You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 12:04:36 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?  (Read 550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SkynetTopic starter

Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« on: January 30, 2013, 11:37:49 PM »
Here's the relevant page.

I don't see a topic for this specifically, so I figured I'd start it.

So, what are people's thoughts on it?  They've released a new Playtest Packet yesterday, and I'm looking it over.

I haven't really looked it over, but it feels limited... although it's probably still in its "testing" phase.  I noticed that they're using a "Martial Dice" mechanic for all but one of the classes (Wizard), which add to damage and can be used to perform maneuvers (bull rushes, trips, etc).  I think that using a unified system for stunts in combat can be interesting, in comparison to the acquisition of specific feats and powers like in 3rd and 4th.  But I worry that it might bring a sort of "sameness" to the game unless the classes all get unique stuff.

Other than that I don't really have any other opinions.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2013, 02:02:43 PM »
I'm going to start running it their Encounters season.  But so far I like the ideal behind it, but seeing as the people I game on Mondays now only want to do 4e, I've not seen it in action.

Offline Shjade

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2013, 09:39:29 PM »
I like that the name matches my usual response to someone asking about playing the game.

"Dungeons & Dragons?"

"Next."

=D

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2013, 11:16:18 PM »
We got a comedian here!  ::)

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2013, 02:10:12 AM »
Well in the groups I hang with (admittably since I'm a venture officer in Pathfinder organized play it's bias) most of us say it's a move back to the old systems.. but the general attitude is 'too little too late' and too many of us are disgruntled with Wizard's attitude towards FLGS.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2013, 02:36:57 AM »
I've been getting the 2nd Edition game system stuff together I plan to go back in time to the last system released by TSR the people that created the DnD game and made it what it is, its better than this mess. There seems to be no love anymore its all about the bottom line not making a good product and sticking with it.

Offline SkynetTopic starter

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2013, 12:33:38 PM »
Well in the groups I hang with (admittably since I'm a venture officer in Pathfinder organized play it's bias) most of us say it's a move back to the old systems.. but the general attitude is 'too little too late' and too many of us are disgruntled with Wizard's attitude towards FLGS.

This is kind of what dismays me about Next.  I understand that 4th Edition was very controversial, but it did fix some problems which players complained about in earlier Editions.  I feel as though they're trying to return to legacy and tradition at all costs, even if it means undoing progress and cutting all ties with anything vaguely 4E.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2013, 01:20:59 PM »
This is kind of what dismays me about Next.  I understand that 4th Edition was very controversial, but it did fix some problems which players complained about in earlier Editions.  I feel as though they're trying to return to legacy and tradition at all costs, even if it means undoing progress and cutting all ties with anything vaguely 4E.

Most of the complaints I hear isn't about THE system.. but the attitude that a lot of folks got from Wizards is what turned folks off. Both first and second hand. I've talked to venders, store owners, and con organizers. I have a friend who runs a store who tried to get the certifications (or whatever it's called) to be a Magic organizer.. they moved stores 300 yards to a place with 3 times the floor space.. the rep told them they had to start the whole process over. If she hadn't run into someone at GAMA who worked for Wizards that her husband knew.. she'd still be playing the games. She knows she has to do magic to stay afloat.. but she HATES dealing with them.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2013, 04:22:42 PM »
Really?  My FLGS has had an opposite experience.  In fact, given Wizards apparent hatred of online retailers (namely Amazon), WoTC would rather deal with brick and mortar retailers, or so I've been told.

And I still hear the same BS about 4e being an MMO, that was thrown out long before it came out being parroted over and over.  Which is ironic given that Pathfinder is licensing an actual MMO.  And that DDO is baed on 3e, not 4e.  Although, Cryptic is also making a free to play MMO based on 4e.

And Skynet, the goal with D&D Next is to unify the players, so that the Red/White/Blue Box people can play with the AD&D kids, who can play with the 3.x guys and so on.  Problem is with that Vancian Magic has been around for almost 35 years, give or take a few, while the AEDU system hasn't even broken five years.

That said, they've been trying to give the non-casters more toys to play with, built into the classes, rather than aspects of toys that everyone can play with.  However, on the WOTC DDN forums there's this huge debate going about magic.  And the really sad part is everyone knows magic is a problem, both the Pros and the Cons.

The Cons want something done about it, at the system level. The Pros claim it's on the GM to curb the system for the players.  But that statement alone implies that the Pros know something is wrong.

And for me I don't feel comfortable swing the Banhammer at one single mechanic and often one class, just so he/she can play nice at the table with the rest of the kids.  Doesn't feel fair that I have to actively nerf the wizard, just so the Rogue and Fighter can sorta do their jobs, you know?

Offline SkynetTopic starter

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2013, 05:07:27 PM »
1. Really?  My FLGS has had an opposite experience.  In fact, given Wizards apparent hatred of online retailers (namely Amazon), WoTC would rather deal with brick and mortar retailers, or so I've been told.

2. And I still hear the same BS about 4e being an MMO, that was thrown out long before it came out being parroted over and over.  Which is ironic given that Pathfinder is licensing an actual MMO.  And that DDO is baed on 3e, not 4e.  Although, Cryptic is also making a free to play MMO based on 4e.

3. And Skynet, the goal with D&D Next is to unify the players, so that the Red/White/Blue Box people can play with the AD&D kids, who can play with the 3.x guys and so on.  Problem is with that Vancian Magic has been around for almost 35 years, give or take a few, while the AEDU system hasn't even broken five years.

4. That said, they've been trying to give the non-casters more toys to play with, built into the classes, rather than aspects of toys that everyone can play with.  However, on the WOTC DDN forums there's this huge debate going about magic.  And the really sad part is everyone knows magic is a problem, both the Pros and the Cons.

5. The Cons want something done about it, at the system level. The Pros claim it's on the GM to curb the system for the players.  But that statement alone implies that the Pros know something is wrong.

6. And for me I don't feel comfortable swing the Banhammer at one single mechanic and often one class, just so he/she can play nice at the table with the rest of the kids.  Doesn't feel fair that I have to actively nerf the wizard, just so the Rogue and Fighter can sorta do their jobs, you know?

1. WotC has recently decided to go PDF, and it's got a lot of people excited.  They're changing, albeit slowly.

2. From what I hear, for 4th Edition Wizards decided to borrow some aspects of MMO games, and people started complaining that the entire RPG will be like that.  And the comparisons of Tieflings to Draenei.  What could've been legitimate complaints degenerated into tactless insults.

3. Trying to please everyone is impossible, especially given that the expectations and playstyles of the fans want different things.  AD&D players want a more minimalist, "rulings not rules" game and don't care as much about game balance, 3rd and 4th players prefer a tight, cohesive ruleset and want class balance (3rd because they're very aware of how unbalanced things get in their Edition).  This is just one example, and a generalization of recurring themes I see instead of "all X players are Y."

4. Many players have different ideas.  Some people (like some of the 4E guys) say to nerf full spellcasters, others say they should empower the non-fullcasters.  Some say both.  Others, such as some AD&D players, recommend bringing back restrictions from the Old School games, like no Concentration check to retain spells (if you're damaged, you lose the spell), or making certain spells disadvantageous to use liberally (crafting magic items drains 1 Constitution, haste ages you, etc.)  Different players want different solutions, and many see their solution as best.

5. Well, expecting the GM to fix minor problems when they arise is reasonable.  Expecting him to fix gaping flaws in a system is another thing; so many people have tried to fix 3rd Edition, and nothing short of a major overhaul of the system can adequately solve things.  There's also the fact that more than a few players like spellcasters being superior in every way, and complain when people try to balance things.

6. Well, depends upon the Edition and how overpowered the Wizard is.  A spellcaster who's effortlessly cleaning up encounters and making everyone else feel useless is not good sportsmanship, even if it's rules legal.  This is especially the case in 3rd Edition.  On the other hand, certain classes are so underpowered that they can't really keep up without excessive optimization.  An ideal solution is to discuss with the group what their preferred "power level" is: not power in terms of level, but in terms of optimzation, min-maxing, etc.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 05:09:02 PM by Skynet »

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2013, 05:26:51 PM »
1. WotC has recently decided to go PDF, and it's got a lot of people excited.  They're changing, albeit slowly.

I think they're saddled with a repressed legal team, but it's nice to know they're trying to get into the modern era.

2. From what I hear, for 4th Edition Wizards decided to borrow some aspects of MMO games, and people started complaining that the entire RPG will be like that.  And the comparisons of Tieflings to Draenei.  What could've been legitimate complaints degenerated into tactless insults.

Honestly, the only thing that's 'really' MMO is the terminology, which they co-opted back to their own words, Defender, Leader (HEALER, PEOPLE, HEALER), Controller and Striker.  All basic food groups that D&D has always had, just a little more codified.  If anything, the game feels more like Atlus styled JRPG/Strategy game, like Disgaea.

3. Trying to please everyone is impossible, especially given that the expectations and playstyles of the fans want different things.  AD&D players want a more minimalist, "rulings not rules" game and don't care as much about game balance, 3rd and 4th players prefer a tight, cohesive ruleset and want class balance (3rd because they're very aware of how unbalanced things get in their Edition).  This is just one example, and a generalization of recurring themes I see instead of "all X players are Y."

Yes, but the goal is to be able to get every D&D player to share, as it is right now, each version of D&D is an island, with older folks bemoaning their system is dead.

4. Many players have different ideas.  Some people (like some of the 4E guys) say to nerf full spellcasters, others say they should empower the non-fullcasters.  Some say both.  Others, such as some AD&D players, recommend bringing back restrictions from the Old School games, like no Concentration check to retain spells (if you're damaged, you lose the spell), or making certain spells disadvantageous to use liberally (crafting magic items drains 1 Constitution, haste ages you, etc.)  Different players want different solutions, and many see their solution as best.

Well, yes, but on the forums (which is but one aspect of the issue) it's more or less been decided that Magic IS a problem.

5. Well, expecting the GM to fix minor problems when they arise is reasonable.  Expecting him to fix gaping flaws in a system is another thing; so many people have tried to fix 3rd Edition, and nothing short of a major overhaul of the system can adequately solve things.  There's also the fact that more than a few players like spellcasters being superior in every way, and complain when people try to balance things.

And that's just it, the Pro guys expect GMs to fix the system.  In fact, this particular argument has been around since the late 2e, early 3.0 days, at the very least.

6. Well, depends upon the Edition and how overpowered the Wizard is.  A spellcaster who's effortlessly cleaning up encounters and making everyone else feel useless is not good sportsmanship, even if it's rules legal.  This is especially the case in 3rd Edition.  On the other hand, certain classes are so underpowered that they can't really keep up without excessive optimization.  An ideal solution is to discuss with the group what their preferred "power level" is: not power in terms of level, but in terms of optimzation, min-maxing, etc.
The issue is the legacy problem.  A lot of Players (even those that may not like it) don't want it changed because they don't know how it'll turn out.  Or that it's DIFFERENT.  Which is what 4e's real problem is.  It's NOT like the previous editions, so a lot of players simply turned their nose at it and began making up BS about it as excuses to not try it.  Then Paizo comes in and guts the player base, by doing the exact same thing 3.5 did to 3.0, and fans they are proclaims the 'true successors' to D&D, instead of screaming bloody murder for invalidating the previous books (which with every new book of their own, they are doing, but that's how you stay in business...)

In the end, all of us who play D&D, play D&D.  And WoTC's goal is to get everyone to play nice with each other and hopefully make some money doing so.  Instead, sometimes, it seems to me that people LOVE these battle lines that are drawn and simply want to snipe at each other for not being part of their particular Game Tribe.

Offline SkynetTopic starter

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2013, 06:07:30 PM »
In the end, all of us who play D&D, play D&D.  And WoTC's goal is to get everyone to play nice with each other and hopefully make some money doing so.  Instead, sometimes, it seems to me that people LOVE these battle lines that are drawn and simply want to snipe at each other for not being part of their particular Game Tribe.

I think the more obsessive Edition Warriors aren't so much interested in making their Edition "the primary one" so much as they just love to argue.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 06:09:42 PM by Skynet »

Offline Alchemistry

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2013, 06:31:54 PM »
I checked out the playtest packet released on the 28th. I like the idea of bounded numbers for things like attribute scores and AC. I like that they made skills derive from your PC's background as opposed to class. What I don't like is how skills you are trained in give you only a die to add to a d20 instead of something more stable. Since ability score modifiers will cap at +5, that makes skill usage more uncertain for players.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2013, 08:27:38 PM »
Really?  My FLGS has had an opposite experience.  In fact, given Wizards apparent hatred of online retailers (namely Amazon), WoTC would rather deal with brick and mortar retailers, or so I've been told.

And I still hear the same BS about 4e being an MMO, that was thrown out long before it came out being parroted over and over.  Which is ironic given that Pathfinder is licensing an actual MMO.  And that DDO is baed on 3e, not 4e.  Although, Cryptic is also making a free to play MMO based on 4e.

And Skynet, the goal with D&D Next is to unify the players, so that the Red/White/Blue Box people can play with the AD&D kids, who can play with the 3.x guys and so on.  Problem is with that Vancian Magic has been around for almost 35 years, give or take a few, while the AEDU system hasn't even broken five years.

That said, they've been trying to give the non-casters more toys to play with, built into the classes, rather than aspects of toys that everyone can play with.  However, on the WOTC DDN forums there's this huge debate going about magic.  And the really sad part is everyone knows magic is a problem, both the Pros and the Cons.

The Cons want something done about it, at the system level. The Pros claim it's on the GM to curb the system for the players.  But that statement alone implies that the Pros know something is wrong.

And for me I don't feel comfortable swing the Banhammer at one single mechanic and often one class, just so he/she can play nice at the table with the rest of the kids.  Doesn't feel fair that I have to actively nerf the wizard, just so the Rogue and Fighter can sorta do their jobs, you know?

I only know when 4e first came out that the comic supplies (Diamond and the rest) got dick for cost cuts, paying nearly full cover for their kits and the FLGS stores that dealt thru them had very little initial profit from the kits. At the same time Amazon and Wal-Mart got the same product at a 1/3rd the cover cost.. and Wal-Mart got a buy-back option.

As for the Wizard's folks 'discovering' electronic publishing and PDFs? No one I who lost out the last time they sold PDFs will trust them without MULTIPLE copies of their purchases now. I had friend that between a dropped laptop and vengeful exwife (she fed ALL his CDs/DVDs thru the house shredder) who lost something like a grand or more in the LAST run of Wizard PDFs because they gave Drivethrurpg and Paizo (who sold their pdfs online) THREE days to take them down when they got all snitty about online piracy. Despite the fact that the reason they did it was clearly an INHOUSE theft of IP not folks doing data sharing of bought PDFs from 2nd party sites.

I lost maybe 200 bucks worth of 3e and classic TSR books, and I know about a dozen or so sailors who lost LOTS more because we were out of internet reach or had hideously low bandwidth on the ships.

Add in my own personal horror stories with Wizard's customer support (One wrong order.. one mangled book, both took MONTHS to resolve) and I dislike dealing with them directly. When you have folks who all but call you a liar on the phone when you call them at 'oh god thirty' on a phone that only works when your ship is heading north/south, and get the run around again and again, you tend to remember how BAD their service is.

I had 3 big orders messed up while on deployment.. One from Paizo, one from Wizards and one from Palladium.

Paizo.. 'Oh.. send the books back and we'll send the replacements out'.
Palladium. "Oh sorry we gave you the wrong books.. keep them.' Then they sent me the LEATHER copy of the book I ordered..SIGNED with a hat.
Wizards. Send the package back. Wait till it's VERIFIED received by them. (via my parents calling UPS with the number) TWICE. The book arrived after I got back from the states. I spent THREE MONTHS in the gulf arguing with them. On and off.

Then I hear stories from not one store.. not two.. but something like FIVE about the way they were treated by the Wizard reps at GAMA and other industry shows when they asked them about policies.

Online Changingsaint

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2013, 12:04:58 AM »
I've been looking at every playtest packet, and well... Im just disappointed. I've given my feed back when appropriate, but it just leaves me cold. I'm a big fan of 4th edition, and I will fight for it to the death - It is not everyones D&D and thats cool. But it is the D&D I enjoy the most, and I know many friends who feel similarly, and we all feel left in the dust by what Next is 'taking' from 4e, as well as previous editions. And I don't see much in the way of 4th edition in it.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2013, 03:54:58 AM »
Then Changing Saint, keep playing 4e.  More power to you!  And anyone else who has fun with their edition.  Truth be told, I'm more likely going to mine D&DN for 'good stuff' I like, find an edition of D&D I can run and use it together.

Online Changingsaint

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2013, 05:22:42 AM »
My main issue with such is I primarily have most of m D&D stuff through the DDI. I assume that in preparation for D&DN, such will eventually be taken down - and I will be massively unhappy.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2013, 06:10:33 AM »
I have a hard time believing they will do that.  It's a money maker, for one thing.  Second, seeing as they just rereleased 3.x in hard cover, I think they'll see about keeping all the editions running in some fashion for some time.

I could of course be wrong, though.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2013, 12:57:13 PM »
I jumped from OD&D to AD&D 2nd, to D&D 3rd, (3.5 does that count?). So I'm not afraid to change editions, but then 4e really just lost me. Now I'm a pathfinder boy, but I was excited about Next wondering if it would bring be back into the fold as it were.

I've read their playtest stuff but none of the D&D Next stuff that I've read has really excited me yet though. I don't read it and think "Wow, I've got to play this game".

Now I will play D&D Next at some point, I want to give it a chance and I want it to stun me with how awesome it is. But I get a feeling that a few years from now, Pathfinder will still be my D&D of choice.

Offline TentacleFan

Re: Dungeons & Dragons Next: Anybody Interested?
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2013, 10:47:47 AM »
I've looked at a few of the playtest packets and my groups and I tried playing one of them but in general D&D has lost both of my groups interest for the time being. We gave 4th Ed several chances but lost interest in it as well. Time was taken off to play some board and card games and when we talked about picking it back up again no one was enthusiastic about it. One group is now playing the new Star Wars Starter Box that just came out to see how it is. The other group I'm introducing to Palladium. We're doing a Palladium Fantasy game and then we'll probably do some Rifts and Nightbane further down the line.