Blog Comments

Originally Posted by Darth Jerod

Seeing as this is almost 7+ months old I am wondering what your thoughts are now on the playtest.

Thanks for reminding me about this post. I actually have a something to say as a follow up.

I missed at least one version of the new game, having given up on caring. This wasn't based on frustration or anger, but rather on just not being worried about it. Regardless of how it turns out, I'm going to help organize games for our gaming club, so as long as it's bearable, I'm okay. However, a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of playing in Sly Flourish's D&D Next version of Ravenloft. IIRC, the very next day they released the current version of the game (providing 10 levels), so technically I'm commenting on the prior version. What appears to have happened is the 4e players became the squeaky wheels, and that forced WotC's hand to respond to their concerns. I must admit they've done a good job with that.

As an example, one of my favorite innovations of 4e is the healing surge, and they've found a way to apply that to D&D Next. The only tweak is that the game appears to be built around quite a bit more "surge-less healing." There's nothing wrong with that; it's just an observation. Also, as a non-power gamer, in its current form, I'm as good a character creator as anyone else. Of course, as the game develops, that will change, but I like that power gamers/character optimizers won't mind me being at the table. As of right now, my characters won't be terribly underpowered despite me not being focused their power curves. I can create the character I like, and it won't be exceptionally weak. Allowing different gamers to enjoy the same game at the same table should always be the primary goal of game publishers, and we're getting there. (For the record, I think 4e accomplished that goal masterfully, insulating different playing styles from one another, but the type of game 4e became turned off many players for other very different reasons.)

The bottom line is that I'm playing RPGs nowadays much less for the games themselves and more just for hanging out with a group of people I like. I've become much less of a gamer. All I need to be able to do is tolerate the game, and it's already to that point. However, I don't mean to duck the question. The game is objectively more enjoyable for me as someone who greatly prefers 4e to 3.5e, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that these changes didn't bother 3.5e players. (I haven't asked.) Whether I ever will prefer D&D Next to 4e remains to be seen, but WotC appears to be on the right track. That's all any of us can ask, and at least for me, that's good enough.

Seeing as this is almost 7+ months old I am wondering what your thoughts are now on the playtest.

This sentence makes no sense.

As my FASA Star Trek RPG example demonstrates, sometimes the DM should require the use of a skill (in that case, Language: Klingon) because it's logical.

Here, I'll "fix" it for you.

As my FASA Star Trek RPG example demonstrates, sometimes the DM should require the use of a skill (in that case, Language: Vulcan) because it's logical.

Good post. I can definitely get behind a system like this, logically.

I agree with your take Frylock on how the system feels at this point, but keep in mind that the process is early. I think that it will resemble 4E the least of any edition, at least in the basic form of the game. I could see more of the 4E stuff being layered on in modules. When I was asking about some of the design goals in December at the D&D Summit I got the impression that bringing a lot of the older gamers back into the fold who left with the release of 3rd or even 4th edition without alienating the newer gamers, who may have started playing with 4th Edition would be fine with them. Good luck with that, but you are correct that 4E fans are least likely to be alienated by another edition.

I had high expectations but the exit of Monte Cook and the negativity that always exist no matter what Wizards of the Coast tries to do a this point is a deep pit to climb out of. Some of us are happy to be included in the process and I hope other fans of the game will feel that same way on May 24th when the playtest goes public.

Originally Posted by shauno

I am curious at what wotc will do to bring all of the past editions together. I can't say I will buy any of it at least until a few months into the production line were I can see if the new products are worth the thirty dollar price tag they slap on the books.

Another idea came to me recently, though it poses just as much a challenge to profitability that my other solution: Open up the old product lines. That is, re-release everything from the old editions. They're starting to do that with the re-release of the AD&D PHB, DMG, and MM. Maybe that's designed as a test run. They've certainly been pushing AD&D material generally through rewrites (e.g., Against the Giants, Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan) and sequels (e.g., Revenge of the Giants, Tomb of Horrors). Maybe they should start stocking the shelves with material from old editions. At a minimum, that would include the PHBs, DMGs, and MMs.

However, each product would have limited sales value. Even if both you and I like AD&D, maybe I live Ghost Tower of Inverness and you like Tomb of Horrors. If we each buy what we like, and not what the other likes, the overhead cost to produce the products isn't recouped. As I said, it would be a challenge to make it work.

I completely missed this blog post. Damn, I need to pay attention to my own website more

Originally Posted by shauno

I still have an old 3rd edition book called Dieties and Demigods that allows you to create your own gods and use them sort of like playing characters. It also has completed stats on Earth gods like Zues and Odin as well as the other gods in thier family tree.

AD&D, 2nd Edition, and 4th Edition have versions of that book as well, though for 4th Edition, the book is online only. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deities_%26_Demigods for details. The 3e Deities & Demigods was the first of the bunch to provide the specific, detailed mechanic for DMs to create pantheons of gods, which was necessary in that the 3e Deities & Demigods provided only four pantheons of gods, leaving most of the work to the DMs. 4th Edition, by design, expects DMs to provide divine challenges once the players reach epic level (21-30), and with NPC design being as easy as it is, creating gods is a snap without a specific rulebook for it. Of course, designing challenging adventures for epic level play in 4th Edition is easier said than done -- very few can do it -- but that's the theory anyway. :-)

I still have an old 3rd edition book called Dieties and Demigods that allows you to create your own gods and use them sort of like playing characters. It also has completed stats on Earth gods like Zues and Odin as well as the other gods in thier family tree.

I am curious at what wotc will do to bring all of the past editions together. I can't say I will buy any of it at least until a few months into the production line were I can see if the new products are worth the thirty dollar price tag they slap on the books.

I believe WotC will achieve the goal of unifying the gamer base. They will unify in their hate of what WotC did to "their" D&D.

I'm only being slightly facetious.

Thanks for your feedback, T.

I don't think I'm being unfair to WotC at all. First, by adding "I believe," I intend to convey that this is an assumption on my part. (I know that most people place that phrase before all of their statements, so I understand the confusion.) Of course I could be wrong, but it certainly appears to me that WotC isn't giving any real consideration at all to 4e players except in word only, as the base system shares absolutely no similarity with 4e. Note well that WotC has made it clear that what we've seen is the base system, and not the "1e module" or "3e module" added to the base system. Perhaps they will eventually give consideration to us, but if things continue down this path, it'll be too little, too late unless they do a complete reboot of their design process based on the initial play-test feedback. As I explained, the base system, to have any prayer of compatibility with multiple play styles, must not emulate any one. Otherwise, I could have been playing 3e as 4e for all these years.

In the end, though, I'm probably with you. Whether I like D&D Next or not, I'll be supporting it for the Gamers' Syndicate, and playing it myself.

It was the "light blue set" you describe. It had a red dragon on a pile of gold looking out at a couple of adventurers -- a fighting man and wizard -- who are gearing up for battle.

I honestly don't think this is being fair to WotC. They are, from all I can tell, truly trying to create a great game that you want to play. That's a challenge, because "you" isn't just you (or me, or her, or...) but everyone. The idea of a simple approachable core upon which you could hang different modules is a way to answer that. Having the core resemble previous editions is a possible approach.

It is unfair to say they are giving us the short end of the stick, or that it is a ploy, or anything of the sort. Like any other company, they have to look at their market and make choices. But they also are being passionate, fairly transparent, and very engaging. They are providing the entire industry with a ton of ideas as they go through this process. And they really seem to be actively experimenting and adjusting as time passes.

Will it work? Well, that always depends on who you ask. It shouldn't shock us if some people think it is genius and others think it is terrible. Some will say they knew xyz all the time, others that they are "surprised". We aren't one common mind, so reactions will differ. BUT, we are also do have common threads. If D&D Next can speak to enough of those threads (for example, if they can speak to people that played both 3E and 4E and evoke what those people liked about both of the editions), then the game may be superior for having both of those factors. Or, at the very least, be as good or good enough (given everyone's natural desire to play new and current games) to be a common system of choice. Beyond that, many factors will drive success across a wide level of measurements, from financial to industry response to raw sales to adoption to very specific criteria.

For me it is way too early to tell how well D&D next will do for even a few of these facets. The open playtest won't even tell us (though it gives us a first impression) because many things can be adjusted. For example, look at the difference between initial 4E and Essentials. Many aspects can be retooled to create a different feel within the same "edition". If the playtest truly is open and important (and it sure seems to be) then the playtest will be just an initial step and allow for us to provide feedback and collectively suggest changes. Seems pretty good to me.

And if it turns out not to be my favorite? I wasn't a big fan of 2E, and I played a ton of it before going on to 3E (which I absolutely loved before going on to love 4E). The game will survive, a new 6th edition will someday come, and life will go on just fine. It will probably all be a ton of fun in retrospect... especially if we let this process be fun rather than rage and opportunity rather than concern.

I largely agree with the concept. We contribute to an edition war when we take our own personal preferences and put down the systems that don't have that aspect. We can make fair observations (character survivability was low in AD&D and high in 4E) and unfair ones ("it is dumb to have healing surges" or "it is dumb to remove healing surges"). The later is where our preference becomes the grounds of the debate from a position of "truth" when instead we can be honest about it being our preference (rather than fact) or observation (rather than fact, and couched in the possibility that what we have observed is not the whole story). This is hard to do. It is very hard to divorce ourselves of our preferences - I struggle with it often. Maintaining respect for others that disagree and acknowledging the validity of their perspective (it is ok for them to say "edition x is the best") is one way to avoid edition wars.

On the topic of editions, if you started with a boxed set it was likely Basic. There was a light blue set (the first Basic set, 2nd print, but the inside book was light blue for several of the printings) and also an Expert blue set. The Acaeum does a good job of describing the different sets and the Wikipedia page does a good job of describing the names and dates for each edition.

Originally Posted by captbryant

I get the feeling this response is sarcastic so if you are serious please continue with your nuclear strike. I'd like to see how that works out for you. But if it is sarcastic I think Frylock made a valid point about 5e without doing any edition warring. I don't think he ever suggested no one should play it just that he didn't think it would be good for 4e fans.

It appears that you interpreted Bargle's response as criticizing me as being an edition warrior. That's not what he was saying. I know him personally and know where he stands. He's not being critical of me. He's being critical of WotC's decision to design D&D Next around what the squeaky wheels want. While this will also cater to the fair-minded 3e players, it does seem a bit reckless to cater to those that complain for complaining's sake, and it means that the claim that they're going to go modular and make everyone happy is merely lip service. It also suggests, as Bargle is trying to say, that being the squeaky wheel might be the best way to get WotC's attention. Nevertheless, we should all be as constructive as possible in how we address this strategy and the game itself. D&D Next is far from complete, so there's time to get them to go in a direction that works for the greatest number of gamers. Whether WotC listens to all of us remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by bargle0

I will respond to 5e by a preemptive nuclear strike in the forthcoming edition war.

After all, edition warring works.

I get the feeling this response is sarcastic so if you are serious please continue with your nuclear strike. I'd like to see how that works out for you. But if it is sarcastic I think Frylock made a valid point about 5e without doing any edition warring. I don't think he ever suggested no one should play it just that he didn't think it would be good for 4e fans.

I will respond to 5e by a preemptive nuclear strike in the forthcoming edition war.

After all, edition warring works.

Very cool!

Originally Posted by Frylock

How exactly did they sponsor it? Did they simply give you permission to say, "WotC sponsors us!" or did they actually say on their website, "We sponsor them!" The difference between the two is enormous, as I wouldn't expect a significant bump from the former.

I think they paid for a year of the meetup. So when people saw the page, there was a sponsorship WotC image on the left.

It is a difficult situation to grow the hobby in an age were the brick and mortar stores are disappearing. Amazon.com unfortunately does nothing to grow interest in the hobby and the internet is a poor resource for that as well. Support of the game clubs on an individual level might be the next step. For those of us who live an hour or more from a game store making the various encounters on weeknights can be an issue. Using the player finder from Pen and Paper Games or EN World I can see the gamers in my area. Now more gamers just have to know what steps to take to form a great club (I see a blog there!).