PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5th Edition Surveys



Griogre
April 6th, 2012, 18:07
I am in favor of 5Es open Beta. This is because its clear from the release of 4E the designers/play testers were playing a different game from the one released which lead to tons of errata and the obsoleting of the first books released in just a few months. An open beta will stop that type of thing as well as a number of other problems 4E was plagued with.

However, when I worked at a game company I was not in favor of open betas (except for networking tests or marketing reasons) because you often have the tail wagging the dog. I am deeply skeptical that WotC realizes that only a small portion of players and DMs are responding to their surveys and these respondents may not closely represent the whole of the people that play D&D.

That being the case, I encourage you all to respond to the blog surveys and make sure your opinions are heard.

Just go to the Playtest link here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
And go through the Related Articles on the bottom right. Most have a few survey questions for you to vote on.

Griogre
April 15th, 2012, 18:02
This is the quote I've found the most interesting so far about 5E: "However, our standard goal is to remove minimum group sizes, allow for a complete adventure in one hour of play, and satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play."

This is out of this short article where there they are discussing their third goal: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120409

JohnD
April 16th, 2012, 05:31
This is the quote I've found the most interesting so far about 5E: "However, our standard goal is to remove minimum group sizes, allow for a complete adventure in one hour of play, and satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play."
I'd guess this is their way of trying to adjust to a falling attention span of the average person in their target market.

We can already do a complete adventure in one hour with a "group" as small as one; have been able to since the D&D blue box and/or 1st edition.

The "satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play" bit has me thinking that they have a different definition of both what is satisfying and also what campaign means than me.

Dakadin
April 16th, 2012, 17:08
The "satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play" comment seems like they are trying to emulate a computer RPG instead of creating a pen & paper RPG.

dr_venture
April 16th, 2012, 20:17
After hearing this, I've gone from being intrigued at WOTC's acknowledgement of problems in 4e, to a strong feeling that they continue to have marketing and concept people making decisions about a Marketable Product, and not gamers making something satisfying to play. *sigh* Every version of D&D has moved farther and farther from what I'm interested in playing - sounds like 5e will continue that progression. C&C (and maybe Rolemaster) for me, then.

Zeus
April 16th, 2012, 21:28
After hearing this, I've gone from being intrigued at WOTC's acknowledgement of problems in 4e, to a strong feeling that they continue to have marketing and concept people making decisions about a Marketable Product, and not gamers making something satisfying to play. *sigh* Every version of D&D has moved farther and farther from what I'm interested in playing - sounds like 5e will continue that progression. C&C (and maybe Rolemaster) for me, then.

I've been getting this uneasy feeling too for some time now. I fear the machine at Hasbro has really left its mark at WotC. I was really hoping that Monte Cook's return signalled a promising future for 5E. Still hope so, but becoming less convinced with everything new I have been reading.

I'm considering a retro return to AD&D.

Griogre
April 16th, 2012, 22:06
Don't get too freaked out yet guys. This from the guy that was extemely freaked out... Remember combat in AD&D was like 10-15 minutes per fight vs. the Standard 1 hour per fight of 3rd and 4th edition. If an "adventure" is basically the same as a 4E delve (3 encounters: 2 normal, 1 boss) playing a delve AD&D or C&C style would probably take an hour. In 4E it take two delves plus a quest to level. In 3E it would take about 3 delves plus two quests to level.

Currently my gut feeling is "Core Only 5E" is going to be an updated AD&D probably much like C&C. Then from there you add the amount of complexity you want (if any) via rules modules so you can end up with everything for just an upgraded AD&D to something similar to 3rd or 4th edition.

This works with their 2 hour sessions but for this to be true they have to get combat time back down to about 3-4 per hour for standard encounters. The best thing about the beta is we will get a chance to see what they really do before we have make a use or not use choice.

Callum
April 16th, 2012, 22:38
I'm considering a retro return to AD&D.
Sign me up, Doctor!

dr_venture
April 16th, 2012, 22:47
Anyone interested in AD&D retro - *please* consider Castles & Crusades: to my mind, it's AD&D, but smoothed out enormously and *very* easy to house mod. It's just a great system for this type of old school gaming.

Griogre
April 17th, 2012, 05:19
My problem with C&C is that saves don't work well, in particular, at around "Name" level or higher. The way stats are rolled, I feel saving throw values are better based on level/class AD&D style instead of prime/secondary stats C&C style.

To me, old school means class is at least as important as stats. I certainly had my share of 13 St fighters with 10 Cons and 9's in Wis, Int and Ch. In C&C past low level it seems to be almost impossible to make saves based on secondary stats.

dr_venture
April 17th, 2012, 06:16
I don't want to hijack this thread into a pro/con C&C debate, let's discuss in the C&C forum if anyone would like.

As short an answer as I can muster: I have less problems with C&C than I do with some of the goofiness in AD&D (both are systems I adore, fwiw). I like that C&C's game mechanics are so simple and logical (it's main strength, I think) that it's super easy to customize - just modify your target save numbers for prime or non-prime stats, or lower monster levels for PC saves... or even just swap in the entire original AD&D save chart. Any of those options are very simple to implement to adapt the system to your tastes.

I also like that Troll Lord actively supports FG.

Needless to say, YMM (and probably will) V. It's all good. :)

damned
April 17th, 2012, 15:10
agree with Griorge's post - and Dr V's.
change the challenge base or give more bonuses to rolls.
happily that is such an easy thing to do - make prime's vs 11 and secondaries vs 16, or only use half the oppositions level as a challenge class.
your 6th level wizard with 13 dex (secondary) tries to climb something moderately difficult would already only be rolling against 11 - if you change the secondary to 16 he would only have to roll an 9.
as with most rulesets you are encouraged to tweak the rules to fit your gaming needs :)
the siege checks are just meant to help you do away with a table for every action - they dont have to be restrictive.

mgholson
June 13th, 2012, 00:45
It seemed to me that like any "good" corporation wotc has tried to make as much money off the D&D name as possible. To me 4E felt like it was designed as an excuse to sell dungeon tiles and miniatures so that a RPG became more of a tactical combat simulator with a bit of role playing thrown in.

My guess is 5E will keep most of that stuff and try to throw some "old school" roleplaying on top of it.

Lysander
June 13th, 2012, 02:16
As with all D&D nowadays, I will try to play it, but I will no longer run it.

Play the 'pre-test' and it was a bit 'hmmm'. But my fellow gamers were not in a real mode to give it an honest shot that night. Plus I know the Caves of Chaos like the back of my hand, so I had to 'play dumb'. (stupid hobgoblins...)

Savage Worlds for me, baby!!!

Doswelk
June 18th, 2012, 13:19
5e has not interested much at all in the least, but if it is a return to AD&D then it would make me smile...

I'll probably buy the PHB/DMG/MM (not to play as I own the 4e version and have never played 4e, but to ensure I have a copy of every version of D&D - mind you I failed as I did not buy 3.5 :s)

To my mind if I want to have a fast combat I'll play Savage Worlds :O)

Griogre
June 18th, 2012, 17:35
In my mind the 5E core is AD&D meets the fast parts of 3E/4E. Combat is really fast at low level, I'd say faster than SW right now, though I don't expect it will stay that way at the higher levels and as they hang more stuff off base combat.

If they continue the trend I'd say combat will be a lot faster than 3rd and 4th Editions and probably slower than AD&D. The speed of combat is one of the best things about 5E right now.

dr_venture
June 18th, 2012, 21:52
Part of me is dying to know how the new system works (I've tried to sign up for the beta, but the page has never loaded for me). But by the same token, part of me feels like, why bother - what happens if I love it? What happens is that I'll wind up spend piles of money on supplements, then when everything feels like it's in full swing and I'm ready for the really good stuff, like in-depth encounter charts or creative NPC generations short cuts, or other things that will help my game beyond more monsters, classes, spells, or races... at that point, 6e will be introduced and I'm back to playing an outdated system.

I guess the bottom line is that unless 5e really blows my socks off, given that I have limited time and money to spend on yet another game system... what's the point? I guess you never know how long any game system is going to be around, but it's especially irksome to me knowing that the timer is running out on whatever new version of D&D I adopt. *sigh*

I'll still be curious, tho - I like what I'm hearing about it so far.

leozelig
June 19th, 2012, 01:01
Part of me is dying to know how the new system works (I've tried to sign up for the beta, but the page has never loaded for me). But by the same token, part of me feels like, why bother - what happens if I love it? What happens is that I'll wind up spend piles of money on supplements, then when everything feels like it's in full swing and I'm ready for the really good stuff, like in-depth encounter charts or creative NPC generations short cuts, or other things that will help my game beyond more monsters, classes, spells, or races... at that point, 6e will be introduced and I'm back to playing an outdated system.

I guess the bottom line is that unless 5e really blows my socks off, given that I have limited time and money to spend on yet another game system... what's the point? I guess you never know how long any game system is going to be around, but it's especially irksome to me knowing that the timer is running out on whatever new version of D&D I adopt. *sigh*

I'll still be curious, tho - I like what I'm hearing about it so far.

dr venture,

i am always interested in seeing what the next edition looks like, but i am definitely on the same page with you.

the main reason i stopped playing 4e is that it became too bogged down with rules, mechanics, class features, etc. so far, i am a little skeptical that they will not make the same mistake with 5e. for example, as a dm, i was happy that they removed opportunity attacks so my goblins could finally flee melee without getting hacked to pieces... until they announced (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120612) that they are considering a modified version of opportunity attacks... :confused:

i am more than happy to continue playing ad&d. if only they would sell pdfs for out-of-print material! ;)

DM_BK
June 23rd, 2012, 04:32
I always scratch my head when I see someone complaining about how a game got bogged down by expanding its rules. You always have the option to NOT expand your game by simply not buying more then the base released books. Of course a lot of people do and then complain about it being bogged down.... just saying.

I'd definitely second wanting to be able to buy PDFs for old stuff. That's just free money for them at this point.

BK

damned
June 23rd, 2012, 07:00
I'll probably buy the PHB/DMG/MM (not to play as I own the 4e version and have never played 4e, but to ensure I have a copy of every version of D&D - mind you I failed as I did not buy 3.5 :s)

To my mind if I want to have a fast combat I'll play Savage Worlds :O)

im a bit of a sucker for collecting stuff....
ive got 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e and 4e and ive got the BECM of BECMI but i dont have anything older... yet...

got many other games and genres too but savage worlds is not one that i have ever bought anything for... yet...

leozelig
June 23rd, 2012, 14:54
I always scratch my head when I see someone complaining about how a game got bogged down by expanding its rules. You always have the option to NOT expand your game by simply not buying more then the base released books. Of course a lot of people do and then complain about it being bogged down.... just saying.

I'd definitely second wanting to be able to buy PDFs for old stuff. That's just free money for them at this point.

BK

Good advice.

The challenge for the DM is trying to accommodate player interests without taking away from your own enjoyment of the game. That is where the conflict ultimately was for me - I had a player who wanted to play a revenant battlemind. Just getting through one round of combat became very tedious. I have chosen to not expand my game by playing AD&D instead. :)

sturtus
June 23rd, 2012, 15:01
Dungeon Crawl Classics.

damned
June 23rd, 2012, 16:35
Dungeon Crawl Classics.

or castles & crusades which already has a full working ruleset.

mgholson
June 27th, 2012, 03:43
I always scratch my head when I see someone complaining about how a game got bogged down by expanding its rules. You always have the option to NOT expand your game by simply not buying more then the base released books. Of course a lot of people do and then complain about it being bogged down.... just saying.

I'd definitely second wanting to be able to buy PDFs for old stuff. That's just free money for them at this point.

BK

I think it's pretty obvious, at least it is to me. You design a ruleset you put it all in a nice book, then once everyone has bought that book you print more books that break the rules, so that characters can be more "unique." Sure you can ignore these books which I've always tried to do in games i've ran, but some players always have to have new uber class or whatever.

I'm sure it happened before this but I remember it when they came out with AD&D
2nd Edition Players option books. You could divide your ability scores, and increase the more useful one at the expense of the less useful one so your character would be more interesting and unique. You could build your own class picking and choosing the best parts of different classes. I thought it was kind of like cheating.

XpressO
July 2nd, 2012, 15:47
I've just recently moved from D&D franchise to GURPS and Savage Worlds. I was a fan of D&D and did play 4E since it came out until just recently.

Considering GURPS and Savage Worlds, for me it's important that they offer much more flexible and robust character creation compared to restricting you to classes and levels. I know that many people like the D&D style of play, but this is just not for me anymore.

I'm not saying it's the only way to go, it's just my way from now on and wanted to share my thoughts :)

P.S. I've played AD&D 2nd ed, and played and ran D&D 3rd, 3.5 and 4E.
Also, GURPS 4th edition came out in 2004 and all the material from the previous editions are still compatible with it. Tells you the difference compared to D&D franchise.