D&DN is not for me... and that's OK

Over the course of this playtest, it has become increasingly obvious that this new edition of D&D is not the one for me. Much of the new direction seems like moving backwards to me, in terms of game design. Several of the new features made me say, "Why are they doing it this way? Fourth edition did it so much better." It is unlikely that I will purchase the books for the new edition (but hey, we never know for sure until it's released).

But that's OK.

I've been thinking about it some more recently, and I've come to realize that 4E suits my storytelling needs just fine. I don't need a new edition, but others might. There are plenty of people who wanted something that 4E couldn't easily offer, and maybe D&DN is for them. It would, after all, be pretty selfish for me to believe that EVERY edition of D&D should be tailored to my specific preferences, when there's already a version that almost is.

Here's the news that sparked this train of thought:

No Warlord? No Novacat. The warlord is easily, far and away my favorite class in any edition of D&D (to the point where I've ALMOST not played anything else), and they've axed it in a design move that I could never agree with. It is primarily for this reason that I'm confident that D&DN will not speak to me. That said, I know a lot of people had a problem with the warlord, and what it represented with relation to hit points. So now I have my edition with a warlord, and they will have theirs without it.

All of the other issues I have with the system boil down to a similar line of reasoning: Some game element or design philosophy present in 4E is reversed in D&DN, so it makes the game less appealing to me, but more appealing to others. So now I withdraw from attempting to persuade the designers to make the game as I want it, because clearly, this is not a game for me. It is, however, still D&D at its core, and the implications of that fact allow us as a community to embrace it, whether it's our game or not. There will be stories, quirks, flaws, and triumphs just as there has been in any version of the game, and these are the things that unite us, not the mechanics.

TLDR: I'm happy with 4E, and D&DN doesn't detract from that happiness. If a new edition of D&D can bring new players into the community, or bring back old players, then it's objectively a good thing, even if I never play it.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.


+1

Its actually more aggrivated because the attempts to sell mechanics that are not 4e as 4e, eg. hit dice, encounter building.

The good thing is they are taking alot of the good things that makes the DMs life easier.I kind of wonder if 5e might be the first edition that flips the issue from a lack of DMs to a lack of players.



"Man who fly upside down, have crack up" -Ancient Chinese saying

I am having a tough time grokking an edition having a soul.  Wherever I have gone to play, it has always been the players that breathed the life into the event.  And that is regardless of edition or system, DMing or playing.

I don't think 5E will capture everyone, but I think it will have appeal to players that have played all editions.      I think some players will have to flip along their own longitudinal axis or they will eventually bail.  Not a lot you can do about gravity.







If you don't like the word 'soul' then we could go with 'underlying theme'. The underlying theme of 4E was balance, varied options, limited healing throughout the day, and heroic tactical combat...



I would be truly amazed if those things didn't show up in some form or another in 5E.

EDIT:  When it ships that is...



They aren't building toward it and there are no signs of it, and WotC has shown they can't be trusted to come through on their promises. So I'm not holding my breath. If I see something I might have some hope, but right now... nope sorry...



Maybe you are flying inverted and you need to roll out of it!  All that brain in your blood is given you the blackout...

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

What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.


+1

Its actually more aggrivated because the attempts to sell mechanics that are not 4e as 4e, eg. hit dice, encounter building.

The good thing is they are taking alot of the good things that makes the DMs life easier.I kind of wonder if 5e might be the first edition that flips the issue from a lack of DMs to a lack of players.



"Man who fly upside down, have crack up" -Ancient Chinese saying

I am having a tough time grokking an edition having a soul.  Wherever I have gone to play, it has always been the players that breathed the life into the event.  And that is regardless of edition or system, DMing or playing.

I don't think 5E will capture everyone, but I think it will have appeal to players that have played all editions.      I think some players will have to flip along their own longitudinal axis or they will eventually bail.  Not a lot you can do about gravity.







If you don't like the word 'soul' then we could go with 'underlying theme'. The underlying theme of 4E was balance, varied options, limited healing throughout the day, and heroic tactical combat...



I would be truly amazed if those things didn't show up in some form or another in 5E.

EDIT:  When it ships that is...



They aren't building toward it and there are no signs of it, and WotC has shown they can't be trusted to come through on their promises. So I'm not holding my breath. If I see something I might have some hope, but right now... nope sorry...



Maybe you are flying inverted and you need to roll out of it!  All that brain in your blood is given you the blackout...




I just deal in facts. There aren't any supporting WotC doing 4E style play. When some shows up I might change my viewpoint...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 want to salute all you folks that continue to follow the playtest even tho it seems dismally pitiful in your sight.  It shows that you have a care and a concern for something you like.  I respect that.

/salute 

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

Since 4th came out, I've been in love with it, however a few things have always lingered as problems for me.

- Combat takes way too long because hit points are too high
- Magic Items are expected to be handed out so much that there is even a system to give those static bonuses without them. (Inherent Bonuses)
- Magic Items are boring (Oh my sword can do fire damage.... which is almost meaningless, and once per day it can set a guy on fire for 1 or 2 rounds... thats kinda interesting)
- Everyone is a "wizard" (Some just fight in melee)
- Class "roles" while interesting are a burdon on roleplaying, this was most obvious when my buddy didn't understand why his duel weapon fighter coud't use his two strikes on the same target and why he couldn't add his modifier to damage.

DDN has fixed all of these issues, 1 standard fight in 4e would take 1-2 hours with a party of 5, in 5e we can clear 4-8 encounters in that same period.

Magic items are once again unique and VERY impactful. When you're attack bonus only goes up once every 3-5 levels, even a +1 weapon means a lot. Just finished running Caves of Chaos and Isle of Dread and the Pally has a 22 AC from his magic items/race/what-not Which let him stand toe to toe with a Fire Giant and meet it blow for blow.

And at any point I can take all those items away without leaving the character underpowered like you would in 4e.

Anyone can be a controller, or healer, or tank, or whatever now, it's all just based on which feats and class features you take. (Though I don't reccomend tanking as a Wizard)

I just deal in facts.



No, you don't, come on, let's not get silly...Smile

Opinions are never "facts".
AD&D lasted 23 years, 4th ed was in print for 4 years. There may be reasons why one lasted so long and one died whimpering. They have to sell an edition of D&D that will appeal as an edition of D&D. The 3rd ed spot is taken, 4th ed was passed on so if they can  replicate elements AD&Ds of playstyle to a modern audience that may appeal to Pathfinder players as a game they can play alongside PF sure why not.

 If they made 4.5 peopel will go NEXT. 2nd ed reprints just landed the other day and the 1st ed ones sold out and the PDFs crashed RPGnow.com. We all know everyhting before 2008 was terrible and I have wasted 20 years of my life playing  BECMI, AD&D and 3.X and denying the true glory. I just hope Gygax will forgive me.



Yeah the reason that 4E lasted 4 years was that Hasbro slapped a never before seen unrealistic sales goal on it that no single edition of D&D ever reached. That's the sole reason 4E only went 4 years. In fact they created 4E because they knew 3E couldn't reach that goal...



Just felt like quoting a fact that continually gets ignored and forecasts the potential for Hasbro shelving the game.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

AD&D lasted 23 years, 4th ed was in print for 4 years. There may be reasons why one lasted so long and one died whimpering. They have to sell an edition of D&D that will appeal as an edition of D&D. The 3rd ed spot is taken, 4th ed was passed on so if they can  replicate elements AD&Ds of playstyle to a modern audience that may appeal to Pathfinder players as a game they can play alongside PF sure why not.

 If they made 4.5 peopel will go NEXT. 2nd ed reprints just landed the other day and the 1st ed ones sold out and the PDFs crashed RPGnow.com. We all know everyhting before 2008 was terrible and I have wasted 20 years of my life playing  BECMI, AD&D and 3.X and denying the true glory. I just hope Gygax will forgive me.



Yeah the reason that 4E lasted 4 years was that Hasbro slapped a never before seen unrealistic sales goal on it that no single edition of D&D ever reached. That's the sole reason 4E only went 4 years. In fact they created 4E because they knew 3E couldn't reach that goal...



Just felt like quoting a fact that continually gets ignored and forecasts the potential for Hasbro shelving the game.





This Hasbro will shelve the game thing has really become trendy.
This Hasbro will shelve the game thing has really become trendy.

Probably becaue Hasbro has a known track record of doing exactly that - shelving a title or line for later use.

And it would be profitable. Hasbro can keep the D&D name, not release any new material for it (except perhaps a trickling of Dungeon/Dragon magazine content, if they feel generous), thereby not putting money into it that could be spend elsewhere with bigger gains. However, people will want to use the D&D name for video games, movies, merchandise, toys, minatures, etc. They will have to give Hasbro money for that, effectively making money on the D&D name without Hasbro ever spending a dime.

It seems to be a worst-case scenario that more than a few people are worried about.

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 doubt it would happen. At the worst you have another 3 year edition. And even if D&D gets shelved there is PF and retroclones plus existing material. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

This Hasbro will shelve the game thing has really become trendy.

Probably becaue Hasbro has a known track record of doing exactly that - shelving a title or line for later use.

And it would be profitable. Hasbro can keep the D&D name, not release any new material for it (except perhaps a trickling of Dungeon/Dragon magazine content, if they feel generous), thereby not putting money into it that could be spend elsewhere with bigger gains. However, people will want to use the D&D name for video games, movies, merchandise, toys, minatures, etc. They will have to give Hasbro money for that, effectively making money on the D&D name without Hasbro ever spending a dime.

It seems to be a worst-case scenario that more than a few people are worried about.



I think that rather than do this they would just offer a slower less "supported" edition.   The core three books would be available PHB,DMG,MM.   They'd slowly release other stuff and they'd run the edition for ten years.   If they wanted to keep DDI up with dungeon and dragon then that too could work.   So they'd release a good hardback a year instead of every month or two.   This approach reminds me a lot of 1e.   Every book release back then was a big deal.

 
I doubt it would happen. At the worst you have another 3 year edition. And even if D&D gets shelved there is PF and retroclones plus existing material. 

I'm not so sure it wouldn't happen, if Hasbro has that much control over WotC.

But D&D is far from the only kid on the block anymore; there are tons of RPGs out there to play.

One of the more interesting ideas is what if Hasbro/WotC put the D&D name out there to purchase, and had WotC focus on MtG? Who would/could buy it?

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 doubt it would happen. At the worst you have another 3 year edition. And even if D&D gets shelved there is PF and retroclones plus existing material. 

I'm not so sure it wouldn't happen, if Hasbro has that much control over WotC.

But D&D is far from the only kid on the block anymore; there are tons of RPGs out there to play.

One of the more interesting ideas is what if Hasbro/WotC put the D&D name out there to purchase, and had WotC focus on MtG? Who would/could buy it?



Depends how much was being asked. In the hobby field there's only a few companies with the sort of money I'd expect to be charged. Fantasy Flight Games are pretty successful, both their boardgames and their RPGs. Games Workshop probably have the money, but whether they'd be interested is another question. Activision Blizzard or EA Bioware would be interesting possibilities, both could afford it (out of pocket change), and they've got people with an interest in tabletop RPGs. Other than that, I'm struggling to think of anyone who both could afford and would want to take an interest.

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 


Anyone can be a controller, or healer, or tank, or whatever now, it's all just based on which feats and class features you take. (Though I don't reccomend tanking as a Wizard)


Not really... 

They couldnt even be convinced to produce a martial controller in 4e.

To be truly role neutral you cant have a broad degree of hit point variance unless that too is highly adjustable via alternate non-class mechanisms(and that isnt happening anytime soon), actual competant healing has to be acceptable for non-caster classes (and that isnt happening anytime soon).

Congrats we can say classes are less distinct because their battle roles are wishy washy
  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."

 

Magic items are once again unique and VERY impactful.

And at any point I can take all those items away without leaving the character underpowered like you would in 4e.



I think the point in 4ed design was they didn't want magic items to be very impactful. That is, they wanted the Fighter, Wizard, or Rogue to be the one dishing out the powerful moves. That's why you have Martial Dailies and "boring" magic items: so you can say your Fighter beat the Fire Giant through his favoured finishing move that he had trained to do, and not because Merlin gave him Excalibur this morning. 

It's a trade-off for sure, but I'd rather go with Fighter Dailies than Fighters-have-to-shine-their-swords-Daily. ;) 

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

Magic items are once again unique and VERY impactful.

And at any point I can take all those items away without leaving the character underpowered like you would in 4e.



I think the point in 4ed design was they didn't want magic items to be very impactful. That is, they wanted the Fighter, Wizard, or Rogue to be the one dishing out the powerful moves. That's why you have Martial Dailies and "boring" magic items: so you can say your Fighter beat the Fire Giant through his favoured finishing move that he had trained to do, and not because Merlin gave him Excalibur this morning. 

It's a trade-off for sure, but I'd rather go with Fighter Dailies than Fighters-have-to-shine-their-swords-Daily. ;) 




Good analysis.  My preferences are the opposite.   I enjoy imagining a world where powerful magic items affect the abilities of people.   I don't prefer a world where fighters have spell-like resource management.



Magic items are once again unique and VERY impactful.

And at any point I can take all those items away without leaving the character underpowered like you would in 4e.



I think the point in 4ed design was they didn't want magic items to be very impactful. That is, they wanted the Fighter, Wizard, or Rogue to be the one dishing out the powerful moves. That's why you have Martial Dailies and "boring" magic items: so you can say your Fighter beat the Fire Giant through his favoured finishing move that he had trained to do, and not because Merlin gave him Excalibur this morning. 

It's a trade-off for sure, but I'd rather go with Fighter Dailies than Fighters-have-to-shine-their-swords-Daily. ;) 




Good analysis.  My preferences are the opposite.   I enjoy imagining a world where powerful magic items affect the abilities of people.   I don't prefer a world where fighters have spell-like resource management.




These are not entirely incompatible preferences and design goals. The real "problem" here are the constant and static bonuses that classic D&D equipment grant. If you eliminate these constant bonuses and replace them with flavorful functions that are limitted by situation or frequency then items can remain useful and interesting without altering the mathematical assumptions significantly. This goes back to the idea of characters that are growing more "horizontally" instead of "vertically" that the designers wrote about early in the playtest and then almost immediately abandoned.
@Sleeps: I think you're accidentally responding to the wrong thread. I'm assuming that was meant for LAWolf's inherent bonus post. This thread is just about determining and accepting that the playtest probably isn't going to shape into something satisfactory to certain demographics.

Our tangent here is just that depending on how you design items it's possible to put in interesting and useful magical items and other game content without making the content inappropriate for tables that use or don't use magic items. (Static bonuses to core mechanics will almost always upset this though.)
Belatedly (well a couple of days late), I agree with the OP.

D&DN is not for me and IMHO 4E never got the real chance it deserved but I'm ok with that. Even 4 years worth of material is likely more than I'll ever use even without creating my own so good luck all. This ship is not one I'm going to sail on Smile.
Magic items are once again unique and VERY impactful.

And at any point I can take all those items away without leaving the character underpowered like you would in 4e.



I think the point in 4ed design was they didn't want magic items to be very impactful. That is, they wanted the Fighter, Wizard, or Rogue to be the one dishing out the powerful moves. That's why you have Martial Dailies and "boring" magic items: so you can say your Fighter beat the Fire Giant through his favoured finishing move that he had trained to do, and not because Merlin gave him Excalibur this morning. 

It's a trade-off for sure, but I'd rather go with Fighter Dailies than Fighters-have-to-shine-their-swords-Daily. ;) 




Good analysis.  My preferences are the opposite.   I enjoy imagining a world where powerful magic items affect the abilities of people.   I don't prefer a world where fighters have spell-like resource management.




These are not entirely incompatible preferences and design goals. The real "problem" here are the constant and static bonuses that classic D&D equipment grant. If you eliminate these constant bonuses and replace them with flavorful functions that are limitted by situation or frequency then items can remain useful and interesting without altering the mathematical assumptions significantly. This goes back to the idea of characters that are growing more "horizontally" instead of "vertically" that the designers wrote about early in the playtest and then almost immediately abandoned.



I like this concept.  I don't know that it fits the D&D model or flavor.   But in my own d20 game that I've been working on, I made all magical weapons +2 period.   There are no +1 or +3 or +4 swords.  If a sword is magical it gives you a 10% edge and thats it.   Armor and/or shields work the same way but magical armor and shields don't stack.   So your maximum AC improvement due to magic is +2.





@Sleeps: I think you're accidentally responding to the wrong thread. I'm assuming that was meant for LAWolf's inherent bonus post. This thread is just about determining and accepting that the playtest probably isn't going to shape into something satisfactory to certain demographics.

Our tangent here is just that depending on how you design items it's possible to put in interesting and useful magical items and other game content without making the content inappropriate for tables that use or don't use magic items. (Static bonuses to core mechanics will almost always upset this though.)



You are entirely correct, my bad I'll move it over there.

however it should still be noted that it is not required to take out the +X items.  since they are not factored in as an expectation you can just ignore them and never use them. 
I doubt it would happen. At the worst you have another 3 year edition. And even if D&D gets shelved there is PF and retroclones plus existing material. 

I'm not so sure it wouldn't happen, if Hasbro has that much control over WotC.

But D&D is far from the only kid on the block anymore; there are tons of RPGs out there to play.

One of the more interesting ideas is what if Hasbro/WotC put the D&D name out there to purchase, and had WotC focus on MtG? Who would/could buy it?



 I heard there were informal talks with Disney who were thinking in the $100 million range. No other RPG company can afford it so you are looking at video game companies and studios basically.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


 I heard there were informal talks with Disney who were thinking in the $100 million range. No other RPG company can afford it so you are looking at video game companies and studios basically.



Maybe if Disney bought D&D, they might actually make a good movie of it. Laughing

A D&D movie made by Disney. Let that thought sink in for a minute. 

AD&D lasted 23 years, 4th ed was in print for 4 years. There may be reasons why one lasted so long and one died whimpering. They have to sell an edition of D&D that will appeal as an edition of D&D. The 3rd ed spot is taken, 4th ed was passed on so if they can  replicate elements AD&Ds of playstyle to a modern audience that may appeal to Pathfinder players as a game they can play alongside PF sure why not.

 If they made 4.5 peopel will go NEXT. 2nd ed reprints just landed the other day and the 1st ed ones sold out and the PDFs crashed RPGnow.com. We all know everyhting before 2008 was terrible and I have wasted 20 years of my life playing  BECMI, AD&D and 3.X and denying the true glory. I just hope Gygax will forgive me.



Yeah the reason that 4E lasted 4 years was that Hasbro slapped a never before seen unrealistic sales goal on it that no single edition of D&D ever reached. That's the sole reason 4E only went 4 years. In fact they created 4E because they knew 3E couldn't reach that goal...



Just felt like quoting a fact that continually gets ignored and forecasts the potential for Hasbro shelving the game.



I think that a lot of people get confused by the 50 million sales goal.

I believe that there was never a binary achieve 50 million sales or get shelved.  The 50 million goal meant that the DnD brand could get as much funding as they wanted but any brand under that amount had to survive on their own merits.

But that is just my understanding.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
AD&D lasted 23 years, 4th ed was in print for 4 years. There may be reasons why one lasted so long and one died whimpering. They have to sell an edition of D&D that will appeal as an edition of D&D. The 3rd ed spot is taken, 4th ed was passed on so if they can  replicate elements AD&Ds of playstyle to a modern audience that may appeal to Pathfinder players as a game they can play alongside PF sure why not.

 If they made 4.5 peopel will go NEXT. 2nd ed reprints just landed the other day and the 1st ed ones sold out and the PDFs crashed RPGnow.com. We all know everyhting before 2008 was terrible and I have wasted 20 years of my life playing  BECMI, AD&D and 3.X and denying the true glory. I just hope Gygax will forgive me.



Yeah the reason that 4E lasted 4 years was that Hasbro slapped a never before seen unrealistic sales goal on it that no single edition of D&D ever reached. That's the sole reason 4E only went 4 years. In fact they created 4E because they knew 3E couldn't reach that goal...



Just felt like quoting a fact that continually gets ignored and forecasts the potential for Hasbro shelving the game.



I think that a lot of people get confused by the 50 million sales goal.

I believe that there was never a binary achieve 50 million sales or get shelved.  The 50 million goal meant that the DnD brand could get as much funding as they wanted but any brand under that amount had to survive on their own merits.

But that is just my understanding.




The key issue with not being a core brand ($50 million and above) is that you are utterly on your own.  Eventually what happens is that the company becomes smaller and smaller until it is down, at its bottom, to part timers doing the work.

The key point is that Hasbro considered shutting down D&D in 2005. They almost damn well did (Dancey).  That where the 4th pitch came from.

The overhead on role playing games is pretty taxing- plus high profit demands makes it hard to survive under $50 million a year. You couldn't just make enough to cover costs, you had to hit a profit margin.  Being a non-core brand means you face being closed down by Hasbro or not having enough funding to continue.



The key issue with not being a core brand ($50 million and above) is that you are utterly on your own.  Eventually what happens is that the company becomes smaller and smaller until it is down, at its bottom, to part timers doing the work.

The key point is that Hasbro considered shutting down D&D in 2005. They almost damn well did (Dancey).  That where the 4th pitch came from.

The overhead on role playing games is pretty taxing- plus high profit demands makes it hard to survive under $50 million a year. You couldn't just make enough to cover costs, you had to hit a profit margin.  Being a non-core brand means you face being closed down by Hasbro or not having enough funding to continue.




I still think you should try and support DDN by at least buying the core books and giving it a good run before deciding one way or the other.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson


The key issue with not being a core brand ($50 million and above) is that you are utterly on your own.  Eventually what happens is that the company becomes smaller and smaller until it is down, at its bottom, to part timers doing the work.

The key point is that Hasbro considered shutting down D&D in 2005. They almost damn well did (Dancey).  That where the 4th pitch came from.

The overhead on role playing games is pretty taxing- plus high profit demands makes it hard to survive under $50 million a year. You couldn't just make enough to cover costs, you had to hit a profit margin.  Being a non-core brand means you face being closed down by Hasbro or not having enough funding to continue.




I still think you should try and support DDN by at least buying the core books and giving it a good run before deciding one way or the other.



I probably will buy the core books- depends upon how much like AD&D it is like. I like Robert J Schwalb enough that DDN holds interest to me.

A key concern is if the continue D&D prepainted minis and if the tactical module is epic.

This Hasbro will shelve the game thing has really become trendy.

Probably becaue Hasbro has a known track record of doing exactly that - shelving a title or line for later use.

And it would be profitable. Hasbro can keep the D&D name, not release any new material for it (except perhaps a trickling of Dungeon/Dragon magazine content, if they feel generous), thereby not putting money into it that could be spend elsewhere with bigger gains. However, people will want to use the D&D name for video games, movies, merchandise, toys, minatures, etc. They will have to give Hasbro money for that, effectively making money on the D&D name without Hasbro ever spending a dime.



Yeah, I think it's mostly all crap though.

 D&D miniatures aren't going to be purchased without a main RPG.

The D&D movie is no big money maker.

Video games are really the only thing that might remotely matter... Unfortunately, I fear that boat has long sailed. The last decent D&D game was Neverwinter Nights 2 and the last great one was Baldur's Gate 2. D&D Online was a flop and I have a feeling thier latest game will be much the same. Not to mention, people have realized that the D&D name isn't all that valuable.

www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torm...


Magic items are once again unique and VERY impactful.

And at any point I can take all those items away without leaving the character underpowered like you would in 4e.



I think the point in 4ed design was they didn't want magic items to be very impactful. That is, they wanted the Fighter, Wizard, or Rogue to be the one dishing out the powerful moves. That's why you have Martial Dailies and "boring" magic items: so you can say your Fighter beat the Fire Giant through his favoured finishing move that he had trained to do, and not because Merlin gave him Excalibur this morning. 

It's a trade-off for sure, but I'd rather go with Fighter Dailies than Fighters-have-to-shine-their-swords-Daily. ;) 




Its not mutually exclusive actually... attunement slots can be  used to manage either personal empowerment via boons/blessings/grandmaster training or deeper acces to or relationship with a magic item.



  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."

 



The key issue with not being a core brand ($50 million and above) is that you are utterly on your own.  Eventually what happens is that the company becomes smaller and smaller until it is down, at its bottom, to part timers doing the work.

The key point is that Hasbro considered shutting down D&D in 2005. They almost damn well did (Dancey).  That where the 4th pitch came from.

The overhead on role playing games is pretty taxing- plus high profit demands makes it hard to survive under $50 million a year. You couldn't just make enough to cover costs, you had to hit a profit margin.  Being a non-core brand means you face being closed down by Hasbro or not having enough funding to continue.




I still think you should try and support DDN by at least buying the core books and giving it a good run before deciding one way or the other.



I probably will buy the core books- depends upon how much like AD&D it is like. I like Robert J Schwalb enough that DDN holds interest to me.

A key concern is if the continue D&D prepainted minis and if the tactical module is epic.



Fair enough, I think that is an entirely reasonable position to take.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
I think that a lot of people get confused by the 50 million sales goal.

I believe that there was never a binary achieve 50 million sales or get shelved.  The 50 million goal meant that the DnD brand could get as much funding as they wanted but any brand under that amount had to survive on their own merits.

But that is just my understanding.




The key issue with not being a core brand ($50 million and above) is that you are utterly on your own.  Eventually what happens is that the company becomes smaller and smaller until it is down, at its bottom, to part timers doing the work.

The key point is that Hasbro considered shutting down D&D in 2005. They almost damn well did (Dancey).  That where the 4th pitch came from.

The overhead on role playing games is pretty taxing- plus high profit demands makes it hard to survive under $50 million a year. You couldn't just make enough to cover costs, you had to hit a profit margin.  Being a non-core brand means you face being closed down by Hasbro or not having enough funding to continue.




I wonder what the current budget targets are - because to effectively shut off new releases and rely on sales of old material seems like a radically different approach.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Anyone can be a controller, or healer, or tank, or whatever now, it's all just based on which feats and class features you take. (Though I don't reccomend tanking as a Wizard)


Not really... 

They couldnt even be convinced to produce a martial controller in 4e.

To be truly role neutral you cant have a broad degree of hit point variance unless that too is highly adjustable via alternate non-class mechanisms(and that isnt happening anytime soon), actual competant healing has to be acceptable for non-caster classes (and that isnt happening anytime soon).

Congrats we can say classes are less distinct because their battle roles are wishy washy



Yeah, I agree. You can't really do any of that in 5E.

I could design some spells that would make a Wizard into a decent defender, but the problem would be they can take any number of spells or combination of spells and by level 10 they could literally do any role they wanted.

In 4E its way easier because you get a pretty limited selection of spells so you might be able to handle all the roles, but only one role per every few rounds (1 round with at-wills, 1-2 rounds with encounters, and a whole battle with dailies)...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 think that a lot of people get confused by the 50 million sales goal.

I believe that there was never a binary achieve 50 million sales or get shelved.  The 50 million goal meant that the DnD brand could get as much funding as they wanted but any brand under that amount had to survive on their own merits.

But that is just my understanding.




The key issue with not being a core brand ($50 million and above) is that you are utterly on your own.  Eventually what happens is that the company becomes smaller and smaller until it is down, at its bottom, to part timers doing the work.

The key point is that Hasbro considered shutting down D&D in 2005. They almost damn well did (Dancey).  That where the 4th pitch came from.

The overhead on role playing games is pretty taxing- plus high profit demands makes it hard to survive under $50 million a year. You couldn't just make enough to cover costs, you had to hit a profit margin.  Being a non-core brand means you face being closed down by Hasbro or not having enough funding to continue.




I wonder what the current budget targets are - because to effectively shut off new releases and rely on sales of old material seems like a radically different approach.



Well from what I gather, they are are basically running on a 5 person full time crew pulling in some people from the M:tG side for some temporary work. It looks to me like they are scrambling to put everything they can on the market to try to cover that 5 person plus temporaries crews salaries. In other words they are sinking...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 still think you should try and support DDN by at least buying the core books and giving it a good run before deciding one way or the other.

I have zero loyalty to WotC. I will purchase D&DN if one of the following situations happens:

1. There are sweeping, radical changes in the ability of the game to be modular, support a variety of playstyles, and be customizable - at current, this is not what I am seeing.
2. The game takes an effort to be new and interesting - not a re-run of a previous edition, but something with mechanics and ideas that actually move the hobby forward.

I would, admittedly, buy a 4.5, but that's not what I want D&DN/5e to be - it's just something on my personal wish-list.

I see no reason to buy a game that goes "yeah, your style of play? we're not gonna support that because we did in the previous edition and a crapton of people on the internet cried about it for years". While I think all the talk about throwing people that liked 4e under the bus is a bit of hyperbole, if that does happen, then not only will I not buy D&DN, but I'll do my absolute best to make sure everybody I know doesn't buy it either.

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."

You know what's really funny.   Mearls is tweeting in the last day that they have an incredibly large playtest group and that the group is overwhelming positive about the current direction.   

I guess those on these various threads who can see nothing good are in the distinct minority.
More or less Emerikol. This time aorund they listened and are making D&D.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Wait, you mean, a company - or a person representing the company, because companies cannot actually speak - is saying something like:

"A lot of people are excited about (our product)! I'm sure (our product) is very good! You'll really want to buy (our product)!"

No. Way.

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."

@blacksheepcannibal
So Mearls is quoting playtest results.   So if they are not overwhelmingly positive he is lying.   Are you calling him a liar?  You can and I'm sure some corporate shill somewhere is doing that.   I just want to know if that is what you are saying?

Are you calling him a liar?  You can and I'm sure some corporate shill somewhere is doing that.   I just want to know if that is what you are saying?

I'm saying that if he was presented with some evidence, a bit inconclusive, that D&DN was doing really well, and some evidence, a bit inconclusive, that D&DN was doing not so well, he would probably look at the former and talk about that, for two reasons. One: Bias. He wants it to succeed, so things that are showing that it's not quite going the right way he may put aside as fluke commentary, or bad data. Two: He certainly is not going to present any bad information.

There is nothing wrong with having a bias with what you are involved with, to a certain point. Most everybody does, when they are making (or supervising) it.

I'm curious about the composition of this Very Large Playtest Group (VLPG?). Or is he talking about people that turn in playtest reports?

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."

Are you calling him a liar?  You can and I'm sure some corporate shill somewhere is doing that.   I just want to know if that is what you are saying?

I'm saying that if he was presented with some evidence, a bit inconclusive, that D&DN was doing really well, and some evidence, a bit inconclusive, that D&DN was doing not so well, he would probably look at the former and talk about that, for two reasons. One: Bias. He wants it to succeed, so things that are showing that it's not quite going the right way he may put aside as fluke commentary, or bad data. Two: He certainly is not going to present any bad information.

There is nothing wrong with having a bias with what you are involved with, to a certain point. Most everybody does, when they are making (or supervising) it.

I'm curious about the composition of this Very Large Playtest Group (VLPG?). Or is he talking about people that turn in playtest reports?




There are likely two groups.   The first is the playtesters that get it really early and are mostly made up of professionals.   The second are all of those who are answering surveys for the current packet.   

When Mearls publicly talks about the playtest, he is referencing the second group.  The first group just vets stuff before it goes into a packet.   Kind of like a sanity check.

 
So, there is an overwhelmingly positive response from:

People that see what they like in the playtest, test it, and report back,
People that aren't sure about the playtest, test it, and report back,
and the few people that don't like it, test it anyways, and report back.

Nope. No possibility for bias there!

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."