|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 8:33AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Nov 14, 2011
|
Why would a diehard fan of 4e switch to 5e? After all, they currently have a game they love and enjoy. There is simply no need for them to switch. Therefore, trying to make 5e please them is likely to be a futile endeavor. It might be able to be done, but I think the odds of actually pleasing staunch 4e fans is slim.
I think a better course of action would to continue 4e support through additional adventures, the occasional source book and DDI. If interest in 4e wanes, then slowly let it fade in favor of the new edition. If 4e survives or gains popularity, then they have a fallback in case 5e tanks, or, if both are successful, a win-win.
What WotC needs to drop is the idea of, "Here is the new edition and you will play this new edition and only this new edition." This mentality is a good part of what lead to the 3e/4e schism. There is no reason that fans of the current 4e have to be left in the dust, so to say.
Hear Hear! Well said 
In my Table Top game, I'm trying to figure out what I / we disliked about 4E and to fix it with House Rules.
For example, we've now moved to Encounter Surges, approx (Daily Surges + 1)/ 3 or so, and dumped Endurance rules, to make the workday longer and more tactical gameplay in the group. Due to a civilised setting they were theoretically able to Extended Rest between most Encounters by taking their own sweet time to do something.
I've also done some things to remove Feat Tax and increase Ease-of-Optimisation with a few Custom feats that generally provide easy-to-find Role Optimisation Feat references.
Now trying to look at the Damage scalling etc to see how to make things smoother and make combat run faster. Its still a work in progress, but I'd like to think that if we put our heads together, Players & DMs (and Community as well) we can improve most of the "problems" with an edition.
And since WotC wants to woo back the rest of the playerbase, they should carry on with 5E but not impose it on us who enjoy playing 4E.
 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 8:36AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
Kishri, I agree with you 100%. As a pretty big fan of 4E, it's hard for me to see the beneifts D&D:Next claims to be promoting. I read most of the articles up til about a month ago. Some of the design changes sounds really interesting and I was sort of looking to DDN as a E6-style 4E game, where things don't grow to ridiculous levels of abuse and where magic is mysterious and fantastic (not that it can't be done in 4E) and not baked into level progression.
But then I read some articles where the Designers don't even seem to care (like the 5-min work day). Additionally, the push for "DM Empowerment" is somewhat misguided IMO. I never, as a DM, felt powerless over characters or the game or the system rules. Maybe this was more of a problem with organized play? Regardless, the verbage of the character sheets that say "Upon DM permission, you may level up to 2nd level" really pissed me off, as if I had to have some sort of permission. Sorry, but no thanks.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 8:47AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
@Zyraen, I hope you find your balance with 4e. It is a good system and if you and your players like it, why dump it? Now, if you find you like 5e, you can play that too. I never understood the idea that we have to play just one system. After All, I play Pathfinder as well as SLA Industries and Deadlands, so why is the idea of playing 2 editions of D&D so radical?
@Diffan, I think part of the DM empowerment issue is a backlash against a surge of rules lawyering. While 4e's "Say yes" mantra often gets the blame for this, it really began with 3e thanks to its vague and often arbitrary rules. I know I experienced that exact problem during a portion of my 3e career as a DM long before 4e was released.
Sadly, I never was able to get a 4e game off the ground. From what I can tell, it really didn't have any empowerment issues at all. In fact, since it is well designed, it is probably more empowering for DMs since everybody knows exactly where they stand.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 9:02AM
#24
|
|
|
It's unfortunate that this whole mess got started due to WoTC's business practices. In order for them to keep selling books, they need to release new editions. That's their system.
Everything was well and good until they released 4th edition. 4th edition is really well designed, it was just unfortunately a large departure from previous editions.
A large amount of people like their D&D to be a certain style and so left. So now WoTC is trying to make a new version that captures that old style again.
I do feel bad for all the 4E people since I doubt there will be much carry-over between 4th and 5th. At least you still have all your books and can still play.
As someone who plays lots of dead RPG's, it's annoying, but not that bad.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 9:13AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
It's unfortunate that this whole mess got started due to WoTC's business practices. In order for them to keep selling books, they need to release new editions. That's their system.
Everything was well and good until they released 4th edition. 4th edition is really well designed, it was just unfortunately a large departure from previous editions.
A large amount of people like their D&D to be a certain style and so left. So now WoTC is trying to make a new version that captures that old style again.
I do feel bad for all the 4E people since I doubt there will be much carry-over between 4th and 5th. At least you still have all your books and can still play.
As someone who plays lots of dead RPG's, it's annoying, but not that bad.
You have made a pretty fair assessment in my opinion.
Frankly, I am very curious to see how the end product of 5e is going to be. Will it be total retro? A hybrid? Something new? I am personally hoping it is a blend of good ideas from all editions, plus a couple new ones wrapped in a concise, clear, working and fun package.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 9:20AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
@Diffan, I think part of the DM empowerment issue is a backlash against a surge of rules lawyering. While 4e's "Say yes" mantra often gets the blame for this, it really began with 3e thanks to its vague and often arbitrary rules. I know I experienced that exact problem during a portion of my 3e career as a DM long before 4e was released.
Sadly, I never was able to get a 4e game off the ground. From what I can tell, it really didn't have any empowerment issues at all. In fact, since it is well designed, it is probably more empowering for DMs since everybody knows exactly where they stand.
I hear you on the rule-laywering thing and saw it myself in my 3E days (hells, I've been that guy) but with some understanding of social graces (like not arguing with the DM during play), a lot of problems can be resolved outside the actual game. Still, I don't think it was enough of a problem to take away all the specific tools PCs used to interact with the game-world and build characters without saying "hey DM, may I please do this??!"
And if your ever in the Pittsburgh, PA area (if your from the U.S.) look me up and we'll have a good 4E game! 
Everything was well and good until they released 4th edition. 4th edition is really well designed, it was just unfortunately a large departure from previous editions.
Really, it wasn't. I could make about a dozen strong comparisons between 4th Edition and 3rd Edition but I doubt that'd change anyone's opinion on 4E. Suffice to say that 4E's early departure was based on a LOAD of factors to which the game changes were only a minor part of, IMO.
A large amount of people like their D&D to be a certain style and so left. So now WoTC is trying to make a new version that captures that old style again.
At the possible cost of their current fan-base. The saying goes: "If you don't learn from history, your doomed to repeat it." Isn't losing thier current fan-base exactly what happend when they went to 4th Edition? The only difference is (and this might save them) that 4E fans don't have access to a fully publicated company to keep producing 4E material. So instead I'll just make my own and keep to the books produced.
I do feel bad for all the 4E people since I doubt there will be much carry-over between 4th and 5th. At least you still have all your books and can still play.
Apparently you didn't play that much 4E or you would recognize some strong 4E elements within D&D:next. The problem is, they're elements that most 4E fans might be able to live without. They're specific mechanics that are interesting but not the core fundamental aspects 4E fans really enjoy, fundamental elements found at the beginning of this thread. At-Will magic, Hit Die as healing, auto-damage melee attacks, themes, backgrounds, simplified Skill set, and Advantage are all aspects that primarily started with 4E and now lend into D&D:Next. But I would trade any one of them for more options, more character tactical depth, more flavor, more complexity, etc.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 9:30AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
@Diffan, If I weren't out here in Nevada I would gladly take you up on that offer! 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 10:20AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
It depends on if 4th ed players can be convinced that the issues they have with the game can be fixed with a rehashing of basic - 3rd ed rules, because thats whats on offer.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 10:51AM
#29
|
|
|
Really, it wasn't. I could make about a dozen strong comparisons between 4th Edition and 3rd Edition but I doubt that'd change anyone's opinion on 4E. Suffice to say that 4E's early departure was based on a LOAD of factors to which the game changes were only a minor part of, IMO.
I wasn't referring to the rules per sae, more of the direction of the rules. You could say that the move from 1st edition to 3.5 follows a certain pattern that 4e deviates from dramatically. Not that it's a bad thing, it just went against the expectations of a whole slew of people.
At the possible cost of their current fan-base. The saying goes: "If you don't learn from history, your doomed to repeat it." Isn't losing thier current fan-base exactly what happend when they went to 4th Edition? The only difference is (and this might save them) that 4E fans don't have access to a fully publicated company to keep producing 4E material. So instead I'll just make my own and keep to the books produced.
Very true, but the styles are so entirely different that I don't think they could make either group happy. If they tried to please everyone it would end up being a terrible, terrible game. It seems that WoTC feels they will get more support by going after the people who didn't like 4E. Why? I don't know. But that seems to be the direction they're moving in.
Apparently you didn't play that much 4E or you would recognize some strong 4E elements within D&D:next. The problem is, they're elements that most 4E fans might be able to live without. They're specific mechanics that are interesting but not the core fundamental aspects 4E fans really enjoy, fundamental elements found at the beginning of this thread. At-Will magic, Hit Die as healing, auto-damage melee attacks, themes, backgrounds, simplified Skill set, and Advantage are all aspects that primarily started with 4E and now lend into D&D:Next. But I would trade any one of them for more options, more character tactical depth, more flavor, more complexity, etc.
Yep. Not a fan of 4E. To be fair, I'm not a fan of 3/3.5 either. I still play 2E and I play a lot of 3.5. ('cause that's what my current group likes - ARGH) I mostly play non-D&D games, 'cause I've always thought that D&D had one of the worst rulesets around in any edition. What made D&D great though, is that pretty much everyone has played it. It was a good bridge game. It was one game where you could grab any roleplayer from anywhere and they pretty much knew what's going on. It had a similar feel and style that was taken away with 4E. They've just come to expect a certain style with D&D, and will stamp their feet if it's anything but that.
I think that currently WoTC and D&D is going through an identity crisis. 4E wasn't as popular as they hoped and Pathfinder ate up a ton of their previous customers. Whether 4E had great rules or not, it doesn't make a difference. The majority of people who've played D&D, (which aren't 4E people) like things such as Vancian, magic being stupid powerful, etc. WoTC has it in their minds that if they make a game that all those people (ex-D&D players) want to play, all of their problems will magically be over. I am of the opinion that pandering to an old audience is a bad idea, but here we are.
I feel that if you're going to make a new edition of an RPG, you should really make A NEW EDITION, otherwise, what's the point? Some people will argue that it is new. I don't think so. It's basically taking elements from every other version of D&D and trying to smash them together into a coherent game. I wish they set out to make something wholly different from any other previous version. Like what they did with WFRP 3rd edition. If you're not going to completely change how it's played, why release a new edition at all? Why not just make supplements for your old edition?
I'm curious how it's all going to turn out, but even if it turns out awesome I probably won't buy a copy. If I ever need a D&D "fix", I've still got my dumptruck full of 2E books.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 20, 2012 - 10:55AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
It depends on if 4th ed players can be convinced that the issues they have with the game can be fixed with a rehashing of basic - 3rd ed rules, because thats whats on offer.
If it is a strict rehash, than that simply isn't possible. However, if it basic - 3.x mechanics are meshed with core 4e philosophies, then we might be in business.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
