When the nostalgia wears off

So what happens when the nostalgia wears off?

If you've been keeping up with Mearl's tweets, you'll see that he's on a major nostalgia trip right now. He's even going so far as to pull out really old (2000) convention pictures.

Its my fervent belief that Mearls and possibly the rest of the development team are really into the nostalgia of early editions, but what happens when they wake up and realize what they are doing to 5E? What then?
"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.
First tequila, then Scotch.
I think him and crawford actually have different mindsets, as we've seen them take different stances on issues more than once in the hangouts, podcasts, etc. Luckily for you, Crawford is the actul dev lead and makes most of the day to day operational decisions. To my knowlege Crawford has shown much forward thinking, when compared to Mike who definately has a nostalgia bone.

But in the end, nostalgia sells :P

FFS, capcom just revealed an HD remake of the NES Ducktales game.  
My two copper.
So what happens when the nostalgia wears off?

If you've been keeping up with Mearl's tweets, you'll see that he's on a major nostalgia trip right now. He's even going so far as to pull out really old (2000) convention pictures.

Its my fervent belief that Mearls and possibly the rest of the development team are really into the nostalgia of early editions, but what happens when they wake up and realize what they are doing to 5E? What then?



He starts dusting off his resume.  That sounds cold, but what happened to Bill Slavisek(sp?) could very definately happen to him if this goes about as well as I'm afraid it will.

-Polaris

But in the end, nostalgia sells :P
 



True but only for a while, then it bottoms out (fads/nostagia driven products are cyclical).  Eventually the main group of people that play TTRPGs will grow old and die off.  Again that's cold, but I've seen that handwriting for a while now.

-Polaris  
Nostalgia is something you have to be really quick about responding to, because like Polaris said, it's cyclical.  When a given generation hits their early-mid 20s, generally there's a wave of nostalgia towards the things they enjoyed a decade ago.  There's a number of reasons why this happens, but it basically happens about once every five-ten years.  It also happens whenever there's an economic downturn, which is why there's one right now, but that's also why you have to be quick about it, because the opposite is true as well.

Citing the Ducktales remake, that's coming out within months of being announced.  Next is taking at least two years, a drastically longer development time, and is furthermore establishing itself as the paradigm for the D&D brand for the next four-eight years.  A wave of nostalgia simply doesn't hold up for that long.
I have no idea what this nostalgia crap is about I didn't start playing table top RPGs until 2007...I'm loving basically everything I hear about the playtest...so do all of my players and fellow DMs.  this isn't about nostalgia its about how I actually like to run and play the game and currently 5e fills that nicely.  Nopthing about my opinion is based on any kind of nostalgia because I literally have none.  This isn't nostalgia it is how I and my players enjoy playing the game, and so far Next is progressing very much along the lines of what I and my players enjoy.
Nostalgia is not the only reason to enjoy something old. Whatever merits the old games may have had, those can also be legitimate reasons to enjoy a game which calls back to them.

The metagame is not the game.

Nostalgia is not the only reason to enjoy something old. Whatever merits the old games may have had, those can also be legitimate reasons to enjoy a game which calls back to them.


Truth.
My two copper.
Nostalgia is not the only reason to enjoy something old. Whatever merits the old games may have had, those can also be legitimate reasons to enjoy a game which calls back to them.


Truth.




Just because someothing is old doesn't automatically make it bad.  This is true.  However, just because something is old doesn't automatically make it a good idea either.  I am concerned given Mearl's overt nostalgia, that he doesn't seem to get that and is making design decisions based on that nostalgia.

-Polaris  
You kids get off my lawn!
President of the OTTer Research Council on the Universe
However, just because something is old doesn't automatically make it a good idea either.

Of course, tradition is one of the worst reasons to do anything. You should analyze why the decision was made in the first place in order to determine whether it's still valid, at which point you can choose to go forward with it because those original reasons still hold.

The metagame is not the game.

But in the end, nostalgia sells :P

FFS, capcom just revealed an HD remake of the NES Ducktales game.  



The problem is that 5E doesn't make me feel nostalgic at all. It feels most like 3rd edition, not AD&D.

And even worse it seems to have taken many of the worst parts of older editions and mashed them together. Mandatory cleric, rampant 5-minute workday, god spellcasters and Minor action healing whack-a-mole combat.

About the only thing I can say they did right was magic items.
I got  a feeling of nostalgia when playing 5e, because it kind of feels like 3.5e 

I keep thinking of 5e is like a better version of 3.5e  
The last few editions all started off with a sort of "back to the dungeon" nostalgia approach- 3rd reintroduced Half-Orcs and Assassins and Demons and Devils and a bunch of stuff and while 4th made radical changes it was focused on trying to streamline the traditional dungeon crawl experience. Essentials brought back the Red Box. Etc.

I'm not thrilled with what I've been seeing of the development cycle, but the problem is not so much nostalgia as a lack of real focus. If 5e were about reconciling the D&D tradition with mechanical refinements, I'd be on board, but instead their approach seems more scattershot.
No nostalgia...

but think what you will...
First tequila, then Scotch.

This. Unless there are radical changes in D&DN between here and when 5e is released, the game will flop, making D&D in general flop.

Luckily, I have not-D&D that I really, really enjoy playing.

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."

First tequila, then Scotch.

This. Unless there are radical changes in D&DN between here and when 5e is released, the game will flop, making D&D in general flop.

Luckily, I have not-D&D that I really, really enjoy playing.


Good thing you can tell the future

I can also make baseless claims! I'm certain that if 5e is released as it is now, not only will it sell well, but it will sell so well that Disney will buy it! 
My two copper.
Good thing you can tell the future

I can also make baseless claims! I'm certain that if 5e is released as it is now, not only will it sell well, but it will sell so well that Disney will buy it! 

Okay, well then for the sake of making it clear that what I said was opinion, since I may have indeed been spewing facts:

It is my opinion that unless there are radical changes in D&DN between here and when 5e is released, the game will flop, making D&D in general flop.

I'm glad you think so highly of me that anything I say is automatically assumed to be fact, if I intend for that to be the case or not, withor without supporting evidence.

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."

However, just because something is old doesn't automatically make it a good idea either.

Of course, tradition is one of the worst reasons to do anything. You should analyze why the decision was made in the first place in order to determine whether it's still valid, at which point you can choose to go forward with it because those original reasons still hold.



I completely agree with this.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

 

I once asked the question (in D&D 3.5) "Does a Druid4/Wizard3/ArcaneHierophant1 have Wildshape?". Jesse Decker and Andy Collins: Yes and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Rich Redman and Ed Stark: No and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Skip Williams: Lol, it's worded ambiguously and entirely not how I intended it. (Cust. Serv. Reference# 050815-000323)

Good thing you can tell the future

I can also make baseless claims! I'm certain that if 5e is released as it is now, not only will it sell well, but it will sell so well that Disney will buy it! 

Okay, well then for the sake of making it clear that what I said was opinion, since I may have indeed been spewing facts:

It is my opinion that unless there are radical changes in D&DN between here and when 5e is released, the game will flop, making D&D in general flop.

I'm glad you think so highly of me that anything I say is automatically assumed to be fact, if I intend for that to be the case or not, withor without supporting evidence.



The game will flop because it is being built on the premise that there is one core D&D experience everybody can agree on, when that premise couldn't be farther from the truth. They are mistaking "traditional D&D feel" for that thing everybody can agree on, and their overwhelming focus on it at the expense of everything else is going to alienate a large enough section of the D&D community that 5E will fail its sales goals.
...whatever

The game will flop because it is being built on the premise that there is one core D&D experience everybody can agree on, when that premise couldn't be farther from the truth. They are mistaking "traditional D&D feel" for that thing everybody can agree on, and their overwhelming focus on it at the expense of everything else is going to alienate a large enough section of the D&D community that 5E will fail its sales goals.



Speaking of people who won't be effected by nostalgia of D&D. 

The new 5e fans coming most likely to agree on everything.

I reject the premise of this thread entirely.

I haven't heard anything from Mearls that would suggest he's doing anything more than apprecaiting older editions for their strengths, and working to incorporate those strengths into 5e.

If anyone is driving 5e to play more like prior editions, it's the playtesters. Every time they've tried to stray a bit from pre-4e concepts like mandatory clerics and Vancian spellcasting, they've apparently been yelled at enough in feedback to change their minds. 
I reject the premise of this thread entirely.

I haven't heard anything from Mearls that would suggest he's doing anything more than apprecaiting older editions for their strengths, and working to incorporate those strengths into 5e.

If anyone is driving 5e to play more like prior editions, it's the playtesters. Every time they've tried to stray a bit from pre-4e concepts like mandatory clerics and Vancian spellcasting, they've apparently been yelled at enough in feedback to change their minds. 



Yeah, check out his twitter feed and read a few days back, you'll see what we're talking about...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.
Good thing you can tell the future

I can also make baseless claims! I'm certain that if 5e is released as it is now, not only will it sell well, but it will sell so well that Disney will buy it! 

Okay, well then for the sake of making it clear that what I said was opinion, since I may have indeed been spewing facts:

It is my opinion that unless there are radical changes in D&DN between here and when 5e is released, the game will flop, making D&D in general flop.

I'm glad you think so highly of me that anything I say is automatically assumed to be fact, if I intend for that to be the case or not, withor without supporting evidence.



The game will flop because it is being built on the premise that there is one core D&D experience everybody can agree on, when that premise couldn't be farther from the truth. They are mistaking "traditional D&D feel" for that thing everybody can agree on, and their overwhelming focus on it at the expense of everything else is going to alienate a large enough section of the D&D community that 5E will fail its sales goals.

Quite the contrary actually. It's the first version to be built on the exact opposite premise, that being, there is NO one core D&D experience. That's the entire concept behind the modular design. So you as player&DM can create the experience that you perceive to be D&D. Considering my playtest group has run sessions designed to play like each of the past editions, I'd say it's working so far. It still needs a lot of work, but each iteration gets better and better. And, to be honest, if you like 4E like some of us, you should  participate, we've gotten a lot of changes to move more toward 4E designs from where it started out. Make sure you give feedback in the survey that just came out, there's a lot of opportunity to make improvements there.
Good thing you can tell the future

I can also make baseless claims! I'm certain that if 5e is released as it is now, not only will it sell well, but it will sell so well that Disney will buy it! 

Okay, well then for the sake of making it clear that what I said was opinion, since I may have indeed been spewing facts:

It is my opinion that unless there are radical changes in D&DN between here and when 5e is released, the game will flop, making D&D in general flop.

I'm glad you think so highly of me that anything I say is automatically assumed to be fact, if I intend for that to be the case or not, withor without supporting evidence.



The game will flop because it is being built on the premise that there is one core D&D experience everybody can agree on, when that premise couldn't be farther from the truth. They are mistaking "traditional D&D feel" for that thing everybody can agree on, and their overwhelming focus on it at the expense of everything else is going to alienate a large enough section of the D&D community that 5E will fail its sales goals.

Quite the contrary actually. It's the first version to be built on the exact opposite premise, that being, there is NO one core D&D experience. That's the entire concept behind the modular design. So you as player&DM can create the experience that you perceive to be D&D. Considering my playtest group has run sessions designed to play like each of the past editions, I'd say it's working so far. It still needs a lot of work, but each iteration gets better and better. And, to be honest, if you like 4E like some of us, you should  participate, we've gotten a lot of changes to move more toward 4E designs from where it started out. Make sure you give feedback in the survey that just came out, there's a lot of opportunity to make improvements there.



Somebody believing empty promises when the game they've presented is anything but.
...whatever
Considering my playtest group has run sessions designed to play like each of the past editions, I'd say it's working so far. It still needs a lot of work, but each iteration gets better and better.

Except we haven't seen any of the supposed modularity that will be included - D&DN is so far a playtest of odd mechanics but mostly the "core" of the system, to make sure that is functional and working so far.

If you can somehow tweak D&DN into playing anything like 4, you're more interested in making a small book of houserules than the rest of us.

I'll start providing feedback when they start releasing the modules.

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."

And, to be honest, if you like 4E like some of us, you should  participate, we've gotten a lot of changes to move more toward 4E designs from where it started out. Make sure you give feedback in the survey that just came out, there's a lot of opportunity to make improvements there.


We did that, mbeacom.  When the Monk originally came out, with the "Alignment: Must be Lawful," the boards erupted with people who criticized alignment restrictions.  I can't speak for anyone else, but as that was the biggest thing that particular packet to come out, I personally spent a lot of time criticizing it in the survey.  Next packet, they got rid of it.  I, and others, thought they'd learned.

Paladin comes out?  And it's got "Alignment: Must be Lawful."  And we've got the same old fight going on all over again.

Why, logically, would they do this whole fiasco all over again?  Only one reason I can think of: Nostalgia.  Either that or they wanted us to fight all over again just to test their pet theories.

The Playtest has been a mess from the beginning.  And now, further bringing down customer morale by actually inciting alignment warring?

No, I hope that this is a bout of nostalgia.  Because the only other logical explanation means that whoever is making these decisions is a major idiot (or bunch of idiots) who has absolutely no respect for the customer base.
Wasn't there already a thread about twitter? What happen to that?
Good thing you can tell the future

I can also make baseless claims! I'm certain that if 5e is released as it is now, not only will it sell well, but it will sell so well that Disney will buy it! 

Okay, well then for the sake of making it clear that what I said was opinion, since I may have indeed been spewing facts:

It is my opinion that unless there are radical changes in D&DN between here and when 5e is released, the game will flop, making D&D in general flop.

I'm glad you think so highly of me that anything I say is automatically assumed to be fact, if I intend for that to be the case or not, withor without supporting evidence.



The game will flop because it is being built on the premise that there is one core D&D experience everybody can agree on, when that premise couldn't be farther from the truth. They are mistaking "traditional D&D feel" for that thing everybody can agree on, and their overwhelming focus on it at the expense of everything else is going to alienate a large enough section of the D&D community that 5E will fail its sales goals.

Quite the contrary actually. It's the first version to be built on the exact opposite premise, that being, there is NO one core D&D experience. That's the entire concept behind the modular design. So you as player&DM can create the experience that you perceive to be D&D. Considering my playtest group has run sessions designed to play like each of the past editions, I'd say it's working so far. It still needs a lot of work, but each iteration gets better and better. And, to be honest, if you like 4E like some of us, you should  participate, we've gotten a lot of changes to move more toward 4E designs from where it started out. Make sure you give feedback in the survey that just came out, there's a lot of opportunity to make improvements there.



Somebody believing empty promises when the game they've presented is anything but.

I'm not believing any promises. I'm simply playing the game and judging from my experiences and those of the groups I'm running for. I have a few 4E lovers, a few 4E haters and some young people who don't know the difference. So far, no real problems for anyone.  As a connoiseure, sure I see problems, but the average gamer seems to think it works well enough.  The only people I see with major issues are very serious devotees of one edition or another. Flexible gamers just looking to play a fun game of D&D are quite well served so far. Obviously, the game is still pretty raw, but it's coming along nicely.
  The only people I see with major issues are very serious devotees of one edition or another.  



Let me know how those wack a mole 3 round craps game fights provide 1 tenth the richness of a 4e fight...  lets just say I dont buy it.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

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

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

 

Considering my playtest group has run sessions designed to play like each of the past editions, I'd say it's working so far. It still needs a lot of work, but each iteration gets better and better.

Except we haven't seen any of the supposed modularity that will be included - D&DN is so far a playtest of odd mechanics but mostly the "core" of the system, to make sure that is functional and working so far.

If you can somehow tweak D&DN into playing anything like 4, you're more interested in making a small book of houserules than the rest of us.

I'll start providing feedback when they start releasing the modules.


We've seen a ton of the modularity in my playtests. Not sure which you're reading. I've got players with and without backgrounds. With and without skills. With and without specialties. And one guy who is completely a la cart. I've got players on different HP recovery schedules and 3 or 4 other modular options. We've tried the new exploration module and had a lot of fun with that. For the most part they all work together pretty well. Ultimately, I think HP recovery will have to be a groupwide decision but even so, your group can choose what feels right, anywhere from almost no HP recovery to 4E style to full recovery every day. Play with a cleric or play without. The core is totally modular. The question is whether we'll ultimately get the modules we want. I'm personally looking forward to seeing some more tactical combat options a la 4E but I can't imagine they won't have something like that pretty soon. Those obviously need to wait for a complete core, which looks to be getting pretty close.
And, to be honest, if you like 4E like some of us, you should  participate, we've gotten a lot of changes to move more toward 4E designs from where it started out. Make sure you give feedback in the survey that just came out, there's a lot of opportunity to make improvements there.


We did that, mbeacom.  When the Monk originally came out, with the "Alignment: Must be Lawful," the boards erupted with people who criticized alignment restrictions.  I can't speak for anyone else, but as that was the biggest thing that particular packet to come out, I personally spent a lot of time criticizing it in the survey.  Next packet, they got rid of it.  I, and others, thought they'd learned.

Paladin comes out?  And it's got "Alignment: Must be Lawful."  And we've got the same old fight going on all over again.

Why, logically, would they do this whole fiasco all over again?  Only one reason I can think of: Nostalgia.  Either that or they wanted us to fight all over again just to test their pet theories.

The Playtest has been a mess from the beginning.  And now, further bringing down customer morale by actually inciting alignment warring?

No, I hope that this is a bout of nostalgia.  Because the only other logical explanation means that whoever is making these decisions is a major idiot (or bunch of idiots) who has absolutely no respect for the customer base.

Sounds like maybe you've not been following the playtest very closely. The Paladin was almost certainly put together in its playtest state before the Monk feedback was fully processed. Even so, they announced other paladins at the same time, which I'm fine with. I don't care if they have a different name. You can play Paladin type as LG, or LN or LE.  Other Pally classes that are not lawful good. Does it REALLY matter what they call it?
I'll not say the playtest hasn't been messy. I agree with you there. But considering the scale and scope, I'd say it's been pretty good.  But I'm probably more of an optimist than you. I actually want to see this succeed and I'm busting my hump running as many playtest sessions as possible to give feedback. I'm not just reading the packet, getting angry and freaking out like some (not you) are. I don't envy Mearls and Co's position. The boards are full of ravenous haters. It's got to be hard to peel that back to get to real feedback from people actually playing the game.
Considering my playtest group has run sessions designed to play like each of the past editions, I'd say it's working so far. It still needs a lot of work, but each iteration gets better and better.

Except we haven't seen any of the supposed modularity that will be included - D&DN is so far a playtest of odd mechanics but mostly the "core" of the system, to make sure that is functional and working so far.

If you can somehow tweak D&DN into playing anything like 4, you're more interested in making a small book of houserules than the rest of us.

I'll start providing feedback when they start releasing the modules.


We've seen a ton of the modularity in my playtests. Not sure which you're reading. I've got players with and without backgrounds. With and without skills. With and without specialties. And one guy who is completely a la cart. I've got players on different HP recovery schedules and 3 or 4 other modular options. We've tried the new exploration module and had a lot of fun with that. For the most part they all work together pretty well. Ultimately, I think HP recovery will have to be a groupwide decision but even so, your group can choose what feels right, anywhere from almost no HP recovery to 4E style to full recovery every day. Play with a cleric or play without. The core is totally modular. The question is whether we'll ultimately get the modules we want. I'm personally looking forward to seeing some more tactical combat options a la 4E but I can't imagine they won't have something like that pretty soon. Those obviously need to wait for a complete core, which looks to be getting pretty close.


 
The Next healing system isn't modular.  As for the rest, you can play any edition of DND with or without those.   Seriously look up the definition of MODULAR DESIGN.  Next doesn't even come close to meeting it.  Worse the core design we have seen makes important genre decisions all over the place which is exactly the opposite of what we should be seeing in a truly modular design.

If you want to see a really modular game, I refer you to Savage Worlds or GURPS (two very different but very modular games)

-Polaris   
Good thing you can tell the future

I can also make baseless claims! I'm certain that if 5e is released as it is now, not only will it sell well, but it will sell so well that Disney will buy it! 

Okay, well then for the sake of making it clear that what I said was opinion, since I may have indeed been spewing facts:

It is my opinion that unless there are radical changes in D&DN between here and when 5e is released, the game will flop, making D&D in general flop.

I'm glad you think so highly of me that anything I say is automatically assumed to be fact, if I intend for that to be the case or not, withor without supporting evidence.



The game will flop because it is being built on the premise that there is one core D&D experience everybody can agree on, when that premise couldn't be farther from the truth. They are mistaking "traditional D&D feel" for that thing everybody can agree on, and their overwhelming focus on it at the expense of everything else is going to alienate a large enough section of the D&D community that 5E will fail its sales goals.



This I completely agree with.

The problem is not nostalgia,  it's trying to integrate styles that don't share enough common ground.  There's no way to mix pre-4th edition and 4th edition and get something that's going to satisfy both groups,  our OP demonstrates this for us quite well.  He makes it clear that he rejects anything pre-4th edition as "Nostalgia" and implies that it's unworthy of attention.

How would it be possible to generate a common system that would satisfy our OP when anything not 4th edition is clearly "Nostalgia" and not worth having? 

It's not possible,  and that's the root problem with 5th edition.  It isn't "Nostalgia",  it's that the group he is a part of is going to reject anything prior to 4th edition.

Similiarly,  you're *not* going to convince me to participate in anything from 4th edition.  I've no desire to play it.

So by staying this course,  you lose me as a customer and you lose Lokiare and (presumably) TCO.  That's not a win,  when you lose the fans of both pre-4th and 4th.

They need a new plan,  they need to quit trying to come up with an integrated system and start working on either a split system or bringing 4th edition back as something like "D&D Tactics" and letting capatilism take over from there.           
Considering my playtest group has run sessions designed to play like each of the past editions, I'd say it's working so far. It still needs a lot of work, but each iteration gets better and better.

Except we haven't seen any of the supposed modularity that will be included - D&DN is so far a playtest of odd mechanics but mostly the "core" of the system, to make sure that is functional and working so far.

If you can somehow tweak D&DN into playing anything like 4, you're more interested in making a small book of houserules than the rest of us.

I'll start providing feedback when they start releasing the modules.


We've seen a ton of the modularity in my playtests. Not sure which you're reading. I've got players with and without backgrounds. With and without skills. With and without specialties. And one guy who is completely a la cart. I've got players on different HP recovery schedules and 3 or 4 other modular options. We've tried the new exploration module and had a lot of fun with that. For the most part they all work together pretty well. Ultimately, I think HP recovery will have to be a groupwide decision but even so, your group can choose what feels right, anywhere from almost no HP recovery to 4E style to full recovery every day. Play with a cleric or play without. The core is totally modular. The question is whether we'll ultimately get the modules we want. I'm personally looking forward to seeing some more tactical combat options a la 4E but I can't imagine they won't have something like that pretty soon. Those obviously need to wait for a complete core, which looks to be getting pretty close.


 
The Next healing system isn't modular.  As for the rest, you can play any edition of DND with or without those.   Seriously look up the definition of MODULAR DESIGN.  Next doesn't even come close to meeting it.  Worse the core design we have seen makes important genre decisions all over the place which is exactly the opposite of what we should be seeing in a truly modular design.

If you want to see a really modular game, I refer you to Savage Worlds or GURPS (two very different but very modular games)

-Polaris   

I'd be interested to see people playing stock 3.x with some PCs taking no skills or feats and see how that works out.
Good thing you can tell the future

I can also make baseless claims! I'm certain that if 5e is released as it is now, not only will it sell well, but it will sell so well that Disney will buy it! 

Okay, well then for the sake of making it clear that what I said was opinion, since I may have indeed been spewing facts:

It is my opinion that unless there are radical changes in D&DN between here and when 5e is released, the game will flop, making D&D in general flop.

I'm glad you think so highly of me that anything I say is automatically assumed to be fact, if I intend for that to be the case or not, withor without supporting evidence.



The game will flop because it is being built on the premise that there is one core D&D experience everybody can agree on, when that premise couldn't be farther from the truth. They are mistaking "traditional D&D feel" for that thing everybody can agree on, and their overwhelming focus on it at the expense of everything else is going to alienate a large enough section of the D&D community that 5E will fail its sales goals.



This I completely agree with.

The problem is not nostalgia,  it's trying to integrate styles that don't share enough common ground.  There's no way to mix pre-4th edition and 4th edition and get something that's going to satisfy both groups,  our OP demonstrates this for us quite well.  He makes it clear that he rejects anything pre-4th edition as "Nostalgia" and implies that it's unworthy of attention.

How would it be possible to generate a common system that would satisfy our OP when anything not 4th edition is clearly "Nostalgia" and not worth having? 

It's not possible,  and that's the root problem with 5th edition.  It isn't "Nostalgia",  it's that the group he is a part of is going to reject anything prior to 4th edition.

Similiarly,  you're *not* going to convince me to participate in anything from 4th edition.  I've no desire to play it.

So by staying this course,  you lose me as a customer and you lose Lokiare and (presumably) TCO.  That's not a win,  when you lose the fans of both pre-4th and 4th.

They need a new plan,  they need to quit trying to come up with an integrated system and start working on either a split system or bringing 4th edition back as something like "D&D Tactics" and letting capatilism take over from there.           

I'm not ready to call it a flop, but I'd be ok if they forked the development and offered Classic D&D and D&D Tactics. But what I really want, and what I hope they can deliver with 5E, is the ability to play Classic D&D and smoothly transition into D&D tactics for those combat encounters where it is appropriate.
Considering my playtest group has run sessions designed to play like each of the past editions, I'd say it's working so far. It still needs a lot of work, but each iteration gets better and better.

Except we haven't seen any of the supposed modularity that will be included - D&DN is so far a playtest of odd mechanics but mostly the "core" of the system, to make sure that is functional and working so far.

If you can somehow tweak D&DN into playing anything like 4, you're more interested in making a small book of houserules than the rest of us.

I'll start providing feedback when they start releasing the modules.


We've seen a ton of the modularity in my playtests. Not sure which you're reading. I've got players with and without backgrounds. With and without skills. With and without specialties. And one guy who is completely a la cart. I've got players on different HP recovery schedules and 3 or 4 other modular options. We've tried the new exploration module and had a lot of fun with that. For the most part they all work together pretty well. Ultimately, I think HP recovery will have to be a groupwide decision but even so, your group can choose what feels right, anywhere from almost no HP recovery to 4E style to full recovery every day. Play with a cleric or play without. The core is totally modular. The question is whether we'll ultimately get the modules we want. I'm personally looking forward to seeing some more tactical combat options a la 4E but I can't imagine they won't have something like that pretty soon. Those obviously need to wait for a complete core, which looks to be getting pretty close.


 
The Next healing system isn't modular.  As for the rest, you can play any edition of DND with or without those.   Seriously look up the definition of MODULAR DESIGN.  Next doesn't even come close to meeting it.  Worse the core design we have seen makes important genre decisions all over the place which is exactly the opposite of what we should be seeing in a truly modular design.

If you want to see a really modular game, I refer you to Savage Worlds or GURPS (two very different but very modular games)

-Polaris   

I'd be interested to see people playing stock 3.x with some PCs taking no skills or feats and see how that works out.



Just fine it turns out.  What you just described was the first step to making the retroclones using the OGL.

-Polaris  
Sounds like maybe you've not been following the playtest very closely. The Paladin was almost certain put together in its playtest state before the Monk feedback was fully processed. Even so, they released non-lawful paladins in the same packet, which I'm fine with. I don't care if they have a different name. You can play Paladin type as LG, or N or Evil.  Does it REALLY matter what they call it?



Sounds like you haven't been following the playtest very closely, sir.  There are no Non-Lawful Paladins.  None whatsoever.

• Paladin itself:  "Alignment: A paladin must be of a lawful alignment: lawful good, lawful neutral, or lawful evil."
• Cavalier: "Alignment: You must be lawful good."
• Warden: "You must be lawful good or lawful neutral."
• Blackguard: "You must be lawful neutral or lawful evil."

At no point, nowhere, is there anything about Non-Lawful Paladins.  I don't give a bleep what they get called in the end.  I don't care which of Paladin or Cavalier is the overclass or the subclass.  I don't care if they all get Paladin or none of them.  I don't care if it's the First Act of Henry V.

And as for it being "put together" before the Monk playtest?  The second Monk playtest came out in December.  They've had three months to delete or alter a simple line.

Whenever Paladin was worked out, they've had three months to look everything over.  Did they simply forget?  Are you admitting that by even your loving (because Love is Blind, as you've shown) standards that they are complete incompetents? 
Considering my playtest group has run sessions designed to play like each of the past editions, I'd say it's working so far. It still needs a lot of work, but each iteration gets better and better.

Except we haven't seen any of the supposed modularity that will be included - D&DN is so far a playtest of odd mechanics but mostly the "core" of the system, to make sure that is functional and working so far.

If you can somehow tweak D&DN into playing anything like 4, you're more interested in making a small book of houserules than the rest of us.

I'll start providing feedback when they start releasing the modules.


We've seen a ton of the modularity in my playtests. Not sure which you're reading. I've got players with and without backgrounds. With and without skills. With and without specialties. And one guy who is completely a la cart. I've got players on different HP recovery schedules and 3 or 4 other modular options. We've tried the new exploration module and had a lot of fun with that. For the most part they all work together pretty well. Ultimately, I think HP recovery will have to be a groupwide decision but even so, your group can choose what feels right, anywhere from almost no HP recovery to 4E style to full recovery every day. Play with a cleric or play without. The core is totally modular. The question is whether we'll ultimately get the modules we want. I'm personally looking forward to seeing some more tactical combat options a la 4E but I can't imagine they won't have something like that pretty soon. Those obviously need to wait for a complete core, which looks to be getting pretty close.


 
The Next healing system isn't modular.  As for the rest, you can play any edition of DND with or without those.   Seriously look up the definition of MODULAR DESIGN.  Next doesn't even come close to meeting it.  Worse the core design we have seen makes important genre decisions all over the place which is exactly the opposite of what we should be seeing in a truly modular design.

If you want to see a really modular game, I refer you to Savage Worlds or GURPS (two very different but very modular games)

-Polaris   

I'd be interested to see people playing stock 3.x with some PCs taking no skills or feats and see how that works out.



Just fine it turns out.  What you just described was the first step to making the retroclones using the OGL.

-Polaris  

Show me an OGL retroclone with a skill/feat/multiclass system like 3.x where skills and feats are completely optional and the game plays fine whether you take them or not.
Show me an OGL retroclone with a skill/feat/multiclass system like 3.x where skills and feats are completely optional and the game plays fine whether you take them or not.



The OGL contains the d20 SRD which definately has skills and feats.  Pretty much any OGL Retroclone is made on this skeleton with the skills and feats stripped from it.

You asked for an example and I gave it.  Deal.  You can in fact play 3e (which the OGL really is) without skills and feats.  It's very different but you can, and in fact that's largely what the first drafts of the OGL retroclones were.

Now it doesn't play the same way, no, but that's not what you asked.


-Polaris