Original Goals of 5E

218 posts / 0 new
Last post
With the announcement of the ending of the public play test in September, the question "Did 5E meet the goals they set for it?", comes to mind.

Please quote the goals that they originally made and link the original article, podcast, interview, etc...etc.. and then comment on whether you thought they met it or not...
"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.
If the goal was to spawn a few dozen fantasy heartbreakers and keep the lawyers busy shutting them all down, then yes.

If the goal was to finally get Capcom to reissue Shadow over Mystara and Tower of Doom, then oh hell yes.
Their goal looks to be some big media event release, given we know they're trying to get back movie rights and have an upcoming toyline of not-Lego coming up
an upcoming toyline of not-Lego coming up

Kre-O is way the hell better than Built to Rule.

One of these days, I will put that USS Missouri together.

The goal of the *playtest* was to get a lot of feedback. Accomplished. The goal of the *product* is totally different, and can't be even commented on, since it doesn't exist yet, and nobody has seen, or can even speculate intelligently about it.
The goal of ther *playtest* was to get a lot of feedback. Accomplished. The goal of the *product* is totally different, and can't be even commented on, since it doesn't exist yet, and nobody has seen, or can even speculate intelligently about it.



But that's what they WANT yout to think!
What happened to the promises of me being able to sit down with a 4E style character and play beside someone playing a 3.5 style character while Joe sits across the table playing a 2E style character?

That's what originally drew me to D&D Next, but apparantly all they want is 2.5 players playing with other 2.5 players. 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
The goal of ther *playtest* was to get a lot of feedback. Accomplished. The goal of the *product* is totally different, and can't be even commented on, since it doesn't exist yet, and nobody has seen, or can even speculate intelligently about it.



Since they stated goals for the product, and the goal of the playtest is to help them meet those goals, your statements are factually incorrect.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
What happened to the promises of me being able to sit down with a 4E style character and play beside someone playing a 3.5 style character while Joe sits across the table playing a 2E style character?

That's what originally drew me to D&D Next, but apparantly all they want is 2.5 players playing with other 2.5 players. 



Well they did manage to make feats somthing that can be chosen on a per player basis.
Wonder if they will come up with somthing simular for skills
 
I seem to remember something about accomodating multiple playstyles in the form of character building between different players at the same table. They have offered options to that effect. Can't offer a "mission accomplished" because [a] there's no final product and [b] the tables I play at tend to agree on what options we should also use/discard.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
 
What happened to the promises of me being able to sit down with a 4E style character and play beside someone playing a 3.5 style character while Joe sits across the table playing a 2E style character?

That's what originally drew me to D&D Next, but apparantly all they want is 2.5 players playing with other 2.5 players. 



I'm still waiting for them to make good on the promise of being able to sit down with a 4E style character at all.
...whatever
What happened to the promises of me being able to sit down with a 4E style character and play beside someone playing a 3.5 style character while Joe sits across the table playing a 2E style character?

That's what originally drew me to D&D Next, but apparantly all they want is 2.5 players playing with other 2.5 players. 



Where is all this 2.5e stuff coming from?  Next doesn't use character points, 12 abilities, THAC0, or a bunch of other stuff that was 2.5e.

I suspect this is nothing but hyperpole not meant for any meaningful discussion, but rather just to whine.

The fact that I've heard every fan of every editon say Next is like every other edition, and no one agrees as to which one it is, only tells me that yes, they have in fact pulled things from every edition.
What happened to the promises of me being able to sit down with a 4E style character and play beside someone playing a 3.5 style character while Joe sits across the table playing a 2E style character?

That's what originally drew me to D&D Next, but apparantly all they want is 2.5 players playing with other 2.5 players. 



I'm still waiting for them to make good on the promise of being able to sit down with a 4E style character at all.



Do you mean other than non-magical healing (hit dice), character powers for every class, at-will spells, and tactical combat (marking, etc)?

It's not going to be 4.5e.  Nor should it.  Get over it and move on.  You've said the exact same thing every single day for what?  A year and a half now?
What happened to the promises of me being able to sit down with a 4E style character and play beside someone playing a 3.5 style character while Joe sits across the table playing a 2E style character?

That's what originally drew me to D&D Next, but apparantly all they want is 2.5 players playing with other 2.5 players. 



I'm still waiting for them to make good on the promise of being able to sit down with a 4E style character at all.



Well when they talk about 4th edition style i get the sense i mean the mean essentials style.
And with things like subclasses we have seen so far we could see things closer to essentials classes. 
The goal of ther *playtest* was to get a lot of feedback. Accomplished. The goal of the *product* is totally different, and can't be even commented on, since it doesn't exist yet, and nobody has seen, or can even speculate intelligently about it.



Since they stated goals for the product, and the goal of the playtest is to help them meet those goals, your statements are factually incorrect.




Not necessarily.

They may have a set of goals in mind, and be heading in that direction by polishing their goals through feedback... while at the same time subsequent playtest packets NOT be reflecting that.

Why? Because although they may have a general sense of direction in mind, they may still be throwing random ideas (that may even oppose that) in the fan with each packet, just to see how it works and what people's reactions are. 

So the packets' "progression" may or may not be an indication of how the game will turn out in the end. We will have to wait and see before we judge.
 
Where is all this 2.5e stuff coming from?  Next doesn't use character points, 12 abilities, THAC0, or a bunch of other stuff that was 2.5e.

I don't think you understand the difference between "playstyle" and "mechanics" and how while they support each other (in a good game), they are two different things.
The fact that I've heard every fan of every editon say Next is like every other edition, and no one agrees as to which one it is, only tells me that yes, they have in fact pulled things from every edition.

2e players say it's too much like 3.5/4e for them to enjoy (and they have OSR games). 3.5 players say it's too much like 4e or 2e for them to enjoy (and they have pathfinder). 4e players say it's too much like 2e for them to enjoy (and they have...the short end of the stick). This is what I have seen pretty consistently. Considering their goal from the beginning was a game that supported gameplay styles from each edition, I don't think they have reached that goal with the current playtest.

It's not going to be 4.5e.  Nor should it.  Get over it and move on.  You've said the exact same thing every single day for what?  A year and a half now?

WotC: "We want all D&D players to be able to enjoy the game"
4e player: "Does that mean me too? I get to enjoy 5e?"
You: "IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A 4E CLONE BE QUIET".

Very civil.



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 don't think you understand the difference between "playstyle" and "mechanics" and how while they support each other (in a good game), they are two different things.



Not really.  Mechanics directly influence the playstyle.  What are the things that make 4e different than any other edition?  Mechanics.  Otherwise you could have a 4e "playstyle" with every other edition, which of course would mean TCO has no grounds to complain.  Obviously we all know those mechanics, being significantly different, are what lends to the playstyle he wants.  This is evidenced by the multitudes of threads where 4e fans are complaining that Next doesn't replicate a certain mechanics (remember all the "missing at-wills" discussions when the packets were first released?)  And we're still hearing complaints about Vancian magic, etc.  Those are all about mechanics.


2e players say it's too much like 3.5/4e for them to enjoy (and they have OSR games). 3.5 players say it's too much like 4e or 2e for them to enjoy (and they have pathfinder). 4e players say it's too much like 2e for them to enjoy (and they have...the short end of the stick).



They still have 4e.  And there is still support for 4e.  This is a very disengenous argument.  4e players are no different than any other fan of any other edition that has ceased to be the currently supported edition.

WotC: "We want all D&D players to be able to enjoy the game"
4e player: "Does that mean me too? I get to enjoy 5e?"
You: "IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A 4E CLONE BE QUIET".

Very civil.






Nice hyperbolic strawman.  For one, there's nothing special about 4e that's any different than any other edition.  Next isn't a 1e clone.  or a B/X clone.  Or a 3e clone.  Or a 2e clone.  Your argument falls apart at just that basic evaluation.  Secondly, the actual answer to the 4e player is, "Sure!  There are plenty of 4e elements included in Next!"

Can it be referenced that "one person can play a 4E-style character alongside another person playing a 2E-style character" was ever a stated design goal? It always occurred to me that 'playstyle' was specific to grittiness, pervasiveness of magic, physical durability of characters, level of tactics, etc. Those types of things are referenced often enough, and they mention 'dials' with which we can manipulate them, but I don't know that I've ever heard the developers say that "4E will be a supported playstyle."

Is an edition a 'playstyle'?

(Very honest, open-minded, and inquiring post.) 

Danny

I want to play a 4e fighter alongside a 1e wizard and a 3.5 cleric. We will be invincible. Also I will take 3.0  cleave for a feat and carry around bags of rats for free MBA's.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
I want to play a 4e fighter alongside a 1e wizard and a 3.5 cleric. We will be invincible. Also I will take 3.0  cleave for a feat and carry around bags of rats for free MBA's.




Posting this same quote in multiple threads doesn't make it any less snarky
Unfortunately no way to delete the other post on mobile.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Can it be referenced that "one person can play a 4E-style character alongside another person playing a 2E-style character" was ever a stated design goal? It always occurred to me that 'playstyle' was specific to grittiness, pervasiveness of magic, physical durability of characters, level of tactics, etc. Those types of things are referenced often enough, and they mention 'dials' with which we can manipulate them, but I don't know that I've ever heard the developers say that "4E will be a supported playstyle."

Is an edition a 'playstyle'?

(Very honest, open-minded, and inquiring post.) 



They've stated they want complex characters alongside less complex ones.

E.g. Gladiator vs Warrior.

E.g. Feats and Skills vs just Ability Boosts and Checks

Explicit system-wide AEDU will never exist. On a particular character, a wizard, you can already get daily and at-will (not sure about encounter, I believe there are a few), and certainly with more subclasses they can easily add a more at-will focused or capable wizard.

Already the wizard is very similar in some ways to 2e / 3e (+ free metamagic, so in essence similar to a divine sorcerer), and in some other ways also has 4e innovations such as being linear in damage, and at-will offensive cantrips. 

4e is already in there, you just cannot build a 4e character and literally drop him / her into Next, it will have to be in the contect of how the rest of the system works. I do see Next class design somewhat similar to Essentials, minus the explicit Encounter-based focus. Honestly, I detested abilities I could only use once and exactly once every combat, it felt so fake, and samey to me. Having a few daily rages or daily abilities for martial types is okay, so long as they're plausible and don't involve meta-gamey fake stuff like dominating mindless sludge monsters' wills to force them to act a certain way, or leap tall buildings, etc.
Can it be referenced that "one person can play a 4E-style character alongside another person playing a 2E-style character" was ever a stated design goal? It always occurred to me that 'playstyle' was specific to grittiness, pervasiveness of magic, physical durability of characters, level of tactics, etc. Those types of things are referenced often enough, and they mention 'dials' with which we can manipulate them, but I don't know that I've ever heard the developers say that "4E will be a supported playstyle."

Is an edition a 'playstyle'?

(Very honest, open-minded, and inquiring post.) 



I don't think it can.  I think people read what they wanted to read,  and ignored what WOTC had been telling them.  Here's the original announcement...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

And here are the D&D Next goals they outlined...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

At some point,  I think one of the articles went on a bit of a side trek about how cool it would be if all of these players could sit at a table,  but people walked out of it with "We can each play characters from different editions at the same table",  when the message really appeared to be "Players from each edition can sit at the same table and play [one of the versions of DDN]". 

Somewhere along the line the message people were claiming was "It'll emulate every edition",  which really wasn't what WOTC's been outlining,  especially in the above DDN Goals articles.    

So, the first big picture goal is to make a version of D&D that speaks to the recognizable elements of the game. Anyone who played D&D in the past, even decades ago, should be able to step into D&D Next with ease. D&D Next must provide a home for the variety of play styles supported across the history of D&D, with rules terms and procedures that D&D players recognize and understand. What that actually means will be covered in part two, but the design implication is that D&D Next should deliver the primary strengths that each edition brings to the table. If an edition was good at something, D&D Next needs to do a good job of providing it.



People made the assumption that meant it would implement their favorite edition's rules,  when all it really says is that they're taking the parts of each edition that worked well and including them.  
  
  
 
  
    
 
I think I'd mind the outcome of the mess(that I consider) Next a lot less if one of its supporters would just level with 4e-lovers and say:

"Yes, you got shafted, there is really very little 4e in there for you and WotC didn't deliver the all-inclusive model that they promised".

At least it would be honest.  Even if, as a 4e-hater, you love that this new edition will bear no real resemblance to 4e, at least have the decency to say so and stop pretending their are serious, substantive 4e elements in the system.  Even if you say "Mearls didn't deliver the system he said he would but I really like it" it would be far more genuine. 
What happened to the promises of me being able to sit down with a 4E style character and play beside someone playing a 3.5 style character while Joe sits across the table playing a 2E style character?

That's what originally drew me to D&D Next, but apparantly all they want is 2.5 players playing with other 2.5 players. 



Yeah I remember that from the very early articles. They dropped that concept quick.

Then they moved on to modularity between tables. Of course, we haven't actually seen any modules yet either, so I'm guessing they just moved back to One True Wayism because it's easier to design.

It's harder to design a game where you have to take into account that some people will be using tactical combat and others won't, and some people want skills and feats, and others don't.

Pretty much the only real design goal they delivered on was faster combats.
Not really.  Mechanics directly influence the playstyle.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said. To have a game play like 2e you do not need Thac0 or 5 different saving throws. You can have other mechanics that support 2e style of play just as well. That is what I meant when I distinguish between specific mechanics and a more broad idea of playstyle.
They still have 4e.  And there is still support for 4e.

I don't think we share the same idea of what "support" entails. I tend to think "is actually still publishing" is pretty critical, you apparently do not.

2e players have improved versions of 2e in OSR games.
3e players have improved versions of 3e in PF and Fantasy Craft.
4e players have immproved versions of 4e in...the...current...game? 13th Age, kinda?

"Sure!  There are plenty of 4e elements included in Next!"

4e is already in there


No. The type of gameplay that 4e had is not at all in D&DN right now. Will it be there in the future? I have no idea, I don't have ESPN. But seriously, saying that 4e-type gameplay is supported in D&DN right now is ridiculous.

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."

Can it be referenced that "one person can play a 4E-style character alongside another person playing a 2E-style character" was ever a stated design goal? It always occurred to me that 'playstyle' was specific to grittiness, pervasiveness of magic, physical durability of characters, level of tactics, etc. Those types of things are referenced often enough, and they mention 'dials' with which we can manipulate them, but I don't know that I've ever heard the developers say that "4E will be a supported playstyle."

Is an edition a 'playstyle'?

(Very honest, open-minded, and inquiring post.) 



I don't think it can.  I think people read what they wanted to read,  and ignored what WOTC had been telling them.  Here's the original announcement...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

And here are the D&D Next goals they outlined...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

At some point,  I think one of the articles went on a bit of a side trek about how cool it would be if all of these players could sit at a table,  but people walked out of it with "We can each play characters from different editions at the same table",  when the message really appeared to be "Players from each edition can sit at the same table and play [one of the versions of DDN]". 

Somewhere along the line the message people were claiming was "It'll emulate every edition",  which really wasn't what WOTC's been outlining,  especially in the above DDN Goals articles.    

So, the first big picture goal is to make a version of D&D that speaks to the recognizable elements of the game. Anyone who played D&D in the past, even decades ago, should be able to step into D&D Next with ease. D&D Next must provide a home for the variety of play styles supported across the history of D&D, with rules terms and procedures that D&D players recognize and understand. What that actually means will be covered in part two, but the design implication is that D&D Next should deliver the primary strengths that each edition brings to the table. If an edition was good at something, D&D Next needs to do a good job of providing it.



People made the assumption that meant it would implement their favorite edition's rules,  when all it really says is that they're taking the parts of each edition that worked well and including them.  
  
  
 
  
    
 

Well said.

First post asks for links to support arguments, and you are the only one who did so  
The goal of ther *playtest* was to get a lot of feedback. Accomplished. The goal of the *product* is totally different, and can't be even commented on, since it doesn't exist yet, and nobody has seen, or can even speculate intelligently about it.



Since they stated goals for the product, and the goal of the playtest is to help them meet those goals, your statements are factually incorrect.




Not necessarily.

They may have a set of goals in mind, and be heading in that direction by polishing their goals through feedback... while at the same time subsequent playtest packets NOT be reflecting that.

Why? Because although they may have a general sense of direction in mind, they may still be throwing random ideas (that may even oppose that) in the fan with each packet, just to see how it works and what people's reactions are. 

So the packets' "progression" may or may not be an indication of how the game will turn out in the end. We will have to wait and see before we judge.
 



No, judgement happens before the product is released. That is literally the entire point of a playtest.

And the design goals were set forth very clearly, with no room for equivocation.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
They just wanted directions and maybe steal some ideas.
The open playtest lasted a little too long IMO.

They lost too much time cuddling insecure RPG players  
I would like to point out that design goals are not promises and goals can easily be revisited based on feedback.  The fact is the final product isn't released or availabe for us to review properly, which means the only thing we can really provide our opinions on is the test packets and not 5E.  Pulling out our magic 8-balls and asking if such and such a module will be included doesn't make for a solid argument.

The playtest is not the edition.
I would like to point out that design goals are not promises and goals can easily be revisited based on feedback.  The fact is the final product isn't released or availabe for us to review properly, which means the only thing we can really provide our opinions on is the test packets and not 5E.  Pulling out our magic 8-balls and asking if such and such a module will be included doesn't make for a solid argument.

The playtest is not the edition.



It has nothing to do with magic 8-balls, it has to do with the fact that even with all the public playtesting, monster math still doesn't work. That's after several packets and numerous public playtests.

Am I to expect that a series of unplaytested modules is going to somehow be anything other than a pile of unworkable crap?

Can it be referenced that "one person can play a 4E-style character alongside another person playing a 2E-style character" was ever a stated design goal? It always occurred to me that 'playstyle' was specific to grittiness, pervasiveness of magic, physical durability of characters, level of tactics, etc. Those types of things are referenced often enough, and they mention 'dials' with which we can manipulate them, but I don't know that I've ever heard the developers say that "4E will be a supported playstyle."

Is an edition a 'playstyle'?

(Very honest, open-minded, and inquiring post.) 

In chronological order:

www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

"First and foremost, as Mike said, this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run."

The player gets to choose his edition for his character through modularity. Not the DM.

www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

"So a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like, rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like, makes a lot more sense."

This again indicates (through the use of the word "people") that individuals will be able to choose their preferred playstyle for their characters.

www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

"To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play. In short, let's talk about style and D&D."

www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

"One way is simply through the customization of the rules modules that I wrote about last week. That is to say, although you can recreate the feel of 2nd Edition using them, you can also recreate the feel of 2nd Edition with a few options from 3rd or 4th as well. You wouldn't have to choose a past edition. You'd customize the game to make it yours. Imagine a game with Basic D&D's simplicity but with the powers of 4th Edition. Or a game that has the character customization abilities of 3rd Edition without all the tactical rules. Or any other combination you desire. We believe it's perfectly possible."

Note that all of these quotes are from a one month period, and all speak to the same ability to let edition independent characters mingle with one another in the same game.
I would like to point out that design goals are not promises and goals can easily be revisited based on feedback.  The fact is the final product isn't released or availabe for us to review properly, which means the only thing we can really provide our opinions on is the test packets and not 5E.  Pulling out our magic 8-balls and asking if such and such a module will be included doesn't make for a solid argument.

The playtest is not the edition.



Which, in turn, isn't the point. The point of this thread is to discuss if the original goals of Next have been reached.

That shouldn't involve any discussion of future modules, except maybe to express disapointment with the prospect that a given goal will only be supported via post launch modules, if at all.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I would like to point out that design goals are not promises and goals can easily be revisited based on feedback.  The fact is the final product isn't released or availabe for us to review properly, which means the only thing we can really provide our opinions on is the test packets and not 5E.  Pulling out our magic 8-balls and asking if such and such a module will be included doesn't make for a solid argument.

The playtest is not the edition.



It has nothing to do with magic 8-balls, it has to do with the fact that even with all the public playtesting, monster math still doesn't work. That's after several packets and numerous public playtests.

Am I to expect that a series of unplaytested modules is going to somehow be anything other than a pile of unworkable crap?




Of course it's just an attempt to predict a future product.  If it's not the magic 8-ball then what method are you using to predict a product that isn't released yet?

We were told the math was not included in the packets. Private playtests were for functionality and will continue for functionality.  Stating that modules are unplaytested is simply incorrect.  You not playtesting them is doesn't mean they were not / will not be playtested.
Can it be referenced that "one person can play a 4E-style character alongside another person playing a 2E-style character" was ever a stated design goal? It always occurred to me that 'playstyle' was specific to grittiness, pervasiveness of magic, physical durability of characters, level of tactics, etc. Those types of things are referenced often enough, and they mention 'dials' with which we can manipulate them, but I don't know that I've ever heard the developers say that "4E will be a supported playstyle."

Is an edition a 'playstyle'?

(Very honest, open-minded, and inquiring post.) 

In chronological order: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4... "First and foremost, as Mike said, this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run." The player gets to choose his edition for his character through modularity. Not the DM.



That's not at all what that says.  It doesn't say anything about the DM has no input.  Nor does it promise characters that emulate each edition,  it promises optional add-ons that let you play the character you want to play,  which could mean anything.

 
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4... "So a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like, rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like, makes a lot more sense." This again indicates (through the use of the word "people") that individuals will be able to choose their preferred playstyle for their characters.



No,  again,  it doesn't indicate in any way that each Player can independently choose their own playstyle.  All it says is that WOTC isn't going to force any one playstyle upon everyone.  

www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4... "To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play. In short, let's talk about style and D&D."  

   www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4... "One way is simply through the customization of the rules modules that I wrote about last week. That is to say, although you can recreate the feel of 2nd Edition using them, you can also recreate the feel of 2nd Edition with a few options from 3rd or 4th as well. You wouldn't have to choose a past edition. You'd customize the game to make it yours. Imagine a game with Basic D&D's simplicity but with the powers of 4th Edition. Or a game that has the character customization abilities of 3rd Edition without all the tactical rules. Or any other combination you desire. We believe it's perfectly possible." Note that all of these quotes are from a one month period, and all speak to the same ability to let edition independent characters mingle with one another in the same game.



No they don't,  in fact,  quite the opposite.  They even outright state in the above quote that they don't mean intermingling characters,  note the bolded part. 

I would like to point out that design goals are not promises and goals can easily be revisited based on feedback.  The fact is the final product isn't released or availabe for us to review properly, which means the only thing we can really provide our opinions on is the test packets and not 5E.  Pulling out our magic 8-balls and asking if such and such a module will be included doesn't make for a solid argument.

The playtest is not the edition.



Which, in turn, isn't the point. The point of this thread is to discuss if the original goals of Next have been reached.

That shouldn't involve any discussion of future modules, except maybe to express disapointment with the prospect that a given goal will only be supported via post launch modules, if at all.



Fair enough.  I don't want to discredit anyone's opinion; I just wanted to point out the product isn't complete yet.
Can it be referenced that "one person can play a 4E-style character alongside another person playing a 2E-style character" was ever a stated design goal? It always occurred to me that 'playstyle' was specific to grittiness, pervasiveness of magic, physical durability of characters, level of tactics, etc. Those types of things are referenced often enough, and they mention 'dials' with which we can manipulate them, but I don't know that I've ever heard the developers say that "4E will be a supported playstyle."

Is an edition a 'playstyle'?

(Very honest, open-minded, and inquiring post.) 

In chronological order: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4... "First and foremost, as Mike said, this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run." The player gets to choose his edition for his character through modularity. Not the DM. www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4... "So a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like, rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like, makes a lot more sense." This again indicates (through the use of the word "people") that individuals will be able to choose their preferred playstyle for their characters. www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4... "To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play. In short, let's talk about style and D&D." www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4... "One way is simply through the customization of the rules modules that I wrote about last week. That is to say, although you can recreate the feel of 2nd Edition using them, you can also recreate the feel of 2nd Edition with a few options from 3rd or 4th as well. You wouldn't have to choose a past edition. You'd customize the game to make it yours. Imagine a game with Basic D&D's simplicity but with the powers of 4th Edition. Or a game that has the character customization abilities of 3rd Edition without all the tactical rules. Or any other combination you desire. We believe it's perfectly possible." Note that all of these quotes are from a one month period, and all speak to the same ability to let edition independent characters mingle with one another in the same game.



I'm not positive the word "style" means the same thing to different players.  It's subjective and that leads to misconceptions.  That's also why I can't really disagree with what boils down to an opinion.  ;)
Note that all of these quotes are from a one month period, and all speak to the same ability to let edition independent characters mingle with one another in the same game.

I remember reading all of this as it came out, and I do not infer the same things you seem to infer from these statements. 

Danny

I would like to point out that design goals are not promises and goals can easily be revisited based on feedback.  The fact is the final product isn't released or availabe for us to review properly, which means the only thing we can really provide our opinions on is the test packets and not 5E.  Pulling out our magic 8-balls and asking if such and such a module will be included doesn't make for a solid argument.

The playtest is not the edition.



Which, in turn, isn't the point. The point of this thread is to discuss if the original goals of Next have been reached.

That shouldn't involve any discussion of future modules, except maybe to express disapointment with the prospect that a given goal will only be supported via post launch modules, if at all.



Fair enough.  I don't want to discredit anyone's opinion; I just wanted to point out the product isn't complete yet.



Sure. People on both sides of the thread have kinda lost sight of the point of the thread, I suppose.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
No. The type of gameplay that 4e had is not at all in D&DN right now. Will it be there in the future? I have no idea, I don't have ESPN. But seriously, saying that 4e-type gameplay is supported in D&DN right now is ridiculous.



How does ESPN help? Wink But seriously it sounds like unless you have ESP we will have to wait until at least Unearthed Arcana to find out how supportive Next will be of 4e-type gameplay.