Where's the 'Next' in D&DN?

First, I want to say that WotC letting us, the fans, into a playtest like this is an awesome thing, along the various Wandering Monster, Dragon's Eye View, and similar articles that give us a peek into the inner workings of the 5E development process.
HOWEVER...
What I've been reading a lot of lately is, essentially, how 5E is bending over backwards to pander to the original fans of D&D from the seventies. I'm certainly NOT trying to say anything bad about the old-schoolers who in several ways 'trained' me in the world of D&D and the greater tabletop RPG hobby, but I'm beginning to feel like the D&DN playtest is just WotC saying that the 3E/4E edition wars were too much for them, and that they're just going to rehash previous editions with a new system and try to make peace between all of D&D's different generations.
To clarify, I started in 3E, liked it, went on to 4E, liked it, finding both editions to have their pros and cons, and have so far massively enjoyed the 5E playtest.
But where's the stuff that makes this new edition, you know, NEW? I bought the AD&D core rulebooks out of a fascination with my hobby's origins (having a history degree kind of implies a fascination for the old), and I'm just as intrigued with the upcoming reprints of classic adventures that I've heard my old-schooler mentors speak of with such fondness.
But I don't want to see just the same old stuff that Gygax and all his (awesome) buddies back at TSR repackaged in new wrappers. I want to see something new, something original, something that will make gamers years from now say "Oh yeah, 2E gave us Dark Sun and thri-kreen, but it was in 5E when they added..."
Maybe I can sum it up by saying how I felt about Eberron when it came out years ago: It was mine (no, I'm not Keith Baker), it was a concept and a world that I could imerse myself in, without having all the baggage that Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun bring with their decades of life. Eberron was a wlrd that more reflected how my generation of gamers viewed fantasy, rather than the seventies mentality of Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun (for example).
I love the system they're letting us tinker with in 5E. However, I won't pay money just for a new system, I will pay money for a new experience.
So far: bounded accuracy, skill dice, martial damage dice.
It sounds to me like what you're asking for is a new setting to set 5E apart from previous editions. And while that is something that I think would be great, it's not at all what playtesting is about. Playtesting is about the game systems. We are helping to establish the rules of the game, not the setting.

I do hope we see a setting that is new and original and different from what we have seen before (in addition to a revival of what we have seen and loved before) but that is something you are probably going to have to wait a while for, and not something you will see in this playtest.

As for new systems, a couple were mentioned by Cyber-Dave, and I'd also add the Advantage/Disadvantage system to that.
My hope for DnDN is that they take all the failurings and successes of each edition use those to reduce the amount of failuires this time...I'm waiting to see the modularity though.
I don't get it.   You say you like the system but.... what?    Once they release the Blade of the Unicord Warrior I'm sure that'll be enough originality for you.   Its almost too much for me.
First, I want to say that WotC letting us, the fans, into a playtest like this is an awesome thing, along the various Wandering Monster, Dragon's Eye View, and similar articles that give us a peek into the inner workings of the 5E development process.
HOWEVER...
What I've been reading a lot of lately is, essentially, how 5E is bending over backwards to pander to the original fans of D&D from the seventies. I'm certainly NOT trying to say anything bad about the old-schoolers who in several ways 'trained' me in the world of D&D and the greater tabletop RPG hobby, but I'm beginning to feel like the D&DN playtest is just WotC saying that the 3E/4E edition wars were too much for them, and that they're just going to rehash previous editions with a new system and try to make peace between all of D&D's different generations.
To clarify, I started in 3E, liked it, went on to 4E, liked it, finding both editions to have their pros and cons, and have so far massively enjoyed the 5E playtest.
But where's the stuff that makes this new edition, you know, NEW? I bought the AD&D core rulebooks out of a fascination with my hobby's origins (having a history degree kind of implies a fascination for the old), and I'm just as intrigued with the upcoming reprints of classic adventures that I've heard my old-schooler mentors speak of with such fondness.
But I don't want to see just the same old stuff that Gygax and all his (awesome) buddies back at TSR repackaged in new wrappers. I want to see something new, something original, something that will make gamers years from now say "Oh yeah, 2E gave us Dark Sun and thri-kreen, but it was in 5E when they added..."
Maybe I can sum it up by saying how I felt about Eberron when it came out years ago: It was mine (no, I'm not Keith Baker), it was a concept and a world that I could imerse myself in, without having all the baggage that Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun bring with their decades of life. Eberron was a wlrd that more reflected how my generation of gamers viewed fantasy, rather than the seventies mentality of Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun (for example).
I love the system they're letting us tinker with in 5E. However, I won't pay money just for a new system, I will pay money for a new experience.

I would have to say, I am enjoying DnD Next "old school" approach, relying on simplified "expandable" mechanics, with a focus on role playing and "rullings not rules". I was an avid 2nd edition player, I introduced many of my friends (more than ten) to gaming using 2nd edition. When 3rd editon came out I was heart broken, everything I had ever believed about gaming seemed to have been tossed aside for rules, rules and more rules. IfYOU really desire to play a game that is as different as it could possibly be from the original D&D (Core, 1st edition, 2nd edition) then play 3.5 or 4th edition, I am sure you will find what you are looking for.

As for me, I intend to spend every free moment guiding DnD Next into a role-play oriented, lite rules system. Will it be different from 2nd edition? Of course it will.

I enjoy the fast paced, lightweight combat system, the quick and easy advantage/disadvatage system...I like skill dice. Not sure how I feel about Martial Damage Dice...the name needs to change, what was wrong with "Expertise Dice" ... or say "Tactical Dice"?

I am glad Next is going to be lightweight, would be super to see a single book RPG system, like the old D&D core book that had everything you needed to run to level 30...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
8.8 My House Rules! (roll the d20) *click to roll*8.8
So far: bounded accuracy, skill dice, martial damage dice.


Plus Advantage/Disadvantage & the magic item customization attributes.
I'm sorry, DDN is not what you're looking for.

You, as I, want something new, but that is not on the table, now. 
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.

@Dramox


This does highlight what actually makes a game distinct: the settings.


Mechanically almost any old rubbish will do, it's the crazy places we go and the crazy things we get up to that's important and I wholeheartedly agree that 5e needs its own setting. Forgotten Realms is cool and well loved, so as a default setting to wrap around the core that's fine - like Greyhawk was for 3e. It's a great fluff strategy to include relatively neutral setting that gives just enough flavour to draw folks in but not so much that it dictates creativity. That way, you've got just enough fluff to inform the mechanics without any need to explain where it comes from or the genre as a whole.


Thing about Dark Sun and Eberron and Planescape and 4e's thing (what's it called?) is they're not neutral enough to provide padding for mechanics because they require explanation in their own right. When I think generic fantasy that needs little to no explanation, I go to places like Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. I definitely don't think Eberron. The setting is great but it's not generic enough for the core and that's what we need in the initial release of 5e. I wouldn't complain if the edgier setting comes out more or less alongside the core books though.


So yeah if the thing you're using to mark each edition is the setting, you're out of luck here. That'll come, but it's a lil early. Mechanically there are some intriguing things going on but I'd rather not get into another of those discussions and it doesn't appear to be the thing you're asking.

Next is not AD&D. Nor is it 3rd, 4th, or BMCMI. Next is an advancement of the game, taking the best aspects of earlier editions and adding new mechanics such as Expertise Dice (or whatever they end up calling it), Dis/Advantage, and Skill Dice. It has a new concept, Bounded Accuracy, to base character progression on.

I think the problem is how it feels. The current playtest is still working on the basics, meaning it has to work for all styles of play. It's going to feel more like AD&D, which was much simpler than 3rd and 4th. More rules will become available, but they will likely be Modules in the Advanced setting since they will not fit every style of play.

Be patient. If Wizards fulfills it's goals, then Next will run the gambit from simple to complex, appealing to the styles of all editions.
...I'm beginning to feel like the D&DN playtest is just WotC saying that the 3E/4E edition wars were too much for them, and that they're just going to rehash previous editions with a new system and try to make peace between all of D&D's different generations...



Why wouldn't that be a completely sufficient justification for this edition?  Seems like a monstrously complex task to me, and a necessary one for the brand to continue.
In the name /snark

OK, seriously, there are some things here we haven't seen or that were implemented differently in the past. Bounded accuracy, hit dice being a healing mechanism, etc
...I'm beginning to feel like the D&DN playtest is just WotC saying that the 3E/4E edition wars were too much for them, and that they're just going to rehash previous editions with a new system and try to make peace between all of D&D's different generations...



Why wouldn't that be a completely sufficient justification for this edition?  Seems like a monstrously complex task to me, and a necessary one for the brand to continue.


Not only that, it's exactly what they said the point of D&D Next is.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
HOWEVER... What I've been reading a lot of lately is, essentially, how 5E is bending over backwards to pander to the original fans of D&D from the seventies. I'm certainly NOT trying to say anything bad about the old-schoolers who in several ways 'trained' me in the world of D&D and the greater tabletop RPG hobby, but I'm beginning to feel like the D&DN playtest is just WotC saying that the 3E/4E edition wars were too much for them, and that they're just going to rehash previous editions with a new system and try to make peace between all of D&D's different generations.
...
But I don't want to see just the same old stuff that Gygax and all his (awesome) buddies back at TSR repackaged in new wrappers. I want to see something new, something original, something that will make gamers years from now say "Oh yeah, 2E gave us Dark Sun and thri-kreen, but it was in 5E when they added..."


Well, if you look at the starter sets of any edition, is it easy to see what was added? 

Right now they're focusing on the must-have content. The stuff that will appeal to the most number of people. That's an efficient use of their time. Making new races/classes/options that they know 0% of their fanbase is attached to and really wants to see is inefficient. The new idea could be like the warlord and dragonborn and become really popular... or it could be like the shardmind and battlemind and dismissed by the majority. 

New ideas and options need a reason to exist. New options for the sake of new options leads to bloat and redundancy. They won't know the gaps in the system or the narrative until everything else is done and managed. 

New stuff will come. It just won't be the first content out of the gate. We haven't seen half-elves and rangers yet. Do we need to see something brand new?

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

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

 

I didn't see anything that can be called "next" in what is presented in the playtest.

Rogues and wizards still fight for the trickster role, the two concepts being too undefined.
Healer class is still parasited and uselessly complexified by religious concepts, which is bad for a class from the core four.
The fighter is still designed as unadapted to a fantasy world, which is a nonsense.
And this is just about the core four classes.

There's no "next" step in this D&D.
We can even see the return of the eight schools of magic, unable to justify themselves from a mechanical point of view or with any fiction or mythical references. The old cleric solution consisting in overpowering him to bring people into playing the mandatory religious heal bot is also back. The weapon master rogue having more skill than anyone, and mastering each of them better than anyone, is nothing new and doesn't solve anything about defining the class. Fighters gets powers/feats in a new form. Basic spellcasters are back to defining the pace of the adventures with full daily based ressources.

I fail to see what will interest the next generation of D&D players when what I playtested fails to keep the interest of old D&D players.
How to express the exploration and discovery dimension of D&D when the character classes already give the feeling of playing an older edition ?

I was enthousiastic after the 4th edition to see a continuity in the evolution of D&D, learning from the mistakes from all editions.
But now that I see some kind of collection of these mistakes to build the next edition, my motivation is more curiosity than anything.

D&D was synonym of innovation, it was the first rpg. Now, it runs after its glorious past, hoping that old recipes will take in a totally different world, and that most old players will detach from years of playing habits and biased fond memories.

Calling it D&D Next was a cruel joke for people who waited the innovation level from previous editions.
I hope something will surprise me, in the playtest process or the final product. 
I'm not clear how you want more of a "defined" concept than "this guy uses magic spells" and "this guy doesn't use magic spells."

That's a pretty big differentiator, is it not?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

I think the problem is how it feels. The current playtest is still working on the basics, meaning it has to work for all styles of play. It's going to feel more like AD&D, which was much simpler than 3rd and 4th. More rules will become available, but they will likely be Modules in the Advanced setting since they will not fit every style of play.

Be patient. If Wizards fulfills it's goals, then Next will run the gambit from simple to complex, appealing to the styles of all editions.



This...I think the majority of stuff everyones looking for will be in advanced rules but WOTC needs to get the basic and than standard rules done right first so were working our way and there
There's this notion that the simplest available ruleset will be the "most popular" or "default" or "only type available in organized play."

It's an assumption, and it's not a particularly well-founded assumption, either.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Wow, thanks for all the responses, everybody (including the ones I didn't quite get the point of). I guess the most important thing I should take is that the playtest in and of itself is about creating a new vehicle to carry the concept of D&D foward.

In other words: "Patience, grasshopper."

That said, I guess I'm not so sure what the point of Wandering Monster is. If 5E is going to open up with the most basic/vanilla/traditional rendition of D&D concepts (dwarves don't like elves, chromatic dragons are evil, etc), then why bother posting columns about it? Dragon's Eye View I can understand a bit more, as it's talking about the artistic appearance of D&D based upon these classical assumptions.

I realize now that my original post was a bit hypocritical (not to mention vague), because WotC alread said that 5E (IIRC) won't be released until midway through 2014 anyway, so asking about new products is jumping the gun.

Still, I'd like to hear Wyatt, Schindehette, Mearls, and the rest of the folks at WotC at least imply something to the effect of "Hey, we will have new, never-before-seen stuff in 5E, bt let us hammer out the kinks in what has been seen before."
First, I want to say that WotC letting us, the fans, into a playtest like this is an awesome thing, along the various Wandering Monster, Dragon's Eye View, and similar articles that give us a peek into the inner workings of the 5E development process.
HOWEVER...
What I've been reading a lot of lately is, essentially, how 5E is bending over backwards to pander to the original fans of D&D from the seventies. I'm certainly NOT trying to say anything bad about the old-schoolers who in several ways 'trained' me in the world of D&D and the greater tabletop RPG hobby, but I'm beginning to feel like the D&DN playtest is just WotC saying that the 3E/4E edition wars were too much for them, and that they're just going to rehash previous editions with a new system and try to make peace between all of D&D's different generations.
To clarify, I started in 3E, liked it, went on to 4E, liked it, finding both editions to have their pros and cons, and have so far massively enjoyed the 5E playtest.
But where's the stuff that makes this new edition, you know, NEW? I bought the AD&D core rulebooks out of a fascination with my hobby's origins (having a history degree kind of implies a fascination for the old), and I'm just as intrigued with the upcoming reprints of classic adventures that I've heard my old-schooler mentors speak of with such fondness.
But I don't want to see just the same old stuff that Gygax and all his (awesome) buddies back at TSR repackaged in new wrappers. I want to see something new, something original, something that will make gamers years from now say "Oh yeah, 2E gave us Dark Sun and thri-kreen, but it was in 5E when they added..."
Maybe I can sum it up by saying how I felt about Eberron when it came out years ago: It was mine (no, I'm not Keith Baker), it was a concept and a world that I could imerse myself in, without having all the baggage that Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun bring with their decades of life. Eberron was a wlrd that more reflected how my generation of gamers viewed fantasy, rather than the seventies mentality of Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun (for example).
I love the system they're letting us tinker with in 5E. However, I won't pay money just for a new system, I will pay money for a new experience.



I'm finding it hard to see the Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun as catering to a 70's mentality.  Forgotten Realms was first published in 1987 and even the whispers of it in dragon were not until the early 80's.  Dark Sun was the first game setting of the 90's.  Saying that is 70's is like saying Metallica and Nirvana were both 70's bands.

With that said, what I am very excited about, and what is causing me hesitation with NEXT, is the rerelease of the old AD&D books.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
If 5E is going to open up with the most basic/vanilla/traditional rendition of D&D concepts


This is the core flaw in your thinking:  that 5e is going to "open up" with basic.  Basic, standard, and a good number of components of advanced are going to be released at the same time, at launch.

None of those have anything to do with plot, fluff, setting, or story.  They're just systems.  Dwarves hating elves is not something that basic/standard/advanced is intended to address.  That's a campaign setting issue, not a systems issue.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I'm not clear how you want more of a "defined" concept than "this guy uses magic spells" and "this guy doesn't use magic spells."

That's a pretty big differentiator, is it not?

The two are also undefined within their concepts. Rogue and wizard are the only classes that could be defined by the fact they are not defined.

A rogue is a weapon master. Sneak attack, assassinate. Fighter is a weapon master, but he doesn't use sneak attack tactic for some reasons. Why rogues are weapon masters by default ? Why rogues cannot not be defined by fighting abilities independant of weapon using ? Why weapon masters in light armors have more skills and and are better at using them than focused specialists ? Why rogues are a military class by default.
Why swashbucklers are considered rogues when swashbucklers were dedicated weaponmasters ? What's in common between a noble swashbucler and a pickpocket posing as an amputated beggar ? Why can't we have the same level of concept disparity among fighters ? In battle, everybody fights dirty to survive, except maybe D&D paladins, so what defines rogues ?

A generalist wizard is defined by his spellbook. But his spell list being general without hindrance, a wizard is a necromancer or an enchanter if he memorize enough specialized spells. A wizard is defined by his memorized spells, so the class concept is only defined by one thing : the spellbook. The wizard undefined role then canibalize every other spellcasters, except for healing artificially restricted to healers for no justified reasons. And it even canabilized non spellcasting classes roles in the past.

When we consider the four core classes, I don't think that expressing abilities through spells or not is enough to define a class.
I find it odd that someone who claims to dislike 4e is also complaining that the core 4 classes don't have roles that are defined well enough. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

I fail to see what will interest the next generation of D&D players when what I playtested fails to keep the interest of old D&D players...


Those two goals are not identical.  To some degree, they're even mutually exclusive.  Your faulty premise may be in your assumption that they are equivalent goals.  Or in your belief that the playtest is failing to excite older players.

...How to express the exploration and discovery dimension of D&D when the character classes already give the feeling of playing an older edition ?...


You are here conflating the in-game experience of exploration with an out-of-game meta-quality of 'new mechanics.'  They are completely different concepts.  Equating them would be like complaining that the dice are wrong because they don't weigh as much as a broadsword.
...I was enthousiastic after the 4th edition to see a continuity in the evolution of D&D, learning from the mistakes from all editions....
D&D was synonym of innovation...Calling it D&D Next was a cruel joke for people who waited the innovation level from previous editions.
I hope something will surprise me, in the playtest process or the final product. 


Your neophilia is your problem, not the WotC's. 


I fail to see what will interest the next generation of D&D players when what I playtested fails to keep the interest of old D&D players...


Those two goals are not identical.  To some degree, they're even mutually exclusive.  Your faulty premise may be in your assumption that they are equivalent goals.  Or in your belief that the playtest is failing to excite older players.


The other faulty premise is that the exact same configuration has to interest both old players and new players at the same time. 

I will have very little interest in basic D&DN, whereas other people will.  Those same people may not have much interest in advanced D&DN, whereas I will.  We both can get excited about D&DN, yet we're playing mutually exclusive, incompatible styles.  But that's okay, because it's still D&D, we can still play the same adventures, we just do it in different tables in different ways, emphasizing different parts of the experience. 

The idea that D&DN is one size fits all is the single greatest misconception among its critics.  Its size and scope adjust based on the individual preferences of the individual table.  What I do at my table has absolutely zero impact on what you do at your table, and vice versa.  And neither of us get to be the 'one true way' of playing D&D.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Playtesting started last May with the most very, very basic concepts being "tested". The progression we have seen so far in the last 8 months has been "here, have a retroclone" - and if much of the feedback I am seeing around is any indication, it still needs a good bit of work to even have that much of it balanced.

If DDN wants to achieve parity with previous editions, bring people away from the edition they love into the new edition, at the bare minimum they need to:

1- "Basic" classes.
2- "Advanced" classes, options, and features. (option-heavy classes)
3- Races.
4- "Basic" monsters.
5- "Advanced" monsters with additional options and features. (option and feature-rich monsters)
6- A set or sets of martial-based maneuvers that appeals to people that want ordinary martial characters, magical martial characters, simple martial characters, and as-complex-as-spellcasters martial characters. (lol good luck on this one)
7- A set or sets of rules that appease those that want skill lists and advanced rules for non-combat encounters.
8- A set or sets of rules that appease people that want tactical, option-rich maneuvering combat.
9- A system for "epic level" adventuring.

They have about 18 months to do this in. It has been 8 months and they have accomplished only a small portion of 1, 3, 4, and 6.

I don't see this happening. And this is what DDN needs just to be on-par with previous editions; they'll need to do more than this to actually bring anybody from previous editions upon release.

Call me when DDN is something other than a WotC-published retroclone with some 3.5 trappings.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Playtesting started last May with the most very, very basic concepts being "tested". The progression we have seen so far in the last 8 months has been "here, have a retroclone" - and if much of the feedback I am seeing around is any indication, it still needs a good bit of work



It's almost as if it's not finished yet.  Shocking that they have the audacity to not be finished with something that they're not yet finished with, isn't it?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Playtesting started last May with the most very, very basic concepts being "tested". The progression we have seen so far in the last 8 months has been "here, have a retroclone" - and if much of the feedback I am seeing around is any indication, it still needs a good bit of work



It's almost as if it's not finished yet.  Shocking that they have the audacity to not be finished with something that they're not yet finished with, isn't it?

Seems like I didn't communicate my idea well enough, or you're having a knee-jerk reflex to defend DDN, either or. Doesn't matter.

What I am saying is that it has taken them 8 months to get the very basics down and they still haven't done that - so it will actually take them 10-12 months to get the very basics down. Then you expect them to complete the remainder of the game in 12 months?

Maybe they'll get all this done by 2016 sometime. Maybe.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

So, you're pulling numbers out of your backside with no knowledge of their development process or how long it will actually take to do things, and then formulating assumptions about how horrible they are.

Why?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So, you're pulling numbers out of your backside with no knowledge of their development process or how long it will actually take to do things, and then formulating assumptions about how horrible they are.

Why?



It has been 8 months since May. They'll be releasing it in "mid-2014". These are accouncements; I'm not making them up? I guess you can give them a freebie and say "mid-2014" is July. That means they have about 18 months to finish up what they are releasing on "day 1" of DDN. 20 months if you assume the game will be released in September.

I am making some basic assumptions, yes. Since you seem to be getting defensive, I will spell out my assumptions and you can disagree at whim.

1: It will take longer to make "advanced" versions of game options than "basic" versions of game options, playtest them, and finalize them.

Based upon this assumption, if it has taken them 8 months to make 5 classes and 4 races in the more basic version of the game, it will take them longer than that much time to make additional classes, and even longer to build entire new portions of the game that we haven't seen yet.

2: It would take them another month or two in order to finalize what has been presented in the playtests so far (the classes, races, skill system, feats, monster math, etc).

I'm not seeing how either of these two assumptions are illogical myself. Why am I making these assumptions? Because I am assuming that the game that DDN would need to be in order to actually pull people away from previous editions cannot be completed by 2014.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

...I'm beginning to feel like the D&DN playtest is just WotC saying that the 3E/4E edition wars were too much for them, and that they're just going to rehash previous editions with a new system and try to make peace between all of D&D's different generations...



Why wouldn't that be a completely sufficient justification for this edition?  Seems like a monstrously complex task to me, and a necessary one for the brand to continue.


Not only that, it's exactly what they said the point of D&D Next is.



My guess it won't work. What would have been better imho is supplements with a few set of optional rules for 3rd or 3.5 and 4th that addressed some of the more common concerns/complaints of those editions as professional game designers could. Then figure out a way to make some money with adventures, electronic tools, spin off board games etc. DDN is going to run into the same issues that any edition has:  very vocal detractors for _________  reason.  Why?  It's the nature of the internet and internet forums.

I fail to see what will interest the next generation of D&D players when what I playtested fails to keep the interest of old D&D players...


Those two goals are not identical.  To some degree, they're even mutually exclusive.  Your faulty premise may be in your assumption that they are equivalent goals.  Or in your belief that the playtest is failing to excite older players.

...How to express the exploration and discovery dimension of D&D when the character classes already give the feeling of playing an older edition ?...


You are here conflating the in-game experience of exploration with an out-of-game meta-quality of 'new mechanics.'  They are completely different concepts.  Equating them would be like complaining that the dice are wrong because they don't weigh as much as a broadsword.
...I was enthousiastic after the 4th edition to see a continuity in the evolution of D&D, learning from the mistakes from all editions....
D&D was synonym of innovation...Calling it D&D Next was a cruel joke for people who waited the innovation level from previous editions.
I hope something will surprise me, in the playtest process or the final product. 


Your neophilia is your problem, not the WotC's. 


Neophilia, lol. Progress is based on the past iterations of things.

This playtest that smells old fails to interest my circle of friends aged around 40. The following generations don't understand the interest of this playtest compared to 4th and 3rd editions.
Based on my entourage, the current direction of the playtest goes nowhere.

Exploration in rpgs is a state of mind. You can think that mechanics doesn't help, my experiences say otherwise.
Good thing they're going off of their survey data, rather than your entourage.

Your anecdotes do not a compelling argument make.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Good thing they're going off of their survey data, rather than your entourage.

Your anecdotes do not a compelling argument make.



The survey data includes potential customers who cannot be bothered to take a survey or playtest yet have plenty of disposable income?  No. So, the subset of potential customers which do take the survey have a different perspective then the complete set. It would be foolish of WotC to not try to attract the silent majority.
No, it includes people who care enough about the game to want a say in its development, which is actually exactly the group of people I'd want involved.

Why do you assume there's a silent majority?  Where's your evidence that there is one?  What makes you believe the survey responses aren't the majority?  Why do you assume the assumed silent majority is different enough from the people responding and large enough so that it's worth guessing, completely in the dark, about what will make them happy rather than doing what you know will make at least some people happy?

I mean, even if you're right about the silent majority, that still doesn't help them worth a damn when it comes to actually deciding what to do.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
...I'm beginning to feel like the D&DN playtest is just WotC saying that the 3E/4E edition wars were too much for them, and that they're just going to rehash previous editions with a new system and try to make peace between all of D&D's different generations...



Why wouldn't that be a completely sufficient justification for this edition?  Seems like a monstrously complex task to me, and a necessary one for the brand to continue.


Not only that, it's exactly what they said the point of D&D Next is.


Plus, if they can actually pull it off,

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.

Neophilia, lol. Progress is based on the past iterations of things.


Not necessarily.  Sometimes it comes from abandoning previous models, sometimes it comes from promulgating them further.  The point being new does not necessarily mean better.  Those who think DDN has to completely rewrite D&D in order to justify itself are not actually looking for a game, they're looking for a fix.

This playtest that smells old fails to interest my circle of friends aged around 40.



Not for you then.  Bye bye.
 
I mean, even if you're right about the silent majority, that still doesn't help them worth a damn when it comes to actually deciding what to do.


^This.  To people who rely on the feedback of others, silence means either apathy or assent.

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.

Why do you assume there's a silent majority?


Because he doesn't like the results.  The same reason Nate Silver got pilloried until he was proven absolutely correct.
Good thing they're going off of their survey data, rather than your entourage.

Your anecdotes do not a compelling argument make.

I don't understand.
My post was an answer to another including a funny accusation of neophilia, and I thought it was pertinent to give an idea of the ages of the people I played this playtest with. It wasn't an argument.

The thread is about where is Next in D&D next. My opinion is that at this point, I see no next. My arguments didn't go beyond that, based on my opinion, and the discussions I had with my entourage.

If the thread were about the interesting concepts in the playtest, my post surely would have been more positive. But if we talk about global progress outside the interesting streamlining of the core mechanics, I don't see any progress at this point of the playtest.

And I didn't see any question in the surveys about our feeling about the innovative aspect of the playtest. So I wonder how the survey data will help anyone on the subject.
Neophilia, lol. Progress is based on the past iterations of things.


Not necessarily.  Sometimes it comes from abandoning previous models, sometimes it comes from promulgating them further.  The point being new does not necessarily mean better.  Those who think DDN has to completely rewrite D&D in order to justify itself are not actually looking for a game, they're looking for a fix.

This playtest that smells old fails to interest my circle of friends aged around 40.



Not for you then.  Bye bye.
 

Maybe it would be more constructive to stay and see how the thing evolves. Sorry if you wanted all the bed for yourself Wink

Abandoning previous models to progress can only be based on past experiences of things. And I won't speak for those who think DDN has to completely rewrite D&D, as I'm not convinced they exist at all.