www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109

A few moments ago WotC have announced open playtest of the new edition for DnD. They will gather opinions from players and try to act according to them, at least so they claim.

When I wanted to start with DnD, they announced a new edition. Oh, well. At least I did not buy any 4th ed rulebooks yet.

So, whaddya think?
/discuss

I played the 1st and 2nd Edition... bought the 4th Edition Rulebooks, but did not like the system anymore (no WOTC, I don't use miniatures to do battles... this is still a pen'n'paper game, and everything must be in the imagination)

On a personal level, I don't really care.

I sunk 500$ to 1000$ of my money in 2nd Edition material throughout my teenage years and I'm sticking with my investment.

However, for gamers out there willing to jump the boat to newer editions, it's a good move as the 4rth Edition was too restrictive for the most part.

That said, it's only a good new if the 5th Edition actually addresses some of those problems rather than just make things worst.

Personally, I'll be thrilled when they get out an edition that uses software and/or specialized hardware to do some of the computations for you, thus allowing for satisfyingly complex rules to be implemented while still allowing the DM to focus on the role-playing aspect as opposed to being a rule layer/minicomputer.

Nowadays, I play my role-playing game sessions with my laptop and a lot of pre-written scripts to handle the more routine game mechanics.

Dungeons & trolls

lol

Oh c'mon, tell everyone the REAL reason.....you just can't afford the bloody expensive toy err figurines. :)

After they simplified the alignments in the 4th edition, I didn't really care too much for it anyway.

When the inevitable reboot hits, we're going back to the roots, that's for sure.

Even if they release it this summer, it'll be another year before there's enough books to make it interesting. Keep in mind when they released 4th edition some of the core classes didn't even come out until later books (Classes like the bard).

I guess I'll still get some use out of my current 4th edition books. :)

I never bothered with alignments in the first place. They felt like such an artificial character restriction.

Personally I've only played 2nd and 3rd editions. I never really found a need to get into the 4th. However it would be interesting to see what adjustments have been implemented for this new edition.

Roots?

Modern D&D (3rd ed and after) couldn't be further away from it's 'roots' if it tried.

Unless they get rid of ALL of the skills, perks and infinitely increasing stats I call your statement bullshit.

I'm not really interested in anything beyond AD&D 2nd ed. No Dark Sun, no Planescape = no fun for me.

Well in theory they were supposed to be a guideline for how your character behaved... more like a description than a code that had to be adhered to constantly. The whole alignment system was never treated consistently, though, so in various books over the years you got wildly different descriptions and thus, wildly different player interpretations.

I mean, the original True Neutral description is the "must maintain balance at all costs" one, which includes IN THE DESCRIPTION a character who changes sides in the middle of a battle once one side gains the upper hand. So essentially a career traitor... good job guys. This is the description they used in Baldur's Gate, too.

And then there was the change between Law/Chaotic affecting how the individual integrated into society, into the character's personal code. There was always some overlap in the olden days, but in 3e or 3.5 it was changed so that as long as you always stuck to your guns and never compromised, you were Lawful... even if your personal values were "chaos, destruction, and entropy."

tl;dr Alignment has the capacity to be a good system but it needs competent writers, players, and GMs. (Which it hasn't always received.) And don't get me started on the Paladin Code, either.

4th Edition's issue was the over uniformity and the near-total removal of non-combat feats and skills.

I played it for a few months and at the end thought I'd just played WoW on paper. I also realised my level 16 Sorcerer wasn't that distinguishable from the level 14 Rogue in the party because 90% of skill share identical effects and have barely any difference even in their flavour text.

I started playing Pathfinder not long after starting 4th Edition. And it has done pretty well at letting me make characters who are more than just combatants.

And I have 0 faith in Wizards of the Coast after how much they changed D&D. Paizo is where my allegiance stands now.


Other note: Miniatures are very helpful for combat. Because people's visualisations will not be synchronized enough and without minis it's pretty much an extremely vague narrative almost as bad as a player simply stating "I kill the monster" as their action. Miniatures don't detract from the imagination or from the narrative, they just keep it consistent and quickly visible to players and GM.

I have absolutely no interest in exploring new editions of DnD. OGL aside the only real reason I learned 3.5 was because I'm a DM for NWN.

I still play 1st edition advanced (with 2nd edition non-weapon proficiencies as a house rule). Of course the only way to allow for new players (considering you can no longer legally acquire 1st edition materials except as collectors items on Ebay) is by using OSRIC.

As far as I'm concerned Arneson and Gygax invented the wheel and WotC have been trying to reinvent it ever since in a shameless attempt to separate us from our hard earned money.

But even with a good group, following the alignment system is still a bit limiting. Your character might consider himself a good guy, he helps the poor and would be willing to sacrifice himself for another person. But he might also be a racist jerk, who believes that everyone from the south are lesser beings.

I've always found it easier to just ignore the alignment system and just write my characters separated from the game system itself. And it is not uncommon for my character to mainly lean towards one side, but have traits from another. I find that you get a lot more interesting characters if you don't limit yourself to a built in system for how a character should be.