Quote from: Benoist;647719Ah, hm. No. That's not what I actually said, no.

Really?

QuoteWell no, I'm just pointing out that (A) the idea that adding escalating numbers to a d20 vs. target number is not as "obviously" easier than rolling and then the DM looks at a to-hit table you player don't have to even care about in the first place, contrarily to common wisdom,

It seems like with d20, you're talking about "adding escalating numbers to a d20" while with AD&D, you're not including any modifiers at all.

QuoteNow you're going to tell me what's going on at my game table, I suppose? The fact of the matter is that what I see at my AD&D table is players dealing with very few if no modifiers at all at low level, unless you're playing with weapon specialization, which is already something optional, and weapons vs. armor modifiers, which is something I do not use in my games. At most they'll have modifiers of in the vicinity of +1/+4 derived from a magic weapon and high Strength/Dex the like if they are actually really good at what they're doing (e.g. fighter types, not ALL charater types by far), AND IF they acquired a magic weapon at some point in the first place.

Circumstancial modifiers are added by me DM after the fact after the player declared the result, which then I compare to values on the to-hit table. That's basically what happens at my game table, and I've found it easier on both the players and myself.

These modifiers are unlikely to get out of hand into double-digit territory, as far as to-hit rolls are concerned. Now if you get paladins with +5 holy avengers and 18/00 Strength and Weapon Specialization and all that shit on on a regular basis in your games, and regularly start characters at level 7 like it's a piece of cake, okay, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but that's not how my games proceed.

Yeah, you're choosing to ignore a lot of rules with AD&D, but not applying the same generosity to other editions.  That's what I mean by disingenuous.  And by the way, everything you just said?  The same thing can be said for how Next is played, to a "T".  I can literally take everything you just said, and replace AD&D with Next and have it be accurate.  The only difference is that when you've added that modifier or two, in AD&D you have to look at a table, and in Next, you're done.   You seem to be ignoring some rules in AD&D but aren't doing the same for Next.  I'm not telling you what goes on at your gaming table.  I'm telling you that you need to apply the same set of standards to each version you're comparing, otherwise it's disingenuous.  

So when I call you stubborn, that's not meant to be an insult.  If I wanted to insult you, I'd use other nastier words.  But I don't want to do that because I have no ill will towards you.  I'm using stubborn because I don't know another word for someone who is presented with actual data and refuses to acknowledge it and instead holds on to the same position.  This isn't a disagreement on subjective stuff here.  I'm literally pointing out to you where you're mistaken with Next.  If you tell me it's raining and it is raining outside, it's pretty silly for me to say, "I guess we just disagree because I don't think it is."

*Edit*  And while I get that some people like to look at tables and I have no issue with that, the reason I have issue with the "because adding modifiers adds a difficulty that they don't like or don't want" is because damage rolls.  Does your DM roll for damage too?  Because every time a character rolls for damage, they are doing the exact same steps that a player does when rolling to hit in Next.  You roll a dice type, and then add any bonuses.  You don't need to look at a table, and you don't need to subtract from 20 (THAC0).  So unless your players are not rolling their damage rolls, they are already doing a task just as complex as rolling to hit is.  Which is to say, a pretty easy one.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647721Yeah, you're choosing to ignore a lot of rules with AD&D, but not applying the same generosity to other editions.  That's what I mean by disingenuous.  And by the way, everything you just said?  The same thing can be said for how Next is played, to a "T".  I can literally take everything you just said, and replace AD&D with Next and have it be accurate.  The only difference is that when you've added that modifier or two, in AD&D you have to look at a table, and in Next, you're done.   You seem to be ignoring some rules in AD&D but aren't doing the same for Next.  I'm not telling you what goes on at your gaming table.  I'm telling you that you need to apply the same set of standards to each version you're comparing, otherwise it's disingenuous.  
.

One of the pieces that made AD&D work was that the game was very friendly to houseruling and to picking and choosing of rules.  For a lot of reasons, later editions of D&D tended to be less robust to tinkering.  A lot of it was the attempt to have a systematic system underpinning everything instead of a lot of disassociated sub-systems.  This dependency had some very well known failure points (polymorph spell) and made house ruling  lot less popular.

Now that is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is hard to house rule Axis and Allies too, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

Quote from: talysman;647716But you see, it *can't* work.

WotC's changes are being made in terms of what the *company* wants or needs, instead of what the *customers* want or need. People who are looking for something different (but not too different) might buy into Next. But if Next is a different game than 0e or 1e/2e or 3e or 4e, it's not going to offer anything the die-hards of those editions need: they have what they need already. If it caters specifically to the needs of one, it will automatically turn off the die-hards of the other editions.

Who WotC is selling to are the people who need an official version of the game who want as many potential players as possible. The problem is: edition die-hards, by definition, do not need that.

You *can't* win them back.

I agree this is the problem. I'd say most of the D&D community doesn't *need* what WotC is doing with 5E, and I don't think you have to be a die-hard to fall into that category. The die-hards will merely provide the option for people who aren't entirely sold on 5E to stick with what they have by giving the unsold someplace else to go.

The second part, the people who need an official version played by as many as possible, is an excellent insight, but at the same time I find those people unrealistically optimistic about 5E's likelihood of actually delivering it.

If you are enjoying the 5e playtest, that is awesome.

I don't get it. For me, its just a slap together of 2e and 3e that feels about as authentic as corporate fast food. For me, its soulless. It reeks of compromise, not creativity.

For me, its painful to put 5e next to the DCC RPG. DCC isn't perfect, but it screams out with originality and flavor.  

Will 5e succeed? That depends on advertising and marketing. The D&D fanbase is too fractured to make any new edition do much better than 4e.

In fact, I suspect it will do much worse because there are less gamers today and more fractures in the community.

Quote from: talysman;647716Who WotC is selling to are the people who need an official version of the game who want as many potential players as possible. The problem is: edition die-hards, by definition, do not need that.

You *can't* win them back.

I mostly agree with this.

In the 5e surveys, I have suggested WotC buy Paizo and focus on supporting Classic, Pathfinder and 4e. The fanbase can not be united, but they can be funneled into becoming customers from WotC.

Because at the end of the day for WotC, edition does not matter. Profit does.

In furtherance of the 'people who need a 5E that unifies everyone' concept, this is a quote from the WotC forums from one of them:

QuoteI'd say at this point you should maybe get a little flexible because if I had to venture a guess...This edition won't be designed to precisely fill your needs by default.  Basically get ready to compromise because we're all gunna have to do it.

Which ignores the obvious answer of not needing to compromise if your happy with what you already have and instead takes it as a given that people will be playing 5E.

Quote from: Votan;647727One of the pieces that made AD&D work was that the game was very friendly to houseruling and to picking and choosing of rules.  For a lot of reasons, later editions of D&D tended to be less robust to tinkering.  A lot of it was the attempt to have a systematic system underpinning everything instead of a lot of disassociated sub-systems.  This dependency had some very well known failure points (polymorph spell) and made house ruling  lot less popular.

Now that is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is hard to house rule Axis and Allies too, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

I absolutely agree that later editions were very hard to house rule.  I also agree that being able to easily houserule is a big plus for me.

And honestly?  Next has given me that flexibility since AD&D to do just that.

Hit Dice healing mechanic?  Easily ignored.
Tactical movement?  Also very easily ignored
Feats?  It isn't nearly a problem for me like 3e is (I hate 3e's feat system because it's all about char op).  But again, easily ignored or modified.

I haven't seen that in a version of D&D since 2e.

Quote from: talysman;647716The problem is: edition die-hards, by definition, do not need that.

You *can't* win them back.

They don't need to bring back a diehard who plays one edition of D&D to the exclusion of all others.

Who they need to also play Next are people who played various forms of D&D as well as other RPGs, but refused to play 4e due to it being so divergent.

It's not conversion that's needed, it's getting someone when asked if they want to play Next in addition to whatever other games they are playing say "Sure.", instead of "When my asshole learns to chew gum." (movie quote for extra points)

Quote from: CRKrueger;647748They don't need to bring back a diehard who plays one edition of D&D to the exclusion of all others.

Who they need to also play Next are people who played various forms of D&D as well as other RPGs, but refused to play 4e due to it being so divergent.

It's not conversion that's needed, it's getting someone when asked if they want to play Next in addition to whatever other games they are playing say "Sure.", instead of "When my asshole learns to chew gum." (movie quote for extra points)

In order to do that, it needs to overcome 'meh'.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;647749In order to do that, it needs to overcome 'meh'.

Don't be so sure.  A lot of people are going to buy it simply because it is the current new version of D&D that is going to be actively supported, and that's it.

Obviously they would want more, but to get a lot of former customers back (at least as a secondary game), all that's really needed is the lack of a negative reaction.

The problem is, they want the old gamers, butat the same time they're not designing the game from the PoV of the designers of TSR editions, still holding on to concepts like Feats and other WoTC "innovations" that reflect a completely different gaming and design philosophy from the original game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647617But I think the answer to that is pretty simple.  They think it is going to work because despite the loud gnashers of teeth on certain internet forums, there's plenty of people like me who will probably buy Next.  People like me whose last D&D product I bought was in the 90s.  People like me who have stuck with TSR D&D and not moved on to 3e or 4e, but have played Next and thought, "I actually enjoy this because it allows us to play how we like."

I know I can only speak for myself and one person doesn't mean shit, but I'm pretty confident there are others out there like me based on the G+ hangouts I've been on, and with gamers I've played Next with both in person and in Roll20 who like me, haven't bought a D&D product in over a decade, but probably will with Next.

You're not alone. I'm in the same boat. So is a long-time 1E and 3E DM who I recently started playing with. We're pleased to see an edition of D&D that has the coherence of 3E without the huge amount of mechanical grit. As soon as I found out it didn't presume using a battle grid, I was half-way sold. Then I saw the smart way feats were preconfigured in specialties, and thought yeah, that's the level of character customization I want.

Quote from: Benoist;647711That's all I'm saying. That the appeal to old edition stuff is just marketing.

Nope. Mechanically, it's the first edition since 2nd that you don't have to house-rule the fuck out of to play without a grid. It's also far less complex than 3E.

Really, it's the first rules-medium edition of D&D.  

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;647745Which ignores the obvious answer of not needing to compromise if your happy with what you already have and instead takes it as a given that people will be playing 5E.

Battle-scarred edition warriors on forums give a distorted picture of preferences because editions become holy writ that is fought over with fanatical zeal. But in the real world, a lot of players have misgivings and issues with the version of D&D they play. Then end up houseruling their games, or putting up with mechanics they don't like out of simple fatigue or convenience.

I've been working on a houseruled version of D&D for a couple years, trimming down the Pathfinder SRD to something midway between Pathfinder and B/X in complexity. So when I first looked at the Next playtest a couple months ago, I was pleased to see that WotC is doing much the same thing, and will end up saving me a lot of work. And I'm not the only person with that preference. The Pathfinder Beginner Box is widely praised as an excellent streamlining of the system. There have been calls to extend the system to the full level range, but of course Pathfinder doesn't want to split their market with two systems.

Quote from: TristramEvans;647755The problem is, they want the old gamers, butat the same time they're not designing the game from the PoV of the designers of TSR editions, still holding on to concepts like Feats and other WoTC "innovations" that reflect a completely different gaming and design philosophy from the original game.

Are feats really 'completely different' from TSR games? Pulling out class abilities like tracking, lay on hands, or backstab and calling them feats isn't some kind of radical departure from AD&D. The specialties in Next give a prescribed set of special abilities a character will receive at certain levels. In practice, this isn't any different from how advancing Druids or Paladins worked in AD&D.

And I don't think they're designing things from the POV of TSR designers. They're designing a game that supports a common playstyle from the heyday of the game - flexible, theatre of the mind play with fast and abstract combat. If WotC can actually write some decent adventures for Next, I'll be returning as a customers of official D&D for the first time in many years.

Quote from: CRKrueger;647748They don't need to bring back a diehard who plays one edition of D&D to the exclusion of all others.

Who they need to also play Next are people who played various forms of D&D as well as other RPGs, but refused to play 4e due to it being so divergent.

It's not conversion that's needed, it's getting someone when asked if they want to play Next in addition to whatever other games they are playing say "Sure.", instead of "When my asshole learns to chew gum." (movie quote for extra points)

I'm not being rigid with the term "die-hard". I'm just using it to characterize people who object to the actual mechanics being included or excluded in Next. Or any other version for that matter.

Like, for example, I'm an OD&D person. I have played 1e and (sort of) 2e, ran 1e and Holmes back in the day. I won't run B/X, BECMI, or most other things anymore, but for early TSR D&D characters, it's trivial to include them in an OD&D game, becoming a little trickier as you move to 1e+UA and even trickier with each step thereafter. I'd play in any D&D game where I don't have to put up with character build/optimization bullshit or learn any new rules; in other words, I'll play D&D where I can make my character the OD&D way and not have to bother with added crap.

So I'm much more flexible than the extreme die-hard you're talking about, but I'm still a die-hard in the sense I was using the term: later editions of D&D have lots of crap I don't want or need and have changed or removed things I do want/need. And from the descriptions I'm seeing from people playtesting Next and praising its features, it's not any different.

The question for WotC is: How many people will buy any version of D&D, just because it's D&D, as long as it's at least potentially mod-able to *feel* like the D&D they want? And how many are like me, comfortable with what they have, and not seeing anything they want and some things they don't want? I'm thinking a huge number of 3e people and 4e people are OK playing a wide range of D&D versions as long as they don't have to give up the way they make characters or learn additional rules, based purely on the extreme hatred 4e advocates have expressed for older editions and the defection of 3e people to Pathfinder. I'm thinking Next will not win over those people. It will only "mix it up" a bit and get some 1e, 3e, and 4e people playing together who might not have otherwise.

Basically, they will be treading water. Which is OK, if they're happy with their current sales level, but I gather that they aren't.

Quote from: Haffrung;647758Are feats really 'completely different' from TSR games? Pulling out class abilities like tracking, lay on hands, or backstab and calling them feats isn't some kind of radical departure from AD&D. The specialties in Next give a prescribed set of special abilities a character will receive at certain levels. In practice, this isn't any different from how advancing Druids or Paladins worked in AD&D..

If thats what Feats were modelling, I wouldn't have a had a problem with them. Its when each out of ordinary action in combat is a Feat, to the point where players won't try anything fun unless they have the feat that it really defeats the purpose. Plus, the whole, instead of a Feat +1 to an attribute? From an old school perspective thats downright bizarre.

QuoteThey're designing a game that supports a common playstyle from the heyday of the game - flexible, theatre of the mind play with fast and abstract combat.

I'll ahve to wait and see, but everything that I've read about Next thus far suggests that the game will be nothing of the sort. Granted, a step back from "these rules are your god" -style of design of 4th, which is good, but still not "this game is whatever YOU want it to be" TSR style.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;647749In order to do that, it needs to overcome 'meh'.

To be perfectly blunt, this statement coming from you doesn't have me worried all that much.  As a self-proclaimed 4venger who refuses to have anything positive to say about something that isn't 4e, I'm not too worried that you feel WotC is alienating you.  To be honest, I see that as a good thing.

Quote from: Haffrung;647758Battle-scarred edition warriors on forums give a distorted picture of preferences because editions become holy writ that is fought over with fanatical zeal. But in the real world, a lot of players have misgivings and issues with the version of D&D they play. Then end up houseruling their games, or putting up with mechanics they don't like out of simple fatigue or convenience.

Absolutely true.  90% of the people I see in real life aren't nearly as rigid as those of us who post on forums

And really, no edition is ever absolutely perfect.  They can't be.  People all have their own quirks and preferences, and I am skeptical of people who say, "no game can possibly be better than this version."  We all modify things that suit our groups.

QuoteAre feats really 'completely different' from TSR games? Pulling out class abilities like tracking, lay on hands, or backstab and calling them feats isn't some kind of radical departure from AD&D. The specialties in Next give a prescribed set of special abilities a character will receive at certain levels. In practice, this isn't any different from how advancing Druids or Paladins worked in AD&D.

I agree.  Unlike 3e, where the feat system highly encouraged char op by carefullly memorizing and selecting the best DPS for feat combination, NEXT is really stressing packages that are functionally no different than AD&D.  Call them class packages just like you described if you want if you don't like the word feat.  But the way they are pushing "feats", it isn't anything like 3e charop unless you specifically choose to ignore the packages and play that way.

Quote from: TristramEvans;647767If thats what Feats were modelling, I wouldn't have a had a problem with them. Its when each out of ordinary action in combat is a Feat, to the point where players won't try anything fun unless they have the feat that it really defeats the purpose. Plus, the whole, instead of a Feat +1 to an attribute? From an old school perspective thats downright bizarre.

This last Wednesday in a G+ group, we had the fighter flip over a table and attack using a chair while the opponent was off balance.  Nothing in Next discouraged that.  And he certainly didn't have the table throwing feat.

QuoteI'll ahve to wait and see, but everything that I've read about Next thus far suggests that the game will be nothing of the sort. Granted, a step back from "these rules are your god" -style of design of 4th, which is good, but still not "this game is whatever YOU want it to be" TSR style.

It comes down to your group.  Just like in the 80s, you'll have rules lawyers who do that sort of shit.  But as I just mentioned, not only is there nothing in Next that discourages that theater of the mind sort of play, but it actually encourages with, "If you want to do something that isn't written in to a skill, just figure out what attribute works for it and make an ability check."

Just like we did in the 80s.