D&D Next/5.0

[Swift]

Opinions are starting to float out since it is now in beta testing. Linking this one because it is the first one I've come across since I read the blog regularly:

http://tobolds.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/ ... a.html?m=1

Thoughts? Sounds like a return to a more classic style of the game.

[Veilan]

Having never felt particularly emotionally beholden to any version of DnD, I think the opinion, if the facts it is based on are true, holds merit.

DnD 3.0/3.5 seemed like sophisticated and well-groomed systems, with a lot of good fluff and detail... running on a broken motor (class balance, party assumptions, etc.).

4.0 lacked all the development, sophistication and fluff, and was a "baby system" - however one with a very solid motor, a foundation of which further development would, in my opinion, eventually yield far better returns on investment than for 3.0/3.5.

There is only so much you can achieve by tuning the windshield, screenwipers and chroming of the wheelcaps - whereas attaching any of that to the baby-simplified 4.0 might actually end up making a good car, as the base engine works for a more tactical, balanced and accessible game. I think 4.0 is the "worse"

Of course, this view is probably sacrilege to people who grew up on the natural progression of DnD editions .

Cheers,

[maxcell]

i would be interested in a more objective review. The author is clearly a 100% 4e fan, since every reference to the earlier versions was to counterpoint his positive statement about an aspect of 4e.

One thing he did not mention is that the play-test materials are purposely stripped down to the basic, basic, basics. They want to test the basic game engine. They purposely left out skills, powers, surges, and all that other extraneous stuff so that they could just test the underlying game-play mechanics. Since he either did not realize this fact or chose to ignore it, his review is null and void as a review imo .

I am in the beta test and have my own play-test materials. I also am jaded in that I hate 4e and loved previous versions (yes even 3.5 you whiners, if you didn't like all the rules and rolls, just house rule out what you don't want to use, duh). Therefore my review would not be valid either in that respect, but at least I read the notes that wotc sent me with the packet lol

[rorax]

1st and 2nd editions will always remain the best versions for me.

Best novels and best settings material. Things back then were done for the art and creativity and not for money.

[Thangorn]

2nd edition - Players Option ruleset is still the best

[loulabelle]

My PnP DM's opinion (he's been in the beta testing before it went public or something or other):

My first impression was that it felt very much like 1st edition AD&D. I think that is partly due to the type-face, font, style presentation, etc.

I think really though, there is some flavor from 4th there, but I do miss feats, though I admit they got out of hand.

I read an article the other day and mentioned the designers tried to compile the various strengths from the 4 editions. Open-ended story-telling and variability (1st), codification of rules (2nd), customization (3rd-3.5), and mathematical balance (4th).

It will be curious to see if that all works together.

He's putting together a game to try it out I think, I'll let you know what I think.

FWIW, I play in a 4e game which is pretty fun. I don't think of it as RP heavy but i have a good time in our sessions, playing my other bard

[Dorn]

I love the arguments starting in thecomments below the article. Totally expected in a dnd version vs version topic. "My versions better....and I roeplay more hardcore!...and you suck computer gamers!!!"

[maxcell]

I love the arguments starting in thecomments below the article. Totally expected in a dnd version vs version topic. "My versions better....and I roeplay more hardcore!...and you suck computer gamers!!!"

+1


And Loulabelle, it still isnt public yet. The playtest I/your DM has is still the limited one. I agree with his summary, though I don't agree with the choice of wotc from a business model standpoint. The release of a completely new version so soon could be inferred as an admission to the wrong ways they handled 4e. I agree that if they were going for a new version, they could have over time implemented the mathematics that so many like in 4e. But as your DM stated, it looks like they are trying to appease both sides of the rift that they created, which doesn't work imo at this point. Think of all the money invested by 3.5 fans and earlier. Now think of all the money invested by 4e fans, which included ppl completely new to the game. Now there is Next which will be a whole new cash magnet for those who choose to use and accept it. Today, people really don't want to and can't put out that kind of money, and I am certain it will
a. lose 4e customers
b. attract a small contingent of pre-4e customers that aren't already invested in Pathfinder.
c. attract an even smaller group of non-pnp customers in this electronic gaming age.

That adds up to business failure. Unless, they could figure out a way to continue to support all the versions at the same time, even if new material would be only in electronic format. I personally would choose this option. Open up all previous versions to outside publishing like the ogl did, but restricted to a percentage of profits always going to wotc.

[Darkmystic]

4E edition rocks Maxcell. Theres a differnce between a bad game and not liking a game. You have alot of positive experinces with the earlier games and hence like them because of that. You hate 4e with the typical old man style "its new, its not my game." No of course not, its a new edition with new ideas. I personally love 4th Edition, it throws out all the bullshit of 3.5 where a druid has spells, okey attack bonus and a frigging bear thats almost as good as any fighter. Why play fighter? Just go druid, you get spells an a fighter.

In 4th edition everyone is useful, its -balanaced- and its just as rp heavy as the other games. Simply dont just ooc when you play, it works. Trust me I done 2 rp heavy 4th edition campaigns now and planning for a 3rd.

I love 3.5, I love Pathfinder and I love 4th edition for differnt reasons. Why continue to bash this game just because of loyalty Maxcell? Dont like it? Then leave it alone.

[Adanu]

Why play fighter?

I can think of a few reasons to go fighter, but I doubt you'd like them.

[maxcell]

Why continue to bash this game just because of loyalty Maxcell?

Please point out in my post where I "bashed" 4e?


Also, thank you for assuming I preferred 3.5 because I am old and cannot accept new ideas.

[Darkmystic]

I played plenty of fighter and all of your posts reek with your dislike of 4E Maxcell

[Hialmar]

I think that they should remove all system specific stuff from their books (and keep only what matters I.e. storytelling stuff) and give PDFs. One with numbers for 3.5 and one for 4.0.

This way they don't loose the 4e guys and regain the 3.5 guys who are interested in their gameworlds but do not like 4e.

Just my 2 kopecks on this

[maxcell]

I played plenty of fighter and all of your posts reek with your dislike of 4E Maxcell

Your armpits reek. But really, I don't like 4e but it is just not the game for me, I didn't like how it felt for me to play or DM it, so I stuck with 3.5 is all. In the same vein I also haven't jumped over to Pathfinder either. So that's all.

But the main push of my post is the decision by wotc to do another version now. That I don't think is good for them as a business, no matter the version. I think they now would do better to just throw their whole strength into supporting the current edition.

MethuselaMax

[fluffmonster]

My PnP group ran some of the playtest Friday night (without me unfortunately). We play 4e generally. The DM wrote up a play summary, its mostly just the facts:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizo ... ost5924901