How many people do you know who haven't switched to 5e, and why haven't they?

I haven't "switched over" because I don't have an edition of choice. Or even an overall game of choice.

If someone I know who is a decent GM is running something with a decent group of folks, I am probably willing to play. System is not a primary concern.

Number 2 for me. (I'm playing and running 4e.)

DMs have the vote in this one though. If your DM likes 5e but the players like 3e, you're going to have a 5e game, because DMing is often a lot of work.

It's # 2 & 3 for me. 5e is quite a bit like 3e, but without the flexibility I like, and with a few unfamiliar elements. Plus at $50 a pop, those books are a bit pricey (yeah, I know printing costs and so on, but it's a big investment for new players). The basic rules PDF though is excellent, and there's a few things from that I'll backport into my games. I will say though that the art is better than it's been since the classic days of AD&D and BECMI. The DMG is the best I've ever seen, it's better than the 2e and 3e DMGs, and it does the best job of teaching new players how to actually run a game of all the DMGs I've seen. So while I don't want to run the game, I'll play it if that's what the DM is doing.

S'mon said:

I think some of my 4e group really likes 4e, in particular the combat, and they may not wish to switch when the campaign ends in a bit under a year (most likely), going from 30th level 4e PCs to 1st level 5e PCs will be quite a jump. I think they like the crunchy tactical combat and the cinematic elements, which are a bit cursory in 5e.

Click to expand...

I play with two groups. The experienced group likes 4e for the reasons noted above, especially its depth and complexity. 5e is not remotely part of the gaming conversation. But I also play with a group of people new to RPGS or who played a bit in the 80s and they really like 5e. So I think tactical depth is a key factor for gaming attitudes to 5e.

I think 5e is a good entry level experience but there would have to be a far greater range of options (or modules!) to attract some of the experienced players I know.

My group and two of the three groups I know of don't have a "Game of Choice". They play whatever most suits the type of game they want to run. Sometimes that's Fate, sometimes it's GURPS, sometimes it's Traveller or Dragon Age or Runequest or Heroquest or.... you should get the idea by now. The other play White Wolf games, keep talking about trying something else but then someone comes up with a clever idea for a game that would only work in <Demon/Werewolf/Mage/Changeling/Exalted). As far as I'm aware none of the former, multi-game groups have played 5e except in the playtest and the latter possibly haven't even realised it exists.

None of the dozen or so gamers I know well have "switched" to 5e, in as much as no-one I know has run, is running or intends to run a campaign. We tried the odd try-out, but really don't see much in it to positively attract us. For me and most of the players I know, it's a case of having plenty of other systems that offer more. If I run D&D type games it will be 4E or 13th Age for the forseeable future. If someone offered to run 5e I'd be happy to play, but at present that's not really a proposition that's on the horizon.

Sword of Spirit said:

5e to me is an amalgamation of almost the best of every D&D edition (both lore and crunch), with some innovations that improve the game. 5e requires me to make the fewest house-rules and lore repairs.

I'm trying to figure out what the primary factors are preventing people from trying out or switching over to 5e. (When I say "switching", I don't mean that you never play another edition, just that it becomes either your edition of choice, or tied for it.)

Click to expand...

Early D&D was a Grand Strategy-style wargame, except designed as a cooperative game. Like all the computer RPG copies you try and "beat" the game, or really, get as much XP and treasure as you can generally. This is done by gaming the game world. D&D was a game designed like any other game, but had so many rules behind all that world behavior it warranted publishing them in hardback. I don't think any game in history did that before.

5e is a storygame where the DM is a player and is expected to improvise. Players aren't treating the game situation like a game, but rather as a shared narrative. These aren't just different ways to play, they are not playing a game as a game. And the subsequent design carries these assumptions through. However, to its credit 5e doesn't require a specific playstyle and could be jury-rigged into a functional Grand Strategy-style game - making it old school. It also simplifies many progression issues and leveling expectations baked in 3e and 4e. Advancement benefits that became more visibly problematic as the games aged.

I think most of the reason people don't switch to a new edition is less about sticking with what they know than the absence in the new game for things they already have. I'm not looking for the 4e experience, but I can respect its tight skirmish combat game with its rewarding high player difficulty. That's not quite so much in 5e, so even relative newcomers can hold back from switching.

Sword of Spirit said:

I'm trying to figure out what the primary factors are preventing people from trying out or switching over to 5e. (When I say "switching", I don't mean that you never play another edition, just that it becomes either your edition of choice, or tied for it.)

From what I see online, as well as my own experience, 5e seems to appeal most to:
1) Those who liked AD&D/pre-3e D&D
2) Those who are fans of D&D in general

The ones who seem most resistant to even giving 5e a chance seem to fall into a few categories:
1) Those who hate WotC and won't look at anything with their logo on it
2) Those who have found their edition already, and aren't really interested in anything new
3) Those who don't want to buy new books

What have your experiences been?

Click to expand...

I probably fall best into category 2. I stated playing with the Holmes box set back in the late 70’s and moved on to AD&D shortly thereafter. By the time 2E came around I had unfortunately lost much of my interest in D&D. However, In 2008 I stumbled upon the Penny Arcade podcasts which sucked me back in and I’ve been playing 4E ever since. For me, 4E was the perfect version of the game. I recall reading through the 4E Player’s Handbook and thinking to myself “This is the D&D I’ve always wanted!”

When 5E was announced I was a little disappointed because I didn’t want to see support for 4E stop. I followed the development of 5E from a distance and when it was finally released I purchased all of the books. I’ve read through most of the Player’s Handbook and found that the system doesn’t resonate with me like 4E does. 5E is an interesting game but whenever I find myself getting a little excited about it, I’ll read a rule or a concept that I don’t like or agree with. This is frustrating because I want to like the edition but it just won’t let me!

I’ve loved every version of D&D I’ve played and I’m sure I would have enjoyed 3E/3.5 had I been playing when they were released. To be honest, I know I’d have fun playing 5E if it was the version my friends wanted to play but as it stands 4E is still our game of choice.

Or there is option 4) None of the above.

Neither hate or love WotC.
I bought the 5E books.
And I play in multiple editions and games.

Mainly we don't play it cause no one really wants to learn another set of rules.

Thanks everyone, that's quite helpful.

It looks like another category that has come up in the discussion is:
4) They aren't ready (haven't finished a current campaign, waiting for the system to mature)

Also:
5) The've moved on from D&D

I didn't really focus on 5, because that's a whole different thing. I personally love trying and playing a variety of non-D&D games. I'm mainly thinking from the perspective of "what do you play when you play D&D?" I'm counting Pathfinder and retroclones in that mix, but not much else. (I don't know much about 13th Age, but the impression that I get is that it doesn't easily fit into the D&D family of games.)

Number 4 is an interesting one, because it's something that should change in the next couple of years. In that time, most of those who aren't looking into 5e will have finished up with what they have going on. They may or may not go for 5e, but at least 4 will mostly be off the table.

I'd say the love of the greater granularity/crunchiness/tactical possibilities/character options of 3e or 4e is probably halfway between #2 and it's own category.

It's interesting to see what people's reasons are. Personally, I think #2 is a really good reason, #4 is perfectly reasonable, #1 is silly, and #3 is an excuse more than a reason. There aren't many 5e books; almost all the non-crunch material in prior editions is compatible; and 5e is very easy to house rule if you want to convert a feat, spell, magic item, etc. Monsters are the one thing I'm really hoping we'll get official updates on. (Ie, if someone doesn't like it, they don't like it, and there isn't really a need for an excuse--though reasons can be informative.)

I was making predictions of the game's popularity during the playtest, so part of the reason for this thread was to see how close I was.

Strangely, I must admit that I'm not yet sure how accurate my predictions were. The sales numbers are extremely good, and still going strong a year later--which is important. But it seems like most people online don't know many people in person who play 5e. My in-person experience is also similar. I was invited to play in a Starter Set game with some people, but other than that I'm pretty much the 5e guy around. When people are playing it it is because I'm DMing it--although they all seem to have enjoyed it and no one has asked me to run a different edition instead.

So it makes me wonder how the demographics are breaking down. I correctly guessed that fans of D&D in general would adopt it, as well as going over well with pre-3e fans. But I had also expected a lot of non-diehard 3.5e/Pathfinder players to adopt it (perhaps "adopt" is a better term than "switch to"). The anecdotes don't appear to be supporting that prediction. It might be reason #4 that is holding that group back. I think what howandwhy99 said about not wanting to lose particular things one has is a bigger deal with the 3e-4e crowd than the older edition fans, and that may also play into it. One thought that occurs to me is that perhaps there is a lot higher percentage of die-hards in the 3e/Pathfinder fan-base than I had expected.

Again, thanks for the participation, and feel free to continue sharing thoughts.