D&D 5E I'm just not that "Psyched" about Next.

I'm A Banana · Oct 1, 2012

Obryn said:
The problem is ... every major, substantive innovation runs afoul of their "feels like D&D" stuff. If D&D has to have 80's-era rules, innovation will be hard.

-O

I'm not so sure this is as insurmountable as one may assume. Or as negative.

Check out the current 5e fighter. It still "feels like" a D&D fighter. They didn't have to give in marking mechanics or superfluous feats or complex spell-like powers or lock it into "mostly melee mode" to make it innovative, and yet it is something completely new in D&D history with a mechanic that hasn't been present in any edition of the game, ever.

I'd call that a pretty major, substantive innovation. And it still remains true to D&D history, without the games that have come before as badwrongfun. Additionally, it doesn't invalidate future versions of the fighter (under similar or different names) that are less constrained by D&D history -- the game is infinitely extensible. So the myth of 5e being The Gognard's Game is already blown out of the water. Just because a game also permits an 80's style play doesn't mean it is necessarily confined to shoddy mechanics and stale design principles.

Personally, I'm not exactly "excited" by 5e. I'm certainly excited by some of its ideas (adventure-based design? three pillars?), but I feel like we haven't seen many of its best ideas yet. We're still stuck in "math-testing mode" at the moment. Which is fine, and necessary, but not, IMO, where the real awesome is going to be unveiled. So I'm not excited. I'm interested. We've still got 2 years to go, so I feel like that's appropriate.

Tequila Sunrise · Oct 1, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
Anyone else feel the same?

Yep, my interest in 5e is academic at best. But that's okay; I'm looking forward to becoming a jolly 4e grognard.

Obryn said:
The problem is ... every major, substantive innovation runs afoul of their "feels like D&D" stuff. If D&D has to have 80's-era rules, innovation will be hard.

QFT. Some of us want innovation, and couldn't care less whether an edition "feels like" D&D.

Ahnehnois · Oct 1, 2012

Hussar said:
What kind of innovations are you looking for?

I would consider being able to build a character without classes as an innovation. Or moving away from a straight d20 roll and adding other dice to make the probabilities nonlinear (which at the moment is there to be fair but is class-specific). I would consider a completely new magic system with no hint of daily/rest-based limitations an innovation. Non-hp health rules. A comprehensive integrated take on the mechanics for all living creatures, human and monstrous. I'm talking about big fundamental changes, the sort that would probably piss off the entrenched fan base but which could (if done right) meaningfully improve the game.

OTOH, I would also consider it worthwhile if they simply took the OGL version of the game, fixed the math, simplified things, and revised some of the problematic rules, but I'm not seeing that the CS fighter (despite being better than the AEDU fighter) is ever going to suit me better than the feat-based version, and so on and so on.

Iosue · Oct 1, 2012

I'm pretty psyched about 5e. I like the innovations, the influence of various editions, and the old school feel. Give me some random dungeon creation tables, some wandering monster tables, and morale rules, and I'm ready to go. And heck, even if the above aren't provided, I can lift them from the Red Box. Very happy with where it is right now, looking forward to how it develops as they improve monsters and the math, and introduce new modules.

JeffB · Oct 1, 2012

Not excited either, since the playtests arrived anyway. I was excited with the announcement.

Design by commitee is a bad idea.

So is trying to please the OSR crowd . Now I count myself as a grog at heart but I like some things 3e, 4e and PF have brought to the table, and use them in my OD&D game. So my advice WOTC: the OSR and older edition folks dont want innovation or rules modules. They didnt want John Tweets Game. They didnt want Monte Cooks game. They didnt want Rob Heinsoo's game and they do not want Mike Mearls' game either. Many of them are vehemently opposed to Lorraine Williams game for that matter. They want Dave and Gary's game, the different editing jobs are fine, but they want Dave and Gary's game. If you want to bring that crowd back as paying customers, you need to continue to provide those old products electronically and with a print option. Combat Advantage, Healing Hit dice,sorcerors who turn into dragons,, and themes wont work.

It will be difficult enough bringing the 3e and 4e hardcore to a concensus, and that does not even factor in the big group who are EXTREMELY loyal to Paizo.

Its hard to get excited over a game that cannot do what they are setting out to do.

amerigoV · Oct 1, 2012

I already have my system, so 5N does not really matter to me. I hope that all the "module this" and "bounded accuracy that" does not crowd out cool campaign and adventure ideas. My fear is they will bloat the hell out of the thing trying to please everyone and miss the whole point -- kickin' ass and taking names (and loot!).

In the end, I hope that 5e has better maps than i5, too!

Desdichado · Oct 1, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
I'm trying my hardest to get psyched about D&D Next but for some reason I'm just not feeling it. I've done the playtest and everything but I'm just losing the excitement day by day. I've actually been occupying most of my time Pathfinder.

I don't know what it is but I'm just not digging Next.

Anyone else feel the same?

Embrace the deception, learn how to bend. Your worst inhibitions tend to psych you out in the end.

billd91 · Oct 1, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
I'm not so sure this is as insurmountable as one may assume. Or as negative.

Check out the current 5e fighter. It still "feels like" a D&D fighter. They didn't have to give in marking mechanics or superfluous feats or complex spell-like powers or lock it into "mostly melee mode" to make it innovative, and yet it is something completely new in D&D history with a mechanic that hasn't been present in any edition of the game, ever.

I'd XP you if I could.

Desdichado · Oct 1, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
I would consider being able to build a character without classes as an innovation. Or moving away from a straight d20 roll and adding other dice to make the probabilities nonlinear (which at the moment is there to be fair but is class-specific). I would consider a completely new magic system with no hint of daily/rest-based limitations an innovation. Non-hp health rules. A comprehensive integrated take on the mechanics for all living creatures, human and monstrous. I'm talking about big fundamental changes, the sort that would probably piss off the entrenched fan base but which could (if done right) meaningfully improve the game.

Those are only innovative in the narrow world of D&D. THat's already (to greater and lesser extents) commonplace in other games that are not D&D.

And I think doing something that's being done today in some other game isn't doing anyone any favors. Nor is it innovative; it's just copy-cat. If players wanted that, they could already play those other games.

Ahnehnois · Oct 1, 2012

Hobo said:
Those are only innovative in the narrow world of D&D. THat's already (to greater and lesser extents) commonplace in other games that are not D&D.

And I think doing something that's being done today in some other game isn't doing anyone any favors. Nor is it innovative; it's just copy-cat. If players wanted that, they could already play those other games.

So, to be truly innovative, something can't exist in other rpgs? I can see where you're coming from, but to me D&D is so dominant in the rpg market that a mechanic taken from another game is spreading innovation, if not originating it. Playing a classless rpg is certainly an option, but I want classless D&D.

Also, despite the prior existence of some mechanics in other games, it's entirely possible that D&D could use them differently and/or better.