Quote from: Piestrio;600888What's your current take on D&Dnext?

I just think the people behind D&D Next don't play the same game I do. I think they are still neck-deep into both storytelling bungaboo crap and gamist/Forge theory wank, that they still can't help themselves but want to "fix the game" once again, and that the result will just be yet-another-iteration-of-the-game that has fuck all to do with the classic D&D game I know and love, and therefore won't give much of a shit about it.

Don't care.

Between my current favourites of C&C, AD&D1e and D&D4e, I have never been convinced that D&D5e will add anything. I imagine that most D&D fans are in the same boat with their current favourites.

Once I found out they hadn't gotten rid of feats, I lost interest.

Although, when I saw the art, I gained a tiny bit of interest back.

I have absolutely zero interest in the arguments going on on various forums about stuff in the playtests.

The thing is, ultimately, there are a lot of problems I've had with every edition of D&D. even my preffered version. Most of them could be summed up as the "disassociated mechanics" thing the Alexandrian talked about. Alignment? Hate it. Levels? hate them. Almost all arbitrary rules that are there just because it's a game, or in the name of "balance" (which I maintain is just an illusion in some insecure geeks' heads). D&D 5 doesn't seem to be intent on fixing any of these from what I can tell.

So I'll probably just stick with my current fantasy love/fascination (Runequest 6) for now.

But I may pick up some of the books for the art.

The D&D player base is so hopelessly fragmented among mutually exclusive play preferences and game assumptions that 5E can't possibly achieve expectations as a game for all D&D fans. If it offers the degree of PC customization a lot of players enjoy, it won't be rules-light (or even rules medium). If it presumes high-powered play it won't support gritty play. If it tries to incorporate narrative control, it will alienate the 'just roll the dice' crowd. If it doesn't bake in grid play, it will piss off the tactical wonks.

WoTC's efforts so far bring to mind those Japanese game shows where desperate fools run around trying to fit foam shapes into the wrong hole while being blasted with water cannons.

Why should I bother with it?

Honestly, I have more RPGs than I'm ever going to have time to play, and it's very unlikely that the final version of D&D Next will offer much that I want without some form of compromise. There are simply too many disparate designer and fan opinions being heard on this that don't have much in common with what I want. They bow at the altar of balance over everything, and having everyone be a special snowflake in every aspect of the game. That introduces a level of specialization and likely a style I'm simply not interested in. Simply put, the classic gaming experience I get from games like Castles & Crusades, Palladium Fantasy, or Rules Cyclopedia D&D suits me just fine. My group also loves Pathfinder, which I'm ok with, as well. I have Rolemaster on standby, too. Better to play with what I know, or get games from designers I trust, than wait for a game that will probably be a disappointment. Why roll the dice on it?

Hearing the arguments over stuff such as the monk and what GMs will force and what players are incapable of addressing themselves also makes me realize there are an immense amount of really crappy gaming groups out there. There really are groups that religiously will only play RAW as written. They probably did it with 3e, again with 4e, and will do it with Next.

Quote from: Zachary The First;600948Hearing the arguments over stuff such as the monk and what GMs will force and what players are incapable of addressing themselves also makes me realize there are an immense amount of really crappy gaming groups out there. There really are groups that religiously will only play RAW as written. They probably did it with 3e, again with 4e, and will do it with Next.

WotC will never fix the problem, because the problem is them.  Following the "wisdom" of adventures don't sell, despite the competitor that has passed them being the house that adventures built; following the MtG paradigm of exception-based rules design which leads to RAW system mastery trumping DM-player creativity; both of those will probably put us right back on the splat treadmill...etc.  Same shit different day.

I do however, like how the Class/Background/Speciality leads to flavorful characters, I just have the sinking feeling that lots of the Classes/Backgrounds/Specialities will be unusable as is and require rewriting like all the 3e classes did.

Quote from: TristramEvans;600941Once I found out they hadn't gotten rid of feats, I lost interest.

I've heard this a lot, and as someone who really doesn't like 3e and feats, I can say that even though they use the same terminology, feats in Next aren't like 3.x.  They are more like trait abilities based on a thematic package, and not like 3.x where you could munchkin your way to a f1/rngr3/sor11/mnckn 5 build with a specific feat progression trail to dual wield demon bows with 18 attacks per round.

This thread's surprising so far. I thought I was one of the only ones around here to be basically done with Next. Apparently I was wrong. I wonder if that's a feeling that's spread out, or if it's just us here on the RPG Site.

Quote from: Benoist;600970This thread's surprising so far. I thought I was one of the only ones around here to be basically done with Next. Apparently I was wrong. I wonder if that's a feeling that's spread out, or if it's just us here on the RPG Site.

RPGnet has basically been done with Next from the get go, though that may have been due to the number of vitriolic 4e fans.

I don't think gleefully hoping for something to fail counts as being done with it...

I have no desire to play D&D Next.

Quote from: Skywalker;600979RPGnet has basically been done with Next from the get go, though that may have been due to the number of vitriolic 4e fans.

No no no.  You have it all wrong.  What they are doing is not bitching and moaning.  What they are doing is critical thinking in an academic sense.  And that's what WoTC is asking for!

Quote from: Benoist;600970This thread's surprising so far. I thought I was one of the only ones around here to be basically done with Next. Apparently I was wrong. I wonder if that's a feeling that's spread out, or if it's just us here on the RPG Site.

I think most people on this site, being TSR era players, have taken the OG approach of "I'm having fun with this edition now, why would I move on?" because we've been doing that for 12-23 years already.  I'm one of them, as a player of AD&D1e with some 2e elements.  I had no desire to play 3e when it came out, and less desire to play 4e.

But I wouldn't sell out Next quite yet, because it allows things that 3e and 4e didn't do so well such as:

* easy houseruling and customization based on gaming group preferences
* no requirement for minis or battlemaps
* fairly fast combat resolution
* fast character generation

Now, I'm not begrudging people for still staying with AD&D or B/X, but I think it would be a mistake to classify Next with 3.x or 4e.

So far.  As long as Mearls stops catering to the 4vengers, because he'll end up with a 4e product that will fail just like 4e and have no one to blame but himself.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;600986No no no.  You have it all wrong.  What they are doing is not bitching and moaning.  What they are doing is critical thinking in an academic sense.

I guess it whiles away the hours on social welfare. Never say an arts degree is good for nothing...