Explain the excitement over D&D Next


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cambrian wrote:
A lack of early campaign books shouldn't be much of a problem. Players looking to play in a setting like FR or Darksun have 2nd/3rd/4th material to draw upon.

Older players will have that material, yes, but if the goal is to get new players, they will need at least a basic gazetteer to support the adventures no later than next summer to give the new DMs something to work with beyond the adventures themselves. It's not impossible to do, but the fact that they didn't even plan something that basic is rather telling in how much faith they were willing to put into 5E's success. Hopefully, they were just hedging their bets while setting up for the best case scenario of needing more material quickly; we'll find out soon enough.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Got my PHB a couple of days ago. Haven't yet got a chance to do more than skim, but I will say one thing that I haven't really seen mentioned on these boards:

This book is absolutely gorgeous. Its rare in this hobby to find a book where the interior art even equals that of the cover. This book does the nigh-unimaginable...the interior art, on average, (in my less than humble opinion) is actually BETTER than the cover art. And the layout of that art and the accompanying text is brilliant. I don't know of a single other RPG book that I've seen that can compare. Hell, strike the "RPG" qualifier from that last sentence. This book is a work of art.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Older players will have that material, yes, but[...]

Say, what?

Sovereign Court

Kthulhu wrote:

Got my PHB a couple of days ago. Haven't yet got a chance to do more than skim, but I will say one thing that I haven't really seen mentioned on these boards:

This book is absolutely gorgeous. Its rare in this hobby to find a book where the interior art even equals that of the cover. This book does the nigh-unimaginable...the interior art, on average, (in my less than humble opinion) is actually BETTER than the cover art. And the layout of that art and the accompanying text is brilliant. I don't know of a single other RPG book that I've seen that can compare. Hell, strike the "RPG" qualifier from that last sentence. This book is a work of art.

I agree the PHB is lovely and I might get a copy just for my shelf. My players are in love with APs right now and with a long list of planned campaigns i'm not sure if I'll get around to 5E. My hope is that down the line it will mature into a well rounded system. By that I mean the full package of adventures plus player and GM options.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Older players will have that material, yes, but[...]

Say, what?

Going to hazard a guess that most players are going to prefer a new release for the current rules than tracking down OOP material to convert, some of which go for a decent amount of money (WoG boxed set for $350, for example).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I played D&D for years without a setting book. I wouldn't really call them necessary. And this isn't 1977, there is so much setting material on the shelf at any FLGS for those truly inclined.

Certainly yes, I'm surprised they haven't announced more books. But you can play new content weekly if you join their organized play, which seems to be a big focus this release.

Besides, that thick adventure by the talented Wolfgang Baur and Steve Winters should keep home groups busy for a couple months if you only want official adventure material. Letting the Kobolds write the launch adventures was a brilliant move.

Shadow Lodge

Not sure I'd got with 'New' for most of those things you linked. I wouldnt consider items 5yrs and older as new myself.


They're in new condition and even have the new book smell. I know because I've gotten the FR 3.0 book myself. Careful, though, as the PF CRB is fast approaching 5 years old. Does that mean Paizo needs to do something 'new?'


If it was under a completely new rules system, I'd say yes. The 3rd edition realms is so different than what we have today, I'd say you're better off with homebrew.


Ah, but it's been stated for a while Ao is rewriting the tablets of fate undoing the vast majority of the 4th edition changes. I can speak first hand that at least the Sword Coast North region is identical geographically to 3rd.


LOL, that's awesome. I love in-game retcons like that (even if it's a bit cheesy). But how would a new player even know that?

I understand people's reasoning to use old source materials, but if you're brand new to a game, hobby, etc, most people don't know to trek back to 3.X material because the in-game overgod changed the previous edition's canon back to to circa 2001.

Maybe it's just me, but I maintain they NEED a 5th edition campaign book. (A $15-$20 soft cover gazetter at least)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Kaiser DM, it's probably just you. When were you a new player?

New players need a PHB and a Dungeon Master. New DMs? They need adventures. Creating their own adventures in a setting is not new DM territory. It's intermediate DM territory. And any veteran DM already has their own favorite setting they want to use.


New DMs need the Basic rules. PHB gives more options. MM gives more monsters to play with. Not quite sure what this DMG gives to a new GM. The Starter Set gives an example adventure so you've got an idea what they're supposed to look like.
Everything else is gravy.

Maybe I'm too old school? I've never really played or run in published settings and very rarely used published adventures.

But gravy is good. Sometimes the meal is lousy without it. Lots of people really like the published settings, get excited about them and draw a lot of inspiration from them. For new people like that, while the old books might work, they're not going to be an obvious place to go.

Scarab Sages

I disagree that setting use is limited to intermediate DM territory or above. Players have interest in knowing where their characters are from, important NPCs and factions, and just the lay of the land. Even if the group plans to just play published adventures in the setting, some will want the big picture view. Some may find it useful to have any information outside of what is specifically in an adventure.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
davrion wrote:
I disagree that setting use is limited to intermediate DM territory or above. Players have interest in knowing where their characters are from, important NPCs and factions, and just the lay of the land. Even if the group plans to just play published adventures in the setting, some will want the big picture view. Some may find it useful to have any information outside of what is specifically in an adventure.

Fair enough. Good thing there is so much information on the internet about places your character could be from.

As I've said, this isn't 1977. The default for D&D is some mysterious new setting nobody knows anything about. If someone want to know about the Forgotten Realms, there is a ton of information out there.

But I probably come at this from a different perspective. I've never been fond of published settings. When a player wants to know more about their home village, I ask them to tell me about the village. What is it known for? What do they make? What was your favorite festival growing up? Who do you miss the most from town? Who do you hope you never see again?

None of that comes from a book, but those are the sort of things I want to know to make your character more interesting.

PS: I should note, I will buy any Planescape book ever created. But I'm not holding my breath.

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KaiserDM wrote:
LOL, that's awesome. I love in-game retcons like that (even if it's a bit cheesy). But how would a new player even know that?

More awesome than that, it's not just a simple rewind, because all that stuff still happened, it's just that some of the effects are gone.

For example, I'm pretty sure Neverwinter still got destroyed by Mount Hotenow (not sure I spelled that right) but now apparently the earthmotes have fallen... which means neither the 3e nor the 4e materials for Neverwinter are accurate.

And Bhaal, Bane, Myrkul, and... the goddess of Mists whose name I can't remember are all back, along with one of the older Mystras. Which is actually a retcon back to 1st Edition FR. But they were all still dead for a while and the timeline's advanced, so the 1st Edition material is by no means right either.

No idea what happened to Cyric or Kelemvor, who had those gods' powers. Cyric died a while ago. Maybe Kelemvor died while I wasn't looking and wasn't on Ao's retcon list? I dunno.

Asmodeus and his tieflings are almost assuredly still around, unless WotC really hates Erin Evans.

And Tiamat is... a thing now. Probably best to just sweep her previous mentions under the rug and go with whatever the adventure says.

I wouldn't even begin to know how to explain what's happened to the Zhentarim, one of the setting's classic villain groups. They used to serve Bane, served Cyric for a while, I think they got destroyed for a while, then... something... now apparently they're anti-hero mercenaries fighting against Tiamat.

From what I understand there's about a ten year time jump after the Sundering. So basically every 5e FR PC will have lived through all the stuff above and longer-lived races may have been born before the Spellplague (4e's Realms Shaking Event) as well.

None of that stops someone from grabbing the 3e books and saying "this is when we're playing the Realms." That campaign will definitely not match up with the 5e material, though.

Cheers!
Landon


KaiserDM wrote:
But how would a new player even know that?

Probably much like I did. My group has been solidly playing Pathfinder since beta and before that my own experience with 3.5 was kept to just a few sessions. I've become the designated DM to introduce 5th. If you read into the setting material instead of trying to just find the 'latest' setting book on amazon and clicking buy, you'll discover the same facts I have minus the SCN geography bit because that's in the Hoard of the Dragon Queen book. But, as these posts get rolled up into the communal knowledge of the Internet, it will be more common knowledge.

Hello to you who found this post using a search engine. :)

Landon Winkler wrote:
For example, I'm pretty sure Neverwinter still got destroyed[..]

False. It's still there and doing well.


I can attest to the importance of campaign setting material for some players. I always like knowing what my characters would know given their backgrounds.


deinol wrote:

Kaiser DM, it's probably just you. When were you a new player?

New players need a PHB and a Dungeon Master. New DMs? They need adventures. Creating their own adventures in a setting is not new DM territory. It's intermediate DM territory. And any veteran DM already has their own favorite setting they want to use.

I was a new player back in 1996, or more accurately I was a new DM.

To your point, sure some DM's want new adventures. And some, dont like published adventures. They want a skeleton provided by a setting in which they add their own adventures through homebrew. When I said "they NEED" a campaign book, I wasn't necessarily saying the consumer needed as much as WOTC "needs" to print one for at least their default setting. Need is a strong word, but at the end of the day I am only offering an opinion. And I do believe that there is "demand" in the market for that said sourcebook to help new as well as experienced players/DMs see where FR sits in the 5th edition world.

And yes, Buri, I can google all day long. But if somebody doesn't really know anything about a setting, coming into a hobby or game cold, and going from forum conversations to blog spots to wikia pages can be somewhat overwhelming. If WOTC announces a book by the end of the year, than viola, that's great. If they don't really care to print a sourcebook, I say its to their detriment is all. The perception in the market place will be that WOTC doesn't plan to support their setting.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deinol wrote:

so much information on the internet about places your character could be from.

As I've said, this isn't 1977. The default for D&D is some mysterious new setting nobody knows anything about. If someone want to know about the Forgotten Realms, there is a ton of information out there.

IF we're talking about newer players, seems to be a lot easier if the same source material were used by all. Player 1 searches and comes up with "current" setting information (say FR through 4e) versus someone else whose search brings them source material up to a point (say FR through 3.x). It's a situation that can lead to discrepancy and confusion, unless players are familiar enough with the setting....and if they are, then they don't really need information they already know.

Wouldn't a settings book (or PDF) be of use to new players to the game? Seems so to me.

Paizo Employee

Buri wrote:
Landon Winkler wrote:
For example, I'm pretty sure Neverwinter still got destroyed[..]
False. It's still there and doing well.

I apologize if I was unclear. They were already rebuilding it in 4e, they actually had a whole setting book about it.

But Neverwinter had been destroyed by a volcanic eruption. That's why they were rebuilding.

I'm fairly certain it still had been destroyed. Even the Beginner Box adventure references the eruption, so I don't think they are turning back the clock there.

Cheers!
Landon


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
davrion wrote:
deinol wrote:

so much information on the internet about places your character could be from.

As I've said, this isn't 1977. The default for D&D is some mysterious new setting nobody knows anything about. If someone want to know about the Forgotten Realms, there is a ton of information out there.

IF we're talking about newer players, seems to be a lot easier if the same source material were used by all. Player 1 searches and comes up with "current" setting information (say FR through 4e) versus someone else whose search brings them source material up to a point (say FR through 3.x). It's a situation that can lead to discrepancy and confusion, unless players are familiar enough with the setting....and if they are, then they don't really need information they already know.

Wouldn't a settings book (or PDF) be of use to new players to the game? Seems so to me.

Well, I was never a fan of the Realms in the first place. And the bickering about what is or isn't true currently in this thread has convinced me its the absolute worst setting to use as an introduction for new GMs.

There certainly is demands for new setting books. They will come soon enough. But I'd believe the necessity of a setting book more if I saw any actual new players clamoring for it. The theoretical completely new to RPGs group is probably very rare. Most groups will be learning from a veteran DM, who can answer any setting related questions.

If a fresh DM were to ask me for suggestions on setting books, my top three would be:

Midgard
Freeport
Chronicles of Talislanta


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

I would think I had died and gone to heaven if Midgard was to be released as an updated setting for D&D 5th.

Scarab Sages

I'm not a Realms fan myself. I don't think anyone is saying that a settings book is a necessity for players in general, only that there should be something available as the gateway to the setting (something more readily available then listings of out-of-print products at least).

I've got both Midgard and Freeport, and did consider using Midgard for a new campaign (PF) for one of my groups. Decided to go with the Lost Lands from the Frogs instead. I'll probably be a player in a 5e campaign, guessing FR will be used.


Landon Winkler wrote:
I apologize if I was unclear. They were already rebuilding it in 4e, they actually had a whole setting book about it.

Cool!

Shadow Lodge

What I'm wondering is why WotC doesnt have a PC race like the Aasimar race in PF? They've had the Tiefling for years but I dont remember them having a good outsider offspring to off set the bad outsider offspring.


I thought the aasimar existed in 3.5 and were ported over to pathfinder?


Jacob Saltband wrote:
What I'm wondering is why WotC doesnt have a PC race like the Aasimar race in PF? They've had the Tiefling for years but I dont remember them having a good outsider offspring to off set the bad outsider offspring.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I thought the aasimar existed in 3.5 and were ported over to pathfinder?

This is true, however they were mostly (very loosely) retconned out of existence (sort of) as devas... which, themselves, got loosely ported into pathfinder as samsarans.

(Basically devas take the basic idea of the eternally reincarnating samsarans and explain it as angels taking mortal form <for reason> in the ancient past and eternally reincarnating as a new person until ascension out of the cycle or corruption into Rakshasa.)

They weren't exactly denied as existing, but there was never any sort of support, update, or clarification and, in Forgotten Realms at least, most aasimars were retconned as "secretly devas the whole time!"*, as they were said to originate from Mulhorand and the local nearby lands as the incarnated "servants" and "children" of the gods. I believe that later it was slightly retconned again such that devas were a kind of aasimar. I still don't think they released any aasimars after that, though (though I could be wrong).

EDIT: Also, Aasimars were never really considered a player race in the same way that Tieflings became considered a player race. Both, in 3.5, were a monster race (ugh) that the GM had to give special permission to play.

Also, Aasimar and Deva.

EDIT 2: Aasimar on wikipedia.

* This is actually the thing I disliked most about the Spellplague. "Really all of the previous editions lied to you! This is the truth, which you didn't know!" While the Avatar crisis altered the current dynamic and the way magic works, it still - to the best of my knowledge - followed previous canon lore, as things that were always (either secretly or well known to be) true were still true, at least in the past. The Spellplague just went, "NOPE! Totes a lie, never really happened, and was wrong."

Shadow Lodge

Maybe one of the reasons I don't have irrational hatred for 4e and WotC is because I've never give a s~%+ one way or the other about the Forgotten Realms.


Kthulhu wrote:
Maybe one of the reasons I don't have irrational hatred for 4e and WotC is because I've never give a s%$# one way or the other about the Forgotten Realms.

Instead, you replace it with an irrational hatred of Pathfinder! :D

Although, if you were responding to me, you seem to mistake my post. I was referring to my problem with the Spellplague, not 4E in general.

My problems with 4E are very different. I wish it was a better game than it was, and I wish they'd had time to complete the things they'd planned, and I wish that they hadn't had so many frustrating and tragic things happen during development.

There are elements that I like about 4E, too.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't actually hate Pathfinder. I'll even play it. But I do think it's overrated in general. And that's taken to an extreme on these forums...I'm pretty sure at least a few posters here hide the Core Rulebook under their covers at night while touching themselves. :P

I'm not actually a big 4e fan, either. Less of a fan of it than Pathfinder, to be honest. But man...some of the bile that gets spewed here about it is pretty disturbing.

And I have seen people whose entire tirades against 4e is based on them "ruining the Realms". I thought a Greenwood did that back in '87. :P


Jacob Saltband wrote:
What I'm wondering is why WotC doesnt have a PC race like the Aasimar race in PF? They've had the Tiefling for years but I dont remember them having a good outsider offspring to off set the bad outsider offspring.

Aasimars were introduced the FR 3.0 setting book. Give it time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Aasimar have existed since Planescape in 2nd edition at the earliest that I know of. Then they were detailed in the 3rd edition FRCS, then completely dumped in 4th edition until they made the Devas. Will we see them in 5th edition? Quite possibly. Will they be like the pre 4th edition aasimar, or the devas of 4th edition (like these tieflings are the tieflings of 4th edition and not those from before)? Not sure. Why weren't they included in the PHB alongside the tieflings? My only guess is people get a bigger hard-on for misunderstood Wolverine/Batman-ish emo type races (tiefling) than the goody two shoes Superman/Captain America golden child (aasimar) races.

I have no problem with the dragonborn being a PHB race, to be honest. My only gripe with them is their appearance. Yes, you can change that for your home games. But it will be tough finding something to resemble them unless you are rather decent at art (for that style of token) if you use tokens (probably SOL for miniatures). What they did with the dragonborn for 5th edition is what I was going for with kobolds in my world (minus the rasta lizard appearance).

As already stated. Give it time and we will see an aasimar type race. I just wonder if the planetouched will be 4 seperate races (pre-4th edition) or a single catch-all race (like in 4th edition). With the elemental planes being distinct, there's a chance that they will be seperate races. But since there is still the Elemental Chaos (like in 4th), there's still the chance it will be the 4th edition catch-all.

I really hope they have a conversion book for the new edition, giving the conversions for 3rd -> 5th as well as 4th -> 5th. While I didn't care for 4th edition as a whole, there were some parts of it I liked, and would like to be able to convert them.


Adjule wrote:
Aasimar have existed since Planescape in 2nd edition at the earliest that I know of.

Good to know!

Shadow Lodge

Question on magic items in 5e. Where do they come from? PC's cant craft magic items, which can be a good thing, but where do the magic items found while adventuring come from? Also csn NPC's craft magic items for PCs?

Dont get me wrong, I'm old school and think magic items should be special just wondering was all.


The Forgotten Realms answer is that Mystra actively spreads scrolls everywhere to be found. But, I think the DMG is going to have crafting rules in them. Remember the 5e starter adventure has you liberating an ancient magical forge from baddies. It's a part of the world, but exactly how it's done is sufficiently rare knowledge to not be in the PHB. Thus, it's not assumed to be even a potential option to characters in general.

Shadow Lodge

Anyone know what the 5e system has for special defenses for monster? What I'm asking about is stuff like: 1e and 2e had +x magic weapons to hit or special materials like sliver or wood. 3e had the DR/x system. Not sure what 4e had.


The two things that spring to mind are:

Legendary Resistance: let's you choose to succeed on a save if you fail.

Magic Resistance: you have advantage on saves versus spells.

These things are in the DMG Basic PDF.


Kthulhu wrote:
I don't actually hate Pathfinder. I'll even play it. But I do think it's overrated in general.

While I can't entirely disagree with you, the same can be said for WotC and the official D&D brand as well. I'm seeing an awful lot of "because it's D&D" as the reason for being excited, and that's not enough for me. I see entirely way too much reliance on brand recognition to carry both 5E and the anticipated movies, games, and other stuff they have in the works.

And before someone tries to claim I hate WotC or am in love with PF, at this point I would approach something new like 5E the same regardless of who was making it or why; I already have that niche filled, and don't need yet another game in that style of play. If I want fighters and wizards, I already have both 3.x and PF, and even a couple of late AD&D books. The main reason I am still interested in PF is that they aren't sticking to just fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, the way that WotC is beating it into the ground yet again. I get the strong nostalgia factor for D&D, but I'm actually getting to the point where I respect 4E a lot more than I did initially precisely because they didn't rely on just nostalgia.

At this point, if I am going to be spending money, I expect to see something new and different enough to be worth the dollars spent; at least so far, 5E isn't. It's a good system, I hope it does well, but I was hoping for something that would actually compete with PF, keeping Paizo on their toes. Unless WotC comes out with a robust third party license system, I don't see that happening; WotC clearly doesn't have any plans to do much with the system directly themselves. Paizo, and other competitors as well, put out enough content of high enough quality overall that WotC is not going to be able to just put out adventures and the seemingly very occasional something else and hope to maintain a long term presence in the market; movies, video games, or whatever else they have been talking about for decades now and have yet to seriously produce would be nice to see, but a great many people won't care about them and many that do won't make the connection to the game that WotC clearly hopes they will make.

In the end, WotC may have the familiar brand, but everyone else has actual product, and that's worth just as much as an known brand name. It's why at the end of the day, I still buy and play PF and will continue to do so over WotC and 5E; actual product matters a lot more than brand name, and Paizo delivers on that far better than WotC has for some time. Only time will tell if WotC can change that sufficiently to get any of my money again; just having a smash hit of the core books is not going to be enough.


Why do you post here? It's pretty clear 5E isn't your thing (its not mine either) but what's the point in posting such frequent critiques in the sub forum set aside for fans of D&D on Paizo's website?

I could understand such posts on the wizards website (if you had some goal of providing feedback in the hopes of engendering improvement) but what is the aim of posting them here?


Tacticslion wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
What I'm wondering is why WotC doesnt have a PC race like the Aasimar race in PF? They've had the Tiefling for years but I dont remember them having a good outsider offspring to off set the bad outsider offspring.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I thought the aasimar existed in 3.5 and were ported over to pathfinder?

This is true, however they were mostly (very loosely) retconned out of existence (sort of) as devas... which, themselves, got loosely ported into pathfinder as samsarans.

(Basically devas take the basic idea of the eternally reincarnating samsarans and explain it as angels taking mortal form <for reason> in the ancient past and eternally reincarnating as a new person until ascension out of the cycle or corruption into Rakshasa.)

They weren't exactly denied as existing, but there was never any sort of support, update, or clarification and, in Forgotten Realms at least, most aasimars were retconned as "secretly devas the whole time!"*, as they were said to originate from Mulhorand and the local nearby lands as the incarnated "servants" and "children" of the gods. I believe that later it was slightly retconned again such that devas were a kind of aasimar. I still don't think they released any aasimars after that, though (though I could be wrong).

EDIT: Also, Aasimars were never really considered a player race in the same way that Tieflings became considered a player race. Both, in 3.5, were a monster race (ugh) that the GM had to give special permission to play.

Also, Aasimar and Deva.

EDIT 2: Aasimar on wikipedia.

* This is actually the thing I disliked most about the Spellplague. "Really all of the previous editions lied to you! This is the truth, which you didn't know!" While the Avatar crisis altered the current dynamic and the way magic works, it still - to the...

Thanks. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:


At this point, if I am going to be spending money, I expect to see something new and different enough to be worth the dollars spent; at least so far, 5E isn't. It's a good system, I hope it does well, but I was hoping for something that would actually compete with PF, keeping Paizo on their toes. Unless WotC comes out with a robust third party license system, I don't see that happening; WotC clearly doesn't have any plans to do much with the system directly themselves. Paizo, and other competitors as well, put out enough content of high enough quality overall that WotC is not going to be able to just put out adventures and the seemingly very occasional something else and hope to maintain a long term presence in the market; movies, video games, or whatever else they have been talking about for decades now and have yet to seriously produce would be nice to see, but a great many people won't care about them and many that do won't make the connection to the game that WotC clearly hopes they will make.

I think 5e will compete pretty strongly with PF simply for the fact that it is D&D. That brand means a lot. Just look at the edition wars - what's that all about? At it's most fundamental level, It's about being D&D players. Why else would people go to such effort to criticize 4e or backlash against those criticisms? Why else would people cling to their favorite sacred cows/sacred cow hamburger? It's because they want to be D&D players (or still be D&D players) and have the currently supported edition be an edition they can identify themselves as D&D players with.

That's going to be pretty stiff competition.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Why do you post here? It's pretty clear 5E isn't your thing (its not mine either) but what's the point in posting such frequent critiques in the sub forum set aside for fans of D&D on Paizo's website?

I could understand such posts on the wizards website (if you had some goal of providing feedback in the hopes of engendering improvement) but what is the aim of posting them here?

In this case, it's because the thread discusses the reasons various people have for either lacking or having excitement for the new edition. Those reasons change, for both good and ill, as more information comes out and old information gets processed. It is a conversation that I will have with myself at least for a good long while and I hope the community as a whole has for a good long while as well. As long as it is respectful, it is helpful to both sides to have it.


I don't see it as "sides" really. I was just curious what you get out of those posts.


Bill Dunn wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:


At this point, if I am going to be spending money, I expect to see something new and different enough to be worth the dollars spent; at least so far, 5E isn't. It's a good system, I hope it does well, but I was hoping for something that would actually compete with PF, keeping Paizo on their toes. Unless WotC comes out with a robust third party license system, I don't see that happening; WotC clearly doesn't have any plans to do much with the system directly themselves. Paizo, and other competitors as well, put out enough content of high enough quality overall that WotC is not going to be able to just put out adventures and the seemingly very occasional something else and hope to maintain a long term presence in the market; movies, video games, or whatever else they have been talking about for decades now and have yet to seriously produce would be nice to see, but a great many people won't care about them and many that do won't make the connection to the game that WotC clearly hopes they will make.

I think 5e will compete pretty strongly with PF simply for the fact that it is D&D. That brand means a lot. Just look at the edition wars - what's that all about? At it's most fundamental level, It's about being D&D players. Why else would people go to such effort to criticize 4e or backlash against those criticisms? Why else would people cling to their favorite sacred cows/sacred cow hamburger? It's because they want to be D&D players (or still be D&D players) and have the currently supported edition be an edition they can identify themselves as D&D players with.

That's going to be pretty stiff competition.

And that bothers me a bit. I don't mind a strong brand that earns it, but a brand that is strong because of what nostalgia offers and very little else isn't that strong of a brand in the long run, and doesn't help much of anyone. I'm hoping that the nostalgia factor is eventually replaced with something more substantial and consistent to provide the underlying strength; I really don't want to see them fall into a pattern of big spike as a new book is released followed complete silence and virtually no new actual product until the time comes for the next big grand release announcement generating another big spike. That cycle is fine or twice, but it will get old real quickly if it becomes the norm. Being flashy wears thin when there's not a lot of substance to back it up.

With 5E, a lot of the things that they are using were changed in 3rd edition, and at the time, people wanted them changed for a variety of reasons. On top of that, it took a good decade and a half for people to get tired of those changes, and there are many who still like them. I think right now it's hard to see just how much people are reacting to a new shiny and seeing the old rules through rose colored glasses vs people actually liking the older way of doing things better. A lot of rules in every version before 3rd edition simply got ignored or adapted to local groups; the only real difference with 3rd edition is that the internet immortalized most of them so that we can still remember every little breaking point, error, and miscalculation more clearly.

While revisiting the old rules isn't bad, a lot of folks are forgetting they changed for a reason, and reimplementing them just because they aren't the rules people have been griping about recently isn't a surefire long term strategy.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I don't see it as "sides" really. I was just curious what you get out of those posts.

I'm curious at what anybody gets out of 90% of the internet forums. If my posts bother you that much, do what I do with the posts that bother me; ignore them. If enough people ignore them, than clearly there's no further conversation and it drops; until then, the legitimate responses gained are both interesting and usually helpful.


I think you misunderstand me. I'm not bothered, I'm curious.

I wasn't saying "go away" I just genuinely didn't see what the point is, so I asked. I realise I'm not owed an answer.


sunshadow21 wrote:

And that bothers me a bit. I don't mind a strong brand that earns it, but a brand that is strong because of what nostalgia offers and very little else isn't that strong of a brand in the long run, and doesn't help much of anyone. I'm hoping that the nostalgia factor is eventually replaced with something more substantial and consistent to provide the underlying strength; I really don't want to see them fall into a pattern of big spike as a new book is released followed complete silence and virtually no new actual product until the time comes for the next big grand release announcement generating another big spike. That cycle is fine or twice, but it will get old real quickly if it becomes the norm. Being flashy wears thin when there's not a lot of substance to back it up.

<snip>

While revisiting the old rules isn't bad, a lot of folks are forgetting they changed for a reason, and reimplementing them just because they aren't the rules people have been griping about recently isn't a surefire long term strategy.

I think you're using the wrong term. It's not nostalgia (although I'm sure it plays a small part). It's really identity and preference. Pinning these sentiments on nostalgia, I think, just serves to diminish them and they're much more powerful than that. Identity killed New Coke. Identity probably has a big hand in undermining 4e - the edition a lot of people felt wasn't D&D-enough. Identity is what spawned the Dragonsfoot community when 3e was on the rise. It's identification with a product, not a nostalgic feeling for it.

And as far as rules changing for a reason, that kind of statement seems to imply that every change and every reason for those changes was correct. That may not be the case. I think some editions made some changes just to kill sacred cows, to put a new spin on the game of D&D, but I don't think those are very good reasons in and of themselves.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not bothered, I'm curious.

I wasn't saying "go away" I just genuinely didn't see what the point is, so I asked. I realise I'm not owed an answer.

I guess to me, there's a certain fascination over the cyclical nature of what gamers prefer. When 3rd edition came out, people were ready for it. With this release, many people seem ready for it. Myself on the other hand, tend to find something I like and stick with it. If I get tired of it, I don't look for a minor variation, I look for something completely different. All versions of D&D and the many clones are all basically variants of the same core game, therefore, my interest in the system itself is virtually nil; I already own basically the same game. Understanding why the different variants get the cyclical level of support they do is interesting, at least to me. "Because it's D&D" annoys me because it's not really much of an answer; it's both too narrow and too encompassing at the same time. The answers that are interesting are when people are forced to go beyond that; that's the part of the conversation I push for and the part of the conversation that I learn from.


Bill Dunn wrote:
And as far as rules changing for a reason, that kind of statement seems to imply that every change and every reason for those changes was correct. That may not be the case. I think some editions made some changes just to kill sacred cows, to put a new spin on the game of D&D, but I don't think those are very good reasons in and of themselves.

The changes made in 3rd edition held up over a decade; right or wrong, they were generally accepted. The changes made in 4E held up barely, if at all; right or wrong, they weren't. This time, they asked people what they wanted, and what they wanted right now was shaped in large part by the rose colored glasses looking at the comparatively distant past; therefore, it does not surprise me that most people are not seeing any problems with the new system yet. It gave them exactly what they wanted to see from their current perspective. What I am less certain of is how well those changes were thought out and how long they will last as a result; 4E showed very clearly the idea of changing for the sake of change is not usually a good one.

Like them or hate them, the changes with 3rd edition stuck; something about them and the overall environment they were released into worked. 3rd edition legitimately earned the position it rose to. I cannot say with the same amount of confidence that 5E will do the same; heavy DM centric systems (such as pretty much any edition of D&D besides 3rd and certain aspects of 4th) struggle with supporting that kind of popular support (winning over DMs is actually pretty easy; creating a system that DMs can easily find players excited about is usually another matter entirely), and yet many people seem to expect the brand to carry forward with the same strength. The brand as a whole does not yet have enough other solid pieces for that expectation to happen, and may never have enough other solid pieces to be realistic. WotC very much seems to be gambling on nostalgia lasting long enough for some of the other pieces to take over the main burden of carrying the brand. Given that this is the third time they've tried that basic strategy, it's not promising, and they may find themselves in a bit of a tight spot once the inevitable nitpicking settles in.

101 to 150 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Explain the excitement over D&D Next All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.