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

slobster · Oct 1, 2012

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

I've heard it both ways.

Desdichado · Oct 1, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
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.

True. But the specific examples you picked have all been around nearly as long as even the grayest grognards have been playing RPGs. It's one thing to spread an actual innovation from game to game. It's another thing entirely to say, "Look! No classes!" I just can't think of any context in which that sounds at all innovative after this many years.

And again; if the goal is to make D&D like other games; why bother? We can already play those other games. The list of items you picked; why do you want D&D to have those attributes? It sounds like what you really want is to play something that's not D&D.

And I don't say that because I'm some kind of stick in the mud OSRian or anything like that who is unhappy with anything that post-dates 1985 in terms of mechanics. I actually don't really like a lot of the entrenched D&Disms myself. But my solution to that isn't to wish that D&D were more like Savage Worlds, or GURPS or whatever. I can already play Savage Worlds or GURPS today, if that's what I want. What purpose does it serve to make D&D into an emulation of a game of that variety?

Ahnehnois · Oct 1, 2012

Hobo said:
True. But the specific examples you picked have all been around nearly as long as even the grayest grognards have been playing RPGs. It's one thing to spread an actual innovation from game to game. It's another thing entirely to say, "Look! No classes!" I just can't think of any context in which that sounds at all innovative after this many years.

And again; if the goal is to make D&D like other games; why bother? We can already play those other games. The list of items you picked; why do you want D&D to have those attributes? It sounds like what you really want is to play something that's not D&D.

My perspective on the matter is that D&D is the main rpg on the market. I would rather make D&D into what I want than reach out into the ether hoping to grab another suitable game. I don't think any of D&D's existing mechanics, settings, or conventions are definitional; I use the phrase "playing D&D" to describe playing any rpg. My D&D does not include dungeons and is not about killing things and taking their stuff. So AFAIC, my ideal D&D, while wildly different than anything on the books, is still D&D.

Then again, as I also said, if you're not going to reinvent things, I think they could stand to do much better in revising the existing structure.

Hussar · Oct 2, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
My perspective on the matter is that D&D is the main rpg on the market. I would rather make D&D into what I want than reach out into the ether hoping to grab another suitable game. I don't think any of D&D's existing mechanics, settings, or conventions are definitional; I use the phrase "playing D&D" to describe playing any rpg. My D&D does not include dungeons and is not about killing things and taking their stuff. So AFAIC, my ideal D&D, while wildly different than anything on the books, is still D&D.

Then again, as I also said, if you're not going to reinvent things, I think they could stand to do much better in revising the existing structure.

Considering the strong reaction against 4e, I'd say you are very, very much alone in thinking that D&D's existing mechanics, settings, or conventions are not definitional.

/edit added the not.

Ahnehnois · Oct 2, 2012

Hussar said:
Considering the strong reaction against 4e, I'd say you are very, very much alone in thinking that D&D's existing mechanics, settings, or conventions are [not?] definitional.

You seem to be assuming that the reaction is a product of intellectual conservativism; hanging on to the past. I think that the conservative element does exist and is substantial, but that the negative reaction was caused by poor marketing and business decisions, as well as by the style and substance of the product itself. I also think that 4e maintains most of D&D's worst conventions, and even exacerbates some of its existing problems; I would not describe it as innovative and I would not shoot down the notion of innovation on that basis. I would describe its mechanics as largely a subset of late 3.5 rules that excludes most of the game, not a reinvention.

A game that is OGL and still allowed you to build the characters and campaigns that previously existed while simultaneously opening new frontiers is a different ballgame (and incidentally, is exactly what 3e was when it was released).

Steely_Dan · Oct 2, 2012

Was fully on board with the 1st Playtest Packet, but the 2nd has me apprehensive.

My favourite is bounded accuracy, if they don't stick with it, I will; at this point, with all my Basic, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Ed stuff, I'm sure I can come up with something to keep me satisfied until the end of days.

erleni · Oct 2, 2012

I'm quite impressed by 5e so far. The second iteration is much better than the first one and it's getting closer to a streamlined 4e , which is exactly what i want .
When rules for grid and alternate magic systems will be out i'll see if it makes sense to move to move to 5e (my group will never play without a grid anymore).

Steely_Dan · Oct 2, 2012

erleni said:
I'm quite impressed by 5e so far. The second iteration is much better than the first one and it's getting closer to a streamlined 4e

I see a cleaned up 1st Ed (thank god, let's address what 2nd Ed did not address, and how 3rd and 4th went in the wrong direction), with some of the good stuff from other editions.

I do like that 5th Ed seems most compatible with 1st Ed (easy to drop in 1st Ed stuff, like the monk, into 5th Ed with a little tweaking).

Desdichado · Oct 2, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
My perspective on the matter is that D&D is the main rpg on the market. I would rather make D&D into what I want than reach out into the ether hoping to grab another suitable game. I don't think any of D&D's existing mechanics, settings, or conventions are definitional; I use the phrase "playing D&D" to describe playing any rpg. My D&D does not include dungeons and is not about killing things and taking their stuff. So AFAIC, my ideal D&D, while wildly different than anything on the books, is still D&D.

That's refreshingly honest and self-serving! And I don't mean that as an insult; merely that few people would claim to want D&D to be exactly what they want it to be just so they can be playing D&D and the game that they want to at the same time. I don't think that few people want that, just that few people are honest about wanting that.

Eh, anyway...

Hussar said:
Considering the strong reaction against 4e, I'd say you are very, very much alone in thinking that D&D's existing mechanics, settings, or conventions are not definitional.

Ahnehnois said:
You seem to be assuming that the reaction is a product of intellectual conservativism; hanging on to the past. I think that the conservative element does exist and is substantial, but that the negative reaction was caused by poor marketing and business decisions, as well as by the style and substance of the product itself. I also think that 4e maintains most of D&D's worst conventions, and even exacerbates some of its existing problems; I would not describe it as innovative and I would not shoot down the notion of innovation on that basis. I would describe its mechanics as largely a subset of late 3.5 rules that excludes most of the game, not a reinvention.

I agree that that was an element of it, but I think you misrepresent how important that was to minimize the impact that changes to the game had on the market, and their rejection of 4e. In particular, changes to the implied setting (curiously, one of the few things about 4e that piqued my interest... until I realized that they were only half-heartedly making some nods in the directions I had already trod myself, and gone considerably further than WotC was doing. Not at all suggesting that they got the idea from me, of course.) I also think you are painting with way to broad a brush when you say that 4e is a restricted subset of late 3.5 rules. Certainly some of the rules themes that were going to make an appearance in 4e were foreshadowed with some late 3.5 rules, but 4e is a substantially different game that plays in substantially different ways from 3e. Many of those changes are innovative. And true, many of them actually made latent D&Disms that I personally (at least) didn't like even more prominent, but all that meant was that I personally was never more than mildly intellectual curious about 4e, rather than excited about it as a potential replacement for my already ongoing system of choice.

A game that is OGL and still allowed you to build the characters and campaigns that previously existed while simultaneously opening new frontiers is a different ballgame (and incidentally, is exactly what 3e was when it was released).

That is what 3.5 was in many ways. Although I'd argue it was moreso because of the OGL than because of the rules themselves; few of which were innovative to anyone who'd been paying attention to games other than D&D for the last 15 years or so (probably more, honestly) before it came out. Again; that was me; prior to the release of 3e, I was one of those latte set gamers who hung around on rpg.net and made disparaging and contemptuous remarks about D&D and the playstyle that it encouraged. 3e made me change my tune in many ways, although in many other ways, it only did so because it managed to be flexible enough to deliver a D&D that could be used for grognardy dungeoncrawls just as easily as for narrative focused intrigue or character dramas. The wild flexibility of the game drew me in, and with the release of other d20 games by WotC--Star Wars, Wheel of Time, d20 Modern, and then especially Call of Cthulhu, I decided that d20 was sufficiently robust and flexible that I could adapt it to pretty much any playstyle and any genre that I wished to play. Other than brief flings elsewhere, I still believe that--I really have little need of any other sytem anymore. And since I don't value system for its own sake, I see little reason to get excited about a new system that does the same thing as several other systems that I already own.

Which is why I just don't see the point of 5e, at least in terms of it being a product that I would want to buy. I hardly need more D&Ds when I have one that already does what I want, and when--frankly--I'm not really a fan of most of the D&Disms that have suffused so many versions of the game over the years. I really only value a D&D that is sufficiently flexible that I can use it to play something that little resembles that classic playstyle associated with D&D. And making D&D more closely resemble other games--many of which I already own as well--also does little for me personally. I guess, unlike you, I don't value the idea of playing D&D for its own sake. I value the idea of playing the game I like, and I don't particularly care what it calls itself.

Ahnehnois · Oct 2, 2012

Hobo said:
That's refreshingly honest and self-serving! And I don't mean that as an insult; merely that few people would claim to want D&D to be exactly what they want it to be just so they can be playing D&D and the game that they want to at the same time. I don't think that few people want that, just that few people are honest about wanting that.

As in many facets of life, I am a demanding consumer. I want what I want, and I won't put down money unless I am satisfied.