# Serious question - are you going to invest in D&DNext?



## TrippyHippy (Oct 10, 2013)

I've been casually involved in the play test - as I am sure most of this site's community have - and I care about the direction of D&D. I enjoy playing it too - again casually - but it's not my first choice game these days. I guess I care about it due to a sense of nostalgia, but also because it's a flagship game for the hobby and I want it to do well. However, the question is would I actually choose to buy it, support it and play it as my main game in the future? 

I ask this in the light of having 'bought into' a couple of rpgs in recent years that largely fulfill all my fantasy gaming needs (RuneQuest and The One Ring) in one way or another and I regard them both as outstanding games. Other gamers have been enthused about alternative forms of D&D with increasingly strong production values and support. There still seems to a huge need for a D&D-style fix amongst most gamers, but there are now lots of D&D-style games out there to compete with the brand. 

Now for me, the most likely event is that I will buy the pdf, play it at conferences most likely, and see how it goes from there - but my gut feeling is that I don't _need_ another fantasy RPG. How do other people feel?


----------



## Savage Wombat (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm pretty sure I'll buy it, but whether I use it will depend on how it looks in its final form.  I may wind up waiting until the advanced character building module is released, too.


----------



## fjw70 (Oct 10, 2013)

I'll buy it but I won't consider it an investment.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 10, 2013)

I doubt I'll buy it. I already have 4e, and it is already hit with bloat, so in a way I'm glad WotC isn't publishing it anymore. The only thing missing are more adventures, but there's a giant backlog of Dungeon Magazine adventures I haven't even looked at, and making monsters and NPCs is so easy that converting d20 adventures is pretty easy too. (My experience with converting 2e and older adventures is "don't" unless you want to rewrite everything other than the plot.)

I don't think WotC remembers how to design games anymore. I'm seriously wondering if they just lucked into making 4e work. (I could say the same thing about marketing; I think they lucked into selling 3.0 so well simply because people were so tired of TSR. Using those same tactics for 4e and 5e isn't working.)

One of the worst examples of D&D forgetting how to design is the nonsense around ghoul saving throws. Bad enough they left core math till "the end", but why even be surprised? They fixed that, but only after being publicly embarrassed. More recently is the tale of wildshaping, bringing back a 3.0-style ability score-switching wildshaping with weird hit point mechanics. Both Paizo and WotC (in 4e) fixed it, in different ways as different companies do, but WotC seems to have willfully forgotten those lessons. They'll have to learn all over again, possibly with some fan outrage tossed in, but with less pressure as there's no public playtest...

Or not. I've done a little playtesting for WotC, and have no confidence in their internal playtesting procedures. If they design something broken and nobody outside sees it, the broken product will get published. So unless we all scream something problematic like that will be published, and I don't think there's enough fan energy left for us to holler at them.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 10, 2013)

I will purchase it just to support the hard work of fellow gamer dorks and to support the industry in general.  However, the likelihood of me playing it is slim to none given the design ethos and the system that follows.  I have 3 systems that cater to my interests, all of which I can play a long term campaign with.  5e won't supplant them or even contend with them.  And I have 1e for Pawn Stance dungeoncrawl, one-offs of which I don't, at this point, see 5e doing better.

That being said, I reserve the right to be wrong and eat crow if the finished product is not any of the iterations I've playtested.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 10, 2013)

I'll buy at least the DMG, PHB and MM- or however the initial release is broken up- and decide from there.


----------



## Darth Illithid (Oct 10, 2013)

I may purchase it at some point. I'll probably wait until there are fairly comprehensive reviews on the game, though. Chances are, I won't be buying it on Day One.


----------



## delericho (Oct 10, 2013)

Maybe. I won't be buying it on day one, and I won't be buying it sight unseen - I'll wait for some significant reviews of the finished product, and then make a decision.

My gut feeling is that I'll buy the core rules (in whatever form they're presented), and probably nothing else.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Oct 10, 2013)

5e looks very interesting at the moment. I will probably hold off for a bit and see how good the published adventure support is. If they publish the same garbage dungeon crawls as they did in 4e I will quite possibly drop it. 

Some might ask why I think published adventures are so important? Well, it's because I don't have the time or imagination to come up with everything myself. I can elaborate and wing it if I have a adventure that's fundamentally well made (Red Hand of Doom). I get fed up running adventures like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

To me 5e looks interesting because of the relatively flat math for to-hit/defense. I think I can run an adventure style without houserules in 5e much easier than in 4e and 3e.

Now, I am not much of a book collector, so I really hope they have a good digital alternative that can be read on a tablet (with layout and pictures optimized for that type of use).


----------



## GX.Sigma (Oct 10, 2013)

Yes. The playtest rules are pretty close to what I want, and I could see myself playing a much more polished version (if only because I don't think I could really convince anyone around here to play Labyrinth Lord or whatever).


----------



## GX.Sigma (Oct 10, 2013)

Blackbrrd said:


> 5e looks very interesting at the moment. I will probably hold off for a bit and see how good the published adventure support is. If they publish the same garbage dungeon crawls as they did in 4e I will quite possibly drop it.
> 
> Some might ask why I think published adventures are so important? Well, it's because I don't have the time or imagination to come up with everything myself. I can elaborate and wing it if I have a adventure that's fundamentally well made (Red Hand of Doom). I get fed up running adventures like Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.



D&DN is compatible with OSR adventures, which as far as I know is the only source of good D&D adventure support right now.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Oct 11, 2013)

I'm sure I'll at least buy the PH, maybe the DMG too just to be reasonably familiar with the version-of-the-moment.  As a player I'll try just about anything but it overwhelmingly falls to me to be the DM.  Accordingly, I'd say it's currently less than 50% chance I'll spend a penny more on 5E than those first two core books.  It'd have to _really _impress me and I seriously suspect that it just won't; that suspicion based on the fact that it has quite failed to interest me thus far as possibly being my new version of choice.  Barring wildly unforseen circumstances I will almost certainly just stick to tinkering with 1E for the games that I run.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 11, 2013)

I expect I'll at least buy the initial core rulebook(s). It's the best way to really delve in and check it out. Whether or not we really adopt it is another question. We may play it for some campaigns along with other games like PF and SWSE or we may give it a try and ultimately shelve it like we did 4e.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 11, 2013)

It's really unlikely. I'd rather play 13th Age, 4e, M&M re-spun for fantasy, or even 3.5 than what I've seen so far. I mean, if I find a new group I like and they want to give it a shot, I'll get the core rulebooks, but I can't see investing heavily in it.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 11, 2013)

I'll buy the PHB/MM/DMG, then assess from there.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 11, 2013)

*yawn*

I downloaded the last play test packet, and still haven't popped it open.

I guess I can understand D&Ders who want to buy just to 'support the troops,' so to speak. But I don't have the pocket change to throw at a game I'm never going to DM.


----------



## Storminator (Oct 11, 2013)

I'm well into the phase where I have to play something before I'll spend money on it. So we'll see what my local gaming scene looks like - right now leaning towards unlikely.

PS


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 11, 2013)

No.

D&D left me; I didn't leave D&D.


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Oct 11, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> No.
> 
> D&D left me; I didn't leave D&D.



for someone younger  said you were getting too old. But it turned out younger couldn't push the buttons, now look whose come crawling back


----------



## Dwimmerlied (Oct 11, 2013)

It depends on how compatible with 3.x and AD&D it is. I'm not really looking for a new system, but if its highly backwards compatible, it'd add to what I'm playing and I'd invest. 

Publishing great adventures and story would be awesome too. Not plot devices for marketing reasons, but stories that enrich the mythos. Whether you like it or not, how cool is the blood war? The Temple of Elemental Evil? Tomb of Horrors?


----------



## Sound of Azure (Oct 11, 2013)

I'm likely to purchase the core books, and take it from there. If it appeals sufficiently enough I will buy more books. It's not going to be an investment unless it really grabs me- otherwise, I'll probably just poach things from it.


----------



## Richards (Oct 11, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> No.
> 
> D&D left me; I didn't leave D&D.



Well said.  This pretty much encapsulates my own feelings on the matter.  I'll be sticking to 3.5 for the foreseeable future.

Johnathan


----------



## Serendipity (Oct 11, 2013)

Nope.  Unless it undergoes some freakish metamorphosis between now and release it just doesn't appeal to me at all.  After release I might well play it if someone else offers to run but that's as interested as I'm going to get with the game as it is now.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Oct 11, 2013)

I will absolutely buy the core books, and probably the first several products. D&D is not my main game (that would be Shadowrun, followed by Savage Worlds), but 5E looks like it'll be fantastic when D&D is what I'm looking for.


----------



## Abraxas (Oct 11, 2013)

I'll be picking it up cause it looks to be the edition that will bring all my geezer friends back to playing. Plus, my nephew will be starting in at the beginning. He's played 3E, Pathfinder, 4E and playtested D&DN - so far he has said he has the most fun with D&DN.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Oct 11, 2013)

Allowing that they publish PDFs? Then yes, probably. If for no other reason than to have a convenient way of running Paizo adventures.

If it ends up being good enough, I'll see about converting our 2E Al Qadim game to 5E.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 11, 2013)

Does "Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle" count? If so -- "I already have!" 

Granted, it's listed as being a preview; but it does say "D&D Next" on the cover, and I did pay good money for it. 

Does my having bought that product count as "investing in D&D Next?"


----------



## Umbran (Oct 11, 2013)

Like probably many others - I'll likely buy the core rulebooks.  

I won't "invest" in the game unless a group I'm playing gets into it enough to call for buying more materials.  In this, it is no different than any other game - I don't buy many supplements for games I'm not playing.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 11, 2013)

We are in a golden era of RPGs.  The marketplace is saturated with so  many great games that appeal to so many specific tastes, and well.  Because of this, I think what is truly an interesting turn of events is how odd it is to not really be disgruntled, annoyed or feel like a jilted lover when you come to terms with the fact that next edition of D&D is not going to appeal to you.  Just sort of a shrug and a disinterested "meh".  I wonder how many staunch D&D players are having a response in that general ballpark.  If it is of any relevant size, hold onto your hats, because that is probably the worst response that WotC could hope for.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 11, 2013)

No.

On a positive note, 4E remains my favourite version of D&D from the past 32+ years. I will stick with it and, if I want something a bit lighter, I have 13th Age.

On a negative note, I have not exactly been enamoured with the "back to the future"-philosophy underpinning Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition's design (aka D&D Previous). I'm obviously not the target market (and if I want to play AD&D I will simply use Swords & Wizardry).

Also, like some others, I also do not consider this an "investment": it's an expense.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 11, 2013)

Probably not.

Primarily because I don't really have the time to invest in learning the system well enough at the moment. Also, unless I know that it will have a 5e version of an OGL, and a well written and permissive one, I'm not sure it would be wise yet to put the time in for learning it when I'm already running and greatly enjoying a Pathfinder campaign, and nobody I know plans on running 5e. They're playing PF, or 3.x, or a different game entirely.

Secondly, while they ramped back many of the more egregious and random 4e changes to long-term D&D terms, IMO there are too many 4e'isms creeping in. Additionally, FR is still post-Spellplague rather than them actually going for a reboot, so it's no longer the same setting I enjoyed immensely in 3e, so it isn't at this stage doing much to try to bring me back. That might change, but at this point I've moved on.

That said, if there's a 5e Planescape and if it uses the Great Wheel and stays true to the 2e material and some of the 3e additions - sold -. I'd buy whatever 5e material required to use that. All would be forgiven.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Oct 11, 2013)

Celebrim said:


> D&D left me; I didn't leave D&D.




That's how I feel about 4E.  With 5E they may have something I'm interested in again.

I'll certainly buy the core and read it.  It just wouldn't feel right to not own the current version of D&D.  After that, it depends.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 11, 2013)

Absolutely I will buy the core books. Beyond that, we'll have to see: I can be convinced, but WOTC hasn't succeeded in convincing me to buy much further.


----------



## megamania (Oct 11, 2013)

Nope.  3.5 is plenty good enough for me


----------



## Ace (Oct 11, 2013)

I'll buy it in print and probably play it as much as I can get away with. It suits my needs pretty well being halfway between retro-clone and more modern version. 

Having the official D&D imprimatur behind it won't hurt either as it will open up ground retro games can't reach while still allowing me to pilfer the heck out of them.


----------



## delericho (Oct 11, 2013)

Dwimmerlied said:


> Publishing great adventures and story would be awesome too. Not plot devices for marketing reasons, but stories that enrich the mythos. Whether you like it or not, how cool is the blood war? The Temple of Elemental Evil? Tomb of Horrors?




That's a really good point. If all 5e offers is a set of rules for "pretending to be an elf", even a _good_ set of rules for that purpose, then it has little to offer me - I already have five previous versions of the game to do that, and Pathfinder, and Savage Worlds, and... I don't need another set of rules unless it's really excellent - and since WotC need to sell books they'll need to constantly expand the rules, and that's a big negative in my book.

But if they sell excellent adventures, then that's a somewhat different matter - I'll buy the rules I need to run the adventures... and I'm always in the market for good adventures anyway.

There is a problem, though: I have _no_ confidence in the ability of WotC to write good adventures. And their recent output, notably "Murder in Baldur's Gate", has done nothing to inspire that confidence.


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 11, 2013)

I don't know...the promise of D&D Next seems to be:
(A) Playtested, gamer approved!
(B) Focus on the adventure!
(D) Digital initiatives & transmedia coverage!

My question is, what has WotC's track record been with playtests, published adventures, and digital initiatives?

You know the answer and it ain't pretty.


----------



## Starfox (Oct 11, 2013)

Probably getting the core, depending on price. Wasn't there an announcement it would be ridiculously expensive? Sooner ore later I'll almost certainly get those core books.

I have some friends I think would benefit from Next over 3.5 and Pathfinder that they are running now, but I doubt they'll even look at it seriously as 4E was such a debacle with them.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 11, 2013)

At the moment, almost certainly not. I have seen very little that I like in any of the packets. At the moment, it is shaping up to, possibly, be my least favorite edition since I starting with Holmes Basic (not that I had much hope given the body of work that I have seen from the two people in charge. However, Rodney and Mearls each have their on a single product that I like (Star Wars: Saga Edition for Rodney and Book of Iron Might for Mearls) so I was willing to give them a chance).

  Wyatt's column regarding the story team side has not been much better in my opinion (but he has had a few more hits in which I was in agreement). However, his comment in the latest column brings back memories of his statements regarding traipsing in faerie rings  and talking to guards and reaffirms why I didn't like the idea of a story team- especially, with Wyatt in charge- in the first place.

That all stated, I will give the game a look in its final form before making a final decision.


----------



## Raith5 (Oct 11, 2013)

Probably not. 

For me DDN captures a lot of the feeling of D&D and I like elements of the playtest, but overall it just does not strike me as an especially interesting game. Game design has just moved on, and while 4th ed may have lacked some of the feeling of D&D, it was a cracking collaborative game which my group is still enjoying. I think I am more interested in fantasy computer games next year, like the up coming Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age games.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 11, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> aka D&D Previous



Snide, but witty - sorry I haven no XP to give you.

On the thread topic, I may get a core rulebook, but it's certainly not definite. For me the issue isn't money - I can afford it if I'm curious, and it wouldn't be the only RPG I've bought primarily for reading rather than playing - but space. I have nowhere on my shelves to store it.

I can't see myself playing it.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 11, 2013)

Maybe. I am mildly positive about getting at least the core books, but even that I'm not sure about. It's a matter of many factors... the minimum complexity at which you can play the final game, the absence of glaring inconsistencies, the amount of errata in the printed books, the price tag, and the choice of artwork.

Regarding the last point, it might actually be what will make me decide. Having family and lots of other things to do, and knowing that DMing always requires effort and dedication, to play D&D regularly again I need some good inspiration. Artwork has a powerful effect on me with regard to that. Should their choice of artwork for the new edition lean too much towards cartoonish, manga, pulp, disturbing, splatter, sexist, or overtly violent, it will just inspire me to stay away.


----------



## D'karr (Oct 11, 2013)

I've been doing the playtest for a very long time.  A friend got me a copy of Dragonspear Castle, since I could not make it to GenCon this year.  There has been nothing in the playtest, or that print copy that has stood out so much that it would make me say, "damn, I have to get this."  The only things about the print copy that "made my day" were the funny side comments (inside jokes) like "this picture is upside down, please fix" or "do we really have to explain dice to "these people"?"

To compound my indifference the "first" adventure for the system, Murder in Baldur's Gate, has really not impressed me at all.  Our playtest sessions have not really given me a feeling that I "love" this game.  Watching the Acquisitions Incorporated live games has not been as "interesting" or "entertaining" as the previous ones.  Even reading about other people's play experiences has not been that interesting.

So based on what I have seen up to now I would not spend money on it.  That does not mean that a year from now when the actual game is out I might not buy it.  But based on my current feelings about what I've seen, I have found nothing in the game that is not offered in games I'm already playing right now.  That's not a put down on WotC, one of my favorite games is Shadowrun, and I decided not to buy the newest version either - for pretty much the same reasons.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 11, 2013)

Of course.

It's a new game.  I like buying new games.

Does the fact that it has 'D&D' on the cover when I have so many other books also with 'D&D' on the cover matter in the slightest?  Nope.  Who cares?  I have many shelves.  I don't need to be picky with what to put on them.


----------



## Kinak (Oct 11, 2013)

After the first packet, I was saying I very easily might get it. After the second, I was waiting to see if they'd move things in the right direction. Since then, I've shifted from waiting to see if they will to just assuming they won't.

It's still possible they'll produce a game that I want but, unless they show me a glimmer of that game before the playtest documents stop flowing, I'm probably not going to be picking up any 5e.

If I'm running a game that isn't Pathfinder in the next few years, it'll probably be Shadowrun or Numenera or straight-up homebrew. I'll probably even pick up 13th Age at some point, but 5e doesn't even get there.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 11, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> On a negative note, I have not exactly been enamoured with the "back to the future"-philosophy underpinning Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition's design (aka D&D Previous). I'm obviously not the target market (and if I want to play AD&D I will simply use Swords & Wizardry).
> 
> Also, like some others, I also do not consider this an "investment": it's an expense.



Yeah, I've DMed enough editions that my bar for buying a new edition has gone from "I'll buy it just to see what the new edition's like!" to "Any new edition has to have something that my favorite edition doesn't already have for me to consider buying it." (And obviously it has to also be something that I _want_.)

Right now I'm more likely to GM Exalted than I am to DM 5e. I bought 2e a few years ago because Exalted has lots of things going for it: great art, wildly different rules that I might enjoy, and a unique world milieu. I still haven't gotten around to playing or GMing it, but it's still more appealing than D&D Previous.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 11, 2013)

No. Maybe if/when they release a Starter Set for it I might look at that if it goes several levels like the Pathfinder Beginner Box, rather than the usual WoTC pay-to-preview.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 11, 2013)

S'mon said:


> No. Maybe if/when they release a Starter Set for it I might look at that if it goes several levels like the Pathfinder Beginner Box, rather than the usual WoTC pay-to-preview.



Pay to preview? I don't follow. I don't buy starter sets or beginner boxes, so maybe I'm missing an important difference?


----------



## Ranes (Oct 11, 2013)

I'm absolutely uncertain. I only play D&D (as opposed to any other RPG) for nostalgia but I do love it. However, I have lots of D&D stuff that I've already spent a small fortune on and I'm ambivalent about the playtest versions so far.

If I do buy the core game, I doubt I'd buy anything beyond that, unless I find the new works well beyond my expectations.


----------



## Derren (Oct 11, 2013)

Considering that, at least thats the impression I get, 5E goes into the direction of "4E but even simpler and still focused on dungeon crawls" certainly not.
Thats exactly the direction which drove me away when 4E hit and won't win me back.


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 11, 2013)

I'll play it, and recommend it, and DM it, in preference to 3e/Pathfinder/etc. or 4e.


----------



## Manbearcat (Oct 11, 2013)

Derren said:


> Considering that, at least thats the impression I get, 5E goes into the direction of "4E but even simpler and still focused on dungeon crawls" certainly not.
> Thats exactly the direction which drove me away when 4E hit and won't win me back.




Your impression isn't accurate. If you like AD&D 2e with some baked in Moldvay Basic, in principle, aesthetic (at least in what appears to be the core game), you will very likely appreciate 5e. Its design ethos (Rulings Not Rules) and much of its archetecture (adventure rather than encounter/scene based design, lack of unified class mechanics, etc) is in-line with AD&D 2e. Out of the box its definitely not hardcore 1e but could probably be drifted towards it with a few mods (although I'm uncertain how they will do this with baked in spell effects that are going to be less swingy). Its also not anywhere near as drenched in "bits and bobs" as 3.x/PF. Its pretty close to as far away from 4e (specifically given its proximity to it in chronology) as it could be. There are some extremley superficial nods but nothing of consequence that will replicate 4e 

- scene-based
- unified class mechanics
- team-based/tactical synergy-oriented in the arena of combat
- everyone has access to the "big guns" of Rituals
- codified non-combat conflict resolution framework with subjective DCs
- a math-based open descriptor system for stunting/improvising (p 42)

Background Traits and the latest move toward broad skills are about the only things that will help facilitate 4e play. If the 5e healing surge mechanic scares you because it replicates 4e play, then fear not. 4e's Healing Surge paradigm has the primary effect on play of inducing drama/tension and creating tactical overhead during combat as the team works to "rally" by leveraging features that unlock surges in combat. Secondary to that is the sole 5e paradigm of pacing the adventuring day (specifically for martial players who will inevitably soak damage). 

So if your concern is any of the above features or the specific healing surge paradigm of 4e, and you'd like a streamlined AD&D 2e, then check out the playtest!


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 11, 2013)

For certain, I will buy the Core Rules. I have for every edition so far.

That said, I haven't invested heavily in an RPG since 3.5. I only own a dozen books for both 4e and Pathfinder together, mostly due to lack of disposable income. If Next is good, and the sourcebooks are either reasonable priced or fairly sparse, I will probably buy deeper into it.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 11, 2013)

fjw70 said:


> I'll buy it but I won't consider it an investment.




 

This sums up my attitude completely- I'll buy it and play it, at least to try it out, and if I like it, it'll be my default game, at least for a while.


----------



## Derren (Oct 11, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Your impression isn't accurate. If you like AD&D 2e with some baked in Moldvay Basic




And yet I don't see 5E doing anything to reverse the "damages" 4E did by expanding the skill play to have something to do besides combat without handwaving or otherwise open up more campaign options besides dungeon crawl with lots of combat against creatures with no other role than being a small speedbump and XP piniata.

Sure, there are optional rules, but I consider optional rules to be equal to houserules and why should I buy a game which I have to houserule right from the beginning?


----------



## S'mon (Oct 11, 2013)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Pay to preview? I don't follow. I don't buy starter sets or beginner boxes, so maybe I'm missing an important difference?




Some starter sets don't look much different from free Quickstarts - WoTC ones tend to be just 2 levels, no proper chargen, monsters, treasure tables etc, and look like Quickstarts with a map & counters. Others like the Moldvay & Mentzer Basic sets or the Pathfinder Beginner Box are more substantial and can be used for long-term play.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 11, 2013)

Manbearcat said:


> Your impression isn't accurate. If you like AD&D 2e with some baked in Moldvay Basic, in principle, aesthetic (at least in what appears to be the core game), you will very likely appreciate 5e. Its design ethos (Rulings Not Rules) and much of its archetecture (adventure rather than encounter/scene based design, lack of unified class.




2e is my second favorite edition and my house ruled 3e attempts to recapture the feel of 2e as played by my friends.  5e is not shaping up to be a game that I like. For myself, the designers are drawing from several editions. However, they are taking some of  the best ideas of various editions only to implement them in the worst possible way. Then, they intermingle these with  some of the worst ideas from those same editions...Others mileage may vary.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Oct 11, 2013)

My name is Jay, and I have an (edition) gambling problem.

Its like pulling the handle one more time on a slot machine, or buying one more lottery ticket.  Maybe this time I'll win big.
I would pre-order the core books right now if they were on Amazon.  I've looked over the playtest packets, but I still don't have a good feel for what the final game will be like.  I don't have a group playing any game system right now, so play test for me is really "read test".
And that is the main reason for the compulsive gamble.  In my fantasy, new people will buy the new edition and there will suddenly be gamers looking for a group.  In this fertile environment I will find a group that allows me to play (I just don't have time to DM anymore), has a play style similar to mine, and is made up of individuals that I don't mind sitting with for hours at a time.

The last edition that fulfilled that fantasy was 2E.  It probably had more to do with having a stable group in college and a great DM than the game system, but I've never been able to score that feeling again.  I've tried all the D&D editions, plus Pathfinder and several others.  I had a small group that was having fun with Savage Worlds, but they got distracted by one of the new Magic the Gathering cycles and the game died.

So I'll buy the 5th Edition core, and maybe this time I'll win big.  Don't pity me.  I know that its irrational, but just the hope of getting that "college gaming group" feeling back has value to me.  Even if I never get to play, I'll spend hours learning the rules, making PCs, and coming to ENWorld to discuss the system.


----------



## sheadunne (Oct 11, 2013)

If they have a electronic pricing and availability model similar to Paizo (ie $50 core or a $10 PDF), I'll get it right away. Otherwise I'll wait and see. I'm not in a rush to invest in any hardback RPGs right now.

That said, I've yet to encounter an RPG (with possibly one or two excepts) that hasn't added something to my gaming experience. Even if I don't run or play it, I'll certainly be stealing something from it for use in my games.


----------



## Erekose (Oct 11, 2013)

I'll buy the core rules but at this point that's probably about it.


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 11, 2013)

Greg K said:


> 2e is my second favorite edition and my house ruled 3e attempts to recapture the feel of 2e as played by my friends.  5e is not shaping up to be a game that I like. For myself, the designers are drawing from several editions. However, they are taking some of  the best ideas of various editions only to implement them in the worst possible way. Then, they intermingle these with  some of the worst ideas from those same editions...Others mileage may vary.



I agree with your assessment. They've identified the strengths of previous edition & are trying to incorporate those into 5e, however they haven't figured out the execution yet.

So obviously this is a good time to stop the public playtest. *face palm*


----------



## Oryan77 (Oct 11, 2013)

I am perfectly fine with my 3.5 stuff and the conversions I've done for it. For me, once I have found a system that allows me to do whatever I want in my fantasy game, I'm no longer excited about new mechanics. I'm not really the type to jump ship just because it's new. The adventuring is what excites me, not the rules.

I have not playtested 5e and I'm not even curious about it. Seeing new ways to cast spells and swing swords doesn't really excite me. Actually, I am curious to see the artwork. Which I find it pretty crappy that WotC won't even show me their current artwork unless I subscribe to them. 

Getting new adventure modules on the other hand does excite me. I really wish they could do conversions of existing adventures for each edition. I didn't care for 4e, but I know for sure that if they converted every 4e adventure book into 3.5 rules, I'd buy every last one of them.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 12, 2013)

QUOTE=sheadunne;6200138]If they have a electronic pricing and availability model similar to Paizo (ie $50 core or a $10 PDF), I'll get it right away. (snip) [/QUOTE]

You know that's not going to happen.

It will take them 1-2 years to work out an online policy for the new version, and that's the bare minimum. And when they finally do get around to being allowed by Hasbro Legal to publish their stuff as PDFs, we will see all these self-congratulatory press releases about how you can now but the latest edition of D&D online!!! And some of the fans will even be excited!!!

Meanwhile, the Paizo fans won't even look up as they know their PDFs are always available, will never be pulled because some lawyer with no knowledge of e-commerce in the 21st Century said to pull them, and they will only be paying 10 bucks a pop for the core books.

There is a more of a chance that the first adventure actually being alright (and this is WotC: "adventures that suck" could be their adventure tagline) than there is of a Paizo-like or otherwise modern PDF policy being in place at release. Or even in the first year. Or probably even in the second year.


----------



## Roland55 (Oct 12, 2013)

Remathilis said:


> For certain, I will buy the Core Rules. I have for every edition so far.
> 
> That said, I haven't invested heavily in an RPG since 3.5. I only own a dozen books for both 4e and Pathfinder together, mostly due to lack of disposable income. If Next is good, and the sourcebooks are either reasonable priced or fairly sparse, I will probably buy deeper into it.




Agreed.

Have given this some serious thought and finally decided this is the way I will go.

In the meantime, still playing some Pathfinder and really enjoying Numenera.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 12, 2013)

ShakesMagic8Ball.....


"Ask again when it is released"


Right now, from what I have seen over the course of the playtest...NO. .....the very few mechanical things I like are easily enough integrated as a house rule into previous versions of the game. I do not see anything substantially new or different that makes we want to play 5eover what I currently run. 

Substantial amounts of QUALITY adventure support at a reasonable cost (sorry, no 30 dollar full color short modules for me) is likely the only thing to get me excited about Next. And we all know that is not likely to happen. 

But more than anything, if they keep swinging that D&D Branding Iron around like they have in recent months,  THAT will keep me from purchasing it. I do not need the one true fluffy way, they so desparately want to sell us.


----------



## Aenghus (Oct 12, 2013)

I'll buy the core books, but have no plans to run it, which is a big admission for me, as I bought significant amounts of the Basic and Expert D&D, AD&D, 2nd ed, 3rd Ed and 4th ed lines.

It will be interesting to see how the printed product compares to the various playtest packets. There is circumstantial evidence that 3e was playtested as an improved 2e, but every edition is it's own game and needs to be taken on it's own terms - some pc concepts may work better, some won't work as well or at all, and the support for different playstyles will change as well.


----------



## questkick (Oct 12, 2013)

Probably not.  I'm more interested in other types of RPGs these days, like rules light systems and ones that support more mature themes.  D&D is fun, but sometimes I feel there are too many rules to remember and it slows down the game, taking away from the story element.  I recently picked up Shadows of Esteren, a gothic fantasy game, and it looks pretty amazing.  I hope to play that next.


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 13, 2013)

To buy or not to buy?

When the first playtest arrived...YES! Great. 
Then...a gradual weakening of that desire as each version arrived.
Then...a definate improvement in my opinion and a wish to purchase.
By the last package...I went and bought 13th Age. 

I am enjoying reading 13th Age and looking forward to playing it. The designers have a clear idea of what sort of game it is and what kind of play it is trying to encourage around the table...something I keep feeling is missing from what is being shown of D&D Next.

It niggles me that the team behind D&D Next haven't 'fixed' the horrible racial bonus superiority of humans throughout the playtest. Why not? It strikes me they think it is fine and doesn't need much attention.

Another thing is the fact that with only +1-6 bonus to attack between 20 levels...to give the Advantage mechanic at second level (meaning something like a plus 4) is also way out of whack...I think it is Barbarians who get that.

It just seems weird to me.

The concepts behind the maths are important to how a game plays. The fluff behind D&D is well established but to create a new edition I would hope that core system mechanics and maths would have been better realised by the end of such a long playtest. I had a sneaking suspicion that the playtest was mainly a marketing exercise and that stays with me.

Anyway, 

On a more positive note...I will have a look at what the new edition turns out like with great interest. I REALLY hope it morphs into something wonderful and if it does....for certain I will buy it at some point (probably on second printing after errata is sorted). 

My feeling at the moment is that the last playtest package put me off. I can't perfectly qualify why exactly, I think it isn't just one thing. I looked through 13th Age in my local store and really liked what they had done...moving on and taking 4th Edition into a game I could enjoy and what I thought it should have been. My big beefs with 4e were the complicated character information, the slowness of combat, the sameness of the feel of class mechanics, the need for so much tactical grid information and boring skill tests. All fixed in 13th Age. Cool. I like it.

If I want some really quirky old school style gaming then I think DCC does that well.

Fingers crossed that Mike Mearl's team can pull the rabbit out of the hat and create a fantastic edition that looks compelling and interesting with it's own voice and style.

If they do...they can have my money and my wholehearted support.

Sell it to me guys because nostalgia and loyalty aren't enough with so many other wonderful games out there to play.


----------



## Elf Witch (Oct 13, 2013)

Most likely not. There are a lot of reasons I have not been overly fond of a lot of the play testing rules I have seen. I am living on a fixed income that does not stretch the way it used to so I have to carefully budget where my entertainment money goes. As I get older I am finding I don't have a desire to keep learning new systems when older systems work fine for me. Because my money does not stretch I live in smaller places so room on my shelves is at a premium. 

Pdfs would solve some of this the cost and the room issue. If I got involved as a player and I thought it would be something that would last I would invest in a players handbook. 

This is a big change for me there was a time I would have bought the core books just to have them.


----------



## pneumatik (Oct 13, 2013)

Very probably yes. I find myself wanting a little less rules from 3.5 these days, but more and better than older versions. And the only thing I like about 4e is how each class has a couple of sub-classes built in, which is also in Next. Maybe those rules are implemented poorly, but I haven't played enough to be sure.


----------



## amerigoV (Oct 13, 2013)

At this point, no.  I have no interest in the rule-set anymore. There might be a few thing I pick up at a later time. Adventures and settings for D&D has gone from "buy sight unseen" to "let see if anyone actually gives this a good review."


----------



## steenan (Oct 14, 2013)

I'm nearly sure I won't buy Next. It's too rules-heavy for a narrative, fiction-driven play (and Fate Core or MHR are much better for that). It's too unbalanced for a gamist, challenge-focused play (and D&D4 is much better for that). And it keeps too many D&D sacred cows that disrupt setting coherence to allow for serious exploratory game.

If I could get Next for $10, I might check it. For the price I expect for the core books I can buy 3-4 other games and have much more fun with them.


----------



## bradzero (Oct 14, 2013)

Of course, if for no other reason than I intend to own all DnD editions. But I can't but smile a little at the people who are so down on the game just based on the playtest. I doubt the finished product will look like what we have in our pdf folders right now. They have some good ideas, and they have some bad ideas. I started playing DnD when I was 12, like 25 years ago, and the one I remember from it is that the rules are just a guideline. If you don't like, fix it. Sheesh. How hard is that?


----------



## MJS (Oct 14, 2013)

Well, I've played it, and the core rules are of no interest to me, unfortunately. Its way too rules heavy. Cockblocking attacks and damage rolls , oh fun. There IS a D&D core in there, but I'd rather play the one that already works better than any of its successors (for the purpose of adventure /exploration RPG ) , or some other game to scratch some other itch.
   I will be checking out the modules, but no, the core is in actuality a bunch of house rules with high production value.


----------



## adamc (Oct 14, 2013)

Current answer: I'm not sure. I'm a 4e player, but I worry about how long WoTC will support it with tools... (not so worried about content). I think there is some chance we will switch to 13th age ( or possibly another system, but 13th Age seems the most likely of non-D&D systems ATM).

I'm not super keen on buying a bunch of new books, so it may depend on what they offer in terms of online tools. If, like today, you really end up needing both, that will work against adopting Next.


----------



## tangleknot (Oct 15, 2013)

If D&D next is easier to learn and play than D20 then I'll buy in.  Otherwise I already have a great dungeon dwelling/hack'n slash game; Pathfinder/D&D 3.5.  
On the other hand if they bring back the settings of 2nd edition: Planescape/ Spell Jammer/ Birthright I'd jump on board in a heart beat...  or maybe the 10 days it takes for amazon to ship me the book.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 15, 2013)

Maybe IDK. This is the 1st version of D&D I will not buy blind as I bought AD&D 2nd ed, 3.0,3.5 and 4th ed without having read a PHB 1st.


----------



## MortalPlague (Oct 15, 2013)

It depresses me that there are so many responses of "No" or "Meh".

I've run a few 5th Edition campaigns with my group, and it's been some of the best gaming we've had.  My experience with the ruleset has me excited to dive into it in greater detail when the core books come out.  DM'ing has been light and fun, with some exciting combat, exploration, and interaction.

Apparently I'm an anomaly on this one?  Looking at the responses here, seems so.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Oct 15, 2013)

MortalPlague said:


> It depresses me that there are so many responses of "No" or "Meh".
> 
> I've run a few 5th Edition campaigns with my group, and it's been some of the best gaming we've had.  My experience with the ruleset has me excited to dive into it in greater detail when the core books come out.  DM'ing has been light and fun, with some exciting combat, exploration, and interaction.
> 
> Apparently I'm an anomaly on this one?  Looking at the responses here, seems so.




 In my group's case, it's simply a case of being keen to explore the games we already own, as well as a certain amount of "new edition fatigue". All of us except one have gone from late 2nd edition all the way up to the playtest now. We're interested in the final product, but the excitement isn't as strong this time. It may also be because of how early it is, and how speculative many of the discussions have been. When the big marketing blitz ramps up closer to release, you'll more than likely see an upswing in buzz about D&D 5e.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 15, 2013)

MortalPlague said:


> It depresses me that there are so many responses of "No" or "Meh".
> 
> I've run a few 5th Edition campaigns with my group, and it's been some of the best gaming we've had.  My experience with the ruleset has me excited to dive into it in greater detail when the core books come out.  DM'ing has been light and fun, with some exciting combat, exploration, and interaction.
> 
> Apparently I'm an anomaly on this one?  Looking at the responses here, seems so.




 Its not a bad version of D&D but it lacks a lot of the classic feel as it has to many 4E elements in it. It is quicker and easier to run than than 3rd and 4th ed but I have been playing retroclones like ACKs and d20 AD&D 2nd ed which more or less offer the same thing and I can avoid the elements I do not like. And I can do it for cheaper as well as a clone PDF costs around $10 or so and is usually compatible with existing material. In some cases you just have to convert AC 8 to 12 or vice versa and that is easy to do on the fly. Not a massive fan of bounded accuracy for example. I want smaller numbers but more along the lines of BECMI rather than BA. D&DN monsters suck, skills suck, and they took away real vancian magic (again). Its not awful and it is a playtest its just not great and doesn't really do anything I'm not getting right now. It might be easy to convert B5 or ToEE to D&DN it is even easier to run it with ACKs or C&C, Labyrinth Lord etc etc. Myth and magic has added d20 mechanics to second ed for example including a decent skill system better than D&DN IMHO.

 D&DN also has no real options at level 1 and even ACKs and 2nd ed beat it there and it has abundant healing in the game as well. It would probably be a good D&D if it is your first D&D or have not looked at retroclones or if 3rd and 4th ed are your only reference points. Its not bad its just not good and what I want is really AD&D 3rd edition or a fixed 3.5 or even a hybrid of AD&D and 3rd ed.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 15, 2013)

MortalPlague said:


> It depresses me that there are so many responses of "No" or "Meh". (snip)




Me too.

As much as I dislike Next and cannot believe it's taken the full D&D design team more than two years to crank out so little, I still want it to do well for the sake of the brand which, even if only for the sake of nostalgia, I would like to see continue as a TTRPG under this name.


----------



## Starfox (Oct 15, 2013)

Zardnaar said:


> Maybe IDK. This is the 1st version of D&D I will not buy blind as I bought AD&D 2nd ed, 3.0,3.5 and 4th ed without having read a PHB 1st.




Sorry to say, I have to agree with this. WotC/Hasboro has really burned a lot of people's expectations and lessened the value of the Dungeons &  Dragon's brand.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 15, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Sorry to say, I have to agree with this. WotC/Hasboro has really burned a lot of people's expectations and lessened the value of the Dungeons &  Dragon's brand.




 Yup the automatic buy it if it has D&D on it loyalty is gone. Even TSR did not pull that off.


----------



## Starfox (Oct 15, 2013)

DnD adventures and sourcebooks/splatbooks were never an automatic bye for me - never had that kind of money. But core rulebooks were.


----------



## Starfox (Oct 15, 2013)

MortalPlague said:


> It depresses me that there are so many responses of "No" or "Meh".
> 
> I've run a few 5th Edition campaigns with my group, and it's been some of the best gaming we've had.  My experience with the ruleset has me excited to dive into it in greater detail when the core books come out.  DM'ing has been light and fun, with some exciting combat, exploration, and interaction.
> 
> Apparently I'm an anomaly on this one?  Looking at the responses here, seems so.




No worries. If you are right, others who play it and like it will say so too, and it will spread like ripples on a pond.


----------



## Ratskinner (Oct 15, 2013)

Zardnaar said:


> Maybe IDK. This is the 1st version of D&D I will not buy blind as I bought AD&D 2nd ed, 3.0,3.5 and 4th ed without having read a PHB 1st.




Count me as a "+1" to that (and a very skeptical "+1", too). Between FATE Core, 13th Age, Dungeon World, even Abstract Dungeon....there's so much out there. The sad thing is, so much of it is so much "better" than D&D. By which I mean, innovative, simple, narrative, fast, etc. I think there's still a place for D&D, but its a much smaller place in my "gaming" world than it used to be. Its hardly my first choice to tell rich stories any more.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 15, 2013)

No, I won't buy.  I'll wait for D&D 5.5.  


Seriously, though, I don't need a new version of D&D.  And since they are charging $34.95 for a 96 page book these days, well, let's just say my wallet will be happier that I don't buy in as well.

I will check out the final rules if they post them for free, though....

The only thing I might be tempted to spend some $$ on is if they produce some non-edition-specific setting material (such as Planescape).  But even then, I doubt it.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 15, 2013)

I'll buy the first three books. I have the other core books so the completionist in me needs them.
After that...

Really, I think the edition is WotC to succeed or fail. 
Despite the tones of this thread, I think the majority of the fanbase is willing to buy. 

If they can stop redesigning the content for six months to get everything super balanced then it'll have  the best chances of succeeding. 

And, but more importantly, if they can actually release the promised expansions and rules modules in a timely fashion. If we have to wait another year for some rules modules that' showing to hurt the game. (Unless we have a functional useable playtest of the larger modules.) WotC has corporate ADHD. There's so much staff turnover and management impatience that they often don't finish what they start and leave content gaps. So if they start but don't finish or decide to turn expected books into something different (like the Shadowfell book into an urban campaign setting) that will also hurt impressions of the game. If people don't get the content they need to play their style of game they'll find one of the dozens of other games available online that will let them play what they want. 

Adventures and other content will be the swing factor. WotC has not produced great adventures of late and certainly not diverse adventures. 

WotC has to get back in touch with the fans and the community. They have to learn what the fans want and give it to them. Because if you make what people want... they will give you money for it.

In the last two camps WotC is playing catch-up with Paizo. Paizo has a great relationship with their fanbase, with the upper management making it their responsibility to read message boards and twitter as part of their work day. 
Paizo is also all about their adventures. Two of their big hardcovers (Ultimate Combat and Mythic Adventures) were published to give them the mechanical tools to tell the stories and adventures they wanted to tell. They weren't writing the adventure as a tie-in product for cross-marketing purposes.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 15, 2013)

Looking through the responses, 5e seems to be the half-Japanese half-Caucasian of editions.

A half-Japanese person in America is usually told they look "Asian" while in Japan a half-American is told they look "White". Obviously the common elements in both are predominant, as humans have a lot of common elements; humans are generally more similar than not. So you notice the differences. 
Really, that' shaman nature. That' show we tell people apart. It's very pronounced when looking at near human CG or robots, when uncanny valley kicks in.

5e, by design, focuses on the common elements of D&D. It's an aggregate edition taking the most typically found D&Disms and building that into the spine of the edition. So you don't notice those elements, and instead notice the bits that are less D&D, the differences. Which, of course, is informed by perspective. 
A dedicated 4e player is less likely to notice the 4e elements because those are just part of D&D. But the 1e or 3e elements that were not present in 4e will stand out. In contrast, a 1e player will see the 4e additions.


----------



## MJS (Oct 15, 2013)

MortalPlague said:


> It depresses me that there are so many responses of "No" or "Meh".
> 
> I've run a few 5th Edition campaigns with my group, and it's been some of the best gaming we've had.  My experience with the ruleset has me excited to dive into it in greater detail when the core books come out.  DM'ing has been light and fun, with some exciting combat, exploration, and interaction.
> 
> Apparently I'm an anomaly on this one?  Looking at the responses here, seems so.



I think module / adventure choice is huge. The playtest I was in used a converted 4E module of very low quality. A total railroad, tons of boxed text, no way to avoid combat. Thats simply not adventuring. 
   Then, when we were funneled into combat, it was grindy as hell, despite the DM being completely fluid. 
   I think 5E will be popular, but for me, its a book I'd have to rip half the pages out of. IMO they need to stop trying to re-invent the wheel.

As a sice note, I really hope they make a license for 4E. I'm not a fan, but those who love it deserve quality materials and modules. 

* I love the Dragonborn, a cool variant of Draconians.


----------



## RevTurkey (Oct 15, 2013)

It strikes me that after such a long playtest and oppurtunity to inspire us with cool ideas and marketing trickery that by now we should all be shouting YES and rushing to beg to preorder the game. For a well financed design team with plenty of time to not have us all more excited and enthusiastic by now is a worry. To even be asking this question to a forum on a specialist D&D related fansite and getting a pretty wishy washy response is a sign that all is not so well. They still have time to get it right and have us all running to our local store upon release to grab the book or books but at the moment that doesn't look as likely as it should.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Oct 16, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Looking through the responses, 5e seems to be the half-Japanese half-Caucasian of editions.



So true. 

4e fans say "D&D is devolving into 3e!"; 3e fans say "Get those 4e mistakes out of my D&D!"; and OSR fans say "Ho hum, more new school WotC garbage."

Bottom line: 5e ain't gonna unite anyone but its own little chunk of the D&D fanbase, just like every other edition.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 16, 2013)

Trying to unite everyone is a silly idea to begin with. They should have just picked a one true way and made it the best one true way they could. Still they might surprise us. I do not thnk it is great but everyone else may buy it so who knows?


----------



## dd.stevenson (Oct 16, 2013)

Jester Canuck said:


> Looking through the responses, 5e seems to be the half-Japanese half-Caucasian of editions.
> 
> A half-Japanese person in America is usually told they look "Asian" while in Japan a half-American is told they look "White". Obviously the common elements in both are predominant, as humans have a lot of common elements; humans are generally more similar than not. So you notice the differences.
> Really, that' shaman nature. That' show we tell people apart. It's very pronounced when looking at near human CG or robots, when uncanny valley kicks in.
> ...



I got married to a Japanese woman last weekend, and since we reside in Japan--where overt racial discrimination is a serious problem for everybody who's half-Japanese/half-anything--I'm tempted to write a full-page article about this analogy. But really, I think the most important fact pertaining to this comparison is that in the west, only a select few half Japanese/Caucasian people are subject to this effect. Especially in America, which is pretty diverse, I know *a lot* of half-Japanese who usually get mistaken for full Caucasian, or hispanic, or something else other than Asian ancestry.

(Here in Japan it's a different story, since the Japanese ethnicity is fairly homogeneous compared to the all-encompassing Caucasian label, and so mixed-race Japanese stick out much more clearly.)

So, to navigate out of the minefield of ethnic stereotypes and back to the question of 5E's place in the multiverse, I would extend your analogy to point out that the uncanny valley effect applies much more strongly to fans of editions with a focused design ethos and not so much to fans of editions that were all over the map in terms of game design.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 16, 2013)

Zardnaar said:


> Trying to unite everyone is a silly idea to begin with. They should have just picked a one true way and made it the best one true way they could. Still they might surprise us. I do not thnk it is great but everyone else may buy it so who knows?




Yeah, I agree.

The thing that astonishes me most about Next is that it has taken over two years of design work and it's still seemingly no closer to actually being published (and now they have a maths team). And the official line on Next always seems somewhat incoherent.

Bugger that. Clear leadership and do what needs to be done.


----------



## innerdude (Oct 16, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> Yeah, I agree.
> 
> The thing that astonishes me most about Next is that it has taken over two years of design work and it's still seemingly no closer to actually being published (and now they have a maths team). And the official line on Next always seems somewhat incoherent.
> 
> Bugger that. Clear leadership and do what needs to be done.




To me this was the biggest, most detrimental outcome of Monte Cook leaving the D&D Next design team in its early phases---lack of a strong, clear artistic vision for what the entire project was trying to accomplish.

Say what you want about Mearls, but I've never been particularly impressed with his leadership style. The keynote speech at 2013 GenCon was about as underwhelming a presentation as one could get from the tabletop RPG hobby leader. Maybe it's a function of him having to serve too many masters (the D&D fanbase + the Hasbro management team), but I don't know that I've ever heard him say something that really _resonated _with me as a fan. 

With Monte Cook at the helm, there were always going to be detractors, but you KNEW that whatever Monte produced, it would have a clear vision behind what it was trying to accomplish.


----------



## innerdude (Oct 16, 2013)

TrippyHippy said:


> However, the question is would I actually choose to buy it, support it and play it as my main game in the future?
> 
> (snip)
> 
> . . . . my gut feeling is that I don't _need_ another fantasy RPG. How do other people feel?





To answer the original question, I absolutely don't need another fantasy RPG. I was just going through my PDF collection the other day, and just up and deleted pretty much everything I had that was D&D 3.x. I simply know for a fact that I will never, EVER run another 3.x era game, and if I end up as a player in one, I'll just use an SRD. 

But what exactly is 5e anyway? Most people seem to think it's some amalgamation of D&D 2.75e + a few 4e-isms + a nod to a few other "modern" mechanics. 

Is that a fantasy RPG I'm willing to play? I honestly don't know. Having pretty much been off the entire d20 mechanical "base" for two years now, I find for the most part that the thought of having to deal with a "classic D&D" game approach frankly annoys me. I'm sick of gobs of hit points. I'm sick of AC. I'm sick of "Vancian" casting. Would D&D Next still let me tell some of the stories I want to tell? Well sure, of course it does; it's a fantasy RPG after all.

But even if I buy the "core 3" books--something that seems unlikely at the moment--I'm never going to be "invested" in D&D 5e. I could be wrong, of course, but as it stands I'm unlikely to ever be passionate about playing or running 5e. I think in some measure the appeal of D&D to much of the fanbase is like going to McDonalds---it's not that it's the best food on the planet, it's that you know exactly what to expect from it when you get there.

And no matter how much "filing off" the 3e / 4e edges 5e does, the whole point of the exercise is to _make the D&D experience repeatable for your group, however you define it._ And the farther I'm away from it, the more I realize that I seem to enjoy telling my stories more in ways that don't require adherence to D&D-isms. 

Who knows, maybe a year from now I'll suddenly have urge to "return to my RPG roots" and try it out. But I've easily got five years or more of GM-ing material in front of me right now with systems I already own. Even now, sitting here at the keyboard thinking about what I would do if I wanted to run a D&D Next campaign, I just get a colossal sense of "meh." Yeah, I could do it, but why? Why would I put my group through the hassle of buying new books, learning unfamiliar rules (no one in my group with one exception has ANY long-term experience with prior D&D rules sets), simply because it's a "true D&D fantasy experience"?


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 16, 2013)

I'm leaning toward no.  It's not that I feel negative toward the game; I don't.  It's that I feel a general sense of apathy toward the product.  I don't think I'm part of the target audience.  (...or, if I am, there is a significant gap between what I want and what the game appears to provide.)


I do believe at some point I'll end up playing the game since I have enough gamer friends that it's likely I'll encounter the game.  Playing and investing aren't the same thing though.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 16, 2013)

The negativity in this thread is surprising to me. 

5e -- through the public playtest documents -- has already helped me introduce more new players to rpgs than 3.5 or 4e did. Certainly, there's lots of factors at play, but the reports I've read of people playing the game have mostly meshed with my own: it's a fast, intuitive experience that creates opportunities for imaginative and dynamic play. 

Will it be to everyone's taste? Of course not. But it's mostly trying to push the right buttons, I feel. Sure, there are and will be some missteps, but nothing so far that makes me want to close myself to trying it for real in play once the game is finished.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 16, 2013)

innerdude said:


> (snip) Say what you want about Mearls, but I've never been particularly impressed with his leadership style. The keynote speech at 2013 GenCon was about as underwhelming a presentation as one could get from the tabletop RPG hobby leader. Maybe it's a function of him having to serve too many masters (the D&D fanbase + the Hasbro management team), but I don't know that I've ever heard him say something that really _resonated _with me as a fan. (snip)




I didn't see that but I am familiar with his d20 work which often pushed the envelope simply for the sake of pushing the envelope. As an example - and I will avoid _Iron Heroes_ as a published incomplete game is too easy a comparison to make - there were more than ten prestige classes in the _Underdark Adventure Guide_, one of Goodman Games' worst products. Each prestige class had a unique saving throw progression for each saving throw category. Why? No reason. No explanation. No underlying logic. And that to me is Next.

That said, I do not consider Next to be a complete game or even near to a complete game. We've seen the alpha test. I suspect some sharper and more focussed people will be called in now - Chris Perkins, for example, or they could hire back Rich Baker - to get it completed before Hasbro completely loses patience with a team that has taken over two years to punch out something that a lot of people on internet messageboards doing their own fantasy heartbreakers _on their own_ could have punched out in months.


----------



## Starfox (Oct 16, 2013)

innerdude said:


> Having pretty much been off the entire d20 mechanical "base" for two years now, I find for the most part that the thought of having to deal with a "classic D&D" game approach frankly annoys me. I'm sick of gobs of hit points. I'm sick of AC. I'm sick of "Vancian" casting. Would D&D Next still let me tell some of the stories I want to tell? Well sure, of course it does; it's a fantasy RPG after all.
> [...]
> Who knows, maybe a year from now I'll suddenly have urge to "return to my RPG roots" and try it out.




I was there in the 2E period... Thought my DnD days were over in favor of Pendragon and similar games. 3E seduced me back, even if it took a few years to happen. Not saying it will happen to you, just saying it happened to me.



Kobold Stew said:


> 5e -- through the public playtest documents -- has already helped me introduce more new players to rpgs than 3.5 or 4e did. Certainly, there's lots of factors at play, but the reports I've read of people playing the game have mostly meshed with my own: it's a fast, intuitive experience that creates opportunities for imaginative and dynamic play.




This is my main hope for 5E - that it will be a good newbie game, hopefully with some ads and other marketing support. Ideally it should also have enough depth to at least be playable by veterans, but honestly that's secondary for me.


----------



## amerigoV (Oct 16, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> That said, I do not consider Next to be a complete game or even near to a complete game. We've seen the alpha test. I suspect some sharper and more focussed people will be called in now - Chris Perkins, for example, or they could hire back Rich Baker - to get it completed before Hasbro completely loses patience with a team that has taken over two years to punch out something that a lot of *people on internet messageboards doing their own fantasy heartbreakers on their own could have punched out in months*.




I've seen comments to this effect a couple of times in this thread. I'm no Next or WoTC apologist (long live Savage Worlds and all), but this is not a fair statement. Sure, anyone can crank out a fantasy heartbreaker much quicker than we have seen the development of Next (I did so myself back in the dark days of 2e). But they only have to account for themselves and a small number of like minded folks. If they hate Modrons and other Planar stuff, they can completely ignore it. If they hate psionics they can completely excluded them. If they hate all spells that begin with the letter "F", then they can just leave them out (XP to the person that knows my reference). D&D is vast in its material and play range, but these people only have to deal with "their D&D" and not "your D&D" or "My D&D". 

Simply put, its your fault that they are talking so long since they have to account for how you play D&D (wrong, of course) instead of just making my game


----------



## Starfox (Oct 16, 2013)

amerigoV said:


> If they hate all spells that begin with the letter "F", then they can just leave them out.




Pure guesswork here, but I guess tihs would be because of the "force" spells, forcecage et all.

Or maybe this was just an amerigoV plot to derail this thread? ^^


----------



## amerigoV (Oct 16, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Pure guesswork here, but I guess tihs would be because of the "force" spells, forcecage et all.
> 
> Or maybe this was just an amerigoV plot to derail this thread? ^^




Don't forget Faerie Fire, and Fireball, Forbiddance and Fly. (why is a Dr. Seuss rhyme going through my head now?)


----------



## billd91 (Oct 16, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Pure guesswork here, but I guess tihs would be because of the "force" spells, forcecage et all.
> 
> Or maybe this was just an amerigoV plot to derail this thread? ^^




Derail? Not as I see it. Just amerigoV pointing out how much easier it is to be an armchair game designer than to be the one doing the work with all of the expectations loaded upon them.


----------



## Starfox (Oct 16, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Derail? Not as I see it. Just amerigoV pointing out how much easier it is to be an armchair game designer than to be the one doing the work with all of the expectations loaded upon them.




I meant, derailing it into becoming a discussion about what that reference to spells on "F" really meant. ^^

Besides, it was a joke.


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 16, 2013)

As a counterpoint to the nattering nabobs of negativity, I love what I've seen of 5e.  

I'm super happy Monte Cook left...I still haven't forgiven him for some of the stupidities of 3e; mostly the ones he seems the most self congratulatory on.

And people, a math polish is the _last_ step in game design! (one 3e pretty much skipped, and one that 4e whiffed early on due to differing expectations between designers and players)  The fact that they're to that point means the game is pretty much done...which should be obvious from the play packet which by this point is pretty much a complete game.  I'm hoping there are some more subclass options for a few classes; and of course we need more magic items and spells, but the core?  That's done, and it rocks very hard.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 16, 2013)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned was the article with Greg Leeds a few weeks ago.  He mentioned that it was WotC's goal to support all players of D&D - not just a particular edition.

If that comes to fruition, it could be interesting.


----------



## amerigoV (Oct 16, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Pure guesswork here, but I guess tihs would be because of the "force" spells, forcecage et all.
> 
> Or maybe this was just an amerigoV plot to derail this thread? ^^




As an aside, that is not my reference in this case (one hint, its non-gaming).


----------



## Starfox (Oct 16, 2013)

amerigoV said:


> As an aside, that is not my reference in this case (one hint, its non-gaming).




Aw, F*** off!


----------



## amerigoV (Oct 16, 2013)

Starfox said:


> Aw, F*** off!




You're getting closer!


----------



## C4 (Oct 16, 2013)

Salamandyr said:


> And people, a math polish is the _last_ step in game design!



This is like saying "And players, writing out your character's stats is the _last_ step in chargen!"

Well, maybe it is, if you don't care about mechanical elegance. (Or character effectiveness, in my analogy.) And not caring about elegance is a perfectly valid choice for a game designer. Heck, some players seem to love games that throw it to the wind.

But as a writer of my own fantasy heartbreaker, I can tell you that the math was one of the very _first_ things on my mind when I began writing. Because while things like style and theme are the beating heart of a game, I consider math to be its backbone. And adding the backbone last is only one step away from skipping it completely.


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 16, 2013)

C4 said:


> This is like saying "And players, writing out your character's stats is the _last_ step in chargen!"




Uh...no.  Those two things are not even remotely comparable.

Math polish is more akin to...after having figured out your stats, feats, equipment, and skills, writing it all out on the character sheet and making sure you've added all the modifiers correctly.

What you're talking about...the core mechanic, the method of generating the math, yes you need first.  But how many hit points should a hobgoblin have?  That comes _after_ you've decided that there's going to be hobgoblins.

What likelihood of success should a fighter have if trying to hide from a band of orcs?  Do the numbers actually generate that likelihood?

What number should the proficiency bonus be?  Again, you can't decide that until you've decided you _need_ a proficiency bonus.

Once you've decided on the basic structure of the game, and the features, then you can set about making sure all of those things work together like they should and generate the mathematical results you wish to see.  That's what they're doing now...deciding how many hit points the hobgoblins should have, how often the fighter can count on hitting them, etc.  _That's_ math polish.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 16, 2013)

amerigoV said:


> (snip)Sure, anyone can crank out a fantasy heartbreaker much quicker than we have seen the development of Next (I did so myself back in the dark days of 2e). But they only have to account for themselves and a small number of like minded folks. If they hate Modrons and other Planar stuff, they can completely ignore it. If they hate psionics they can completely excluded them. (snip)




I would accept that argument if that argument was reflected in Next. My comment, which I thought was fairly clear, was that Next is pretty simple and it has taken an a bloody long time to produce despite its simplicity.

And I was talking more about the game than things like modrons etc... which are not yet part of Next.



> (snip) Simply put, its your fault that they are talking so long since they have to account for how you play D&D (wrong, of course) instead of just making my game




Hehe... not in my case, mate.

They've already made the D&D I prefer.


----------



## Starfox (Oct 16, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> My comment, which I thought was fairly clear, was that Next is pretty simple and it has taken an a bloody long time to produce despite its simplicity.




Well, simplicity is hard. Much harder than complexity, actually. If they achieve simplicity that works, all praise to them!

The Next team have shown that they finish up with doing the math. I agree it might not be elegant, but if it they get the job done, it can work. Only elegance and simplicity go well together, and as you noted, simplicity comes from a strong mathematical backbone. Shudders.

Basically, we can only hope.


----------



## C4 (Oct 16, 2013)

Salamandyr said:


> Once you've decided on the basic structure of the game, and the features, then you can set about making sure all of those things work together like they should and generate the mathematical results you wish to see.  That's what they're doing now...deciding how many hit points the hobgoblins should have, how often the fighter can count on hitting them, etc.  _That's_ math polish.



What you're calling math 'polish' has a big effect on game play. For example, deciding how many hit points monsters have and what the PC hit-rate is has a direct and dramatic effect on how long combat lasts -- something that has always been an issue in D&D, particularly in later levels. How many fan complaints have we heard about 3e's Russian roulette combat? How many complaints about 4e grind have we heard? How many complaints have there been about both of those things in pre-WotC D&D?

And until I decide how long I want combat to last in my heartbreaker, and from there decide how many hit points to give monsters and how high PC hit-rates should be, there are a lot of details that I just can't flesh out.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing as much as it appears we are, but calling any part of a game's math a 'polish' is a subjective value judgment. You can disagree all you want, but I'm actually writing a game as we speak, and I'm telling you that I don't share your particular design values. So unless you can objectively demonstrate that your design values universal fact, there's nothing to debate.


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 16, 2013)

C4 said:


> What you're calling math 'polish' has a big effect on game play. For example, deciding how many hit points monsters have and what the PC hit-rate is has a direct and dramatic effect on how long combat lasts -- something that has always been an issue in D&D, particularly in later levels. How many fan complaints have we heard about 3e's Russian roulette combat? How many complaints about 4e grind have we heard? How many complaints have there been about both of those things in pre-WotC D&D?
> 
> I'm not sure we're disagreeing as much as it appears we are, but calling any part of a game's math a 'polish' is a subjective value judgment.




Absolutely correct, except for your misapprehension that my use of the word polish was somehow pejorative.

What you're talking about in the first paragraph is exactly the kind of stuff I wish they'd taken the time to do in 3e, but they went with "looks good.  ship it!" (or at least I imagine; I understand they playtested levels 1 through 10 pretty extensively).   ADDENDUM:  4e had the opposite problem of 3e.  They did a lot of work with the numbers, but those numbers didn't generate results matching player expectations.

But it's clear to me that deciding that "fights should last 5 rounds on average, and fighters should succeed at hitting their opponents 70% of the time" are goals one decides on early in the design process, but then, at the end, you have to go through the rules, and figure out that "Yes, fights are lasting about 5 rounds and, oh no! fighers are hitting only 45% of the time!  We need to adjust their attack bonus to make them hit more! But now the fights only last 3 rounds.  Perhaps we should look at hit points again!".

All of this is incredibly important stuff.  But it's not stuff you can look at until you've figured out the basic structure of the game.    Which is what the public playtest was about.  Do we want expertise dice or a proficiency bonus?  Should mages be competent with martial weapons?  Should dragons be a challenging fight for a whole party, or should a single rogue be able to take an equal level dragon on?  How often _should_ a fighter succeed at hitting?

That's the stuff they needed us to answer.  And we did; but now comes sausage making-the math polishing.  We've told them we like proficiency bonuses more than expertise dice.  So how large should that proficiency bonus be?  They don't need us for that part.  In fact, we'd only get in the way...the same way a chef in the kitchen needs to know we want steak rather than sea food, but doesn't need us telling him how to cook it.

The frustrating thing is the idea that the math should work absolutely correct right out the door "Waddaya mean my rogue can beat up a dragon!  I told you I want rogues and dragons!  Can't you do anything right?"


----------



## darjr (Oct 16, 2013)

I have to defend WotC on their effort as well. The public playtest alone is probably a monumental task and I am VERY grateful that they decided to do it. And I'd MUCH rather they take longer if they need it then to hurry up and try to push something out the door that isn't ready.

How long did 3e and 4e take to develop? How long did Paizo take for Pathfinder? Or TSR with 2e?


----------



## Kinak (Oct 16, 2013)

darjr said:


> How long did 3e and 4e take to develop?



3rd took around three years.

4th took from May 2005 to June 2008, so almost exactly three years.



darjr said:


> How long did Paizo take for Pathfinder?



October 2007 to release at GenCon, August 2009. So just under 2 years.



darjr said:


> Or TSR with 2e?



Not sure. Sometime after 1985 through 1989.

Keep in mind that all these numbers are from start through release of core books. So the comparison would probably be early 2011 to whenever Next gets released. 

It's safe to say it's going to take longer than 4th Edition development. Not hugely, though, assuming they release at GenCon this year. 

The main difference is the distance between announcement and release. If you take time since announcement, we'd bee at May 2009 in 4e and already had the two preview books, the core books, both Forgotten Realms books, the Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power, Manual of the Planes, Open Grave, the Chromatic Draconomicon, PHB II, Monster Manual II, a bunch of accessories, and nine adventures.

When you look at it that way, it's easy to see why it feels like it's taking forever.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 16, 2013)

2nd ed was mostly 1987-1989. The difference with previous editions is that you had a reasonable idea what was coming down the pipeline assuming you paid attention. They're also basically rebooting the game as 1st to 2nd ed, 2nd to 3rd ed and 3rd to 4th ed they did at least build off the previous edition in some way. Seems a bit more clueless now.


----------



## Goonalan (Oct 17, 2013)

Short answer: No.

[sblock=Long answer
Hell no.
[/sblock]


----------



## D'karr (Oct 17, 2013)

Goonalan said:


> Short answer: No.
> 
> [sblock=Long answer
> Hell no.
> [/sblock]




This one cracked me up.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 17, 2013)

I ended up never buying any 4e books, though a friend did give me some last year. Pathfinder shone good enough that I simply never got around to it and just kept giving Paizo my DnD budget.  So far, nothing I am seeing from the 5e development team is really impressing me. If the game is OGL, I will certainly buy it. If not, chances are looking like I will wait and see... and might put it off like I just kept putting off getting the 4e books. 

That being said, I am slightly surprised at the lack of support it has already garnered as the next new shiny. That does not bode well to me and I hope the team pulls off a surprise and blows us all out of the water. 

I might also be more tempted if they went the Pathfinder route of combining Player and DM material into a single core rulebook, rather than the traditional three.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 18, 2013)

Wicht said:


> I ended up never buying any 4e books, though a friend did give me some last year. Pathfinder shone good enough that I simply never got around to it and just kept giving Paizo my DnD budget.  So far, nothing I am seeing from the 5e development team is really impressing me. If the game is OGL, I will certainly buy it. If not, chances are looking like I will wait and see... and might put it off like I just kept putting off getting the 4e books.
> 
> That being said, I am slightly surprised at the lack of support it has already garnered as the next new shiny. That does not bode well to me and I hope the team pulls off a surprise and blows us all out of the water.
> 
> I might also be more tempted if they went the Pathfinder route of combining Player and DM material into a single core rulebook, rather than the traditional three.




I never bought any 4E books either.  

However, as for the lack of support, I'm sure once WotC's PR engine gets going, there will be support.  I think they learned their lesson from last time that alienating a portion of your fan base may not be the best way to promote your product.

I wouldn't be surprised if 5E came in a box set rather than three core rulebooks.  (Actually, I *will* be surprised if it's 3 core rulebooks.)


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 18, 2013)

They have confirmed there will be a DMG. Likely 3 books although they may do a boxed set as well. My PFRPG book is a bit large for my tastes prefer 3 books or something basic like the old red box.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 18, 2013)

Zardnaar said:


> They have confirmed there will be a DMG. Likely 3 books although they may do a boxed set as well. My PFRPG book is a bit large for my tastes prefer 3 books or something basic like the old red box.




3 or more books *in* a box set sounds about right.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 18, 2013)

D&D Next doesn't have anything unique or cool-looking enough in it to attract me as a buyer anytime soon.  I'm also not very impressed with a lot of their design decisions.


----------



## interfactor (Oct 18, 2013)

I refuse to buy any books without a PDF bundled. I've been spoiled by Pathfinder. If they come with PDFs, then I'll buy the core rule books. 
That said, if they reissue Planescape or if they have licensed Castle Zagyg from Gygax games, all bets are off. I'm in.


----------



## interfactor (Oct 18, 2013)

meh. I was excited at the start of the playtest, but I lost interest along the way. I think the expertise dice did it. It didn't feel like D&D anymore and with that my enthusiasm died.

If they bundle PDFs with the core rules I'll probably buy them, but really only to collect.


----------



## interfactor (Oct 18, 2013)

Meh


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 18, 2013)

5E is really going to have to hit it out of the park for me to pick it up.  I already own four editions plus several spin-offs and unless they blow my socks off, I don't feel it's going to be worth picking up.  If it plays like a previous edition, why don't I just play the previous edition?  I've already got the books.

Perhaps, if the adventures are usable with 2E or 3E I *might* pick those up, but again I've got tons of those, not sure I'm interested in more these days.


----------



## innerdude (Oct 18, 2013)

Wicht said:


> I am slightly surprised at the lack of support it has already garnered as the next new shiny.




I, on the other hand, am supremely unsurprised at the lack of support, or "buzz" as it were. Most of the 4e fans I see here and elsewhere on the 'Net are very satisfied with their current D&D of choice, since it fills a unique niche in their gaming sphere, something that's not "old school" nor a 3e retread. 

Hardcore 3e fans are incredibly well served by Paizo, and even those that didn't switch to Pathfinder have the 3.5 premium core books still in print. 

People wanting simpler, easier to use, or just more unique versions of 3e have more options than you can shake a goblin holding a toad at---True20, Castles and Crusades, Dungeon Crawl Classics, the true "retroclones," "micro" d20 systems, Basic Fantasy Roleplay . . . .

D&D Next just isn't carving out a real niche within any of these areas. If anything it seems like it would most appeal to the "old school" crowd that never switched to 3e, and is sick of carrying around their hundred pages of house rules in a binder for 1e / 2e. Or it's for those that stuck with 3e, but want some help in streamlining it without having to go to an actual retroclone. Everyone else seems more than well served by their current situation. 

Of all the current games in the "D20 Family," there's three entries I really consider "unique" in what they're trying to accomplish. 

1) Fantasy Craft is a fantastic rendition of the 3e "core" taken to its most logical conclusion, basically building on everything that works about the core of the system, and then jettisoning everything else around it to create a unique kind of "cinematic" fantasy gameplay.

2) Radiance RPG is a fantastic take on using the D&D "skeleton" to fully realize a new kind of gameworld that also discards whatever "sacred cows" are getting in the way. Radiance is the steampunk version of D&D that Eberron SHOULD have been from Day 1. 

3) 13th Age, from what I hear, finds a delicate balance between the 4e "chassis" and narrative-style, "theater of the mind" gaming. Based on this description (I haven't checked it out myself yet), it's no surprise that this game has had a highly positive overall reception in the hobby. 



Wicht said:


> That does not bode well to me and I hope the team pulls off a surprise and blows us all out of the water.




Honestly, I hope they manage it too, because it will mean good things for the hobby overall; I am just highly skeptical that it's going to be anything _truly remarkable_.

At best it seems to be heading squarely into "A nice rendition of D&D that may or may not be better than what you've already got."

At worst it's "The unwanted, unloved release of D&D that had some nice ideas, but really served no one." 



Wicht said:


> I might also be more tempted if they went the Pathfinder route of combining Player and DM material into a single core rulebook, rather than the traditional three.




If it's a game worth playing, the format is almost an afterthought. My current Savage Worlds group is the first group I've played with EVER where every single player had their own physical hard copy of the core rules. For me personally, I think a truncated PHB/DMG hardcover in a single volume should go in a boxed set, with maybe a small, 15-20 page paperback monster supplement with 15 "iconic" monsters to fight would be an ideal starting point, the assumption being that most DMs will have gobs of old monster manuals to easily convert, and the "newbies" will just pick up one or more separate MMs down the road. Throw in an adventure and a set of dice for the boxed set and price it at $49.99 or $59.99. For players who only want the PHB, do a softcover "perfect" binding version for $24.99. Then you have a separate hardcover monster manual, and the successive PHB2, DMG2, etc. hardcovers that introduce more "modules" to the core.

The bigger issue than the format for D&D 5e? _Educating the consumer who's new to the hobby which of all the current "D&D" books on the shelf they're actually supposed to buy. _FLGSes aren't simply going to pull down their 4e stuff and sell it a loss, so it's just going to sit there. The 3e reprints aren't going anywhere soon. There's still a ton of Essentials product flying around. Try being a "first time" D&D shopper and try to figure out what it is exactly you're supposed to _buy_​?

If Wizards marketing team is smart, they should be planning RIGHT NOW how to get Next FRONT AND CENTER into retail displays. Every 5e product should have some prominent visual queue to consumers that "This is the 'real D&D,' ignore those older editions in the corner."


----------



## MrHemlocks (Oct 18, 2013)

Will I buy it (collector)...yes. Will I play it if a group runs it...yes. Will I run a campaign...no. I will stick with Dungeon Crawl Classics  http://www.goodman-games.com/ . It has far more of an old school flavor than D&D Next. To me, D&D Next is made for the newer generation of gamers and politically correct crowd.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 18, 2013)

If they fulfill some of the potential in the final product I will probably pick it up. If not, then no. I have four other long-running campaigns I'm part of already and the spiffy-looking 13th Age on my shelf waiting to be taken out for a spin.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 18, 2013)

As I said in another thread, I'm encouraged by the current state of the playtest to hope that the final version of the game will be less power-creepy than Pathfinder and less [REDACTED] than D&D4, while retaining some of the value of each.  I will, therefore, be buying the core books at release.  If my hopes are fulfilled, I expect D&D5 to become my new go-to fantasy RPG.

It is something of a long shot.


----------



## Kursk (Oct 18, 2013)

"Serious question - are you going to invest in D&DNext?"

Not sight unseen.  I got burned doing that with 4.0.  IF there is a store that carries it and I can take the time to read in store I'll buy it if the game can do something the other games I play don't.


----------



## airwalkrr (Oct 18, 2013)

I will likely purchase the core rulebooks and decide from there. I still own every 3.5 book and a few Pathfinder books, from which I run and play most of my games these days. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Pathfinder isn't perfect, but it is an incredibly well-designed game and in some ways better than 3.5 so I can't imagine switching anytime soon. I only recently started playing Pathfinder in the first place. I basically skipped 4e; it wasn't my style. I tried playing it on a few occasions in home games and the RPGA but ultimately decided it just wasn't for me. I am therefore somewhat skeptical of D&D Next. While I do feel nostalgic about D&D enough to purchase the core rulebooks and try it out, my impressions from the playtests (which I haven't played more than a single session of, though I've more of less kept up with the packets) has been that it might offer some good ideas, but ultimately won't end up being my game of choice. That could always change. I fully intend to at least give it a try. At the very least I look forward to participating in some RPGA games, whatever WotC has cooked up for the next incarnation of that. I thought LFR was a great shared campaign system, in many ways the best thing about 4e, with DM's Mark adventures and a wide variety of adventures to play. But it lacked the regional aspect of cohesiveness which made Living Greyhawk such an awesome campaign. If they could find a happy medium between the two I might just get involved with the RPGA again. I have long-term plans for my Pathfinder home campaign though and a solid group that enjoys the system and doesn't plan to convert. So if I do end up playing or running D&D Next, it will most likely be through the RPGA, depending on how well the next campaign is designed and managed.


----------



## Kursk (Oct 18, 2013)

Unlike with 4.0, I will go to a physical store and thoroughly study the product before I make a purchase decision.  Burn me once, shame on you... etc.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 18, 2013)

MrHemlocks said:


> To me, D&D Next is made for the ... politically correct crowd.




Can you please explain what you mean by this? I really don't understand.


----------



## Salamandyr (Oct 18, 2013)

I'm curious too, because I'm about as politically incorrect as it's possible to be and I love D&D Next.


----------



## innerdude (Oct 18, 2013)

Kobold Stew said:


> Can you please explain what you mean by this? I really don't understand.




I think in this context he's using "politically correct" as a synonym for "centrist," meaning that it's "the edition of D&D that's too afraid to stray too far to the left or right, lest by so doing WotC offends some other portion of their fanbase that hasn't already been alienated." 

Of course the ironic part is that by this point, pretty much every customer WotC has ever had could viably and understandably have any number of "beefs" with the company.


----------



## fifty (Oct 18, 2013)

I'll probably buy the PHB, DMG, MM and run it for at least a bit to give it chance to impress me. 
But then I've got 4th ed for that reason and I wasn't impressed that time.

The real question for me is, will it have longevity and be a system we use repeatedly, or just be relegated to a one campaign only effort for me and my players.

I really hope it's the former!


----------



## gamerprinter (Oct 18, 2013)

I don't plan to invest in Next at all - I was done with WotC when they pulled 3.5 books from the bookshelves before the release of 4e. It doesn't matter if it's the best RPG system ever created - WotC will never get money from me again.


----------



## Kursk (Oct 18, 2013)

Unlike when I got burned buying 4e sight unseen, I will FULLY study 5th Ed in a book store before deciding on a purchase.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 18, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> I don't plan to invest in Next at all - I was done with WotC when they pulled 3.5 books from the bookshelves before the release of 4e. It doesn't matter if it's the best RPG system ever created - WotC will never get money from me again.




i was pretty much here.
however, they did release the new OD&D(1974) wood grain box. so they might get some money from me.
but to answer the original question ask at the start of this thread. no, 5ed won't see any of my money.


----------



## athos (Oct 19, 2013)

I will not invest any money in D&D next.  I have no use for WotC after their fiasco with D&D 4.  I was a big fan of Living Greyhawk, and the conventions we had were a lot of fun playing LG.  My daughter and I used to travel all over the central states with friends to go to conventions, play LG and meet new people.  It was a blast.  But WotC in it's greed to get people to switch to 4th ed., nixed LG.  So...  I am not going to buy anymore WotC products ever.

Now I play Pathfinder.  I don't like it as much as 3.5 and LG, it doesn't have the same community LG did, but it is a decent game and I feel no need to try D&D Next, especially without an apology to all of LGers from WotC for how they handled killing the game we enjoyed.

Business is tough.  When you make a game and you disrespect your customers, it is silly in my opinion to expect them to just come back because you are making a new edition.  WotC blew it, Pathfinder and Paizo get my business now.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (Oct 21, 2013)

I honestly don't know.
Curiosity + a D&D lover versus the ghosts of 4E.

I want to buy it and give it a fair shake, but I still feel so burned by 4E. As far as I know, a lot of the people who made 4E are making 5E.
I joined in on a single playtest a few months ago and it still felt way too much like 4E minus the powers.

It's also hard to get fair and even opinions for ENWorld since they're all over the place, and most people are usually very for an edition when it first comes out, or they pan it without truly reading a book.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 21, 2013)

I've been thinking about this some more and I honestly don't think I'm going to bother with it now.  It has nothing to do with it being good or bad for my tastes, but more has to do with "the ship has sailed" kind of attitude I have towards it now, especially since I've discovered Hackmaster.  I'm curious to see how they go about it, but it's too little too late for me, I'm still smarting from the sucker punch that was the Virtual Table that was supposed to be there at the launch of 4E.


----------



## FickleGM (Oct 21, 2013)

Nada. It will be invested in by multiple members if my group, though.


----------



## C4 (Oct 21, 2013)

Dndungeoneer said:


> I've been thinking about this some more and I honestly don't think I'm going to bother with it now.  It has nothing to do with it being good or bad for my tastes, but more has to do with "the ship has sailed" kind of attitude I have towards it now, especially since I've discovered Hackmaster.  I'm curious to see how they go about it, but it's too little too late for me, I'm still smarting from the sucker punch that was the Virtual Table that was supposed to be there at the launch of 4E.



I don't particularly care whether you buy 5e or ignore it, but as an aside, the 4e VTT fell through because one of the important designers died in a murder-suicide.


----------



## Weather Report (Oct 21, 2013)

As I have said in other threads, I will buy the core action, regardless, for completion alone, but I also happen to really dig 5th Ed, sort of the 3rd Ed I always wanted.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 23, 2013)

C4 said:


> I don't particularly care whether you buy 5e or ignore it, but as an aside, the 4e VTT fell through because one of the important designers died in a murder-suicide.




I thought that happened after 4E released?  The whole digital initiative was supposed to be there on day one.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth regardless.  I enjoyed 4E because it broke from the established paradigm, but Next is simply shaping up to now be where I want to be.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 23, 2013)

It's a relatively small investment, so sure, I'll eventually but the core books. 

But my group's next campaign will be 13th Age.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 23, 2013)

Dndungeoneer said:


> I thought that happened after 4E released?  The whole digital initiative was supposed to be there on day one.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth regardless.  I enjoyed 4E because it broke from the established paradigm, but Next is simply shaping up to now be where I want to be.




It was after the release, but it's not like delays of a few months or so aren't forgivable. I do find it a bit mystifying that the project was so totally derailed and wonder if the man's behavior leading up to his crime was so obsessive over his wife that the project was already moribund before the murder-suicide.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 24, 2013)

billd91 said:


> It was after the release, but it's not like delays of a few months or so aren't forgivable.




Agreed with that, but after six to eight months I have to admit I felt a little betrayed, horrible circumstances or not.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Oct 24, 2013)

I won't buy it, but then again I didn't purchase 4E.  I'll stick with my older versions and retro clones, along with the occasional foray into Castles and Crusades and Pathfinder.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Oct 24, 2013)

I plan on getting the core books at least. I've done that for every hardcover release since 1st AD&D. Dunno about actually using them, but I will get the books.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Oct 25, 2013)

C4 said:


> I don't particularly care whether you buy 5e or ignore it, but as an aside, the 4e VTT fell through because one of the important designers died in a murder-suicide.



It would be a whole lot more accurate to say that the 4e VTT fell through *AND *one of the important designers died in a murder-suicide. Which way the causality runs, or whether there was any causality between the two events at all at all, is not information that we're privy to.


----------



## silverblade56 (Oct 25, 2013)

I will most certainly buy the PHB even if it's just a pdf of it.  If I end up running it, I'd buy the DMG and MM (or their equivalents) and some adventures or a "Dungeon" subscription (if something like that still exists).  If I like it and end up playing it a lot, I will buy more stuff (adventures, minis, splatbooks).  Basically, exactly what I have done with Pathfinder.


----------

