Community

I've played D&D forever. When comparing editions, it's generally a flow: 2e added skills to 1e (which had emerged at the tail of 1e in an expansion rulebook), 3e added feats and attempted to clean up some obvious class balance issues (with some minor success).

The principal issues I had with 3e were with how no matter what your class was, you wanted a 12+ intelligence  for skills and skill bonuses, 13+ if you were a fighter because of Feat requirements, and you wanted a high dex for Ref saves, initiative, AC, skill bonues, and (again) feats. A dumb fighter was a bad fighter. A non-nimble wizard was likely a dead wizard.

When 4e emerged, I saw at-will powers and thought they were a neat idea. I saw that you only needed a high Dex OR a high Int and not both, and thought that was 50% better than 3e right there. Then I played it and discovered what a giant mess it was. Those powers I thought were a neat idea were actually akin to playing an MMO and pressing hotbutton #2 over and over again, there was no decision making as to 'what to do?', there was just 'press #2'. With access to the PHB and 3 different class rulebooks I still could not make the character I wanted, I was instead forced into what the game had pre-designed. I discovered Minions had 1 hit point, whether they be Kobold or Frost Giant. And I hated every bit of it.

And that's when I saw something funny: No one, and I mean NO ONE was using the OGL to print 4e stuff the way seemingly every Mickey Mouse company on the planet had done with 3e. Instead, they either stopped making stuff or continued doing 3e or 3e tweaks, led by the folks at Pathfinder. The rest of the game industry had effectively given WOTC's 4e the finger. And when a big chunk of the market  share went went those companies, WOTC took notice. Which is why I suspect DDN/5e is going to look more like Pathfinder and less like 4e.

Now if only thay could fix that need for a high Dex and Int when they do it........

May 26, 2012 -- 5:58AM, Dranack wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 10:45PM, ValmarTheMad wrote:

May 25, 2012 -- 10:10PM, Dranack wrote:

I think the problem with a thread like this is that it is just an excuse to edition war again. It seems pretty clear that alot of the "old school" don't want any 4E in Next, and alot 4vengers don't want any 1/2/3E in their Next. Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. The answer is simple - the only way to win is not to play. Both sides have lost, because they've gone all Hatfield and McCoy on each other. All the bluster about any particular edition being bad only serves to point out that you don't actually want D&D Next to be a game everyone can get behind. Instead, you really want Next to be an endorsement of your particular edition, style of play, etc., so you can finally win the argument and prove that all "XE" people play the wrong way. For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.

I don't think it's out of line for either the Grognards or the 4e fans to expect to see "their" games in 5e.

Remember, we have been (repeatedly) told by Mearls and other Devs that the goal is to Unify all the players and ALL the editions into ONE game that can be played simultaneously at the same table.

So, with that as the stated goal, both 'camps' have the right to expect to see "their" game in 5e--it's not about "edition wars" it's about "I like Edition X" and I want to play that in 5e.

5e wasn't sold as "just the next edition", it was (is) sold as "The Unifier of ALL D&D"...

The problem is, at this very moment, 5e is a fusion of previous D&D games, without the modularity to to play it as 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e let alone all of those combined.

People are right to express their concern that--at the moment--they're not seeing what they (thought) was promised.

Remember, no one knew what the playtest would be until we got it, so no matter what it came out as, there are going to be many who were probably expecting something very different based on all that we've been hearing about what 5e is supposed to/going to be.

If there's an Edition War, I'm not seeing it, I'm just seeing people's concerns over not being able to have the modularity they were expecting (from the start).

Have you read this thread? All I see throughout is accusations of one edition being broken, another edition being an MMO and having no RP, etc. That's pretty typical edition warring right there.

Of course everyone should be able to see "their games" in 5E. That is the goal. The problem is, everyone expects 5E to be X.5(X being whatever edition they like). They expect the game to be built around their personal playstyle, rather than actually uniting playstyles. If people aren't seeing every edition's influence in the packet, they just aren't looking.

We've known for quite a while that what we were getting in the playtest was incomplete. I think the 15-20% figure was tossed around quite a bit. We weren't promised modularity in the playtest. We were always told there would be core rules, and modularity would be added in later. We don't even have all the core rules now.

Peeps need to chill. 

Dranack, I agree with you on this. 5e is being designed with the purpose of ending the edition wars and uniting all of the factions of the edition wars: 1e through 3.x edition grognards and 4e fans alike.
What is really happening is that the very people who are supposed to help the developers toward achieving their goal (the fans and the playtesters) are instead doing what you say they are doing: They are fighting like the Hatfields and McCoys.
I'm starting to think that it might take a major tragedy similar to what happened in Romeo and Juliet to really unite the fanbase...and that might be the failure of 5e and the shelving of/ the end to the Dungeons and Dragons brand as a whole.

May 28, 2012 -- 8:33PM, Dranack wrote:

Yeah, I especially like the post earlier on this very page about people not printing 3rd party supplements for 4E. The argument assumes that this is because 4E was a failure rather than WotC changing their license system to "not free." Fortunately, there are also alot of good people that are willing to be patient and give the developers a shot. I just hope it's enough.

Some Questions:

Objectively, was 4e a commercial or critical flop...and was the OGL a contributing factor to 4e becoming either an economic success or a failure?

Could the sheer amount of competition between Dungeons and Dragons and the other brands of tabletop games be a factor in WOTC's and Dungeons and dragons's current status businesswise?

Are the digital MMO games a significant factor in the brand's current commercial "crisis",  or in it's current state sofar as trying to meet Hasbro's economic expectations?

What were the factors in WOTC reconsidering their legal status concerning the OGL and the licensing system, and what legal or economic factors contributed to creating the current GSL?

I think limiting the OGL early on hurt 4e catching on.  The d20 ogl was an amazing boost to 3e that 4e did not have.  

The playtest feels like dnd bsic set I played in the late 70's.  It brought me back to playing old school.  It reminded me of playing a video game with a 1 button controller (like the Atari).  I'm use to 4e now and having many options.  I like having a controlling with alot of buttons now, and a game that is a little more complicated.

I joked during the playtest that the 5e dnd for dummies can just be the core rulebook.  It just seems like one giant leap backward. 

This can change over time with the playtest.  I just remember the 1st playtest for 4e getting really excited at the advancement to the rules.  Except for advantages/ disadvantages nohing seems new.