# How do you feel about the future of D&D after the official announcements?



## Morrus (Jan 11, 2012)

This is the first of a series of polls we'll be taking here on EN World to try and gather the community's feelings about specific issues in a snapshot.  We'll start with an easy one:

*In one word - positive, neutral, or negative - please select how you feel about the future of D&D after the recent announcements about the next edition.  Feel free to elaborate in the thread, but the poll is just to take a very general snapshot.*

If you're viewing this on the news page, you'll see the poll to your right.  If you're viewing the thread, you'll see it at the top of the thread.  If you're viewing this on one of our mobile apps, you'll need to click through and view it in your mobile device's web browser.  If you're viewing it in the newsletter, you'll need to visit the site, also. If you're viewing it some other weird way that I've not thought of, then I have no frikkin' idea - just visit the EN World home page.


----------



## Talinfein (Jan 11, 2012)

Definitely positive. It's not going to be easy doing all they want to do, but the goal is worthwhile. I think the next edition will be significantly simpler at its core, and that may very well be a good thing. I personally like the complexity of 4E, but not everybody does. In the end, good design goals for me are balanced classes, cooperation among players and easy prep for the DM. How they go accomplishing that I don't particularly care.


----------



## shamsael (Jan 11, 2012)

It seems like they're admitting that the way Paizo created Pathfinder was the way they should have handled 4E.  Not in the sense that Pathfinder was so close to 3E, but in the sense that Pathfinder was the result of extensive public play testing and input, as opposed to something designed and developed in secret.


----------



## Pour (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive for the community during design phase, as this will help unify people toward a common and noble goal, but personally negative. I'm a content 4ther, my group plays and loves the autumnal edition, and there's no OGL or Paizo-like entity that will preserve it come 5e. Just far too short a lifespan.

And as much as I want this universal edition to be glorious and true to its mission, the specifics are puzzling, and the concept, though aspiring, sounds truly difficult to implement and preserve what all of us love of the game. Modular services many, but I wonder about the down sides, like a coherent identity. Could mutability actually fracture things even more with highly-specific system combinations players and DMs prefer, down to the way combat runs, magic works, availability of feats, etc: options making more fences than bridges.


----------



## delericho (Jan 11, 2012)

Relieved. Hopeful. More than a little glad that we don't seem to be seeing a lot of Edition Warring - maybe people really are ready for reunification.

But not confident. I fear making a D&D that is all things to all people is an impossible task, I fear that WotC may _still_ be labouring under impossible requirements from Hasbro. And I can't help but remember thinking that they were doing _exactly_ the right things with 4e, right until they took an horrific wrong turn.

So, positive, but with significant reservations.


----------



## Stoat (Jan 11, 2012)

Neutral to Negative.

WotC's promise to make a modular system that appeals to all gamers everywhere sounds like pie in the sky to me.  I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive. Sceptical but positive. And curious. Will I join the 5mind? Maybe.


----------



## Henry (Jan 11, 2012)

"5Mind"? Awesome. First I've hear it. Beats "3etard" and "4ron." 

Short term - Positive; I always get enthused when a new edition is in the works. Long Term - Negative for the future of the hobby; while I don't worry for my gen (we've got it!) I do feel like future generations who only know MMO guilds or Facebook networking and don't have something to help keep the joy of "meatspace" friends alive a little longer, will be missing something. Now, if something comes along or is revived that does encourage people meeting face to face for playing games, RPGs could wither further I'd I'd be OK with it. But as it stands the future of gaming is as impersonal as MMOs and "Words With Friends." 

So I answered Neutral -- it's a wash.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive:

Someone care´s about improving my favourite game.
Do i believe it is a strategy to make money! Hell, yes... and I hope they do. Because if they make enough money with 5th edition (and maybe 4th edition combined, as I see no reason to pull it down with DDI working nicely) chances are, that the need for new editions is over.
IF 5th edition is modular as they want it and if the core of the system is just a little bit more solid than 4e, then I really see no reasons why 5th edition can´t be profitable for more than 4 years.

3.5 was solid enough to be played for 12 years now, ADnD 2nd editon lasted even longer than that (IIRC).
4th edition did not last that long, as it, although a great improvement, limited itself by a too strong effort to have a static rules system that was promised to be unchangeable from the beginning.

With essentials, we have seen, that some loyal fans were very unenthusiastic, because it allowed for more freedom.
IMHO it was just what 4e´s initial launch missed! Chances for development!


----------



## enrious (Jan 11, 2012)

My feelings are fairly well summed up by Henry.

Short term this means WotC and D&D is back on the front page and let's face it, the evidence seems to suggest that WotC couldn't afford to do nothing, so it's positive in that regard.

On the downside, is it too late?




> 3.5 was solid enough to be played for 12 years now, ADnD 2nd editon lasted even longer than that (IIRC).




2nd edition lasted for 11 years (1989-2000), I believe.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 11, 2012)

Neutral, I really like 4e and think it had soo short a life. I am also sceptical about the ability of the desginers to reach their stated goals. I also wonder if they have enough experience now to deliver on the digital support side of the game.
The other problem is that I simply cannot afford to buy another edition of D&D.
It would want to be bloody awesome and make my tea to sink another 6 - 700 euros into the game.


----------



## Osgood (Jan 11, 2012)

I picked neutral.  I love 4E, and I am hopeful the new edition can support that style of play... but I am pretty doubtful that it can be all things to all people.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 11, 2012)

Between Neutral and Negative.

Since I'm happy with Pathfinder, that's all the "D&D" I need, so I'm Neutral.

But since WotC still has control (and they seem dysfunctional when it comes to how to treat the D&D property and team), I'll go with negative.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 11, 2012)

Negative. The Information provided in the last weeks backed up what used to be _speculations_ I had about wotc's motives and business choices. That info killed a lot doubts that had been benefiting Wizards in my book. Hell, I now believe the Poison Pill nature of the 4E GSL was conceived by wotc themselves, which I used to assume was FORCED on them by Hasbro Legal. Now I'm struggling to hold back many ban worthy comments about WotC.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm going to start using "5mind" to refer to boosters of 5th edition.   It fits in perfectly with the design goals of 5th edition (to be all things to all people) and WotC/Hasbro is a corporate entity who seeks consume the player base of other RPG's.

Like Henry says though, it isn't as denigrating as 3etard or 4oron, and it has a menacing borg-esque quality.   It is something that can be used by both detractors (because you are going along with WotC's plans to resell D&D to you) and for boosters (because all your players will belong to us).

As for my feelings about a new edition... it is a little soon but I'm as disatisfied with 4e as I was with 3e when I dropped it.   So both Pathfinder and 4e are not really options for me going forward.  I pretty much have an idea of how I want my D&D system to look, and if D&D 5th edition allows me to do that reasonably well I'll go along with it. 

I must mirror my skepticism of most of the posters on this thread that their design goal is even possible.   However, I certainly will have a huge reservoir goodwill towards the project simply because it is about the most ambitious design goal ever attempted in table top gaming.   I like to reward ambition.

I also think that having the playtesting be open is an excellent idea in terms of gaining even more goodwill from the fanbase.   However, open playtesting isn't going to ensure necessarily that you will get the best rules.   For example, crit confirmation rolls survived 3e into Pathfinder.   To take something wonderful that only happens 5% of the time, and then immediately take it away 30%-50% of the time is just evil.


----------



## Danzauker (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive.

4E is stagnant.

4E had many very nice concepts, IMHO, but it failed horribly in selling them to players. Marketing has been terrible.

A new editio, which takes what was good in 3E and 4E, cleans the stuff up and merges it would be the only way to clean the bad reputation of D&D and WotC at this point. And probably the best fantasy RPG ruleset ever.

But I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Dykstrav (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm in the solidly neutral camp.

For one thing, I already _have_ a game that I enjoy, and I'm not going to "squee" at the announcement of "the new shiny." I don't necessarily enjoy something just because it is new. In fact... WotC is going to have a tough sell on me--my feeling was that 4E was due around 2010 or so, I'm not all that interested in a new version right now.

I also can't imagine how they are going to design an edition that appeals to _all_ players. When it comes down to brass tacks, some firm decisions about the game will have to be made and someone will feel left by the wayside. If the system is modular and customizable (beyond what individual DMs already do), I just can't imagine that we'll all truly be playing the same game. Not to mention the (now) sacred cow of playing by the rules-as-written, which is an attitude I've personally seen escalate from the 3E era into dogma in the 4E era.

Ultimately, I don't really feel like the issues I have with the game have anything to do with a rule set. My biggest issues with it have to do with the player base and the attitudes and personalities I have to deal with to get a game going. If people continue to flame and name-call each other into the 5E era, no awesome new edition will unify the fans or do much of anything to make my play experience better. Ultimately, I wonder how much effect a new edition will really have on people and their preferences.

All that being said, I fully intend to give the new edition a fair shake. I'll certainly do  free playtesting and I'll certainly buy books if it's a game  that I enjoy and can find players for.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 11, 2012)

It's an odd-numbered edition - it HAS to be good!


----------



## BobROE (Jan 11, 2012)

Negative.

I think 5E (or whatever) will be successful, but I don't see how it can be successful enough for the powers that be and WotC/Hasbro.  Not because it will be a bad game or because it wont sell well, but because the market just isn't large enough to generate the profit that they want.

So I feel that 5E will probably be the last edition of D&D as we know it.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm very positive based on what they're _telling_ us. But I have a negative feeling is regards to them actually delivering on that.


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Jan 11, 2012)

Negative. I think trying combine the best elements of every edition will result a mish-mash that doesn't please anyone. It would be better to focus on certain types of players in order to create a consistent game. But trying to create a game that combines everything of 40 years of D&D is very bad idea.

It's a marketing gimmick, but it's a bad one.

_"Everything for everyone!"_ Please... Do these at the market square wearing a cheap trenchcoat.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 11, 2012)

Henry said:


> "5Mind"? Awesome. First I've hear it. Beats "3etard" and "4ron."




Thank you. It came to me yesterday and I've been waiting for the right moment to use it. I'd love it if it caught on.

Edit: And it is certainly not intended to be denigrating.


----------



## stormdragon (Jan 11, 2012)

Cautiously positive. The team seems to be solid (No sign of [Edited out; we have rules about insulting other EN World members, even if they do happen to be game designers.  Feel free to comment on someone's _work_, but please do not insult people directly - Morrus])  and they are actually letting people who play D&D test this one and being more open to the community.

Still I'm dubious about the all things to all people shtick.

Time will tell.


----------



## nexgen (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive. 

Even as an OSR publisher, I am earnestly rooting for this one. Can't pinpoint my feelings here, but I'm just behind this more than I thought I would be. 

D&D is the game I grew up with. Took a few weird twists and turns along the way, but I feel somewhat obligated to at least hope they nail it. 

We all love Paizo and the OSR, but we probably love them for creating and supporting a certain style of "D&D".

So, I'll get behind WotC this time, at least for now. A revitalization of D&D and some solidarity is good for all of us, gamers and publishers alike.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 11, 2012)

Honestly, right now, I'm neutral at best.  I guess it's mostly fatigue on my part.  People have been raising the battle cry for the next edition since day 1 of 4e and I'm just so bloody tired of the whole thing.


----------



## Gundark (Jan 11, 2012)

Cautiously optimistic. Very negative towards the upcoming edition war.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 11, 2012)

I voted positive. My view of D&D's future has been negative ever since 4e debuted and it became clear how different and narrowly designed it was. So anything that pulls back from that vision to be more inclusive of other play styles common in the D&D experience is going to be in a positive direction, in my opinion.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 11, 2012)

Negative. 

We have just settled into a nice groove where people were playing what they liked. There are groups playing 4E. There are groups playing Pathfinder. There are some people even playing BOTH. 

Now not only will WOTC be releasing a new edition, they will also still be supporting 4E via the DDI and with this "Edition for all players of D&D" thing that they're trying to do are definitely going to be trying to get those who migrated to Pathfinder back in the fold. 

I like having a pool of players for my game of choice and almost left the hobby back in 2008 because the pool of 3.5 players dried up because of the newness of 4E. I really dont want to deal with that crap again. It wont matter if the game is actually any good or not people will flock to it because it's new.


----------



## afstanton (Jan 11, 2012)

I really only have one suggestion for WotC regarding 5e:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/compatibility


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 11, 2012)

I voted neutral.

I have been cheerfully and contentedly playing 3.5E for the past two years, and I'm not shopping for something new.  I quickly lost interest in WotC when they stopped selling material for the system I like to play, and until they do (even selling PDFs of out-of-print books would be enough for me), they don't really have anything to offer me.  I'll tinker with Pathfinder every now and then, or run the occasional BECM sandbox game, but I'm a solid fan of 3.5E and I don't really see any reason to change.

But I wish them well in their endeavors, and I hope this new edition is successful and that their business thrives.  And I am very interested in this new edition that they are developing, but I'm purely a spectator.  (Whenever rumors of a new edition are circulating, it's like everybody's creative juices start flowing.)  I hope 5E is a smash-hit...I just won't be buying it.


----------



## BriarMonkey (Jan 11, 2012)

Neutral.

Overall, I don't think WotC can pull it off, especially given the very different games that pre-4E and 4E are.  And if they don't, it doesn't matter to me because I have Pathfinder.  But, I am willing to give it a look-see as even if the system doesn't work, it may have good ideas to be used.  And if the system does work, then that's a good thing.


----------



## synthapse (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive.

I really enjoy 4E (especially running it), but I'm looking forward to a change.  Like most people here, I'm skeptical about WotC's ability to do what they say, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.


I also plan on spreading the term "5mind".


----------



## sckeener (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm neutral.  I would have gone with negative, but mentioning 5e has me coming back to enworld after 9 month absence.  That's a positive since I love this site, but I really really hate 4e.  

I don't think WotC can pull 5e off and get it right.  You can't please everyone from all editions.  I think Hasbro would be better off selling D&D as a brand off (to Paizo if they actually cared,) but retaining rights to make toys with the D&D logo.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jan 11, 2012)

Negative.

I think their lofty goals are unreachable. I believe that a not so small number of players will enter a "but they promised!" mode when things don't turn out like they hoped they'd be.

A few people will see themselves as "winners" and many more as "losers". As for the final result, I see D&D as a game being developed over the years. I was happy when 3e appeared on the scene and I was happy when the less-cumbersome (for me, at least) 4e came out. I might be looking forward to a 5e a few years from now, but I don't want it to turn back to older instances. And I definitely don't want it to be a weird toolbox with which I can try to craft my own game. There are a lot of game systems for just this purpose.

So regarding the content I'm skeptical, regarding the imminent decade of flame wars I'm very negative.


----------



## Steerpike7 (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm not holding out too much hope, given the involvement of Mearls. Does anyone else remember how condescending and insulting toward 3e players the 4e team was when it released? They came just short of saying "your game sucks, and we're here to save you."

Anything that has Mearls' name on it has to undo a lot of damage before I'll spend a dime it. 

Setting aside my personal feeling toward elements of the design team, I think the stated goals are going to be hard to meet. My group plays Pathfinder, or 3.X, or even older versions of D&D (or completely unrelated games) because most of what we found playing 4e did not fit our personal preferences. For others, 4e fit their preferences nicely. Nothing wrong with either viewpoint, but by trying to create a game that somehow units the fan base of both 4e and 3.X, they are more likely to alienate both.

In 2008 I would have had a more visceral reaction, because my emotional connection to RPG gaming was tied to D&D. It no longer is, thanks to what WotC did with 4e. So now I'm more of a curious onlooker. If WotC pulls this off and releases an incredible edition, I'll buy it. Anything short of that, I'll be content to play something else for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 11, 2012)

Very Positive.

If nothing else, I'm curious to see what a talented group of designers comes up with given a set of seemingly hard-to-reconcile design goals.

At best, I'll get a set of rules which play faster than 3e/4e/Pathfinder, but offers a touch more flexibility/mechanical complexity (out of the box) than AD&D (which I'm running now).  

No, strike that... at best we'll get a set of rules which demonstrates the bulk of the D&D community isn't really divided into warring partisan camps, that the Edition War thing is just an artifact of a communication style prevalent on Internet message boards (I can hope, right?).  

At heart I'm a genre fan, in the sense I'm always up for a new take on a frequently-told story.


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Right now WOTC is making all the right noises. It certainly sounds like they've seriously changed their attitude since the 4th edition launch and that is a very good thing.

I'm sceptical that they'll be able to achieve their goals. But I'm willing to approach what they come up with with an open mind.

My biggest fear is that they'll be TOO open and try TOO hard to please EVERYBODY. That will end up pleasing nobody. They have to take SOME position and, regardless of what that is, SOME people will get irked.

The fact that Hasbro is willing to invest medium to long term (2 years at least) in D&D is sure better than the alternative of it pulling the plug


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 11, 2012)

double post


----------



## Starglyte (Jan 11, 2012)

Neutral.

I am quite happy with 4th edition, but will wait and see what they do with 5th before writing it off.


----------



## FallenAkriel (Jan 11, 2012)

i start playing dnd when i was a kid and 2E was flexible (full of custom/options), feeling light, full of fluff but with clunky rules . 3E was great but so much rules heavy, difficult to dm. 4E was great to dm, but feel like a boardgame (too much combat-oriented, pc mechanic always the same).

I'm positive because 5E CAN take up the strength of all editions and add some.
5E - Bring quicker combat, maybe even skill/social ''combat''. Like my diplomacy roll beating the Will Defense.
4E - Easy to DM (monster simple enough) and Heroic feeling at low-level
3E - Lot of Players options that feel different, rules that make sense
2E - Customizable and lot of fluff for campaign settings (pdf/online). If i want to play Dark Sun or any weird campaign setting, it can stack with ease rule-wise with the Basic DnD stuff.

Bottom line, i want a Basic DnD that feel light with possible Advanced D&D books for Players (Races and class options) and DM (aerial/water/desert/cold campaign or any investigation/social heavy campaign mecanic).


----------



## Umbran (Jan 11, 2012)

Steerpike7 said:


> Does anyone else remember how condescending and insulting toward 3e players the 4e team was when it released?




I remember many people feeling the 4e team was condescending and insulting.  But that doesn't mean they intended to come across that way, or that they actually felt condescension towards the audience.  In any communication, there's what was intended, what was said, and what was heard.  Sometimes, they don't all match up.  

We cannot have everything.  Developers are developers, and they may not be masters of communication.  If we want direct contact with the dev team, we ought to cut them some slack, and accept that the communication is going to be lumpy.  If we want sterling communications, then we need to accept they'll be laundered, bleached, starched, and pressed between the developers and the audience.


----------



## sheadunne (Jan 11, 2012)

Neutral. 

Unless the books are available for PDF purchase, I won't be experiencing the game, regardless of what it looks like. I don't buy hardcopy books anymore (haven't for years now). And I don't pay for subscriptions to games.


----------



## Asmo (Jan 11, 2012)

I´m chaotic neutral.

Asmo


----------



## OpsKT (Jan 11, 2012)

Negative.

I just don't think a modular, please everyone style game is possible. At least not on the scale that Wizards/Hasbro is hoping for. The so called 'universal' systems are popular, but not near to the scale that D&D has been over the course of it's life. People know D&D, even those that don't play, but those same people do not know about GURPS, Savage Worlds, BRP, or even Palladium. 

Also, as pointed out earlier, the open playtest sounds good on paper, but how likely is it to bring back sacred cows better left dead? I don't want an army of zombie critical confirms, or lich 1.5 diagonal movements. And to be honest, I _really_ don't want people like them involved in deciding the direction of the game now.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 11, 2012)

Cautiously optimistic.

At least people are talking. There's plenty of flaming and general foolishness, but there are in some cases positive developments. New ideas, new understanding.

I'm very skeptical of WotC, but at least something positive is happening.


----------



## autumnfyr (Jan 11, 2012)

*Very Positive*

I am feeling very positive. When 4E came out I was all over it.  As a DM in 3.5 I was past the point of frustration.  Had a few players who only wanted to see how they could "break" the system with character concepts, and I am all about story.  

The feel of 4E was exciting, and the game balance was dead-on.  Love the idea of Defenses instead of saves and love the way creatures are developed in 4E, using powers instead of lists of spells and spell-like abilities.  

However, after a few years of playing, I started missing some things about 3.5.  I like the fact that all combats may not be balanced, love throwing random encounters, smaller skirmishes at my players, but that didn't work well with the 4E ruleset.  I guess I like the simulation aspects of 3.x best.  I was just starting to try and convince my group to head back to PF after this campaign.  Scratch that for the time being.  

A system that takes the best of both could be incredible, though I would still be a loyal Paizo fan for storylines, settings and adventures, quite a few of which I converted for the 4E campaign I now run.


----------



## Thyrax (Jan 11, 2012)

so far i get the feeling there heading in the right direction. We will see in the later months if it's what we all are hoping for or not.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Jan 11, 2012)

Neutral for myself.
I never made the jump into 4E.  Tried it, was blah for me.
I'll just do the same, I'll check out the books.  If they appeal enough I'll buy them.  If they appeal further I might play it regularly.

Now I will admit, I've been watching for the coming lowering of prices on the 4E stuff.  Cause even though I don't play it, I wouldn't mind it for the library of RPG stuff I have.

Another big factor is my group, I'm quite sure we will look it over.  But if even one of us doesn't get the warm fuzzy, the main group will continue playing 3.5.  Many play multiple games, but everyone is in our Friday night group.  

Either way I hope it's a success for WotC, cause I want the hobby to continue to thrive.


----------



## kunadam (Jan 11, 2012)

*Positive*
I love new systems. They are entertaining to read.
I had very high hopes for 4E till I could have hoped for a D&D3.75. I do not like the actual 4E. It has amazing elements (creature design for example), but the PHB was. Well. Not for my taste.
I know editions come too rapidly. At our gaming community 3.5 just gets widely accepted instead of 3.0. So there is no immediate need to change.
I will follow the news closely 

Many other game I know had more editions in less time. My problem with D&D editions 2 vs 3 vs 4, that they changed too much. And it is not only rules (that should evolve), but story elements were also very much updated. Sometimes too much. Time of troubles in FR was one thing, the new bleak FR is yet another.
The last time I checked Call of Chtulhu was 5th edition (which is wrong, they are at 6th+ editions), yet the Mythos did not changed.
Ars magica is at 5th edition, and there were some changes in they was the Order of Hermes is portrayed, but still the game I know from 3rd edition had a consistency to it.
I miss that consistency from D&D.

(_thanks ENWorld for collecting info!_)


----------



## Agamon (Jan 11, 2012)

Reading through this thread has been confusing.  Some people are answering the OP (How do you feel about the future of D&D?) and some people are stating how the news affects them personally.

Then again, I'm sure that's never happened before in an internet poll.


----------



## dangerous jack (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive.

I play 4e, but although it fixed certain things for me, I have fond memories of other things in older editions.  And even with the missteps that 4e made, I think they were important steps to take.

So I think they are setting their targets in the right direction and taking appropriate steps towards their goals.  (Whether they'll achieve them is another matter.)

But I'm definitely eagerly awaiting the reports from DDXP and the public playtest in the spring.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 11, 2012)

Neutral.

On the one hand, WotC is certainly _saying_ the right things this time around. Open playtest. Cross-edition compatibility. Hinting at an open license. These are all things that I want to hear.

But WotC has done so many things that I didn't like over the last five years, that it's impossible for me to feel truly positive about the future based on their statements alone. I need to see the results before it's enough to make me like them as a company again.


----------



## ssspaladin (Jan 11, 2012)

I clicked "positive" but I guess my attitude can best be summed up as "cautiously pessimistic" in that it's possible that the damage to the brand may already have been done and the divided gaming community may not be easily healed. 

The new team is impressive and I think Mike Mearls is a good choice to guide the new edition (his past 3E vs. 4E comments notwithstanding -- he was a guy who was defending the hard work that he and the other designers had done on 4E and did so in a very spirited fashion; I fully understand that).

The goals of this project are laudable, but as noted elsewhere they may simply be setting the bar too high. I can't see a single system that would unite fans of the Rules Cyclopedia with fans of 4E -- the differences just seem way too significant. The design team is free to surprise me, however and no one would be more delighted than me if I have to eat my words on the topic. Further, we have heard similar promises before only to have them crash on the rocks of corporate reality. Remember Gleemax? Remember all of the cool features that DDI was going to incorporate and how few of them actually appeared? Remember how the "new" OGL was going to be "more open than ever"?. Though those promises were made by previous regimes, WotC's record is a bit spotty, and it's hard to erase the memory of past disappointments.

That said, the approach that is being taken is refreshing, and I think extremely courageous. There's a tacit (and sometimes more than just tacit) admission of past errors and at least the implication that WotC has learned from its mistakes. There's a very bold and difficult goal -- to unite all previous editions into something that everyone can play. 

It's a very, very ambitious goal, but in some ways I'd really prefer that they aim high and miss slightly rather than aim low and succeed (which as far as I'm concerned certainly sums up 4E). Also encouraging are the repeated assurances that WotC will really listen to gamers this time, and as evidence there's the much more open playtest period, rather than the secretive, years-long development process that led to 4E. There's also the implication that something like the OGL may return (though I'll believe it when I see it).

So I guess I'm wary based upon past performances, but optimistic based upon what I consider to be the refreshing new honesty that the design team is displaying. I am also encouraged by the team and its leader -- having worked personally with Mike Mearls in the past I know that he is a dedicated gamer and knows what he's doing. 

I've signed up for the playtest and I'll definitely be giving them the feedback they want. Time will tell how successful they will be, but I am willing to give them every opportunity to save the brand and bring the hobby back to what it was. My only fear is that this may be too tall an order for even the most talented and dedicated team of designers to achieve. I nurture the hope that the designers will prove me wrong.


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive and getting more so everyday. I've reread Mike's Legend and Lore columns from 2011 and I think I get where D&D Next is going.

I also can know post on Wizards' forum and get more discussion than anger. Many, many new posters there (post counts under 10 and new to forum as of 2012) and several have played other editions of D&D and are speaking up for what they like. I've even seen forum posters politely police each other without mod intervention and have it work.

I'm going to Fort Wayne at the end of the month. I very much hope to be extremely positive after playtesting a rough version of D&D Next.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 11, 2012)

i'm positive. i have not posted here in a long time, and i've not played 4e in over a year, i got sick of it. But like others said, i have doubts that WotC can pull off their ambitious design goal.  But, they have some great minds working for them, so i wish them the best. It they could somehow create a game that all eras of gamers can play and enjoy, that would be pretty phenomenal.


----------



## BlackMoria (Jan 11, 2012)

Neutral.

I really looked forward to 4E and was disappointed with the end result.  And what they did to the Forgotten Realms was blasphemy for a  fair number of the FR fans.

It looked all so promising going into the home stretch and yet the 4E did not excite my imagination once I tried and it didn't allow me to play the characters I wanted and failed, for me, as a medium for me to tell the type of stories I wanted.

And here we are again.  Looks good from the initial design philosphy but having been very disappointed in the end result of 4E, I am finding my initial enthusiasm somewhat ... forced?  I don't know how I feel right now.  I want to 'believe' but then I remember how 4E turned out and the what happened to the Forgotten Realms....


----------



## Smoss (Jan 11, 2012)

Definitely neutral.  I was positive and excited for 4e (Due to my joy at what they had done with Saga and thought of it as a 4e preview) and was disappointed when it went in a direction that did not fit my style.

5e could be good for me, great for me, bad for me, etc - Only time will tell if it is a system I would be willing to use.  I'm also a little skeptical of how well they will use the "crowdsourcing", but I'll reserve judgement until I see the end result.

So yeah, totally neutral.
Smoss


----------



## freeAgent (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm very optimistic, if only because it sounds like they'll support the classic Forgotten Realms setting, pre-Spell Plague).  Killing the Forgotten Realms really turned me off and started me on the path to finding a completely new game.

WoTC needs to bring back the Forgotten Realms and start releasing PDF versions of books.  If they do those things and the rules make sense and aren't too board gamey, they may get me to switch back from Pathfinder.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 11, 2012)

freeAgent said:


> I'm very optimistic, if only because it sounds like _they'll support the classic Forgotten Realms setting, pre-Spell Plague_).  Killing the Forgotten Realms really turned me off and started me on the path to finding a completely new game.
> 
> WoTC needs to bring back the Forgotten Realms and start releasing PDF versions of books.  If they do those things and the rules make sense and aren't too board gamey, they may get me to switch back from Pathfinder.




The part that I underlined, can you tell me where you've seen WotC say this is their intent?


----------



## ProtoClone (Jan 11, 2012)

I am neutral about it so that way I am not disappointed.

But really, with every new edition I found something that I liked.  I also found myself missing things from previous editions.

I am curious to what this "if you like X edition, then we can accommodate" really means...but I will wait and see.

I have to say that the best thing to come out of 4e was "Gamma World".  I personally liked that system a lot more then the D&D 4e.  I would've liked to have seen it expanded upon and more material made for it...but with it being so simple that makes homebrewed campaigns easier.


----------



## freeAgent (Jan 11, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> The part that I underlined, can you tell me where you've seen WotC say this is their intent?





Sure,

"A WotC spokesperson answered, "The Forgotten Realms has a rich history and we will support all of it. It is for the gamers to decide which time they would enjoy playing in." That would allow Wizards to take advantage of a massive back catalog of products."

EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine: Your Daily RPG Magazine


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 11, 2012)

freeAgent said:


> Sure,
> 
> "A WotC spokesperson answered, "The Forgotten Realms has a rich history and we will support all of it. It is for the gamers to decide which time they would enjoy playing in." That would allow Wizards to take advantage of a massive back catalog of products."
> 
> EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine: Your Daily RPG Magazine




Right, thanks. I've read those quotes, but I don't see where they say that they're toning down or undoing the spellplague. No big deal, just thought I missed something.


----------



## Meatboy (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm neutral. I tinker enough with the OGL that I have no problem amusing myself for years at a time. 4e had some really solid ideas, especially monsters, that made it really easy to prep and as the DM I loved that. As a tinkerer though 4e wasn't for me. Its mechanics were so well defined, refined, and oiled that getting new stuff out of it was a chore.  Making a new class was just well... ugh  
I spend a lot of my free time messing around with the idea of "what is the soul of dnd" and I hope that the designers of 5e can find it better that I have and come up with something that jives with my own assumptions about the soul of dnd.


----------



## Retreater (Jan 11, 2012)

I originally would've had a negative opinion of the future of D&D after reading Monte Cook's columns. He seemed to have little grasp of the current edition, and to try to graft 3.5 skin onto the muscle of 4E would have created an unholy Frankenstein monster of a game system.

Since it's now clear that Wizards is creating a new edition, they may be able to get it right. They've cleaned up their PR and are involving the fans. That boosts my opinion quite a bit. 

I'm still on a cautious "wait and see" level.

Retreater


----------



## Divine Bobhead (Jan 11, 2012)

Tentatively positive. WOTC has a long way to go to show me that they can create this mélange of different editions into a coherent whole. If they can I will whole-heartedly support it, but I’ll admit it seems like an almost unattainable goal, no simply because of the difficulty but because of the resistance of people who simply want it to fail so they can say that they predicted it. I’ve played all the editions now and I’ve liked things about all of them and hated things about all of them, I look forward to a new edition simply to see what comes of it, with a goal this lofty it may be that the journey is better than the goal itself. Regardless, succeed or fail, I have to admire the willingness to try something like this and risk the chance of failure, particularly since I look at something like this and think it smacks of a “last chance to get it right” dictate on the part of Hasbro. I am more than likely wrong, but I could see it happening and it would be a shame for such an ambitious attempt to fail and result in the shelving of the game for a decade until Hasbro decides it’s “safe” to try again.


----------



## johnsemlak (Jan 11, 2012)

I'm generally an optimist and cautiously hopeful, but I voted neutral.  How much can we feel either way at this point with the information we have so far, or the lack of--no release date, no specifics on the edition, (almost) nothing of what will be left out or included?  There's only some very vague indications of what direction they want to take; and it's highly possible that the final product will fail in those directions in many people's minds even if WotC state that those are design goals.  We can form some conclusions based on what the design team appears to be, and what WotC's recent and overall track record is, but beyond that, I'd wait for more specifics before I start making a decision on whether I like what's coming or not.


----------



## Quickleaf (Jan 11, 2012)

I voted neutral, because that's the net of positive and negative feelings.

Positive because "I BELIEVE IN MIKE & MONTE", there's been significant changes in the Wizards' hierarchy, and all the (vague) playtest feedback supports that they've succeeded in merging play-styles with the system.

Negative because they're chained to Hasbro (and all that entails), there's waaaay too much hype in the media, and there's been no defined examples so far of the beautiful synthesis they're promising. Promises from Wizards of the Coast? Hmm...

So neutral, with a healthy dose of skepticism and optimism.


----------



## anomalousman (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive.  The goals are exactly right.  Continued fragmentation of the RPG hobby will kill it.  What we need is a unified starting point, so that the RPG ecosystem can thrive.  It needs to be open.  

My quick reading of the RPG community 'what would you want to see in 5e?' threads immediately showed that there is no possibility of a tight game that will unify the community.  Every 'I definitely want' was directly countered by a 'definitely don't want'.   So we need to start with something viable and _expect modding/house rules/rules extensions_.  We need something that smoothly extends from a quick start simple ruleset all the way up to crazy complexity.  And we need the out-of-the-box ruleset to be quick to play and unbroken.

Execution is going to be hard, but they aren't going for a literally nonexistent perfection, but for a _viable starting point_.  Let's hope their legal has the guts to execute the required OGL as well.


----------



## Barb (Jan 11, 2012)

Very deceptive question. To me D&D isn't the brand, it's synonymous to sword and sorcery role-playing game. As such I'm positive about it's future, there's plenty of people that want to play that style of game, and will be for years to come.

As for WoTC's or Hasbro's involvement in D&D I'm skeptical at best. The whole DDi fiasco still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and I still can't believe I ever fell for that miniatures ponzi scheme.

My feelings toward the design goals for the new edition are best described by the webcomic xkcd: Standards.


----------



## DangerAbe (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive.

I played 4E and was very excited when it came out but as I played it I learned to dislike it and then hate it. Fights took too long, classes seemed identical, and every book seemed rushed to market in terms of layout and design (especially compared to the beautiful look and design of Pathfinder). I'm hoping for five things from 5E:

1. Don't add another NEW unrealistic -subsystem. Level, HP, and Armor Class are all unrealistic but I'm fine with them because they've always been there and a million different justifications have been devised concerning their use. I hated "Healing Surges". Old unrealistic things are fine because they are already accepted. Please, WotC, don't add another unrealistic thing to the game.

2. Return to iconic D&D Spells and a combined Spell List with different parts shared by all classes. It's strange when all the iconic D&D spells are now in Pathfinder and not D&D.

3. Create a universal Martial Power List similar to older edition spell lists. Let different martial classes pick and choose different powers like the old Bard/Cleric/Wizard spell list worked. Make them iconic.

4. Have all the core classes and races in the core book! 4E's initial class and race list sucked. WotC, hive us more from the get-go or you'll ruin your first impression.

5. Work out HP and AC so that every fight doesn't take 3 hours!


----------



## Windjammer (Jan 11, 2012)

Negative.

New editions live and thrive on 'new blood'. 3E wouldn't have been possible without Tweet and Cook, then neophites in the 'design a new edition' game. Same holds for Heinsoo, Collins, and Wyatt - watch them on the early 4E preview youtube clips, with Andy throwing a ball at Rob: these are kids, excited at making their own game. And then of course, there's Gygax and Arneson, at the beginning of the game's history, making it up from whole cloth.

Quick: name one person in this list who ever made more than one edition of D&D. Actually, name one person in this list who's second game was superior to his first. Lejendary Adventures is a poor shadow of AD&D, and Arcana Evolved can't hold a candle to 3E.

I'll bold it for greater clarity:

*Let it be forever known that no man, alive or dead or undead, should write more than one edition of D&D.*

And now they're doing it. They're doomed, I say, dooooooomed!

And I'm not only kidding. Monte Cook and Mike Mearls have just come out of a decidedly unimpressive year in Legend & Lore. Nothing they wrote remotely approaches the freshness and intelligence of their first offerings. Some of it was hilariously bad, like the revamped skill system. All they got left right now is 'Why don't YOU tell us what we should design?'

Please guys, step down and make room for someone else. You've had your chance, you've left your mark. Give 5E a chance. Let it be a good, strange, innovative game. Leave it to the hands of others. Cheers.


----------



## darkwing (Jan 11, 2012)

I voted neutral, but a more accurate term would be apprehensive.

There's a lot of good with 4e. I see several things could be improved but I like 4e better than any other edition from a mechanics perspective. I have no idea if they'll take us back to the days of broken mechanics or improve things.


----------



## drowdude (Jan 11, 2012)

Eh, I went with neutral....

On one hand I am very interested to see what they come up with. But on the other, I am very doubtful that it will turn out well enough to bother switching to. At best, it will probably provide a few nice ideas to plug into my own hybrid set of house-rules, heh.

My outlook may change some if they announce that they are doing something that actually undoes the late-nite back-alley job they did on the Realms in 4e.

But who knows, perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised... but I doubt it


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 11, 2012)

Neutral as well, there is potential (have good memories of D&D Basic, 2E, and 3E), but the last four years WotC and D&D haven't generated the best of memories. I'm hopeful, but realistic.


----------



## Lwaxy (Jan 11, 2012)

I know making a game for all sorts of players can work, I'm running a  campaign for the 3rd year now where we have players and thus PCs from all sorts of base games - DSA, 2E, 3.5, PF, WoD, V:TM, SW, ST, Gamma World, d20 modern and d20 future. It works wonderfully with the right set of players. 

And that's my worry. With rule fanatics and power players, I could not pull anything like that off, and I am unsure if a whole new rule set around this issue would make this any different. 

So, neutral but curious.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 11, 2012)

Positive, if only because "negative" is a lousy way to live your life.

A lot of people have developed an impressive amount of scar tissue since the 3e/4e Edition Wars began.  We see that very clearly in this Thread.  There is little indication of unreserved trust; rather, there is every indication that for many experienced players, WOTC is going to have to work very hard to get back to 'neutral.'

Fine.  But give them the chance to earn your trust.  And I actually mean do them the courtesy of giving them the chance -- resist the urge to pile on whenever you see any slightest indication of trouble.  Don't be the spark that starts yet another tedious, self-destructive edition war.

We've all got fall-back positions.  Let them try to pull a rabbit of their hat.

Maybe even lend a hand when they ask for it.  Something good and fine could come from this, if not for we the jaded forerunners, then for those who come after.

5mind?  Maybe.  Open mind ... absolutely.


----------



## Brooding Paladin (Jan 11, 2012)

Well, I clicked positive but now I'm having buyer's remorse.  Sometimes I'm too much of a sunny idiot.  But I liked that they led with saying that they're prioritizing TTRPG.  That's the right vein to start in.

What worries me is what has been said:  how can it really be all things to all people?  We'll have many Frankenstein's monsters (flesh golems!) running around and it seems like finding a new game would be _really_ tough.  Imagine all the up front interviewing questions you'd have to wade through to find out if you can stand the new campaign you're considering joining.


----------



## Rydac (Jan 11, 2012)

Voted Positive, but I'm also very skeptical. Great news at how much public playtesting they appear to be planning, but they sound ridiculous with their "all editions to all players" type comments.

If they can be "many things to most players" it will be a historic hit....but that is a really really (throw in a lot more reallys) tough standard to meet.

I'm looking forward to the playtesting, and wishful that they can take the best parts of the past, some new ideas and blend into a smooth running game of D&D

The skeptical side of me worries that they'll lose too much of the gains from 4e (and lose a lot of that player base) and not bring in enough of the prior editions to excite those players to play the newest iteration of D&D.

Added note: Saw they haven't decided what to call the new edition....why not a complete reboot and drop edition references and just call it "Dungeons and Dragons".


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 11, 2012)

Voted "positive" and will remain so until-unless they either a) mess it up and-or alienate some large segment of the existing player base, or b) come out with a system that just doesn't play as intended.

"b)" is extremely unlikely.

"a)" is where my worry lies.

Lanefan


----------



## Ainamacar (Jan 11, 2012)

Basically positive.  I think 4e was a bold misstep for the brand (not necessarily a bad game), but the designers now have a lot of info about just how far they can step away from aspects of D&D's tradition they lacked before.  And, I hope, some new marketing wisdom.

I think the truly fundamental mechanical assumptions and game elements needed to support a wide variety of styles the designers are pursuing are actually quite sparse, so that the basic modular goal is achievable. After all, complexity emerges from the interaction of simple parts, so the simplest version of the game will define all the fundamental pieces but keep the interactions minimal, and all modules will be self-enclosed except for interactions with this small set.  In addition, the number of modules required to get most people into their preferred ballparks will probably be small.  How many truly major design decisions or campaign assumptions do people argue about back and forth?  Half a dozen? (Perhaps health systems, class structure, character progression, nature(s) of magic, skill systems, and low vs. high magic campaigns).  Three options for each may very well define a game that covers and exceeds the entire historical range of published D&D.  Many other things that lead to heated debate, like alignment, usually have a  muted mechanical impact and just aren't major complications to modularization.

In addition, I think the indications are that WotC is finally ready to better utilize its old content.  I will be very surprised if classic modules and sourcebooks are not (slowly) made available for download and/or print on demand starting a few months after 5e releases.  After all, prior to this they apparently feared doing so would cannibalize demand for new products.  Whether or not that belief is true is immaterial, because in 5e the new belief (if I'm reading them correctly) is that old material can actually be purchased in support of the new system.  Even among people who don't adopt 5e there will be an uptick in good will toward WotC.  And all that new old material will give interested people plenty to discuss as they experience the game's roots for the first time, whether in 5e or the original system.  The edition wars or trolling may reach a new generation, but so will a knowledge and appreciation of history among a larger collection of gamers.  I know that reading the Rules Cyclopedia, for example, was really informative for me as a gamer who played CRPGs in the 2e era and started tabletop gaming at the start of 3.5.

In no case will 5e unify everyone.  But people houserule things all the  time: if it is a better system from which to start houseruling, and maybe even to experience the old with a fresh coat of paint, that  might be enough for wide appeal.


----------



## Belgos (Jan 11, 2012)

How do I feel?

Skepitcal.  Prejudicial.  And a HUGE feeling of self-entitlement --this is following the feeling of being alienated by Fourth Edition and all the people that ran the project.

Wizards can talk all they want about: 


Sacred Cows
Iterations
Universality
Verisimilitude, or
Pick your own wank-word

I do not care.  My group does not care.   Wizards:  Sending Monte Cook over to my house --with your hat in his hands no less, just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.  I'll remain negative about this D&D announcement thanks.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 12, 2012)

Positive.

Cautiously Positive, but Positive none the less.  I believe some very good things can come of this.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 12, 2012)

I voted neutral. I'd love to say positive, since I trust the people involved, but it seems that much of the rhetoric that's coming out is about rolling back the things that I like about the current edition. I think those rules already exist in the form of 3X and Pathfinder.

Still, I believe in the people involved, so here's hoping.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 12, 2012)

Cautiously optimistic. If there were a choice between "positive" and "neutral" I'd pick it, but I defaulted to "positive".

The concerns folks like Kzach have raised (don't know if they're in this thread, but he's mentioned them elsewhere) are valid, but you know what? Despite that, crowdsourcing has often worked well. And if this "iteration" falls flat for me, there are at least two good versions and an acceptable one out there already so I'm pretty much set for life regardless. There's no way this can make my gaming life _worse_, as far as I can see, and hey, maybe it'll blow me away.


----------



## was (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm cautiously optimistic as well


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 12, 2012)

Proton-ish

Through, seriously, at first I was neutral bordering on negative, but yesterday I realized that this is the one big chance to finally have a new D&D edition as close to what I would like, just by participating and giving feedback. I know in the end it still might have some areas that are iffy, or worst case just isn't something I want to play, but at least I can say I did what I could to help it in that direction.


----------



## tuxgeo (Jan 12, 2012)

Neutral. 

Morrus, I hope you'll do another one of these polls in a few months after the first of the open playtests has finished. Attitudes can, and probably will, change (at least a little bit) when we get some actual, solid information. 

IMHO, some fraction of the new-edition discontent stems not from deficiencies in the new rules, but from the feeling on the part of some players that "I've already _learned_ the rules to this game. Why should I spend the time and effort to learn a new set of rules?" 
To the extent that this is true (whatever that extent may be), "D&D Next" has next-to-zero chance to appeal to the people having that attitude. (Not exactly zero, because even obduracy can change.)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 12, 2012)

Neutral.

I think Monte does some fantastic work. I have Dark Space from when it came out from Iron Crown. I have Ptlous when it was first done.

I think Mearls does some fantastic work. I have a lot of his d20 work from various publishers.

Neither of them controls WoTC.

I liked the face that 'the Rouse' put on 4th edition.

I hate a lot of things that WoTC did to the community and the game.

I do not think that Monte and Mearl's will have the control over the new edition that people hope they will but will have things directed to them by corporate.

If they have a good marketing person who can spin gold out of , they may be able to come out of this smelling like roses.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 12, 2012)

*Quite Negative*

To me this looks like a Hail-Mary Pass to keep Hasbro from mothballing D&D. I don't see how this can succeed. They either maintain most of the modern design in 4ed or they return to the classical design of the older editions. Either way is going to leave one half of the fandom outside.

Having Monte at the helm suggests that they are shooting for the classical design. This is probably the worse choice. Even though there are more gamers playing a classical version of D&D, these players have established themselves as PF or OSR players rather than as D&D players and are therefore harder to win.

My expectation is that 5th will do somewhat worse than 4th edition and that lack of success will cause Hasbro to abandon the D&D TTRPG.


----------



## merelycompetent (Jan 12, 2012)

Neutral. Too early to tell, not enough information.

A lot is going to depend on the presentation, play, and compatibility (including with different playstyles). Right now, we just don't have that information.

I'm hearing some good things about what the designers *want* to do. Whether they can actually pull it off... we'll see.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 12, 2012)

JoeGKushner said:


> I hate a lot of things that WoTC did to the community and the game.




It seems to me that many of those wounds were self-inflicted - WotC doesn't have orbital mind control lasers that make us treat each other badly.  We do that to ourselves.

Not that their marketing was flawless - some of it was pretty poor.  But a lot of the damage was caused by self-referential circle-beatings among us that shouldn't be placed in WotC's lap.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 12, 2012)

I voted Neutral.

Pathfinder's my game and I've left D&D before (in the 2e days), so it's largely immaterial to me if there's a D&D game in print, let alone a new edition.

My negative reaction is due primarily to two factors:

1. The fact that after 4e, WotC has been relegated to the "Put up or shut up" column.  I don't wish them ill, but they don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.

2. The knee jerk reaction that many of the folks (not all 4e fans, but certainly many vocal ones...) that predicted the folding of Paizo for not following the "one true way", that 4e was a spectacular success, that said the OGL was crap, and that 4e was the pinnacle of RPG design have, without even an attempt at a Will save,  gone all in and jumped aboard the 5e bandwagon.

#1 doesn't really change my game, my RPG preferences, or my current or future gaming, so it doesn't warrant changing the vote to negative.

#2 is about the 4e/5e fanbase, not the game itself, and really shouldn't influence my opinion of WotC's announcement.

So Neutral it is.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 12, 2012)

Umbran said:


> It seems to me that many of those wounds were self-inflicted - WotC doesn't have orbital mind control lasers that make us treat each other badly.  We do that to ourselves.
> 
> Not that their marketing was flawless - some of it was pretty poor.  But a lot of the damage was caused by self-referential circle-beatings among us that shouldn't be placed in WotC's lap.




You are saying way too many sensible thing s today, i can't XP you twice. It is nice though, that your point is immediately illustrated by the post following yours.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 12, 2012)

I feel neutral on the matter.

On the one hand, I'm all for change and progress and innovation and trying new things. I'm firmly in the camp of, "I'll try anything once, twice if I like it."

But on the other hand, I'm a pessimist and skeptic by nature and everything about this is just screaming at me, "Failure, failure, warning D&D player, warning!"

The thing that puzzles me beyond measure is why they felt the need to announce it NOW. It's not like this will boost 4e sales. There just seems like every reason NOT to announce it now and no reason to announce it, at all.

Yet here we are, in the post-4e era; and let's not kid ourselves, 4e is now dead. Announcing a new edition is the nail of all nails. I certainly won't be looking at any new 4e content and have no reason to renew my DDI sub.

What REALLY worries and puzzles me is that they don't seem to have learned any lessons from their predecessors... or themselves. They're promising everyone, everything, and yet have nothing concrete to offer anyone, anything. So now here we are, post-4e era, in EXACTLY the same position we were in pre-4e when 4e was announced and GleeMax was a buzzword and the Virtual Table Top was going to revolutionise the game and 4e was teh awwsomnest!!? editionz EVAR!

Yeah. And it's snowing in Hell right now, right?


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 12, 2012)

Kzach said:


> The thing that puzzles me beyond measure is why they felt the need to announce it NOW. It's not like this will boost 4e sales. There just seems like every reason NOT to announce it now and no reason to announce it, at all.




Presumably the reason is the open playtest. Hard to do that without announcing the new edition.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 12, 2012)

I voted positive. I've pretty much liked every new edition of D&D more than the last, and I see no reason why this trend shouldn't continue. 

And if 5e doesn't shape up to be something I want to play, I can mod the heck out of 4e and run it however I want.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 12, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> To me this looks like a Hail-Mary Pass to keep Hasbro from mothballing D&D.



That much is certain.



> I don't see how this can succeed. They either maintain most of the modern design in 4ed or they return to the classical design of the older editions. Either way is going to leave one half of the fandom outside.



Wait, what?



> Having Monte at the helm suggests that they are shooting for the classical design. This is probably the worse choice. Even though there are more gamers playing a classical version of D&D, these players have established themselves as PF or OSR players rather than as D&D players and are therefore harder to win.



Mearls still works there, doesn't he? And frankly, Monte Cook has done quite a bit of innovative stuff since he left D&D.



> My expectation is that 5th will do somewhat worse than 4th edition and that lack of success will cause Hasbro to abandon the D&D TTRPG.



In all honestly, anything they put out I think will last for at least as long as 4e. As to whether Hasbro will continue D&D, that I am kind of pessimistic about. But if they don't, someone will, with or without the trademark.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 12, 2012)

Kzach said:


> The thing that puzzles me beyond measure is why they felt the need to announce it NOW. It's not like this will boost 4e sales. There just seems like every reason NOT to announce it now and no reason to announce it, at all.



Anticipation is a powerful motivator. As the flurry of non-gamer news articles flows, it's clear they've generated buzz, which I think was their intent. "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about", and D&D was dying quietly. The buzz may give sales a quick boost, although I agree it probably won't help the company in the medium term.

Perhaps they also felt it best to give the diehards an advance warning. Many people were surprised by the 4e release, which I believe was announced less than a year in advance (historians?).



> What REALLY worries and puzzles me is that they don't seem to have learned any lessons from their predecessors... or themselves. They're promising everyone, everything, and yet have nothing concrete to offer anyone, anything. So now here we are, post-4e era, in EXACTLY the same position we were in pre-4e when 4e was announced and GleeMax was a buzzword and the Virtual Table Top was going to revolutionise the game and 4e was teh awwsomnest!!? editionz EVAR!
> 
> Yeah. And it's snowing in Hell right now, right?



Their purportedly boundless optimism is kind of a concern. Then again, would you rather they set their sights lower? "We'll make a brand of D&D so complicated only we can play it!" "We'll make D&D fun-but only for MMO players!" "We'll make D&D however we please and we don't care what you think!" These would hardly be viable business slogans.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 12, 2012)

Neutral--The signs of it coming...were there. A little suprise on the early date.

Beyond that...just be observing.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 12, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> Mearls still works there, doesn't he? And frankly, Monte Cook has done quite a bit of innovative stuff since he left D&D.




What innovative stuff by Monte are you thinking about? An I overlooking something obvious? For me, Monte is a strict classic RPG guy who has never been interested in modern RPG design goals. Moreover hiring him back to WOTC best serves as a signal of continuity to 3.x, not as a way to innovate the game. 

And I'm not even sure Mearls has done much more than continue the work of previous innovators at WOTC.



Ahnehnois said:


> In all honestly, anything they put out I think will last for at least as long as 4e. As to whether Hasbro will continue D&D, that I am kind of pessimistic about. But if they don't, someone will, with or without the trademark.




It might last as long, but I'm expecting it to be commercially less successful. Hence it will be abandoned and D&D will disappear. Whether other OGL games are D&D without the trademark is another discussion.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 12, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> What innovative stuff by Monte are you thinking about? An I overlooking something obvious? For me, Monte is a strict classic RPG guy who has never been interested in modern RPG design goals. Moreover hiring him back to WOTC best serves as a signal of continuity to 3.x, not as a way to innovate the game.



I hesitate to ask what you're defining as "modern". Between Arcana Evolved and the Book of Experimental Might, I'd say Monte's name is on some of the most significant (and significantly advanced) d20 books released after 3e. I think they hired him because he understands the 3.X architecture and may have some ideas on how to improve it. Although I admittedly haven't read FantasyCraft or some of the other 3.X derivatives, I don't think I've ever seen a more "modern" rpg than 3.5 D&D.

I would loosely define "modern" as a game with a unified ruleset, equal emphasis on combat and noncombat activity, a strongly reality-based design, and highly modular design (the "toolkit" mentality). I would define "classic" as being focused on the Chainmail-esque tactical miniatures combat in a dungeon setting, using many discrete subsystems and esoteric rules, and without making many explicit attempts within the rules to model reality or to encourage activities other than combat. By these definitions (the ones that I just made up which no one else is bound to), the announced 5e plans (and Monte Cook's work) are pretty modern.


----------



## Tinner (Jan 12, 2012)

Negative.

And that's not just a little negative. That's a BIG negative!

Their stated design goal is patently un-possible. (Note - that's even LESS possible than impossible.) The "Everything to Everyone" concept has been a failure for every game that has tried it. The closest thing that came to success at that goal is probably GURPS, and most of the people buying GURPS books are really just getting sourcebooks to use with homebrew games.

I have strong doubts that this player feedback is actually going to be used. Morrus even posted that he has already played 5e. That seems to imply that at least the initial design work is DONE. And it was done without fan feedback. I really doubt that the design team is going to be willing/allowed to scrap that work if the fan feedback is against it. As such, I'm assuming that the fan feedback is just a PR gimmick to try to win back fans.

There has been NO information about what the licensing will be for 5e. IIRC the term that has been used for 5e is GSL. The GSL has been an abject failure compared to the OGL. Even considering revising the GSL is a terrible idea. Scrap it and come up with something new. Better yet, go back to the OGL and while you're at it, liberate those few IP monsters that the OGL kept back. Really, is there ANY evidence that keeping the Beholder and Ilithid out of the OGL honestly made WotC ANY money?

IMO there is really no need for a new edition, other than for WotC/Hasbro to make more money. Can't fault them for that. Who doesn't want to make money? But for my money, I have a great edition of D&D. It's called Pathfinder, and they've been taking their fans' voices into account for several years now. The books come out on time, and look great. They have a deep line of products and accessories. I really don't need 5e, any more than I needed 4e. 5e would have to be so amazingly revolutionary to convince me to switch now as to be inconceivable.

All that said, I did sign up to help playtest. Hope springs eternal, and I recognize that the hobby needs D&D to stay healthy. Maybe they can pull it off. Gygax and Arneson pretty much caught lightning in a bottle when they created the game. Maybe it can happen again? Maybe 5e will be so incredible we all unite behind it and gaming becomes as big and mainstream as it was in the 80's?

Sorry, but I doubt it.


----------



## mxyzplk (Jan 12, 2012)

I am neutral. Everything they are saying seems good, but I am concerned that maybe their mouth is writing checks their ass can't cash.


----------



## Zelligars Apprentice (Jan 12, 2012)

I voted neutral.  I like what they are currently saying.  I am extremely skeptical about them actually DOING it (or at least, doing it RIGHT).

I'll wait and see.


----------



## God (Jan 12, 2012)

I just can't bring myself to care anymore, to be honest. WotC lost me as a customer with 4th edition, which basically shat on all the things (campaign settings and accrued canon, OGL, Dungeon and Dragon mags, etc) I loved most about D&D as a brand. For D&D as a game, I've got Pathfinder.

If life had a reset button and they could return it all to 2007, maybe ... but I don't think even Monte Cook can bandage this one. I think it's more likely to fracture the player base even more and could make things difficult for Pathfinder, which is the real spiritual successor in my opinion.

As long as Hasbro has ultimate control, I just don't trust them to do the right thing for the game.


----------



## Gadodel (Jan 12, 2012)

I've been gaming since 1979.  I will always use whatever edition is out.  And when I feel like it, I will use any past edition too.  It's about having fun with friends. The dice, the mechanics, the setting-well, they are just a bonus. I just like dungeon delving.  As long as someone is helping me come up with cool or new ways to do it, I will buy their product!


----------



## Spinachcat (Jan 12, 2012)

Negative. 

The stated goals are impossible. 

What D&D needs is a heavily marketed VTT that lets people play D&D 24/7, but unlike MMOs, the VTT would offer a human element and the ability to have a character truly affect their game world in a big way. 

But instead of embracing the digital future, WotC is going to slap together another dead tree edition to battle it out with the very entrenched and fractured remnants of the hobby. 

The OSR isn't coming to 5e, the 3e crew has Paizo and thanks to the OGL, the 4e crew will have some company to cater to them as well. Regardless of how modular 5e may be, it won't be 1e, 3e or 4e and that's what fans of 1e, 3e and 4e want. 

That said, I am very interested in playtesting 5e out of my curiosity for new RPGs. I really love checking out new RPGs, regardless of the name brand or company.


----------



## jbear (Jan 12, 2012)

I voted neutral.

I'd like to be positive. I wish D&D a long and healthy life in whatever form it may manifest.

I will watch with interest and happily participate in the playtest and  share my thoughts and experiences/opinions. I will continue to play 4e and Pathfinder, both editions I enjoy. 

But I think some RPG fans like to be negative/unreasonable about things and inflict their own issues onto as many people as they can reach. I do believe this is a vocal minority, but I have my doubts as to whether "5th Idition" will achieve what it sets out to, though I do honestly hope that  it does.

It would be wonderful to think that they could come up with a system so perfect and flexible that it literally was able to satisfy every gamers proverbial itch. As Macchiavelli said, set your sights high, far beyond your capabilities and even if you shoot lower you will have reached far further than you would have otherwise.

But as I do have doubts and reservations, til I see, I will remain quietly neutral.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 12, 2012)

Spinachcat said:


> Negative.
> 
> The stated goals are impossible.



That's my feeling as well. Trying to create a single 'iteration' appealing to fans of every edition is a lofty goal indeed. Imho, there's too little common ground for this to work. Either they have to focus on a certain period/style or they'll end up with a (bad) GURPS clone.


----------



## irontyrant (Jan 12, 2012)

I picked positive. I will give WOTC one more chance,even though they tried to kick us older gamers to the curb. I find the angst and nerd rage emanating from the 4E crowd delicious. 5E will look nothing like 4E guaranteed. I look forward to all the 4E crowd having to deal with what those of us who like other editions had to deal with when WOTC had their antics with 4E.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 12, 2012)

What it boils down to is Wotc keeps throwing viable games under the bus in pursuit of profits to keep Hasbro happy.

3rd Edition
Chainmail (2002)
D20 Modern
3.5
DDM1.0
4th Edition
DDM2.0
4Essentials

Why shouldn't we expect the same won't be done with 5th Edition?


----------



## illwizard (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm really happy. I still play and enjoy 4e, but there is a lot about it I think can be improved. And I love new books and learning new stuff.


----------



## MoxieFu (Jan 12, 2012)

It's interesting to see how the vote at this point is over half positive, but if you only read the comments you would swear that positive would be a tiny fraction. 

I voted positive. I really don't have any reason to think that Mike and Co. are just flat out lying when it comes to the design goals of the new version. I think that asking gamers what they wan and having an open playtest is going in the right direction. In trying to appeal to the broadest spectrum of players they will have to sacrifice the newest of changes that are incompatible with previous editions. 

Just as we are seeing a very vocal minority in the comments in this threads I think that the loudest of those complaining about 3e were being listened to. Plus I think that with 4e the designers only listened to the voices that agreed with them. At least with this iteration they are asking us what we like instead of telling us we are wrong to like the existing game.


----------



## enrious (Jan 12, 2012)

MoxieFu said:


> It's interesting to see how the vote at this point is over half positive, but if you only read the comments you would swear that positive would be a tiny fraction.
> 
> I voted positive. I really don't have any reason to think that Mike and Co. are just flat out lying when it comes to the design goals of the new version. I think that asking gamers what they wan and having an open playtest is going in the right direction. In trying to appeal to the broadest spectrum of players they will have to sacrifice the newest of changes that are incompatible with previous editions.
> 
> Just as we are seeing a very vocal minority in the comments in this threads I think that the loudest of those complaining about 3e were being listened to. Plus I think that with 4e the designers only listened to the voices that agreed with them. At least with this iteration they are asking us what we like instead of telling us we are wrong to like the existing game.




Here's how I see it - add up Positive and Neutral.

Why?

Because I think a substantial number of the people voting neutral are 3.x and earlier players, who've abandoned WotC/D&D at this point, so prior to this they'd have had a Negative opinion.  Thus, becoming Neutral is a positive.

And for the other Neutrals, then they presumably are 4e players who aren't immediately turned off by the news.

So I add the two together.

At this point, all it takes for WotC is Neutral - converting Neutral to Positive is for later on.


----------



## Erekose (Jan 12, 2012)

I voted neutral . . .

I'd like to be positive as I'd like the new version to be a D&D that I like as I'm not a big fan of 4E.

However, it doesn't get past the fact that with 3.xE (plus Pathfinder) I'm pretty happy where I am. It would have to be a real step change better to win me over to 5E.

Having said that I can see that I'll buy the 3 core rulebooks (if they go down that route).


----------



## Henry (Jan 12, 2012)

One POSITIVE result of all this is me hearing from people I haven't seen or just missed on ENWorld for years. Feels like 2003 all over again! 

A couple of clarifications, though Tinner:



Tinner said:


> I have strong doubts that this player feedback is actually going to be used. Morrus even posted that he has already played 5e. That seems to imply that at least the initial design work is DONE. And it was done without fan feedback.




That's actually an ENWorld correspondent named Chris who went to Seattle, not Morrus. Also, Mearls in the interview did specify it's an early-early-early version, and the reason for the details blackout is that they still have a long way to go; the implication is also that it's based on feedback they've received over the past two years from across the gaming community, so -- without fan feedback, in my opinion, isn't quite accurate.



> There has been NO information about what the licensing will be for 5e. IIRC the term that has been used for 5e is GSL. The GSL has been an abject failure compared to the OGL. Even considering revising the GSL is a terrible idea. Scrap it and come up with something new. Better yet, go back to the OGL and while you're at it, liberate those few IP monsters that the OGL kept back. Really, is there ANY evidence that keeping the Beholder and Ilithid out of the OGL honestly made WotC ANY money?




With the exception of the "liberate its monsters" thing (if they want to keep it, that's cool -- Paizo has shown that everyone else can survive without beholders and mind flayers  -- I agree with every bit of that. In one of the articles, Mearls (and elsewhere Bruce Cordell) has said they're VERY aware of the role of the OGL in their success in winning fans back; will it mean real change? I dunno, but I'm still pretty hopeful at this point. I just know that Ryan's 2001 prediction about "what would happen if the producers of D&D tried to radically change the game in an OGL world" actually started to come to pass, from 2009 to now.



> IMO there is really no need for a new edition, other than for WotC/Hasbro the D&D brand to make more money survive in the hands of gamers.




Probably closer to the truth, if I've been reading between the lines of these articles properly.

--Henry


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 12, 2012)

Neutral, leaning toward positive.

The negative is the fear that it may already be too late, positive includes the admission that mistakes were made, and the public playtest.

There is some fear that they won't listen to the playtesters, but I am hopeful in that regard.

The other big thing is still going to be the license, with something akin to the GSL they could yet snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory. No way of knowing, until it is announced.

So, I guess 'reserving judgement' is more accurate than 'neutral', but I am hopeful, not convinced of futility.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Rassilon (Jan 12, 2012)

*Hells Yes!*

I voted totally positive. 

I saw comments above to the effect that 5E can never satisfy Hasbro, and thus D&D will get mothballed. I hadn't thought of that. Pretty grim. But then I got in on Transformers at the ground level way back when, and whilst Hasbro benched that IP from time time, I can't really claim that Transformers faded away as a pop-concept over almost 30 years.

WOTC-current-DnD is dead to me anyway. Not in a mean, 'you're the worst friend ever' way, but in a a "I miss you, why'd you have to go so soon?" kind of way.  I tried 4E. Intellectually really admired a couple of things they'd done with it too - but couldn\t stand the experience of actually playing it. Got bored reading the books in fact (contrast AD&D, 3.X, PF). That was probably a bad sign right there.

SO, I agree that that claim that it can be all thnigs to all people is untenable. I don't agree that WOTC acutally made that claim, more "there is a 'heart' of D&D and 5E will have that, and probably use mechinics from previous editions that we know worked" but still, they have made themselves a big target.

Personally, the absolute worst that can happen is that I want to play the ciurrent edition of D&D.

 - Rassilon.

[PS: The media tell me that a huge number of my D&D playing homies really like 4E. I winced real hard on your behalf, on account you've had 2(ish) systems in three years, and now WOTC says she's gonna go steady with someone else already. I got nothing against WOTC no more, but if you need numbers to take the walls, I'll help out.]


----------



## Rassilon (Jan 12, 2012)

QUOTE=Henry;5774432]One POSITIVE result of all this is me hearing from people I haven't seen or just missed on ENWorld for years. Feels like 2003 all over again! 


Most definitely!


----------



## Ranes (Jan 12, 2012)

More than one poster has responded with scepticism about the 'everything to everyone' idea. Whilst being somewhat sceptical myself about the company's goals, can I point out that this precis is inaccurate? What WotC has claimed to be aiming for is '_the best of_ everything from previous editions'. If we're going to have our expectations dashed, let's have the right expectation dashed.


----------



## r0gershrubber (Jan 12, 2012)

Neutral.  I was enthusiastic about 4E and closely followed the previews and release, but ultimately it wasn't fun to play.  Pathfinder really hits the spot, so I have nothing to lose from 5E, but I'm skeptical they can achieve such ambitious goals.  Still, they're saying the right things.

In my mind, one measure of ultimate success for 5E would be for Paizo to retire Pathfinder and return to making content for 5E.  That would really say something about 5E.


----------



## Dedekind (Jan 12, 2012)

Positive. 

In hindsight, I've always liked edition N+1 more than edition N when they come out. So, bring it on!


----------



## Stormtower (Jan 12, 2012)

Negative.

Skeptical of WotC's ability to fulfill their current design goals.

Pathfinder feels like home, and me & my group are delighted with it.

D&D as a brand was severely devalued to me by WotC's antics around 4E and ESPECIALLY Essentials.  It was Essentials and the CB online-only relaunch that killed it for me at last.

This feels like Hasbro pushing from above due to 4E's sales lagging and the community being split.  I doubt that many of the folks who were alienated by the 4E launch will come back and give WotC their trust again.


----------



## enrious (Jan 12, 2012)

Stormtower said:


> This feels like Hasbro pushing from above due to 4E's sales lagging and the community being split.  I doubt that many of the folks who were alienated by the 4E launch will come back and give WotC their trust again.




Taking the above as a sample of the same repeated expression...

I wonder if at some point, someone at WotC stood up and said, "Look, with 4e we let incompetent marketing people and business managers run things and look what happened.  Give us a chance to fix things, gamers to gamers."

Ah well, just speculation.

The simple reality is that it's doubtful WotC could just keep on doing what they were doing - and still remain viable to whomever controls these things.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 12, 2012)

Henry said:


> One POSITIVE result of all this is me hearing from people I haven't seen or just missed on ENWorld for years. Feels like 2003 all over again!



Except this time we know the financial reasons behind this, thanks to the escapist article. Sure, naysayers _speculated_ Hasbro was threatening wotc employees with a _+5 Job-Bane, Mighty Cleaving Great Axe_, but now we know that was the case. And it is rarely a good thing for naysayer's speculations to be correct.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 12, 2012)

About the future of D&D in general?

Positive. I don't think 4e could've stood up for another 5 years, slowly loosing money and players the entire time. The ONLY way that D&D could have a bright future is by starting a new edition early, and the ONLY way that a new edition would be palatable is if it accepted a multitude of playstyles (including the 4e playstyle, which has its ardent fans). A multifaceted base also allows for a long, healthy 5e, taken in many different directions, and re-visited countless times. If they're smart, they can even get Paizo on board, and that'll bring the Pathfinder crowd somewhat back around. 

They've got a tall order in front of them, but I trust the team -- they're smart, admirable people, with their names on products I've liked. 

I am watching for a violation of that trust. But I alone am not the future of D&D.


----------



## Super Pony (Jan 12, 2012)

As I have grown into my beard I have come to the conclusion that "I just love games."

Roleplaying games, board games, war games, strategy games, card games, video games, mind games, hunger games...you name it.  I owe some of my current mode of thinking to the emergence of 4E.  When it released I was in the lynch mob crowd booing and hissing with all the rediculous angst that permeated the interwebs...and it didn't make anything more fun for anyone.  All we did at our 3E games was talk about 4E and all I did at the game store was go "psht" each time I saw another 4E book.  Hate is baggage, even with something as banal as a game.

So I knuckled up and played 4E for a while!  It still wasn't my favorite game, but the people I played with mattered more than the rules.  And those folks were first rate.  And we had _fun.  Every _session.  That group and I are currently playing Eclipse Phase and they're still the same class act group of armchair geniuses.  I think next month we're cycling back into some WFRP 2nd or 3rd edition.  Why?  Because games are fun.  If a game stops being fun...look inside yourself and at the humans you are playing with for solutions...not a rules system.

So whether or not the next itteration of D&D conforms to all my hopes and dreams as the *All-Game* or not?  I am really not invested in the outcome this time.  However, I am very interested in the more open design process 5th edition could be built with.  So I'll be following WotC's actions closely until release day.  Then I'll check out the rules.  

If it isn't my cup of tea?  I'll let someone else who IS excited about it buy the system and let them run it for me.  And if it rocks my pants off?  Well I'll have yet another game system loading down my shelves to be worked into my spastic rotation of roleplaying games.  

So color me positive.


----------



## noffham (Jan 12, 2012)

Positive, no question about it.  D&D as a living, table-top, face-to-face game goes on. 

The Bells & Whistles? Target audience? Hidden (or not) Agendas? 

Who cares? No matter what is done some people will be thrilled and others will hate it. Some folk will adopt, others adapt and others ignore. The point is that Dungeons and Dragons goes on. 

Play what you like how you like it, introduce it to friends and relatives, grow the hobby, HAVE FUN. That's what matters at the end of the day. 

Ranting about "the Man", nursing old grudges, venting your spleen, while cathartic is not so much fun.

At least the Grand Dame of RPGs isn't being consigned to the IP vault and left to molder away; our hobby is getting attention not just in the "insider" media but the New York Times for heavens sake. And it isn't more "D&D is satanic and eats babies!" hogwash.

This is a breath of fresh air blowing the cobwebs out of what was the increasingly dusty and  forgotten attic of our hobby. How can it be anything other than a positive?

Just one DM's point of view anyway.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 12, 2012)

Neutral, but definitely hoping for the best.

joe b.


----------



## Ron (Jan 12, 2012)

Cautionly positive, as I applaud the design goals but I am unsure they can pull it out. Hopefuly, they will design a system that will turn D&D again a suitable system to introduce new players to the hobby. Being the brand with most awaresome, it is definitely a task D&D should tackle but have been poorly equiped to do so since they folded the basic line in the early 90s (pathfinder's begginers box is a good product but still too complex to capture most newbies without proper fostering).

There is this talk about cattering lapsed players but I don't think this is a main goal. More likely they are trying to attract different kind of players than those who might get in love with 3rd or 4th edition. Those are currently out of the hobby and thus they may be the key to grow the business.

Finally, I am not a great fan of public betatests. It usually lacks the focus to scorrect the main issues and require too much resources to be managed. At least from the publisher side, I will enjoy to give an early look in what they are cooking. At least, I think it will work nicely as a publicity stunt.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 12, 2012)

Interesting that the percentages haven't varied by more than a percent or two since there were just 100 votes.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 12, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Interesting that the percentages haven't varied by more than a percent or two since there were just 100 votes.




But not all that surprising. You can do an awful lot with small sample sizes. The main bias in ENWorld polls (non-random sampling of self-motivated participants) won't be significantly affected by sample size.


----------



## bhandelman (Jan 12, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Interesting that the percentages haven't varied by more than a percent or two since there were just 100 votes.




Now I wonder if someone took all the posts in response and totaled those numbers, how would that compare?


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 12, 2012)

delericho said:


> Relieved. Hopeful. More than a little glad that we don't seem to be seeing a lot of Edition Warring - maybe people really are ready for reunification.
> 
> But not confident. I fear making a D&D that is all things to all people is an impossible task, I fear that WotC may _still_ be labouring under impossible requirements from Hasbro. And I can't help but remember thinking that they were doing _exactly_ the right things with 4e, right until they took an horrific wrong turn.
> 
> So, positive, but with significant reservations.




Not to start an edition war, but I'd contest that whether or not they were doing the right things with 4E depends on whether or not you *liked* 4E.

Now, either Hasbro is putting on pressure for them to have shorter lifespans to the editions OR they recognize that something went wrong with the way they went about 4E, and they allegedly lost a number of customers, and cut the edition short.  They gained new customers, but there sure seemed to be a heck of a lot of acrimony.....for years.

I wonder where this announcement places Pathfinder?  I guess the proof is in the pudding as to how good Pathfinder is.  If it's strong enough to stand on its own two feet.

I don't think there's enough info on 5E to really make any decisions.  I like what Monte's done, and hope to see some of the mechanics systems of 4E go away (daily, encounter, etc.)......at least with respect to it being the mechanic on which all actions for all classes is determined.

I really liked some of the other elements, like the Feywild etc.  Only took 4 editions to get that added into the game.

I'd love to see Wizards act more like Magisters from Arcana Unearthed........a spellcasting system that may have its roots in Vancian spellcasting, but is not so much "fire and forget".  He also designed an interesting spell building system for his "World of Darkness" adaptation.  But I suspect it may be difficult for them to backtrack on the changes to how magic worked in 4E.

Banshee


----------



## Belgos (Jan 13, 2012)

Banshee16 said:


> I wonder where this announcement places Pathfinder?  I guess the proof is in the pudding as to how good Pathfinder is.  If it's strong enough to stand on its own two feet.
> 
> 
> Banshee




Pathfinder has been standing on its own two feet for some years now.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 13, 2012)

Harlekin said:


> You are saying way too many sensible thing s today, i can't XP you twice. It is nice though, that your point is immediately illustrated by the post following yours.




Think what you will.  WotC's actions & design choices resulted in me having the stance towards them that I do.  That said, I'm giving them a chance rather than dismissing them outright.

Glad to see those who have a different viewpoint than you won't have to do without snark between now and the 5e launch...


----------



## migo (Jan 13, 2012)

I'm positive. A big reason has to do with what really bothered me about 3e and 4e. 3e is released, then bugs are figured out and 3.5 comes out to fix those bugs. 4e is released, some bugs are figured out and Essentials is released to fix them. 3 years first time, 2 years second time. The first releases each time were essentially open betas that everyone paid for. 

An open beta for 5e will at least cut that out, and it'll increase the longevity of the system. Although, with 3.5 lasting 5 years, and 4e as a whole barely lasting 4 that still doesn't suggest it'll last too long.

Probably one of the best things they could do is guarantee this one will last at least 10 years. Not holding my breath for that though, but at least it doesn't get split up in two editions.


----------



## harpy (Jan 13, 2012)

Overall I'm not really sure what to think.

The real problem in all of this that I see is that Hasbro wants $50/$100 million in revenue for D&D and the RPG marketplace simply isn't that.  

If WotC could just be left to make a really good $30 million dollar per year game then I think it could all go rather well, but if Hasbro is going to hover over, demanding more be squeezed from the market then it'll mean various strategies and initiatives that will not yield the best game experience, play design, or community development.

D&D shouldn't be governed by stockholders who have no care in the world for D&D, just the money in people's pockets.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 13, 2012)

Belgos said:


> Pathfinder has been standing on its own two feet for some years now.




Yes, it has.  But it's done that at a time when there was a relatively significant rift in the fanbase.

As such, if 5E does away with the things that caused many people to turn from D&D in 4E, would that shrink Pathfinder's customer base to too large a degree?

I'm cautiously optimistic about the idea of 5E.  I'm not sure Hasbro and some of the current designers who created 4E have the same goals in mind for the game, to satisfy my desires for D&D....but Monte Cook's back, and I've liked almost everything he's done over the years.

I don't know how they'll do it though.  2E/3E and 4E were so different, I don't know how they'd reconcile the two systems to create a 5E.  They're very much different games.

Banshee


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 13, 2012)

Quite positive. I like their stated design goals and am looking forward to seeing how it works out.

Not sure if it will all work out hos I like it, but still positive.


----------



## migo (Jan 13, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I hesitate to ask what you're defining as "modern". Between Arcana Evolved and the Book of Experimental Might, I'd say Monte's name is on some of the most significant (and significantly advanced) d20 books released after 3e. I think they hired him because he understands the 3.X architecture and may have some ideas on how to improve it. Although I admittedly haven't read FantasyCraft or some of the other 3.X derivatives, I don't think I've ever seen a more "modern" rpg than 3.5 D&D.
> 
> I would loosely define "modern" as a game with a unified ruleset, equal emphasis on combat and noncombat activity, a strongly reality-based design, and highly modular design (the "toolkit" mentality). I would define "classic" as being focused on the Chainmail-esque tactical miniatures combat in a dungeon setting, using many discrete subsystems and esoteric rules, and without making many explicit attempts within the rules to model reality or to encourage activities other than combat. By these definitions (the ones that I just made up which no one else is bound to), the announced 5e plans (and Monte Cook's work) are pretty modern.




Just goes to show how exposure to different games changes what you think of as modern. 3.5 isn't really modern at all, compare it to BRP or ShadowRun 2nd Ed, and there isn't anything really new about it at all. D20 itself was just catching up to what other systems had been doing in the 80s. 

I'd also suggest that the unified mechanic drives things towards combat more than less, particularly when you have rules for combat and rules for everything else. When mechanically bluffing someone is the same as crafting a breastplate (and is just a single roll of a die, with minimal modification or interaction with other rolls, something skill challenges tried to address but didn't do well enough), there isn't all that much interest in doing any of it, because it's all the same.

Contrast that with BECMI/RC D&D, which as you advanced had rules for settling down and running a kingdom and even becoming a god. Tons of stuff that really isn't combat at all, and there was the convention of just figuring out how to resolve an action or conflict that didn't have specific rules instead of feeling stonewalled by the lack of support in the rulebook (an attitude that has become rather more prevalent since d20). You can be certain that playing an RC game over a period of time will leave you with a much more diverse play experience than playing 3.5 would.

The result of the unified mechanic in a classical system (which 3.5 definitely is, and 4e still fits in a lot of ways) results in more of a combat focus, not less of one. 4e at least forces everyone out of combat a bit with skill challenges, but in a clunky way, 3e and 3.5 didn't even offer that. 

If you want to see a real modern system, look at one of the FATE based systems. I suggest Legend of Anglerre if you're interested in sticking to fantasy, Diaspora if you want to look at some interesting hard-ish sci-fi. ORE systems also really open things up, and are far more modern, with Monsters and Other Childish Things and A Dirty World being excellent examples of taking the focus away from combat (while not stripping combat out entirely). They both do use a unified mechanic, but BRP did that 30 years ago, so while 3.5 does share that characteristic with the FATE and ORE games, it has existed for so long that I wouldn't accept it as one for a modern game any more than use of dice makes a game modern.


----------



## delericho (Jan 13, 2012)

Banshee16 said:


> Not to start an edition war, but I'd contest that whether or not they were doing the right things with 4E depends on whether or not you *liked* 4E.




Good point. I should have put a "for me" condition on what I said (or something similar). I was really referring to their decision to break the game down and rebuild, which I applauded - though I didn't care for the result.



> Now, either Hasbro is putting on pressure for them to have shorter lifespans to the editions OR they recognize that something went wrong with the way they went about 4E, and they allegedly lost a number of customers, and cut the edition short.  They gained new customers, but there sure seemed to be a heck of a lot of acrimony.....for years.




According to Ryan Dancey in the long thread on his "Escapist Bonus Article", 4e was labouring under an impossible-to-meet $50M target. If that is a bar for success, no wonder it "failed"! (For any other RPG company, it would have been a runaway success, hence the quotation marks.)

There's since been a change in management at WotC (and for D&D itself), which frees them from the expectations of the past, and allows them to try something new - hence 5e. I'm just hoping they're not _still_ labouring under that same absurd $50M requirement, because I don't see how they can possible meet it.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 13, 2012)

delericho said:


> I'm just hoping they're not _still_ labouring under that same absurd $50M requirement,



Why wouldn't they be? Hasbro still owns them.


----------



## bouncyhead (Jan 13, 2012)

Kzach said:


> The thing that puzzles me beyond measure is why they felt the need to announce it NOW. It's not like this will boost 4e sales. There just seems like every reason NOT to announce it now and no reason to announce it, at all.




On the timing thing: Only a guess, but Erik Mona stated recently that Paizo are selling more PF core rulebooks now than they did at launch (I think this is in the Chronicles Podcast).

My assumption would be that a v large proportion of these sales are to 3.5 players who are switching over.

Surely the 5E announcement will drastically slow this switchover process. They may be hoping that a lot of 3.5ers will stick with what they have in anticipation of a 5E that will be (from early marketing chatter) closer to their preferences?


----------



## emanresu (Jan 13, 2012)

3E came out when?
3.5 came out when?
4E came out when?
5E is do when?

is there a "production vs sales" trend here? I realize its a business and they have to continue to produce product for its customers, otherwise they will shrivel and die. But, that being said, it would be like Ford selling only trucks one year, and then do to the lagging sales/complaints switching to selling only econo cars the next, followed by only selling small SUV's the 3rd year.

I dont know the answer the "creators" or at least the current decision makers, are looking for, perhaps if we knew the question? Apparently they are now going to listen to gamers advice? Having not before?


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jan 13, 2012)

I tried to write out exactly WHY I feel "neutral" with a list of positives and negatives, but each time I try, I realize it will take a much longer reply for me to explain it all.

So here's the briefest, shortest, gut-check reason why I feel neutral: 

Negative: I feel that 4e was a good system that had a terrible launch and a premature revision, and I feel that WotC over "promised" the DDI which still hasn't met it's original goals and shows no sign of leaving a beta state before 5e -- more likely, it will just enter a "new" beta state.

Positive: However, if 5e could actually become a rosetta stone edition which somehow supports, re-uses (and most importantly, coherently "compiles") all the material from the past 30 years -- while somehow finding a non-collectible way to remain viable without another "reboot" for the next 10 years, it would be the most awesome thing EVER.

Negative: I see quotes from the new team that seem to be promising the moon and will later be retconned / retroactively contextualized

Positive: I have confidence in the great team that has been assembled, and if they are allowed to design 5e for long-term health, it could be amazing. 

Negative: Online-only access to DDI material

Positive: It is a way for the D&D brand to justify the release of more esoteric articles, .pdfs, etc

Negative: The omni-present threat of adding randomized collectible "character power" elements to D&D

Positive: Hopefully, WotC has learned that forcing Magic/Pokemon/World of Warcraft paradigms onto D&D is not the best business strategy

Neutral: If making D&D WOW-lite or Magic-RPG doesn't work, I have no idea what the big money option could be for D&D, and it desperately needs one.


----------



## Spinachcat (Jan 13, 2012)

bouncyhead said:


> On the timing thing: Only a guess, but Erik Mona stated recently that Paizo are selling more PF core rulebooks now than they did at launch (I think this is in the Chronicles Podcast).




P.T. Barnum would be proud.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 14, 2012)

migo said:


> If you want to see a real modern system, look at one of the FATE based systems. I suggest Legend of Anglerre if you're interested in sticking to fantasy, Diaspora if you want to look at some interesting hard-ish sci-fi. ORE systems also really open things up, and are far more modern, with Monsters and Other Childish Things and A Dirty World being excellent examples of taking the focus away from combat (while not stripping combat out entirely). They both do use a unified mechanic, but BRP did that 30 years ago, so while 3.5 does share that characteristic with the FATE and ORE games, it has existed for so long that I wouldn't accept it as one for a modern game any more than use of dice makes a game modern.




Here's the thing. D&D created the genre and comes from a focus on combat firstly. that's the style of game. Later editions are still based on the same core as the original because that is the STYLE of game.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being 'modern'.


----------



## migo (Jan 14, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> Here's the thing. D&D created the genre and comes from a focus on combat firstly. that's the style of game. Later editions are still based on the same core as the original because that is the STYLE of game.
> 
> It has absolutely nothing to do with being 'modern'.




Yes it does, which you could see if you followed what I was quoting.


----------



## Riley (Jan 14, 2012)

Positive.

With the release of 4e Essentials, I realized that what I really want is a BECMI/1e/4e hybrid: the fast play and flavor of the old editions, paired with standardized actions, conditions, and balanced math from the latest iteration.

Until information comes along to dash my hopes, I can imagine that this is exactly what 5e will have as a core.


----------



## Erudite Frog (Jan 14, 2012)

i dont know anything about game design. at the end of the day ijust like to play DND. i hope this turns out to be awesome and im sure it will


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jan 15, 2012)

I'm guardedly optimistic about it. It seems like they've learned a lot from their experiences with 3.X and 4e, and they're saying a lot of things that have piqued my interest-- but as a Pathfinder player and as a non-d20 guy in general, I don't have a whole lot of emotional investment in it.

Aside from wishing them well in their endeavors, I'm only mildly curious about what they're going to do with it.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 15, 2012)

I voted neutral.  I have not had a solid, regular D&D game since 3.5 came out (mostly due to friends moving and families growing, rather than the revision).  I was excited for 4e and play a little with my 9 year old son and some of his friends, but I just cannot get into 4e.  

I'm hopeful for a new edition that appeals to my son and his friends *and* to me, but the last time I felt this excitement it was while reading early release info for 4e, so I am more than a touch skeptical.


----------



## avin (Jan 15, 2012)

Optymist.

Both 3.5/Pathfinder have flaws. I want a game free of 3.5 unbalance/combos and 4E healing surges/grind combat. 

I want the good stuff from every edition kept.

And, by the way, I want not only crunch to be optional, but also fluff.


----------



## 77IM (Jan 15, 2012)

*It's my dream edition*

It's like Wizards read my mind.

The problem they are trying to tackle -- D&D's broad fan base with greatly differing preferences -- is something I've been saying for _years_. And their stated approach -- a game with simple core rules, and modular add-ons to suit each group -- is something I've wanted for _years_.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn (it's not like I have any evidence to back this up) -- just trying to express how extremely excited I am about this new edition.

 -- 77IM


----------



## cyderak (Jan 15, 2012)

Put me down for Negative.........

5th edition D&D is just Wizards of the Coast in panic-mode in light of Paizo's SMASH HIT Pathfinder RPG blowing D&D out of the water in sales the last couple of months. 

Leaving D&D 5th edition up to the players is one of the most historically stupid marketing moves they could have made.  

Mostly because of the fact that the 4th edition players are the most aware of the move being that their edition of D&D is being shelved.  

So they will be the players giving the most feedback.  Thus making 5th edition probably a 4th edition clone.




*If you want to re-boot D&D,  my advice is:*
** Take a little of what Paizo did with pathfinder rules-wise.(Meaning the minor tweaks to 3rd edition to make it cool.)

** Stick with traditional core races. (Maybe releasing variant races later on in secondary rules books.)

**REWIND THE WORLD HISTORY BACK TO WHERE IT WAS BEFORE THE FAST FOWARDING OF TIME KILLED OFF ALL THE COOL ICONIC CHARACTERS!!!

**Commission awesome RPG artists to give the game and D&D world a fresh look.   NOT A CHINESE VIDEO GAME COMPANY TO DO THE ARTWORK!! ..........*IDIOTS!!*

** Take the RPG Gamers advice and ideas into consideration when designing the next iteration of D&D.  But in the end integrate ideas that are right for the D&D RPG gaming community as a whole.  At the risk of sounding cheesy "UNITE THE 1st,  2nd,  3rd,  and 4th EDITION D&D PLAYERS".

**Put some money into more universal gaming aids.  Like a universal battlemap software with both Hex and Square movement so it can be used for other RPG's.  Put the money behind it to make it look awesome with an easy to use interface. The more universal you make things,  the more players of other game systems will BUY YOUR PRODUCT!

** And finally,  lets face it,  we gamers collect things like borderline hoarders!  Some refer to pre-painted plastic minis as plasti-crack.  Theres money out there to be made on D&D minis.  Just need to fill the needs of the players.  I gotta say,  Pathfinder minis are definitly on the right track with the distribution system,  Price,  and QUALITY of their minis.  I'll say it again,  Q U A L I T Y of their minis.  The only complaint I would have is that Pathfinder minis are too pastel and could stand to be a little more dark in color.

To sum up.......Good luck Wizards.  Because all the spurned employees you let go went to Paizo with all their good concepts and their making a killing!!


----------



## emanresu (Jan 15, 2012)

Paizo..........spanish for clown, right? WOTC ought to get off the coast and join middle America in a down to earth / grass root effort to bring D & D back. Back in time, to 3.0/3.5 fix the stupid, fill in some pot holes.................dont fix what aint broke. Never played Pathfinder but apparently thats kinda what they did. So Would 5E be a rip off of Pathfinder 1E? The only thing I know is nobody around us purchased 4E or had any interest in changing. Most game groups I know of run a campaign between 3.0 and 3.5. Using what they like from both.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 16, 2012)

emanresu said:


> Paizo..........spanish for clown, right? WOTC ought to get off the coast and join middle America in a down to earth / grass root effort to bring D & D back. Back in time, to 3.0/3.5 fix the stupid, fill in some pot holes.................dont fix what aint broke. Never played Pathfinder but apparently thats kinda what they did. So Would 5E be a rip off of Pathfinder 1E? The only thing I know is nobody around us purchased 4E or had any interest in changing. Most game groups I know of run a campaign between 3.0 and 3.5. Using what they like from both.




Paizo is the Greek verb "to play".


----------



## DragonAstik (Jan 16, 2012)

shamsael said:


> It seems like they're admitting that the way Paizo created Pathfinder was the way they should have handled 4E. Not in the sense that Pathfinder was so close to 3E, but in the sense that Pathfinder was the result of extensive public play testing and input, as opposed to something designed and developed in secret.




Paizo with the creation of Pathfinder has bended to the masses who’ve played and loved the game for years. They choose to listen, and fix what we the mass have complained about for years. They also have provided great media distribution with amendments with no charge to us who have paid for the additional PDF recourses (Kudos Paizo.)


----------



## pauljathome (Jan 16, 2012)

emanresu said:


> Most game groups I know of run a campaign between 3.0 and 3.5. Using what they like from both.




If NEITHER Pathfinder NOR 4th ed got you to move on then  I think most game groups you know of are firmly out of WOTCs target demographic. While I sincerely hope that you're all happy with that I hope even harder that WOTC does NOT try and get you back into the fold as doing so would almost certainly lose more customers than it would win.

One thing that perusing this and various other threads has convinced me is that making all gamers even remotely content is absolutely impossible. Hopefully making 75% happy (and 90% content) is both possible AND sufficient


----------



## migo (Jan 16, 2012)

77IM said:


> It's like Wizards read my mind.
> 
> The problem they are trying to tackle -- D&D's broad fan base with greatly differing preferences -- is something I've been saying for _years_. And their stated approach -- a game with simple core rules, and modular add-ons to suit each group -- is something I've wanted for _years_.
> 
> ...




I believe you, because I've wanted something similar for a long time as well. And the thing is, the specifics we want are probably not the same, but that's the beauty of a modular system.

It also lets them release the financial equivalent of splat books, which I'm sure will keep the bean counters happy.


----------



## migo (Jan 16, 2012)

cyderak said:


> Put me down for Negative.........
> 
> 5th edition D&D is just Wizards of the Coast in panic-mode in light of Paizo's SMASH HIT Pathfinder RPG blowing D&D out of the water in sales the last couple of months.
> 
> ...




Put you down for pessimist. 4e players don't like everything about 4e, it's just in balancing out the pros and cons of the various options, they prefer 4e. And I do too, it has things that really suck, but 3.5 has even more things that suck about it (and that Pathfinder doesn't fix one bit - unsurprising, it's designed for the people who like that kind of suck).


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 16, 2012)

Positive: "Cautiously Optimistic"

I think pleasing the fans of 4e while pleasing the fans of 1 and 2 and 3 is a tall order.

But if it can be done, it will have to be with a rules lite core, and modular supplements.

Whether the rules lite core will be good enough for the modular addons to matter? I can hope. Whether the modular addons will add to the core, the elements I would want? That's also yet to be seen; and whether it will try to force me to use the elements I didn't like from one edition or another is also yet to be seen.

If they can pull it off, I'll definitely buy it. But its certainly going to be a difficult task.

I wish them luck.


----------



## TheCelric (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm happy to support the new system, like I was happy to support 4th, 3.5, and second edition. Forward ho!

There were things that I disliked about 4E, but I found that they were far fewer than I liked about it, and I generally remember feeling the same way about 3E.

If WOTC REALLY wanted to make me happy, they would support more settings with content and adventures (like Pathfinder does). I'm not talking lair assaults or game-day stuff, or even tourney play or living adventures (unless those are maybe released on PDF later for a small fee). I'm talking about adventure paths. 1st to whatever. Regional flavor. Fantastic settings and dialog and all. The folks developing this game are gaming geniuses and need to also turn some of that toward playing around the table. The old days were rife with adventures on my local waldenbooks gaming shelf - and I long to see that again.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 16, 2012)

I can't not be positive; D&D has been a part of my life for 26 years, and D&D4 was a disappointment almost across the board.  The revelation that there would be no more Dungeons & Dragons for me for at least four years destroyed my interest in roleplaying.  What comes next almost has to be better.

Unfortunately, a redesign of the rules will do nothing to resolve the still-present underlying corporate reasons for D&D4, which evokes strong mental images of flimsy self-adhesive bandages.

I have hope that D&D5 will be a better game at its core -- fundamentally, all that would take is the elimination of the exceptions-based system -- but I have little faith that it won't still be a splatbook-ridden cash grab, which never ends well.

Nevertheless, as a long-standing fan, I will be watching closely and with bated breath.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 16, 2012)

TheCelric said:


> I'm not talking lair assaults or game-day stuff, or even tourney play or living adventures (unless those are maybe released on PDF later for a small fee).




4E's Living Forgotten Realms adventures are available for free in PDF format at the campaign website: LFR Adventures


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm not sure.  I voted Neutral, but I guess the more complex answer would be that I bounce back and forth between mild excitement and apathy.  It's not a negative apathy though; I simply feel WoTC has their work cut out for them to win me back as a customer.  Likewise, the idea of a modular system has to compete with another system which I discovered and highly enjoy.  


I am ready to move beyond 4th Edition; so, on that note, I was excited when 5E was announced.  This isn't a crack toward 4th; I have had a few good times with it, and I will continue to run my current campaign until completion.  My apathy springs from having another game that isn't D&D which I highly enjoy and have fallen in love with currently holding my attention.  I'm interested in seeing how 5E turns out, but I'm not going to blindly jump into a new D&D like I may have before.  I'm at a point now where I have other options I'm happy with, so WoTC and the D&D brand now has to compete with those options.


----------



## cyderak (Jan 16, 2012)

migo said:


> Put you down for pessimist. 4e players don't like everything about 4e, it's just in balancing out the pros and cons of the various options, they prefer 4e. And I do too, it has things that really suck, but 3.5 has even more things that suck about it (and that Pathfinder doesn't fix one bit - unsurprising, it's designed for the people who like that kind of suck).





Yeah 4th edition did have alot that sucked........ALOT that sucked!!.......I mean ALOT!........like the whole thing....... Just saying......


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 17, 2012)

Dude. I may have also hated 4e (though I did try it for a year), but its over now, so you don't need to be a troll about it.

lol


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 17, 2012)

Positive. New edition means new online arguing means new fun.


----------



## Norcross (Jan 17, 2012)

Positive.  I don't know how they can possibly integrate 4e with the rest, and would be perfectly fine if they just dumped it, but I see this news as the most positive thing to happen with D&D in many years.


----------



## soulnova (Jan 17, 2012)

cyderak said:


> **Commission awesome RPG artists to give the game and D&D world a fresh look.   NOT A CHINESE VIDEO GAME COMPANY TO DO THE ARTWORK!! ..........*IDIOTS!!*





Because asians can't draw fantasy landscapes, right?

Seriously, if they get the _right studio_, this might be the only thing I'm actually looking forward from the new edition. 

Still, I'm skeptical on the project. I'll give it a try once it's out to see how it goes.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 17, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> Positive. New edition means new online arguing means new fun.




online arguing at ENworld will result in banning this time round though. Probably not so much fun.

Just sayin'


----------



## cyderak (Jan 17, 2012)

soulnova said:


> Because asians can't draw fantasy landscapes, right?
> 
> Seriously, if they get the _right studio_, this might be the only thing I'm actually looking forward from the new edition.
> 
> Still, I'm skeptical on the project. I'll give it a try once it's out to see how it goes.




So.....your saying out-sourcing is the way to go??


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2012)

Honestly Cyderak, they don't have much choice.  It's not like they have an art staff anymore.  So, any art they do have will be commission in any case.  Who they commission will depend on lots of things, but, it's always going to be out-sourced.  D&D art hasn't been in-house for over a decade.


----------



## Tamlyn (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm neutral.

There's still too much we don't know. How modular is modular? What are they trying to mimic from previous editions, and how will those aspects work alongside the aspects mimicked from other editions. 

And to be honest, WOTC has been long on promise and short on delivery lately. I was really excited about the possibility of a virtual table top 4 years ago. 

I'll try to follow the news about it. I may be able to convince my group to try to playtest. When the complete ruleset comes out I'll give it a look-see. It's just too hard to get worked up about it right now, when so many things will change from what I think I'm hearing at the moment to when the game is released.

I hope to change my opinion to hopeful, eventually.


----------



## thegrayghost (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm neutral, but curious on the new edition. Right now it sounds like a bad infomercial. It dices, it slices, it does everything! All for the low low price of $19.95, but wait there's more.  Time will tell if it is one of those late night purchase's that end up in every garage sale or something that you can't live without.


----------



## timbannock (Jan 18, 2012)

Talinfein said:


> Definitely positive. It's not going to be easy doing all they want to do, but the goal is worthwhile. I think the next edition will be significantly simpler at its core, and that may very well be a good thing. I personally like the complexity of 4E, but not everybody does. In the end, good design goals for me are balanced classes, cooperation among players and easy prep for the DM. How they go accomplishing that I don't particularly care.




As the dude on Storage Wars says, YUUUP!


----------



## William Ronald (Jan 20, 2012)

I find myself somewhere between neutral and positive.  I barely played any 4E and I am an active Pathfinder player.  Yet, I think that the new edition could be good for our hobby.  However, I think it will be hard if not impossible to reunify a greatly fragmented base.  Also, it seems that a LOT of people want different things from a new edition.


----------



## fumetti (Jan 21, 2012)

POSITIVE.

I want D&D to feel like D&D again.

I enjoyed 4E well enough, but I felt like I was playing... something other than D&D.

I believe Mearls & co. really do want to make a version that we will all want to play, and that simply must have appeal to fans of older editions.

If 5E fails, I believe it will be done as well as possible, and just be sad proof that you CAN'T please all (or most of) the fans with a single edition.


----------



## Phototoxin (Jan 23, 2012)

It sounds intriguing but I wonder if by trying to accommodate everyone they will fail utterly or create a medocre product. I like the current edition best of all. It is not that complex, (and can be further simplified with essentials) allows for a lot of fluff. The skill challenges need modifying but generally I quite like 4th edition and will probably continue to play it unless 5th is really really special.


----------



## Thrandir (Feb 2, 2012)

*Neutral - hopeful*

I've been a playing of DnD since the late 1970's, I must say I have enjoyed all my experiences with the game except with 4th.  Not a hater of 4th Ed it just didn't suit my group and our style of play.  
Over the years I supported my favourite RPG and like a lot of other posters DDX will need to be something very special for me to shell out for a new edition.  
I really hope it is something that lives up to the talk and titbits so far being seen, but like a few other people I am sceptical that it is sounding too good to be true.


----------



## Aryathan Jiil (Feb 6, 2012)

the future of D&D is non existent for me in the way of future products unless some things come back to the game in a serious way

*9 alignments
*Dragon Magazine in print
*Dungeon Magazine in print
*Monsters with fulls Player-style stats that allow classes to be added and played by Players or by DMs as NPCs
*Great Wheel Cosmology
*lose the "everybody can heal themselves" lamesauce

I fell in love with D&D when 2nd edition was in print. Why? Because of the rich stories and mythology.
I fell in love with 3.5 for the mechanics.

4e roasted the game into a sphere of annihilation for me.

When 3.5 was selling, i bought every book as it hit the shelf on the day it hit the shelf.

when dragon and dungeon stopped their print run, 4e hit the shelf, you lost me as a customer, 

good luck and i will stick to the mythology that i fell in love with (all D&D prior to 4e) and my games will be 3.5 still

5e/D&D Next is only Next in the Can, my hobby $$ is spent on other things

this is a Negative Vote


----------



## Neuroglyph (Feb 7, 2012)

Negative: WotC is attempting to create a game system by committee, and will have no clear market to sell it to.



If they base the core system too much on the first three editions, they will alienate all the new gamers who jumped on at 4E. These gamers are a younger generation of gamers, internet savvy, possibly drawn into the game by association with PennyArcade and other trendy sources, and could carry the IP into the future if they simply keep refining the 4E game paradigm.
Gamers who are staunch AD&D players are not going to jump at a new edition.  They have been offered 2nd and 3rd, 3.5 and Pathfinder, and they are most comfortable dealing with Vancian magic, no skill system, and THAC0.
D&D players who like 2nd Edition and Skills & Powers are not going to switch unless those elements are used in D&D Next.  They too have had the option to switch for several editions, and have stuck with what they like.
3rd Edition and 3.5 gamers have gravitated to Pathfinder, or are firmly encamped in their enjoyment of that edition.  Regardless, none of these gamers will enjoy a core ruleset that draws too much upon previous editions (Basic, AD&D, 2nd Ed), or which tries to utilize 4E powers and combat concepts.

Clearly, they cannot please everyone with a new game system which attempts to be the "core" for all versions of D&D.  Someone's favorite features of the game from one edition will have to be left out in order to accommodate some other edition, and that could easily be a deal breaker for them buying into D&D Next.

I've been playing D&D since 1978, and have DM'd all editions.  I really like D&D 4E, and think it has alot of potential.  As others have pointed out, bad marketing and poor playtesting caused problems at launch, but that should not be a reason to dump it.  Certainly it is not perfect - no first run at a new game system is - and there are things that could be fixed in order to make it better, and that, to me, is what D&D Next should be.

If I wanted to play AD&D, 2nd Ed, 2nd Ed with S&P, 3rd Edition, or 3.5, I merely have to dig into my storage space and pull out my old books.  I certainly don't need to spend hundreds on a new edition to do that, and neither does anyone else.

So who is gonna be buying D&D Next?

Recent Blog:

Wizard Watch: Are we “Uniting the Editions” _or just selling more books_?


----------



## xigbar (Feb 14, 2012)

I'm neutral. While I am quite eager to get a look at it, I'm apprehensive. While I'm glad they seem to be bringing back earlier-edition esque vancian casting. What I'm hoping for are A) something like the SRD, for starters, and B) a book for alternate Rule Systems, like 3e's Unearthed Arcana, which, to me, would be one of the safer routes to achieving this otherwise shaky one size fits all design goal.

EDIT: And the great wheel, I want my wheel!


----------



## FoolishFrost (Feb 24, 2012)

Came in late, but I'm not sure we should even be discussing the future of D&D on this level.  Most of the problems with D&D that I personally had, were about the attitude of WotC.

So, fine.  WotC makes 3rd edition.  They OGL it and everyone seems generally happy.  They then make 3.5 and OGL it too, after mucking around with it a bit and making it "better".  

The rest of the world jumps on the OGL bandwagon and the market is so flooded with the grand and the gritty that it was sometimes hard to even FIND what you we're looking for, but it was possibly one of the greatest ages of D&D.

Then came along 4th edition.

Now, let's put aside edition wars.  4th edition D&D can be good or bad someplace else.  What struck me is that they seemed to loose focus and consistency about the time it was being developed.

Again, I'm not talking about the quality of 4th edition or if it was bad or good.

What I mean is that they never could figure out what they wanted to do, even then.  Note the following:

- They advertised the D&D online tools IN THE BOOKS, and they never arrived.  Never got to play a single online game with them.  The things they did make were buggy/crappy/damaged beyond use, with the exception of the character creator.  That was just obtuse most days.
- They changed the licence so much, and put in so many clauses, that it was debatable if they wanted to make a new D&D, or just find a way to try and kill the old licence.  
- They lost focus on who they were selling to:  All those nice hardbacks, and then right after darksun...  Paperbacks and boxed sets?  Really?  Did it never occur to them that gamers might be hardwired to a book format?  After decades?  (Your mileage may vary on that one, but you think it would have come up in a meeting?)
- Oh, by the way, darksun just came out, so we're not going to update the character builder with it.  In fact, it's retired.  Oh, yes!  We're making a new one.  It's not done yet, but we're making it right now.  Be done in just a bit!  Pay no attention to the DDI fiasco we created for years...

...

Sadly, I can't say much good about them since their first attempt with 3rd edition.  They started out so well, and it just seems to have gone so horribly wrong.  With that track record, how could I trust them to make D&D 5th?  I can't ignore how much they have annoyed me personally while I tried to support them.

Then again, that's my opinion.  Feel free to not agree.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 24, 2012)

Positive and Optimistic...

What I see with the new edition is WotC looking at Pathfinder/Paizo and realizing that they made a huge mistake in assuming that brand name loyalty would let them do whatever they wanted with the D&D name.

They have a huge job ahead of them.  They have to re-assert their strength by putting out a product that not only keeps the new core of fanboys but re-establishes contact with the legions of players of earlier editions.  (for lack of a better term grognards.)

The real trick is uniting the grognards; while 1st & 2nd edition D&D were quick and smooth (wait for it) there was a lack of solid rules when it came to certain situations and the DM as arbitrator left huge swings in rules decisions by DM style and experience.  3.X got rid of a lot of this by putting more rules/mechanics in the system and empowering the player.  Which slowed the game considerably and made rules lawyering a legitimate occupation for players at the table.  These are very diverse groups, even more so than the new 4e versus 3.X/Pathfinder camps (no really).  

So why am I optimistic?  For the following:
1)  No saving throws.  Everything is based strictly on Stats.  This is good, why, because it means that a thoughtful DM and good mechanics will eliminate the "dump" stat.  Do you really want to have a 3 charisma if all of your social reactions will be modified by it?  
2)  The commitment to listen to the fans.  Okay, design by committee is never a really great idea, but in the past WotC has taken the approach of, we listen to the players even while having a set in stone concept of game design.  This may slow the creation process, but hopefully the actually listen to the suggestions and implement them.  
3)  Revamping the magic system.  The designers have already admitted that everyone having exactly the same abilities with different names doesn't really work.  It's balanced yes, but bland.  I'm not sure where they are going with this yet, but anything is better than the current system.  (Although the decision to keep rituals is a definite plus.)
4)  Staying with ability stats.  This is probably the most iconic thing that makes D&D, D&D.  For those that wanted to play a strict skills based system, please, there are other games that use these systems, go play them.

Concerns - 
1)  Races - I am a "purest" - the inclusion of the Tiefling in 4e made my stomach turn.  I'm not against their inclusion, but make them an optional race.  I've stated elsewhere make the core list small and then have a racial/player "splat" be your first big supplement, and really go nuts, include every variant, idea and wish you can stuff in it.  Tieflings, giants, intelligent squirrels, whatever.
2)  Classes - Again, while I love the original set of classes from 1e, I liked that 2e broke it into four 4 with subsets.  While I think they could have been a little better arranged, a re-direction in that area may prove helpful and again, load up on the options with a splat.  /P.S. - Fix the cleric, the idea of a straight adventuring priest is okay, but the idea of a hospitilar is better - maybe make the cleric and paladin part of the same class with the cleric focused on magic and the paladin focused on battle./  And speaking of paladins.
3)  The Paladin  - Okay, I love this class, however, it is ALWAYS the core of controversy.  If the designers cannot figure out a way to fix this class so that it isn't either broken, hobbled or creates DM/player paradox/no-win situations... scrap it.  (wow, that hurt more than I thought it would)

Mike has always been somewhat of a mystery to me.  He really cares about the hobby but has some really out there ideas about how to make it viable.  Monte is a mechanics machine and an excellent designer, but has a tendency to make the mage the center of attention.  Hopefully there is a bright star somewhere in the design team that can balance these two during the process, if so...  We might be on the brink of something beautiful.

I'm am optimistic about the next version, it can't be worse than the last one....  It just can't.


----------



## Humlind (Mar 18, 2012)

*nutral-negative.*

In my mind, its a tall bite. Wotc are trying to combine to many things.
To include so much of 4th ed.(a ed i trully dislike) Isnt a thing i care much for.

The fact, that skills are undesided-allignement in the air. That forgoten realms, is sugested in different time frames. It just isnt a thing i like at all.

But bringing back the past ed`s good sides i like.
The fact that they try giving us old d&d players a say is good.

I trully hate the lack of prestice classes in 4th. And have prob seeing how this can be fixed sorted out in 5th.

Also i so hate minions(figures) D&D is for me a game, that in a large scale are played in our imagination, to have stuff to help seeing stuff is good. But the line up of minions and squeres, Make the game way less suprising. and more like Warhammer(14 years old players playstyle)

I also whant way more uneven game. Less controle. great with some races and items that is overpowered.(we will never get a group that all whant to play this race, or buy this items) Some do. but the majorety play what they find fun-interesting.

I so whant a game that open up for freedom, and changes to learn buy doing. And i have seen the sugestions and statements from "Mike" that tests have been done with 1 ed 3 ed and 4 ed players that play totaly different. in style and what info they whant need.
But realisticly, the DM work, if you whant a tru edvanture, strong history, fun for the players. and a lined up group. And play in ferun. How on earth shoud that be done? With 4th playing 100 years laiter in ferun with plauge. and 3ed 100 years earlier with a world more inlined with the world we know and low from R.A Salvatore-Ed Greenwood and more. Its just not playable. At least not in the same campain. And the DM work will be so mixed, that it will hurt the flow, and also the progress of the game.

So i trully hope it will be done. I will test it out like i did 4th. But i havent the higest hope. And faith in the outcome of the 5ed.
Thank god for the fact that Pathfinder. and 3.5 books i have. So we can stay on with playing a fun and educatioable game stil.

Best of luck. and if it is a success i will Gladly suport and help in any way i can. But it looks like a steep uphill from my point.


----------

