It's been about a year and a half since I last played any 5e playtest stuff, and I've focused almost exclusively on AD&D since then as far as gaming goes.

So, with that said what, exactly, is the deal here now?

Is the thrust of 5e to be that it "feels" like old D&D, but has no inherent design properties that make it that way (including no snap-in modules, etc.)?

Is it that it is to have add-ons to let you play a certain way, gray-boxed text "If you want to play an AD&D like game, adjust things this way, for a more 3e like experience, see the "feats and powers" section)?

Or is it a case of "Look, the rules are so open that you can just sit down and with no modification use an AD&D character and the 5e rules and you're good to go".

I'm just entirely unsure of what the state of the D&D 5e nation is.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;705648It's been about a year and a half since I last played any 5e playtest stuff, and I've focused almost exclusively on AD&D since then as far as gaming goes.

So, with that said what, exactly, is the deal here now?

Is the thrust of 5e to be that it "feels" like old D&D, but has no inherent design properties that make it that way (including no snap-in modules, etc.)?

Is it that it is to have add-ons to let you play a certain way, gray-boxed text "If you want to play an AD&D like game, adjust things this way, for a more 3e like experience, see the "feats and powers" section)?

Or is it a case of "Look, the rules are so open that you can just sit down and with no modification use an AD&D character and the 5e rules and you're good to go".

I'm just entirely unsure of what the state of the D&D 5e nation is.

I played it for about eight months, right up until we went to a Call of Cthulhu.  Inna final analysis, it's really it's own thing. If you have game shibboleths (almost typed shoggoths), it won't work for you. It's faster than 3e, a billion times faster than 4e, but there is a lot of DNA from them both in there.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;705648It's been about a year and a half since I last played any 5e playtest stuff, and I've focused almost exclusively on AD&D since then as far as gaming goes.

So, with that said what, exactly, is the deal here now?

Is the thrust of 5e to be that it "feels" like old D&D, but has no inherent design properties that make it that way (including no snap-in modules, etc.)?

Is it that it is to have add-ons to let you play a certain way, gray-boxed text "If you want to play an AD&D like game, adjust things this way, for a more 3e like experience, see the "feats and powers" section)?

Or is it a case of "Look, the rules are so open that you can just sit down and with no modification use an AD&D character and the 5e rules and you're good to go".

I'm just entirely unsure of what the state of the D&D 5e nation is.

From what Ive gathered on forums, the intention is a streamlined take on the original AD&D of the first two editions, with a few of the revisions of 3rd edition. My perception is that it is also intending to be somewhat 'family friendly' in general approach, not for kids and not removing or bowdlerizing the high fantasy focus, but more in line with the appeal of Pixar films and Peter Jackson's Tolkien fanfic. This suspicion is based primarily on the art and the constant talk of "building a brand". But that doesn't particularly bother me or affect my personal approach to DMing.

The rules are intended to be somewhat modular (though perhaps not as much as originally planned, based on earlier rumors). Specifically, one of the developers said they're planning a companion book that deals with utilizing or adding to the rules to emphasize certain playstyles, with talk of sections devoted to a more narrative play or a crunchier game more similar to 4e.

I'm too cynical to get my hopes up that what Im picturing is close to what eventually manifests, but from my PoV they're certainly saying the right things for the most part (barring my personal wish that Feats would just go away)

Quote from: Emperor Norton;705595Haha, yeah, cause if BGG was in any way accurate to the market, Monopoly wouldn't be still chugging along printing cash.

No kidding.

Quote from: beejazz;7056261) A casual market does not mean lapsed gamers.
2) This rigid playstyle thing people talk about on the internet isn't something I've really seen in the wild so to speak. Sure we all turned down 4e because it was boring, but if it was just one of us who had a problem, he probably would've sucked it up and played everybody's 4e game and kept running 3. 4e really only failed with us because it failed absolutely all of us.


See 1) again, with the addendum that casual players need not be new either. A person can play monthly or yearly for years same as they can play weekly for years.


This isn't necessarily the case. It can be easier or harder depending on a number of factors. In D&D's case in particular, though, it's not exactly hard to find a DM ready to run or players to play. Even for 4e.


Who was 3E's target market? 1E players? 2E players? BD&D players? New players?
.

I think the RPG fans iudea of a casual game and the general baordgame manufacturer's idea are very different.

You say its not difficualt to find a game ... a non-gamer wouldn't even understand that concept. A game is something mum and dad and the kids play on a thursday night or something the kids do for a couple of hours before bed. The idea that to find a D&D game you might have to get familar with a text book size tome then go out on a specific day to play a game somewhere is anathema to 90% of the population.

Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Risk, Diplomacy, chess, checkers, backgammon, scrabble, poker, bridge these are games with casual players. If Hasbro are looking to appeal to them they are doomed. Even MtG didn't manage that.

There are gamers (us), there are lapsed gamers and there are potential gamers. the growth of MMOs etc suggests that the latter category might be sizable but how sizable is a big question.

Quote from: beejazz;7056262) This rigid playstyle thing people talk about on the internet isn't something I've really seen in the wild so to speak. Sure we all turned down 4e because it was boring, but if it was just one of us who had a problem, he probably would've sucked it up and played everybody's 4e game and kept running 3. 4e really only failed with us because it failed absolutely all of us.

I sort of agree and sort of disagree.

You are very correct that the whole rigid playstyle thing is vastly overstated on the Internet, and I think that all but a minority of gamers are a bit more flexible than that. In fact, it's a regular criticism of the Forge - one that I share - that their vision of gaming hinged on extremely narrow games aimed at a very specific playstyle and session structure, which more or less doomed them to have a very limited appeal.

At the same time, though, I think that precisely because people have the capability to be flexible in their playstyles, it's a requirement of a game which wants to be the major player in the market to go for a "broad church" approach, presenting a game which can cater to a wide variety of styles. It's much easier to reach a compromise if everyone can find something in a game which really excites them, and the more narrow you go the more difficult that is.

Yes, if everyone else in your gaming group fancies 4E and you can't bear it then you're probably going to swallow your objections and participate because these people are your pals and spending time with them is more enjoyable than spending time on your own, even if you aren't fond of the game currently being played. But when you present a game as narrow as 4E is you're going to end up with "five of us hate it, one of us likes it" more often than "five of us love it, one of us hates it" by my reckoning - and just as in the latter case the one outlier may well grin and bear it because they get enough enjoyment out of hanging with their gaming buddies for the weekly game to outweigh their objections, equally in the former case the one person who does like 4E is probably going to shelve it and do something the rest of the group is interested in instead.

Quote from: jibbajibba;705673I think the RPG fans iudea of a casual game and the general baordgame manufacturer's idea are very different.

You say its not difficualt to find a game ... a non-gamer wouldn't even understand that concept. A game is something mum and dad and the kids play on a thursday night or something the kids do for a couple of hours before bed. The idea that to find a D&D game you might have to get familar with a text book size tome then go out on a specific day to play a game somewhere is anathema to 90% of the population.

Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Risk, Diplomacy, chess, checkers, backgammon, scrabble, poker, bridge these are games with casual players. If Hasbro are looking to appeal to them they are doomed. Even MtG didn't manage that.

Well said.  Yes, if Hasbro is hoping to entice new blood to play rpg's (as they haven't adequately targeted existing players with 5E) they are hosed beyond description.

Hasbro isn't "doomed" by any means regardless of success or failure of a 5e for D&D.  Even WoTC isn't "doomed" because they have MtG to fall back on.  

D&D itself is "doomed" if it fails to perform.  If that's the case, it will being a brand for board games and a brand of novels from the existing IP.

But it may be successful.  The key thing is, I believe most gamers aren't as conservative as the hard core.  If you're the type who is stuck having a favorite edition and are not open to changes, you're already not the target market of the game.  The trick is, pleasing traditionalists who are open to change without being too radical--I think that's where 4e broke the tradition and was too radical a change.

Quote from: JRT;705700Hasbro isn't "doomed" by any means regardless of success or failure of a 5e for D&D.

You misinterpreted that.  OBVIOUSLY Hasbro isn't "doomed" if/when Next fails. No one here thinks that... :rolleyes:

Quote from: Arduin;705716You misinterpreted that.  OBVIOUSLY Hasbro isn't "doomed" if/when Next fails. No one here thinks that... :rolleyes:

Then don't use terminology like doomed or hosed for the company, use it for the product line itself.

Quote from: JRT;705719Then don't use terminology like doomed or hosed for the company, use it for the product line itself.

Get a clue before trying to read posts.  Context is critical in understanding.  :banghead:

Quote from: Arduin;705721Get a clue before trying to read posts.  Context is critical in understanding.  :banghead:

Nope, I understand.  I'm criticizing the use of the terms when you both could have worded it a lot better.

yeah let's be clear on something. Hasbro gives no fucks about what happens with Next. D&D isn't even a blip on Hasbro's radar because succeed or fail editions of D&D come out of the small subsection of Hasbro that basically prints money.

Quote from: Bobloblah;705516The lack of solid information stymies most attempts at useful conversation about this stuff, and back-of-envelope guesstimates are all we're left with.

Although I hear Arduin knows.

In fairness we're getting some good insights into the kind of money in the industry via kickstarters. Half a million for Numenera, about the same for Exalted, the overwhelming majority of authors and artists (comparable industries) would be absolutely delighted with those numbers.

You could probably make a living out of it, maybe support a small company if you hit the right notes.

Quote from: The Traveller;705814In fairness we're getting some good insights into the kind of money in the industry via kickstarters. Half a million for Numenera, about the same for Exalted, the overwhelming majority of authors and artists (comparable industries) would be absolutely delighted with those numbers.

You could probably make a living out of it, maybe support a small company if you hit the right notes.

Yes and no.

Bear in mind that any KS campaign that sells the game at retail price (and several do) is making close to 2x what they would if they'd sold through retailer.

You gain a very targeted sales order. But you are loosing anyone who cannot use KS and the casual off the shelf impulse buyer, and the simple fact a large portion of gamers still aren't using the internet for purchasing games. That number though is getting smaller. The other drawback is... those who didnt even know there was a KS for some game.

That from open discussions by some of the successful KSers and a few failures enumerating just why they sank or swam.

But Kickstarter is changing the face of publishing in various ways.