D&D 5E Do we need a Fifth Edition Revival (5ER)?

[mamba]

Except it does. You can’t innovate if you have to color within predefined lines.

not really, you certainly can make quite a few changes and stay within the lines. Of course there are limitations, as with anything. Classes can look rather different, they just have to roughly stick to the existing power curve

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have serious doubts about how many characters made it from zero to hero in 1E or BECMI without the DM having their thumb on the scale. There's just too much XP required, player characters start off too weak and the chance of death is too high.

In contrast, in 5E, if you just keep playing, you'll make it, since death starts off as unlikely and eventually becomes something players can essentially ignore.

Sure, but it isn't zero to hero if you're never at zero.

 

[M.T. Black]

I have found this discussion very helpful and it has helped me sharpen my thinking. I have updated the original essay to clarify and expand on some points, hopefully addressing some of the issues raised.

 

[teitan]

Riggs is wrong but people will use slow sales of the revised edition as evidence anyway.

 

[mamba]

Riggs is wrong but people will use slow sales of the revised edition as evidence anyway.

what are slow sales for you? Even if no one updates, they should maintain the same sales that 2014 did before them. Obviously there will be a lot more updates than that however

 

[DEFCON 1]

I wish I could disagree. Where could you possibly discuss 5e where every discussion isn't inundated with WotC talk?

I think the actual issue we face is right here in how you say what you said here (and similarly in Sly Flourish's other post he made about wanting everyone to call the game revision 'D&D 2024' instead of '5E24')... people seem to want to treat the term '5E' as a generic brand. One that you can use to talk about all manner of games that use the D&D 5E game engine but not have that conversation be connected automatically to the Dungeons & Dragons game.

But to me, that's virtually impossible and people shouldn't even waste time on that idea because it's only going to lead to annoyance and disappointment. Reason being... the term '5E' only exists because it is related to Dungeons & Dragons. Wizards of the Coast's 'Dungeons & Dragons'. It is a marker for D&D's 'Fifth Edition'. The terms are interlinked. And it doesn't matter if a game designer uses the 5E game engine but creates a game wholly separate from D&D... if they attach the term '5E' to it, then it's going to be considered a "D&D product"-- or at least part of the D&D conversation. And that's never going to change. So what I think has to happen is that the 5E people need to take their cue from the 3E era.

In the 3E era there was a specific branding created to denote products that used the D&D 3E engine but were not actually D&D related-- the 'd20' identifier. That brand (even though it was created by WotC) was specifically to allow people to talk about and identify products in the greater landscape of gaming that had this connection to each other, but was not a part of the talk of Dungeons & Dragons itself. And it worked. People could talk about 'd20' products freely and rarely have people assume they meant Dungeons & Dragons or have 'D&D people jump into the convo thinking they were talking about something else. But unfortunately for today, the current landscape does not have that. And the term '5E' cannot and will not become that because a large swathe of the gaming populace will not go along with it.

So what I think really had to happen is that anyone and everyone who wants to make and talk about product that uses the 5E game engine but not actually be connected to the Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition conversation... needs to come up with a new term altogether. A term different from 'D&D' and '5E' (as both those terms were created in direct reference to Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition.) Only once a term like that can be created for that purpose... maybe then places like E.N. World can make a separate branding board that will allow those people to congregate and talk specifically in the manner they wish about those games that use the engine but are completely separate from D&D and Wizards of the Coast.

EDIT And just to be clear... '5E Revival' or '5ER' cannot be that term, because it includes '5E' in it-- meaning that for most players it is specifically referencing the Fifth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons (even if it's not meant to be.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the actual issue we face is right here in how you say what you said here (and similarly in Sly Flourish's other post he made about wanting everyone to call the game revision 'D&D 2024' instead of '5E24')... people seem to want to treat the term '5E' as a generic brand. One that you can use to talk about all manner of games that use the D&D 5E game engine but not have that conversation be connected automatically to the Dungeons & Dragons game.

But to me, that's virtually impossible and people shouldn't even waste time on that idea because it's only going to lead to annoyance and disappointment. Reason being... the term '5E' only exists because it is related to Dungeons & Dragons. Wizards of the Coast's 'Dungeons & Dragons'. It is a marker for D&D's 'Fifth Edition'. The terms are interlinked. And it doesn't matter if a game designer uses the 5E game engine but creates a game wholly separate from D&D... if they attach the term '5E' to it, then it's going to be considered a "D&D product"-- or at least part of the D&D conversation. And that's never going to change. So what I think has to happen is that the 5E people need to take their cue from the 3E era.

In the 3E era there was a specific branding created to denote products that used the D&D 3E engine but were not actually D&D related-- the 'd20' identifier. That brand (even though it was created by WotC) was specifically to allow people to talk about and identify products in the greater landscape of gaming that had this connection to each other, but was not a part of the talk of Dungeons & Dragons itself. And it worked. People could talk about 'd20' products freely and rarely have people assume they meant Dungeons & Dragons or have 'D&D people jump into the convo thinking they were talking about something else. But unfortunately for today, the current landscape does not have that. And the term '5E' cannot and will not become that because a large swathe of the gaming populace will not go along with it.

So what I think really had to happen is that anyone and everyone who wants to make and talk about product that uses the 5E game engine but not actually be connected to the Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition conversation... needs to come up with a new term altogether. A term different from 'D&D' and '5E' (as both those terms were created in direct reference to Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition.) Only once a term like that can be created for that purpose... maybe then places like E.N. World can make a separate branding board that will allow those people to congregate and talk specifically in the manner they wish about those games that use the engine but are completely separate from D&D and Wizards of the Coast.

EDIT And just to be clear... '5E Revival' or '5ER' cannot be that term, because it includes '5E' in it-- meaning that for most players it is specifically referencing the Fifth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons (even if it's not meant to be.)

Absolutely love this idea! You have identified the problem. Time to brainstorm ideas for what we're going to use. The field is wide open.

Not being sarcastic here.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My first instinct would be to suggest 'd50'.

It mirrors itself to the 'd20' branding, which itself implies the products and games are related to the d20 system... it includes a '5' which helps make the connection for people to fifth edition rather than third edition or fourth edition... but it also reflects the idea of the 50th anniversary of D&D, which itself implies the game engine that is used for the 50th anniversary of the game-- the 5E game engine.

d50 games therefore would be games that use the 20-sided die game engine that was in use for the 50 anniversary of D&D-- the 5E game engine. But because the term is not 'D&D' nor '5E', those products can keep themselves separate from the actual D&D game and conversation.

 

[Remathilis]

My first instinct would be to suggest 'd50'.

It mirrors itself to the 'd20' branding, which itself implies the products and games are related to the d20 system... it includes a '5' which helps make the connection for people to fifth edition rather than third edition or fourth edition... but it also reflects the idea of the 50th anniversary of D&D, which itself implies the game engine that is used for the 50th anniversary of the game-- the 5E game engine.

d50 games therefore would be games that use the 20-sided die game engine that was in use for the 50 anniversary of D&D-- the 5E game engine. But because the term is not 'D&D' nor '5E', those products can keep themselves separate from the actual D&D game and conversation.

I think keeping the "5" in any shape or fashion is going to rabbit hole back to 5e regardless. The d20 logo worked because it didn't reference 3e, it referenced the primary die/resolution mechanics. It's why Mutants & Masterminds and Pathfinder could both be d20 despite not sharing a whole lot of similarities.

You'd need to think of something like d20 that says it's own identity rather than say "we're like D&D 5e" if you want to lose the stigma of being D&D clones.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think keeping the "5" in any shape or fashion is going to rabbit hole back to 5e regardless. The d20 logo worked because it didn't reference 3e, it referenced the primary die/resolution mechanics. It's why Mutants & Masterminds and Pathfinder could both be d20 despite not sharing a whole lot of similarities.

You'd need to think of something like d20 that says it's own identity rather than say "we're like D&D 5e" if you want to lose the stigma of being D&D clones.

I certainly agree with you to a certain extent, and indeed I did have that thought in mind as a potential stumbling block. Some people might indeed see the '5' and immediately go "WIZARDS OF THE COAST DUNGEONS & DRAGONS!!!" anyway and thus get confused regardless. I think it would be less likely, but still certainly possible. But at the same time... because there still are still games that use the d20 System in our memory banks, I think you do need a term that denotes using a twenty-sided die system, but does not denote using the 3E SRD style of twenty-sided die system and instead uses the 5E SRD style of twenty-sided die system.

So to my mind, what would work about using d50 is that at least to me it moreso hits my ear and denotes a connection to 'd20' than it does a connection to '5E'. Mainly because the d and the 0 give us two points towards d20, whereas the 5 only gives us one to 5E. But of course, I admit this is just my opinion, so others might make the connection differently.

Really it will come down to whether or not people would accept using a term that completely separated itself from anything related to the term '5E' even though every game under its umbrella would still use the engine of 5E. Like would people accept a term like 'Bob games' (just creating a random crap idea for argument's sake here) that is meant to denote 5E engine games? Maybe. But I dunno. Although truth be told, I don't think there's much possibility of a new term catching on anyway, even despite my ideas. You would need one of the bigger companies to actually invent and use a term themselves for their own products, and then see if it stuck amongst the greater gaming populace and then began to be incorporated elsewhere as well. Only then do I think a new term might have a chance.