published it still doesn't change that we have access to no accurate data that I am aware of on how many people are currently running 4th ed games, or any editions games.  Book sales can be a point of data but many people bought books from many editions and do not play them.  This is anecdotal (see my point later) but three of my regular players and myself bought books from 2nd-4th.  We haven't played since 2009.  Thus it stands that such claims are still irrelevant.


I fully agree with you about the lack of proof.  No one who has claimed superiority of one over the other has ever been able to provide the numbers, so it's all just subjective opinions.  However, the design goal of uniting the fanbase is also a monetary goal.  "One edition to rule them all," if done properly, would be a lot cheaper than reprinting the older editions with the new one and making entirely edition neutral support material.
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.


Exactly.  IMHO this is one of the worst business decisions they could have made.  You can't write off an entire segnment of your customers (esp when they are your CURRENT customers) and expect to suceed.

Oh and to the poster above:  As for being modular, I see no evidence that DDN is actually modular.  A modular system needs to have a dirt simple, but incredibly robust core mechanic from which many alternative approaches can be bolted on.  The Champs/Hero system is a good example of this (but only one).  What I am seeing is a hodgepodge of disassociated rules that somehow are expected to play together.  This is indeed how 1e and 2e (and BECMI) really were like, but it's not the 1980s any more.

-Polaris




It doesn't look like a coherent system, and given that I expect their idea of modularity to be along the lines of 2E Skills and Powers or the alternate rules from 3.5E Unearthed Arcana or PHB2, as such would be what modularity would look like given those circumstances. 
...whatever
For me personally, no maritial classes with encounter or daily powers ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

I quite liked encounter and daily powers for martial classes.  

Now, if the idea of 5e is to be the inclusive, "something for everyone" edition that lets supports all play styles as much as possible, why would it make sense for them to listen to demands that /other people never be allowed to play what they like/?

I mean, that is what you're doing.  You're not saying "I really want to be able to play this kind of character or that kind of style," you're saying "I demand that other people be deprived of any chance to play a kind of character they might like."  That's against the spirit that in which WotC is trying to present 5e.

Martial dailies and encounters can be implemented in a way that's playable and balanced.  There's no reason - other than edition-warrior spite - not to make them an option along-side the already-non-negotiably-in Vancian casting.  

I can half-way rationalize a wizard having encounter/daily powers (I'll lean more towards encounter powers, daily powers are stretching it) but I simply can not for the life of me figure out why a fighter can do a move once per day, yet somehow regain his complete xp and sit on a stool for 10 hours and not be able to do the action again.

Well, that's your failure of imagination, and shouldn't get in the way of those who can figure it out (or just not worry abou it).

And just to be fair, I don't like Vancian magic either, it simply doesn't make sense that a wizard can't cast another spell for 24 hours or can only memorize a spell once per 24 hours if he is doing nothing for 22 hours but resting.

Of course, there's some really good arguments for not using dailies, /at all/ - they do present mechanical difficulties when it comes to balance and pacing.  They can be a little hard to swallow.  But that shouldn't be a source-by-source basis, especially given that 5e pretends there are no sources.  It would make more sense, given the stated 5e design goals, to put all daily powers in some module:  Vancian casting for wizards, spontaneous or daily spell points for other casters /and/ dailly exploits for martial types.  That module could come with advice about how to run a campaign within the narrow range of pacing and challenge levels that allow it to remain remotely balanced, and DMs who don't want that kind of headache can simply choose not to use it, while players who don't want to deal with the resource-management or weirdness of dailies could, likewise, ignore the options presented in it.

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

I largely agree with thecasualoblivion and have by now lost nearly all interest in the game (which also explains my absence from the forums). The only thing D&D Next is currently good for to me and my group is as a source of hilarity.

I mean, of all the possible ideas they decided to ressurect alignment restrictions? That is just unbelievably stupid and hilarious. Much laughter ensued.



This is the same team that mentioned bringing facing back, and that the 3E Fighter was best version of that class in D&D.
...whatever
The casualoblivion it is apparent that your demands are not going to be met with D&DN. Its clear that it is not going to be a reskin of 4th.

 There are 5 editions of D&D to draw elements from which means if 20% of D&DN is influenced by 4th ed you should be grateful. Anything  more that 20% is taking away from someone elses edition. That 20% doens't need to be a carbon copy of 4th ed (or 2nd ed or whatever)

If I have a pair of scissors, a sandwich, a hammer, a pair of safety scissors and a knife, and I'm trying to make something that combines all of them, I want the flavor of the new item to come almost entirely from the sandwich, and I want none of the utility as a cutting tool to come from the sandwich. Making something that takes the best ideas from various editions and combines them with new, solid ideas is not a matter of just mixing in things from the source material at random with the constraint that you're trying to perfectly balance influences. That's a completely insane design rubric. I love 4e. I would be happy with an edition that was 1% 4e, however, if the 1% was important stuff. Next's design goal should not be to artificially incorporate the exact same amount of stuff from every edition. It should be to put together a good game. I know that there's people on these boards who see the inclusions or exclusions of certain elements in Next as validations or repudiations of their playstyle, just like there were a lot of people who saw things that earlier edition changes brought as repudiations of their playstyle and who felt hurt by that. It's not wise to completely ignore emotional reactions like that - they're actually very important - but the right way to address them isn't by making the game worse. (It's by disguising things by naming them "hit dice".)
I mean, of all the possible ideas they decided to ressurect alignment restrictions? That is just unbelievably stupid and hilarious. Much laughter ensued.

It's possible that they know that alignment restrictions are stupid and hilarious already. They brought them back because (according to Mearls's Twitter feed), it's easier to get feedback on something if you do it and see how people react than if you just ask them about it.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I largely agree with thecasualoblivion and have by now lost nearly all interest in the game (which also explains my absence from the forums). The only thing D&D Next is currently good for to me and my group is as a source of hilarity.

I mean, of all the possible ideas they decided to ressurect alignment restrictions? That is just unbelievably stupid and hilarious. Much laughter ensued.



This is the same team that mentioned bringing facing back, and that the 3E Fighter was best version of that class in D&D.

OK, sure, facing is a fiddly bit, but it's not as insanely bad a mechanic as Vancian Casting, or instance.   And, the 3.x Fighter was easily the most elegant, most customizeable design of that class in D&D history.  It merely suffered from being in the same edition with CoDzilla (among other tier 1 casters) and various other such abominations.  It might be more relevant to say that the 3e Fighter was the best-designed class in 3e...

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

People keep saying things like this, and it just makes me wonder.  Do some people have access to the poll/survey results?  Am I no longer a part of "the 4E crowd"?

Now, it could be that the vast majority of playtesters who say that 4E is their favorite edition have given overall negative feedback.  And, given the high probability that these players make up more than 10% of the playtesters, this would mean a large amount of negative feedback. 

So what is more likely:

That WotC is getting mostly negative feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E and are simply ignoring it?

or

That WotC is getting mostly positive feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E, despite the fact that some 4E players hate the direction currently being taken by the playtest?

I think the later, because if you think the former, there is really no reason to participate in the playtest at all.

There are people who strongly dislike the current playtest packet from each edition, and these people all say the same sort of thing: "I don't like it because it is too much like/not enough like my favorite/least favorite edition.  It it never going to succeed unless they can appeal to fans of my favorite edition."  And yet the playtest continues to grow and develop, and, despite certain clear areas that get negative feedback, overall the designers say people like what they are seeing.

So, once again, what is more likely:

That the whole open playtest is a scam?

or

That your own opinions just don't coincide with the majority?

Again, I choose the later, because if it is the former there is no point to participating.  I can't imagine for a second that WotC would stage a fake open playtest.  There would be nothing to gain and everything to lose.

That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

People keep saying things like this, and it just makes me wonder.  Do some people have access to the poll/survey results?  Am I no longer a part of "the 4E crowd"?

Now, it could be that the vast majority of playtesters who say that 4E is their favorite edition have given overall negative feedback.  And, given the high probability that these players make up more than 10% of the playtesters, this would mean a large amount of negative feedback. 

So what is more likely:

That WotC is getting mostly negative feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E and are simply ignoring it?

or

That WotC is getting mostly positive feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E, despite the fact that some 4E players hate the direction currently being taken by the playtest?

I think the later, because if you think the former, there is really no reason to participate in the playtest at all.

There are people who strongly dislike the current playtest packet from each edition, and these people all say the same sort of thing: "I don't like it because it is too much like/not enough like my favorite/least favorite edition.  It it never going to succeed unless they can appeal to fans of my favorite edition."  And yet the playtest continues to grow and develop, and, despite certain clear areas that get negative feedback, overall the designers say people like what they are seeing.

So, once again, what is more likely:

That the whole open playtest is a scam?

or

That your own opinions just don't coincide with the majority?

Again, I choose the later, because if it is the former there is no point to participating.  I can't imagine for a second that WotC would stage a fake open playtest.  There would be nothing to gain and everything to lose.




You and a few others here sound like the outliers. I have two home 4E groups, a 25+ strong local RPGA/Encounter community, and the 5E hate is basically unanimous there, and my experiences with strangers at regional conventions mirrors this. I'm actually positive on 5E compared to half of them. When I look at this and other forums I pay attention to the majority of people I see who identify as 4E fans are negative on 5E. In addition, most of the 4E fans I see in person and online have basically given up and dropped out when it comes to 5E. I would call rpg.net the most pro-4E D&D general discussion forum over the past few years, and 5E isn't being discussed there much at all anymore. Nobody cares.

I'm not seeing multitudes of 4E fans praising Next. I'm seeing the opposite, with a few exceptions. I think it's beyond naive to think that there are silent masses that differ from that. Such was said about disgruntled 3E fans after 4E's release, and how'd that turn out?


...whatever
That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

People keep saying things like this, and it just makes me wonder.  Do some people have access to the poll/survey results?  Am I no longer a part of "the 4E crowd"?

You may not be.  It's a nebulous identity. ;)

Now, it could be that the vast majority of playtesters who say that 4E is their favorite edition have given overall negative feedback.  And, given the high probability that these players make up more than 10% of the playtesters, this would mean a large amount of negative feedback. 

So what is more likely:

That WotC is getting mostly negative feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E and are simply ignoring it?

or

That WotC is getting mostly positive feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E, despite the fact that some 4E players hate the direction currently being taken by the playtest?

I think the later, because if you think the former, there is really no reason to participate in the playtest at all.

I'd think the former, because there's no need to 'service' the 4e fans.  They're still D&D fans, and there will be nothing "4e" to compete with 5e when it comes out.  There are already no new 4e products, and a 4e clone is against the GSL (and probably impossible under the OGL).  What are 4e fans going to do, hide in bomb shelters and just keep playing with Heroes of the Feywild?  It's a nice book, but you'll get bored with it eventually...

I'll agree that 4e fans are likely dropping out of the playtest en masse, but that's no loss, because, again, they don't matter, they have no alternate D&D-clone to purchase.

3.5 fans, OTOH, have Pathfinder, and so WotC is going to have to cater to them very carefully and give them something they'll like /more/ than 3.5/Pathfinder to win them over.  While that might seem impossible on the surface - and may well be - 3.5/Pathfinder has been out 12 years, and it's not the kind of system that improves with age, it'll be in dire need of some sort of 're-boot' before long.  There's an opportunity there, but one that requires they pay very close attention to what 3.5 fans have to say.  

To a lesser extent, classic D&D fans also have alternatives in various retro-clones.  But, none of them is as monolithic as Pathfinder, so the impetus to capture them may not be as great.  Then again, they represent the kids who made D&D a fad in the 80s, and tapping thier nostalgia to stage a 'come back,' could be huge.  Their feeback, too, is worth some careful analysis.



So, once again, what is more likely:

That the whole open playtest is a scam?

or

That your own opinions just don't coincide with the majority?

I would rate both as being likely.  

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

I'd think the former, because there's no need to 'service' the 4e fans.  They're still D&D fans, and there will be nothing "4e" to compete with 5e when it comes out.  There are already no new 4e products, and a 4e clone is against the GSL (and probably impossible under the OGL).  What are 4e fans going to do, hide in bomb shelters and just keep playing with Heroes of the Feywild?  It's a nice book, but you'll get bored with it eventually...

I'll agree that 4e fans are likely dropping out of the playtest en masse, but that's no loss, because, again, they don't matter, they have no alternate D&D-clone to purchase.

 


I wouldn't take that for granted. Some will continue with base 4E as it exist now, some will play something other than D&D, some will drop out of the hobby entirely. If 5E gets released based on its current direction, I'd be surprised if more than a 1/3 of the 4E community adopted it.
...whatever

That WotC is getting mostly negative feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E and are simply ignoring it?

or

That WotC is getting mostly positive feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E, despite the fact that some 4E players hate the direction currently being taken by the playtest?




Since you ask, I think that Wotc is essentialy "writing off" the 4E crowd and ignoring that feedback, and yes, I think the public playtest is a scam.  I think that the Dev team has already pretty much decided what game they want to sell, and are cherry picking minor points to change because of public feedback to make us feel better.  (BTW, they wouldn't be the first.  Paizo did exactly this with Pathfinder.)

In short, I think the public playtest is a great big marketing ploy.

-Polaris
That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

People keep saying things like this, and it just makes me wonder.  Do some people have access to the poll/survey results?  Am I no longer a part of "the 4E crowd"?

Now, it could be that the vast majority of playtesters who say that 4E is their favorite edition have given overall negative feedback.  And, given the high probability that these players make up more than 10% of the playtesters, this would mean a large amount of negative feedback. 

So what is more likely:

That WotC is getting mostly negative feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E and are simply ignoring it?

or

That WotC is getting mostly positive feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E, despite the fact that some 4E players hate the direction currently being taken by the playtest?

I think the later, because if you think the former, there is really no reason to participate in the playtest at all.

There are people who strongly dislike the current playtest packet from each edition, and these people all say the same sort of thing: "I don't like it because it is too much like/not enough like my favorite/least favorite edition.  It it never going to succeed unless they can appeal to fans of my favorite edition."  And yet the playtest continues to grow and develop, and, despite certain clear areas that get negative feedback, overall the designers say people like what they are seeing.

So, once again, what is more likely:

That the whole open playtest is a scam?

or

That your own opinions just don't coincide with the majority?

Again, I choose the later, because if it is the former there is no point to participating.  I can't imagine for a second that WotC would stage a fake open playtest.  There would be nothing to gain and everything to lose.




You and a few others here sound like the outliers. I have two home 4E groups, a 25+ strong local RPGA/Encounter community, and the 5E hate is basically unanimous there, and my experiences with strangers at regional conventions mirrors this. I'm actually positive on 5E compared to half of them. When I look at this and other forums I pay attention to the majority of people I see who identify as 4E fans are negative on 5E. In addition, most of the 4E fans I see in person and online have basically given up and dropped out when it comes to 5E. I would call rpg.net the most pro-4E D&D general discussion forum over the past few years, and 5E isn't being discussed there much at all anymore. Nobody cares.

I'm not seeing multitudes of 4E fans praising Next. I'm seeing the opposite, with a few exceptions. I think it's beyond naive to think that there are silent masses that differ from that. Such was said about disgruntled 3E fans after 4E's release, and how'd that turn out?





I agree that Arithezoo sounds like an outlier.  In my various 4e groups (grand total of about 20 including myself).  ONE has had a positive outlook of DDN and that particular person has grown to strongly dislike 4e anyway (he plays it with us because we play it)...and even then he prefers Pathfinder.

Admittedly this is my own annecdotal experience, but I've notice that DDN no longer has enough traffic to support it on EN World, and on other places (like RPGnet) traffic has dried up on it almost completely.  That suggests that a lot of 4e players are simply turning DDN off and tuning out.

-Polaris
That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

People keep saying things like this, and it just makes me wonder.  Do some people have access to the poll/survey results?  Am I no longer a part of "the 4E crowd"?

Now, it could be that the vast majority of playtesters who say that 4E is their favorite edition have given overall negative feedback.  And, given the high probability that these players make up more than 10% of the playtesters, this would mean a large amount of negative feedback. 

So what is more likely:

That WotC is getting mostly negative feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E and are simply ignoring it?

or

That WotC is getting mostly positive feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E, despite the fact that some 4E players hate the direction currently being taken by the playtest?

I think the later, because if you think the former, there is really no reason to participate in the playtest at all.

There are people who strongly dislike the current playtest packet from each edition, and these people all say the same sort of thing: "I don't like it because it is too much like/not enough like my favorite/least favorite edition.  It it never going to succeed unless they can appeal to fans of my favorite edition."  And yet the playtest continues to grow and develop, and, despite certain clear areas that get negative feedback, overall the designers say people like what they are seeing.

So, once again, what is more likely:

That the whole open playtest is a scam?

or

That your own opinions just don't coincide with the majority?

Again, I choose the later, because if it is the former there is no point to participating.  I can't imagine for a second that WotC would stage a fake open playtest.  There would be nothing to gain and everything to lose.




You and a few others here sound like the outliers. I have two home 4E groups, a 25+ strong local RPGA/Encounter community, and the 5E hate is basically unanimous there, and my experiences with strangers at regional conventions mirrors this. I'm actually positive on 5E compared to half of them. When I look at this and other forums I pay attention to the majority of people I see who identify as 4E fans are negative on 5E. In addition, most of the 4E fans I see in person and online have basically given up and dropped out when it comes to 5E. I would call rpg.net the most pro-4E D&D general discussion forum over the past few years, and 5E isn't being discussed there much at all anymore. Nobody cares.

I'm not seeing multitudes of 4E fans praising Next. I'm seeing the opposite, with a few exceptions. I think it's beyond naive to think that there are silent masses that differ from that. Such was said about disgruntled 3E fans after 4E's release, and how'd that turn out?





 Theres your problem you are using a self selected group of friends who share the same idea as you as your benchmark. Its like someone living in Texas wondering how the Democrats won because all thier friends were voting Republican, or someone in New York ondering the same thing when Bush won.

 All is not happy in the Pathfinder camp either if you visit their forums, They are alot nicer behaved and pleasant thatn the forums here though. Alot of their gamers love Paizo as a company, the PF rules not so much. Its hard to say but maybe half of their customers are playing PF because its not 4th ed.

 THe 3.5 crowd may not be the majority of D&D gamers but they are probably the largest segment of the D&D fanbase.
That means that Wotc pretty much has to get the 4E crowd on board, and so far they've done a lousy job of it.

People keep saying things like this, and it just makes me wonder.  Do some people have access to the poll/survey results?  Am I no longer a part of "the 4E crowd"?

Now, it could be that the vast majority of playtesters who say that 4E is their favorite edition have given overall negative feedback.  And, given the high probability that these players make up more than 10% of the playtesters, this would mean a large amount of negative feedback. 

So what is more likely:

That WotC is getting mostly negative feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E and are simply ignoring it?

or

That WotC is getting mostly positive feedback from playtesters who prefer 4E, despite the fact that some 4E players hate the direction currently being taken by the playtest?

I think the later, because if you think the former, there is really no reason to participate in the playtest at all.

There are people who strongly dislike the current playtest packet from each edition, and these people all say the same sort of thing: "I don't like it because it is too much like/not enough like my favorite/least favorite edition.  It it never going to succeed unless they can appeal to fans of my favorite edition."  And yet the playtest continues to grow and develop, and, despite certain clear areas that get negative feedback, overall the designers say people like what they are seeing.

So, once again, what is more likely:

That the whole open playtest is a scam?

or

That your own opinions just don't coincide with the majority?

Again, I choose the later, because if it is the former there is no point to participating.  I can't imagine for a second that WotC would stage a fake open playtest.  There would be nothing to gain and everything to lose.




You and a few others here sound like the outliers. I have two home 4E groups, a 25+ strong local RPGA/Encounter community, and the 5E hate is basically unanimous there, and my experiences with strangers at regional conventions mirrors this. I'm actually positive on 5E compared to half of them. When I look at this and other forums I pay attention to the majority of people I see who identify as 4E fans are negative on 5E. In addition, most of the 4E fans I see in person and online have basically given up and dropped out when it comes to 5E. I would call rpg.net the most pro-4E D&D general discussion forum over the past few years, and 5E isn't being discussed there much at all anymore. Nobody cares.

I'm not seeing multitudes of 4E fans praising Next. I'm seeing the opposite, with a few exceptions. I think it's beyond naive to think that there are silent masses that differ from that. Such was said about disgruntled 3E fans after 4E's release, and how'd that turn out?





 Theres your problem you are using a self selected group of friends who share the same idea as you as your benchmark. Its like someone living in Texas wondering how the Democrats won because all thier friends were voting Republican, or someone in New York ondering the same thing when Bush won.

 All is not happy in the Pathfinder camp either if you visit their forums, They are alot nicer behaved and pleasant thatn the forums here though. Alot of their gamers love Paizo as a company, the PF rules not so much. Its hard to say but maybe half of their customers are playing PF because its not 4th ed.




All may not be peaches and cream for Pathfinder, but Pathfinder has and retains an extremely good reputation with it's customer base.  I can't imagine anyone that currently plays pathfinder giving Wotc the time of day as things stand now.  Furthermore I see little evidence that DDN is a better SYSTEM than Pathfinder (or for that matter that it really is a system at all).  Given all that, I don't see the Pathfinder crowd being a viable market for Wotc as things stand now.

-Polaris