Anyone else worried that D&D Next will get cancelled prematurely?

With the anti-4E stance the devs have taken as of late it's obvious that they don't want 4th edition fan's money/continued support and are really banking on stealing Pathfinder fans away from Pathfinder.

But is Next really good enough to do that? I don't think it is, and it's looking more and more like the devs are reaching that conclusion too.

Stop the H4TE

I wouldn't say 'worried', but I can certainly accept it as a possibility.

Que sera', sera'.  Whatever will be, will be.
I see no evidence that the devs share your concern. I can agree that they seem to have concluded that the 4e market is too small a wedge of the potential market to kow-tow to.
I see no evidence that the devs share your concern. I can agree that they seem to have concluded that the 4e market is too small a wedge of the potential market to kow-tow to.



yet the pre-3e crowd is enough to base the game on?, it boggles the mind that they seam to think this. after new players the 4e crowd is the most important to bring onboard, they are very large (made 4e number 1 while it was making new stuff reguarly), most likey to play 5e simply becuase its a new edition, and its known. and there is no pathfinder for 4e.
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 )
I'm more worried about D&D Next shooting itself in the foot by paying lip service to modularity.  If it gets overhauled before it gets out the door, there might be a chance of it becoming a decent system.  As it stands though, I'd predict it to be the poorest selling D&D to date.  It simply isn't enough to enough people to be successful.
I see no evidence that the devs share your concern. I can agree that they seem to have concluded that the 4e market is too small a wedge of the potential market to kow-tow to.



yet the pre-3e crowd is enough to base the game on?, it boggles the mind that they seam to think this. after new players the 4e crowd is the most important to bring onboard, they are very large (made 4e number 1 while it was making new stuff reguarly), most likey to play 5e simply becuase its a new edition, and its known. and there is no pathfinder for 4e.




um yes it is. i would say that if they released a new version of dnd that was classic edition friendly sales would go up alot. if you could see how many pdfs are being downloaded and how many classic reprints are selling that would be your proof. the reason you dont know about them is they were shunned when 3rd edition came out as tsr holdouts. well we are all out here waiting for a new edition to buy and 3rd and 4th didnt do it for us.
With the anti-4E stance the devs have taken as of late it's obvious that they don't want 4th edition fan's money/continued support and are really banking on stealing Pathfinder fans away from Pathfinder.

But is Next really good enough to do that? I don't think it is, and it's looking more and more like the devs are reaching that conclusion too.


Wow, those are some really bold claims. 

You got the numbers backing this up? Or is it just pure conjecture? 
My two copper.
I don't see it so much as an anti-4e slant so much as a non-pro-4e slant. They catered to 4e fans and that segment to the audience for so long, at the expense of everyone else, that they need to build bridges and renew interest in D&D. I think they're hoping 4e fans will stick around long enough that their turn will come. Plus, with 4e fans being the current audience, they're the ones paying attention to what the devs say and the game already. It's everyone else that needs to be lured back. 

Let's face it, there are 80,000 people playtesting 5e and hopefully the majority are answering the surveys.  In contrast there are 32,1926 on these forums. That's not current posters, that's ever. If you take everyone who's ever posted, or lurked, or just registered an account and double that number that's how many people are involved in the playtest.
Or were two packages ago around GenCon. There could easily be many, many more now. And that's just the people who signed-up. How many people are playing under a DM but haven't signed-up?

So whatever opinions are expressed on these boards are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the total audience.
And if you're filling out the surveys (like you should) then WotC knows your opinion. They make changes if as few as 10% of the audience are truely unhappy. If people were as unhappy with the game as you make it out to be, there would have been far more radical changes. 

This is their job. If they fail, they're unemployed. 
AND D&D, the game most have played since childhood, dies. They're not going to risk that.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

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

Don't know- really don't care if they cancel it as I'm pretty sure they won't be putting out something I will be interested in playing
I see no evidence that the devs share your concern. I can agree that they seem to have concluded that the 4e market is too small a wedge of the potential market to kow-tow to.



yet the pre-3e crowd is enough to base the game on?, it boggles the mind that they seam to think this. after new players the 4e crowd is the most important to bring onboard, they are very large (made 4e number 1 while it was making new stuff reguarly), most likey to play 5e simply becuase its a new edition, and its known. and there is no pathfinder for 4e.



 You do release AD&D products have been selling like hot cakes and the reprints sold out despite being priced at around X4 what you can buy a 1st ed book for on Ebay? The D&D PDFs on RPGnow crashed the site and right now the nuber 1 selling product is a magazine called Gygax by TSR.

 Would you like me to explain the relevence of the Gygax name or TSR? The other thing to consider s that the 4th ed players on the forums have made it very clear they wll only accept 4th ed and nothing else. The 3rd ed players do not really have the negative feelings towards AD&D the 4th ed crowd has towards 3.5. And not all of the AD&D players even some of the grognards hate 3.5 or Pathfinder and they actually play it on occasion they just prefer AD&D even if they do not think of 3.5 as D&D they just treat it as a separate game just like any other RPG they may or may not play.

 You do not realy see the AD&D players or the 3rd ed players on the forums demanding functional reprints of either of those systems nor do they seem to care that much that D&DN does not have every little rule representation from those systems in D&DN. We know what inclusive and modularity really means as we have had it before with 2nd ed and 3rd in in various ways.  

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

It will be interesting to see how it all breaks out, because 4E probably has an equal amount of new players and grognards, and the later tend to be DMs. And they want a game that is easy to DM.
In response to the thread topic:   No.




Carl    
Is this thread a joke?

If they cancelled, someone else would pick up the banner, throw it on kickstarter, and then get millions in backings. 
There are murmurings.  Just saying.  I know nothing for a fact, though.  It's not out of the realm of possibility but it would be kinda silly to cut and run at this point in the project.  Way too early.  There's only one reason to cancel a project like this and I don't know if that's happening or not.  Regardless of whether you think Next is making any big mistakes or not, cancelling it at this point would be an even bigger mistake.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

I see no evidence that the devs share your concern. I can agree that they seem to have concluded that the 4e market is too small a wedge of the potential market to kow-tow to.



yet the pre-3e crowd is enough to base the game on?, it boggles the mind that they seam to think this. after new players the 4e crowd is the most important to bring onboard, they are very large (made 4e number 1 while it was making new stuff reguarly), most likey to play 5e simply becuase its a new edition, and its known. and there is no pathfinder for 4e.



 You do release AD&D products have been selling like hot cakes and the reprints sold out despite being priced at around X4 what you can buy a 1st ed book for on Ebay? The D&D PDFs on RPGnow crashed the site and right now the nuber 1 selling product is a magazine called Gygax by TSR.

 Would you like me to explain the relevence of the Gygax name or TSR? The other thing to consider s that the 4th ed players on the forums have made it very clear they wll only accept 4th ed and nothing else. The 3rd ed players do not really have the negative feelings towards AD&D the 4th ed crowd has towards 3.5. And not all of the AD&D players even some of the grognards hate 3.5 or Pathfinder and they actually play it on occasion they just prefer AD&D even if they do not think of 3.5 as D&D they just treat it as a separate game just like any other RPG they may or may not play.

 You do not realy see the AD&D players or the 3rd ed players on the forums demanding functional reprints of either of those systems nor do they seem to care that much that D&DN does not have every little rule representation from those systems in D&DN. We know what inclusive and modularity really means as we have had it before with 2nd ed and 3rd in in various ways.  



I'd be interested in seeing some of these supposed 4E people that won't accept anything that isn't 4E. I've only seen people that want options to be available to them so they can play the way they want. Nothing less, nothing more...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I don't think they'll cancel the edition, even if I don't necessarily agree with their design goals or philosophy. The question is, will it see once other competetors products hit the shelves. It seems to me that 13th Age is getting a LOT of coverage as it's gearing up for release as well and since it holds a lot of design elements that 4E had, I can see a lot of fans moving there for their fix (much like fans left for Paizo).

When they came out with the idea for Next, I said to my group that I would give them 1 full year after debut to come up with a good game of which I could play. That's usually enough time to put out non-PHB options that will test to see how strong their crunch is as well as refine some of the clunky elements that are bound to show up after the initial release. If, after a year, the system fails at grasping my attention or fails at allowing me to build characters in a fashion that I enjoy then I'll check out 13th Age or just stick with my 4E books and support Paizo here and there.  
I'd be interested in seeing some of these supposed 4E people that won't accept anything that isn't 4E. I've only seen people that want options to be available to them so they can play the way they want. Nothing less, nothing more...

I've read many posts that are written in such a way that the logical conclusion is that they want the ideas they don't agree with to not be in the rules.

This could be a misrepresentation of the poster's actual desires; based on their choice of words and tone.

Also, this type of post hasn't been in the sole arena of the 4th Edition fan.

I'd be interested in seeing some of these supposed 4E people that won't accept anything that isn't 4E. I've only seen people that want options to be available to them so they can play the way they want. Nothing less, nothing more...

I've read many posts that are written in such a way that the logical conclusion is that they want the ideas they don't agree with to not be in the rules.

This could be a misrepresentation of the poster's actual desires; based on their choice of words and tone.

Also, this type of post hasn't been in the sole arena of the 4th Edition fan.




Yeah, you are right. Especially on the martial healing and warlord issue...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
It wouldn't surprise me if it got cancelled, but I'd prefer it it was restarted with different people at the helm.  The PR on this project feels hosed 11 ways from Sunday.  They have all of us talking about issues that either don't exist or won't exist in the final form, jumping at shadows because of half-formed thoughts on the process being released.  The buzz is a lot of negativity right now, not much optimism that I can see.  That alone might convince somebody at the top to change course a bit.

I know there's more to come, and things are not done yet, etc.  None of us work at WotC, so it's not like we know the full deal, but what's important is what we perceive.  Right now, the perception seems more negative than positive.  For my part, it's a bummer to see an iconic game getting moved in a dircetion I don't care for.  If this was just an indie game, I would have shut up moved on.  This is D and freaking D though.  I'm inclined to share the opinion that it's leaving me behind in it's current direction.  I'm not so unusual that I'll be speaking for just myself.  I can see that much anyway.

I'll try to be polite in that opinion, and open to persuasion to the contrary.  ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
It seems to me that 13th Age is getting a LOT of coverage as it's gearing up for release as well and since it holds a lot of design elements that 4E had,I can see a lot of fans moving there for their fix...

Coverage? Not on the scale D&D can command on the basis of name recognition in the general populace. Not even close.
No, the devs know, I think, that their best shot at revitalizing the hobby is through emphasizing the brand's broad appeal...not by catering to a few power gamers of any currently existing edition.
It seems to me that 13th Age is getting a LOT of coverage as it's gearing up for release as well and since it holds a lot of design elements that 4E had,I can see a lot of fans moving there for their fix...

Coverage? Not on the scale D&D can command on the basis of name recognition in the general populace. Not even close. No, the devs know, I think, that their best shot at revitalizing the hobby is through emphasizing the brand's broad appeal...not by catering to a few power gamers of any currently existing edition.


For once, me and professor agree on something. That must mean this thread is pretty rediculous to begin with
My two copper.
It seems to me that 13th Age is getting a LOT of coverage as it's gearing up for release as well and since it holds a lot of design elements that 4E had,I can see a lot of fans moving there for their fix...

Coverage? Not on the scale D&D can command on the basis of name recognition in the general populace. Not even close. No, the devs know, I think, that their best shot at revitalizing the hobby is through emphasizing the brand's broad appeal...not by catering to a few power gamers of any currently existing edition.



Except nothing about D&D Next has a "broad appeal". From my experience very few people from ANY edition feel a reason to be drawn to D&D Next.

Stop the H4TE

It seems to me that 13th Age is getting a LOT of coverage as it's gearing up for release as well and since it holds a lot of design elements that 4E had,I can see a lot of fans moving there for their fix...

Coverage? Not on the scale D&D can command on the basis of name recognition in the general populace. Not even close. No, the devs know, I think, that their best shot at revitalizing the hobby is through emphasizing the brand's broad appeal...not by catering to a few power gamers of any currently existing edition.



Except nothing about D&D Next has a "broad appeal". From my experience very few people from ANY edition feel a reason to be drawn to D&D Next.


Good thing you talk to everyone in the playtest on a regular basis.
My two copper.
It seems to me that 13th Age is getting a LOT of coverage as it's gearing up for release as well and since it holds a lot of design elements that 4E had,I can see a lot of fans moving there for their fix...

Coverage? Not on the scale D&D can command on the basis of name recognition in the general populace. Not even close. No, the devs know, I think, that their best shot at revitalizing the hobby is through emphasizing the brand's broad appeal...not by catering to a few power gamers of any currently existing edition.



Except nothing about D&D Next has a "broad appeal". From my experience very few people from ANY edition feel a reason to be drawn to D&D Next.


Good thing you talk to everyone in the playtest on a regular basis.

The important people to talk to are those outside the playtest.  I do so in an attempt to get people into the playtest.  D&D Next has very little appeal to them, broad or otherwise.

The important people to talk to are those outside the playtest.  I do so in an attempt to get people into the playtest.  D&D Next has very little appeal to them, broad or otherwise.

Why?

While non-players will be important after release, they aren't as important before release. They will decide whether they will play the game based on the game's final content, not what content might be in it at release.

As Counting Crows sing ''i am not worried, i am not overly concerned''

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

power gamers



What the nartz does this have to do with anything?
It seems to me that 13th Age is getting a LOT of coverage as it's gearing up for release as well and since it holds a lot of design elements that 4E had,I can see a lot of fans moving there for their fix...

Coverage? Not on the scale D&D can command on the basis of name recognition in the general populace. Not even close. No, the devs know, I think, that their best shot at revitalizing the hobby is through emphasizing the brand's broad appeal...not by catering to a few power gamers of any currently existing edition.



I use the term coverage loosely, meaning that usually when D&D:Next is compared to something, it's often 13th Age. But it begs the question, IS D&D:Next appealling to a broad audience? I really don't know but MY group isn't really feeling it right now. I do plan on running a Playtest party soon and have been holding off until the next packet because I hear it's supposed to change a few things and import some new elements. I always try to get at least one peson on in it that's never gamed before so that their perception isn't biased, so hopefully I'll have a fresh newbie's info to impart as well. 

 
The important people to talk to are those outside the playtest.  I do so in an attempt to get people into the playtest.  D&D Next has very little appeal to them, broad or otherwise.

Why?

While non-players will be important after release, they aren't as important before release. They will decide whether they will play the game based on the game's final content, not what content might be in it at release.

They will decide whether or not they will play the game based on its core/base mechanics.  One gets insight into those core/base mechanics during the playtest, not once lipstick has been put on the pig.  Content is easy to create or houserule.  The core of the game is what hooks people into playing it.
But it begs the question,IS D&D:Next appealling to a broad audience?

Of course not. Yet. It hasn't been released.
And before you think I'm just bring snarky, I want to emphasize that while I think the devs are getting a little useful information from we playtesters at this stage, I presume that, as professionals with even a fraction of Hasbro's market research to draw on, they are in a much better position to judge what will appeal to a broad market than any of us, or even all of us. As current gamers, we're, by definition, the absolute worst people to guess what might appeal to the broader market which doesn't yet play D&D, but might be persuaded to. I think the final product, twelve to eighteen months from now, will reflect that.
But it begs the question,IS D&D:Next appealling to a broad audience?

Of course not. Yet. It hasn't been released. And before you think I'm just bring snarky, I want to emphasize that while I think the devs are getting a little useful information from we playtesters at this stage, I presume that, as professionals with even a fraction of Hasbro's market research to draw on, they are in a much better position to judge what will appeal to a broad market than any of us, or even all of us. As current gamers, we're, by definition, the absolute worst people to guess what might appeal to the broader market which doesn't yet play D&D, but might be persuaded to. I think the final product, twelve to eighteen months from now, will reflect that.

I'm not so sure of that.  I'm persuading people to play D&D right now.  The people I am persuading aren't going to be migrating towards D&D Next.  If anything they're likely to migrate to FATE.
They will decide whether or not they will play the game based on its core/base mechanics...

See, that's what I mean. Total misreading. Non-gamers won't be deciding whether to try out D&D on the basis of "core mechanics." That's what current players might do, not people new to the hobby. Those people will be much more likely to decide on the basis of marketing and brand identification.
I think the better question is:  Will the current playtest material get crumpled up and tossed out?

I don't think the odds are good, but you never know.  If they get enough negative feedback about the state of the game, they might go back to square one.  I suppose that I would prefer that they do just that, but its not like I really dislike all of DDN.  I like traits (not a new concept, but done better here than when I previously saw them).  I like some of the Vancian casting tweaks.  I hate bounded accuracy as it sits, so there is a big issue.  I also hate adv/disadv... not as a potential mechanic, but as the only mechanic.  I don't like skill training, but I sort of like skill dice.  I am not a fan of MDD or the way maneuvers currently work (though these are changing).  

Mostly I just hate the "simple is better" philosophy.

So there are a lot of core problems for me.  Some can be fixed without too much trouble.  Others are gooing to plague my feelings of the product forever unless they do massive overhauls.  I don't expect a massive overhaul.  I also don't pretend to be the sole demographic for DDN, but I am inside one of those demographics, and this "modular" game is not going to be able to work for me if the core can't change.
But it begs the question,IS D&D:Next appealling to a broad audience?

Of course not. Yet. It hasn't been released. And before you think I'm just bring snarky, I want to emphasize that while I think the devs are getting a little useful information from we playtesters at this stage, I presume that, as professionals with even a fraction of Hasbro's market research to draw on, they are in a much better position to judge what will appeal to a broad market than any of us, or even all of us. As current gamers, we're, by definition, the absolute worst people to guess what might appeal to the broader market which doesn't yet play D&D, but might be persuaded to. I think the final product, twelve to eighteen months from now, will reflect that.



Well then they need to hire a new marketing team because outside of current D&D fans, people won't get "hooked" unless you sell the product. And you don't do that by just putting ads in places like Comic book Stores and the slowly dying Barnes and Nobles. The precident is NEW fans are often brought in by people who are currently playing D&D (any edition) with all their biases and judgemental statements and thoughts which are instantly transferred to new players (at least, initially). For example, I had a brand new player last week that was introduced to 3E. He said he had fun but it was a LOT different than a popular video game that was similiar in style and setting he was playing. A few days later my player who brought the new guy said he was excited to try a new character he build using 4E, a character that played similiar to his character from a.....popular video game that he plays and wanted to know when we'd be running 4E again. So the D&D:NExt marketing is GOING to need to branch out into other places to promote the game if they want fresh blood and not just be content with the converts of 4E or those leaving Paizo or those coming back after skipping the wrongbadfun of 3E/4E.
They will decide whether or not they will play the game based on its core/base mechanics...

See, that's what I mean. Total misreading. Non-gamers won't be deciding whether to try out D&D on the basis of "core mechanics." That's what current players might do, not people new to the hobby. Those people will be much more likely to decide on the basis of marketing and brand identification.



One ... that's a really cynical view of people.

Two ... even if it's true, if the mechanics aren't good, they're going to abandon the game.  "See us?  We're D&D, and that's all you need to know" isn't going to fly.  Polish a turd, and all that.
The reason 3rd ed had the impact that it did was because of the OGL and it was a decent update to AD&D although of course it had problems. Still if you can tolerate or houserule CoDzilla way mechanics are not everything as post TSR era D&D era probably has had better mechanics but people still play AD&D.

 D&DN main goal need to be that it is better than Pathfinder and can attract newer players and AD&D players. They pul that off and it can be 2000 and 2001 all over again. They're not going to get everyone of course and it is a waste of time trying. Give the grognards the tradional classes and gie people who hate vancian or whatever new classes like warlocks and new players can decide what they like best. Anything to weird can come along later in a module (Warforged, Planescape, Ninjas, etc).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

They will decide whether or not they will play the game based on its core/base mechanics...

See, that's what I mean. Total misreading. Non-gamers won't be deciding whether to try out D&D on the basis of "core mechanics." That's what current players might do, not people new to the hobby. Those people will be much more likely to decide on the basis of marketing and brand identification.

The people I am introducing to TTRPGs for the first time right now are not interested in D&D Next's core mechanics.  They're playig D&D because it is what their friends are playing.
They will decide whether or not they will play the game based on its core/base mechanics...

See, that's what I mean. Total misreading. Non-gamers won't be deciding whether to try out D&D on the basis of "core mechanics." That's what current players might do, not people new to the hobby. Those people will be much more likely to decide on the basis of marketing and brand identification.

The people I am introducing to TTRPGs for the first time right now are not interested in D&D Next's core mechanics.  They're playig D&D because it is what their friends are playing.



 Ding ding. My players and newer players will play whatever I serve up really although I normally ask them 1st. Wanna try AD&D turned into several session turned into a new camapign, turned into the players themselves forking out money for Myth and Magic and printing costs as several of them are printing the PDF off. They will play AD&D, 3rd ed, SWSE, Pathfinder and clones. They will also play 4th ed although only 1 of them really liked it.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

No, I doubt it.


Thing is, the playtest is free testing for them. Well, so close to free that they'd be mad not to carry on. I mean, if they were to actually pay playtesting teams to do the work we're doing they'd be bankrupt.


EDIT: It's possible that they stop it because they don't feel they'll get any more useful data from the test. If that did happen I think it'd be a fair bit later than this, and if they're at all smart they'll leave it open even if they're not publishing any major updates.

I am going to go ahead and highlight what this thread sounds like with a nice tool called exaggeration.

So 13th age? People say it's going to overshadow D&D next? Well surely it won't because no one I know plays it, ergo it must be a terrible game. Same goes for FATE. I know plenty of gamers, and if not one of them plays it then surely it's because the game is awful.

However, I do know 3 groups that are playing DDN play tests, ergo it must be immediately superior because people I know are playing it, and seem interested in the mechanics.

But even then, I don't agree with some of the things in the play test, and EVEN THOUGH I TOLD THEM I DIDN'T LIKE IT, they still kept some of these things in the last packet. Obviously this means that the developers don't care about my opinion, or that of my silent, unproven majority, and thus, surely, the game will be garbage. 

/sarcasm

Seriously people, stop shouting doom and gloom because of your personal feelings on the game. They have a saying in theatre; "Let the playbill do the bragging". If the game comes out and tanks, all well and good. You can shout "I told you so" from the rooftops. But until then you are adding absolutely meaningful discussion to the game.

(This excludes people who suggest ways to make it better, but includes people who just meaninglessly trash the game like the OP.)
My two copper.
I don't agree with some of the things in the play test, and EVEN THOUGH I TOLD THEM I DIDN'T LIKE IT, they still kept some of these things in the last packet.

Some of these things?  They have yet to make a single improvement on any facet I've ever brought up.  There's a difference between meeting someone part way to make sure their playstyle can happen in your game and showing complete indifference to somebody.  All I've seen is the latter.