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

[Dannyalcatraz]

What edition is that Danny?

3.5/3.X. And for 3.X systems, the closer to the original, the more people in our group liked it. They mainly got mined for ideas to use in 3.5 campaigns.

We tried 4Ed, and while there were things about it several of us liked, it didn't really scratch the D&D spot for most of us. It seemed...forced. As in, there were D&Disms, tropes, and legacy issues that just seemed shoehorned into 4Ed's mechanics...and not quite fitting.

Speaking only for myself, I'd like to have seen 4Ed mechanics used for a non-D&D FRPG. Possibly even destructured a bit more, like how d20 morphed into M&M.

 

[Psikerlord#]

For me personally, I like 5e well enough. I've played 2e - 5e. I liked 4e the least, but even that we played for 3 years and it was fun enough. I liked 13th Age better than 4e, but I like 5e better than 13th Age.

Having played 5e for over a year however, I'm starting to wonder if it is really the best system for my preferences. I have begun reading a lot of OSR material lately which I have never had access to before, and I have to say.... I really like what I'm seeing. It is giving me a new perspective on the way 5e went and the other options out there.

For instance, I don't like passive perception. I think it's quite broken. I don't like easy hiding in combat, I think that's broken too. And I don't like how greatly damage and HP increase over levels. I do like adv/disad (although in combination with smaller modifiers like +1 and +2 - I dont like only using adv/disad which is too blunt a modifier imo). I love bounded accuracy and the no magic item requirements. The standard healing rules are far too generous and death almost impossible in my experience.

But looking around at OSR stuff, I'm seeing a new side of things. Combat is dangerous again. The mechanics are still pretty simple. Battles are quick. Magic items are cool. There is a variety of systems to choose from (and personally I like the sword and sorcery vibe of Crypts & Things best at the moment), and some are very innovative (eg: DCC). Most important of all however to me is that these OSR systems appear eminently hackable. It is so easy to swap out a mechanic, or add something in, to really make the game your perfect combo of features.

So I guess over the last 12 months, I have gone from a 5e fan to 5e neutral, and from OSR neutral to an OSR fan. I have come round to the view that OSR games are closest to my preferred baseline, and then it's just a matter of poaching the best ideas from other systems as add ons ... eg: adding Adv/disad from 5e, Mighty deeds of arms from DCC, One Unique Thing from 13th Age, and Feat like abilities from 5e... end result: gaming nirvana!

 

[Mark CMG]

Our group of six played through the Starter Set enhanced by the Basic Rules download over four months back when that first came on the scene. It was shelved with plans to revisit it when the OGL was integrated into their publishing model. Two of the players who had to bow out of the group for work related reasons have since been running/playing in a 5E game store campaign while another player gets in some AL along with his PFS at conventions and gamedays six or seven times a year. If the OGL had been used, we'd might have continued with 5E since it isn't a bad system. We've mostly played 1E since then with some one-shots of other systems (Dresden Files next month) and we do a lot of boardgaming, card gaming, and wargaming as a group as well.

 

[Emerikol]

Once it was clear that 5e wasn't really going to address my concerns in any way remotely seriously, I just washed my hands of WOTC. Not saying the excitement of 6e won't draw me back for a peek but I feel like those in charge now just don't care about what I care about.

My major beef with 4e was dissociative mechanics and 5e has them in spades. It's clear it's not an issue for the designers. I think it's a game design trend so all power to them. I'm just spending money on that.

I've had to move for work recently so I haven't started up any games. I think though that if I do I might just write my own simplified version of a game and be done with it. If I wanted a D&D flavored game I could play 3e core books only or 2e with houserules. CoC would work as well and I have some of that. Again I might have to houserule in places.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My major beef with 4e was dissociative mechanics and 5e has them in spades.

Yeah, the dissociative mechanics are a weak enough presence for me (definitely nothing like 4e) to not dissuade me from playing it, but I can definitely understand that objection. (I think it is possible to interpret them a bit differently to reduce the issue, with almost no house-ruling, but perhaps not enough for your needs.)

We are also still waiting on some of the older-edition flavor capturing options we were hoping for in the DMG. It doesn't seem to be a priority, but I'm hopeful it will eventually work out all right (and please be sooner rather than later WotC, lol).

 

[Rechan]

I have no interest in switching. 4e was my jam. While I'd rather play other systems (especially Fate), when it comes to dungeon delving and monster slaying, 4e is it for me. And very, very few people feel the way I do so no playing it.

5e feels too much like 3e, not something I really enjoyed or want to go back to; I've played at cons, but just looking at spell descriptions again bummed me out. Having a lot of sympathy for the 3e fans who felt abandoned during 4e's hayday, and seeing where that went, I don't want to be the sullen guy at the table and the bitter guy on the messageboards. That's no fun for anyone. So rather than be unhappy and playing because it's the only game in town, I just don't play.

I am glad that so many are enjoying the new edition though. Good that folks found what works for them.

Edit: Keep in mind that I didn't stop gaming with people because they moed on; I personally know no gamers locallly, haven't even been in a non-convention face-to-face game since 2012. Of my internet contacts I know maybe 1 playing 5e, and the rest play other games (PF, Exalted, etc).

 

[Rechan]

to the "We still can't figure out what they were trying to do even 5 years later" release of the Essentials line.......

To be honest I liked the essentials. IMO the Essentials were an attempt to grab the feel of earlier editions, make simpler characters or ones with minimal options/big fancy powers, in order to ease new people or to appease those who hated the big fat powers. One of the complaints of 4e was "Now every class feels like a wizard" in terms of resource management, selecting options and a lot og effects. Those who wanted very few fiddly bits could've picked up a Slayer or Thief and felt very little difference. Also some of the variants it offered were nice (I liked the Paladin's aura, for instance).

However, the Essentials came way, way too late. Those who had the problem it answered had well and truly left the building and their seats had gathered dust. Had the Essentials came first and the PHB1 classes came second somehow, I think it would've stemmed quite a few issues players had with the classes.

 

[Sato]

I haven't because I don't want to have to pay a ton for a whole new system when everyone I know won't pay either. My whole group still plays 3.5 constantly, and with almost everything we need for free online, there's no reason (yet) to change over. Perhaps one day.

 

[Fox Lee]

2) Those who have found their edition already

That's me right there. It's not that I haven't looked into 5e, but it seems to be mostly for people who found 4e to be a move away from what they wanted. That's not me; 4e is pretty much my holy land. It's not perfect, to be sure, but it's as close as any system has ever gotten to what I, specifically and subjectively, want out of D&D. I'd have been interested if 5e was a refined 4e, but it seems to be more of a renaissance AD&D? Which is perfect for some folks, and that's great, but I have no fondness for AD&D. It's where I started, but it was never my home.

As for the rest of my regular group - one is of the same mind as me, one still plays 3.5e with another group but has no interest in 5e, and the other two are mostly system-ambivalent - they'd play/run 5e if that's what the group wanted, but wouldn't bother pushing for it.

Of the other friends I have who play(ed) - two moved away and don't have a group right now, but they are super into crunchy mechanics, tactical combat and MMO gameplay, so I doubt they would choose 5e over 4e. Another five or six play with my player who prefers 3.5e, and they play mostly 3.x/OGL d20 systems (3.5, d20 Modern, d20 Past, etc). They seem like they might enjoy 5e, as their main reason for not playing 4e is that it's too much game and not enough novel. However, they're also not particularly into learning new systems - they're much more interested in rules-light storyteller affairs - so I suspect they're just comfortable with the 3.x family's familiarity and feel no need to change.

 

[Starfox]

I haven't because I don't want to have to pay a ton for a whole new system when everyone I know won't pay either. My whole group still plays 3.5 constantly, and with almost everything we need for free online, there's no reason (yet) to change over. Perhaps one day.

Just FYI, Pathfinder ie even more open and widely available than 3.5. The reason is that as Paizo themselves operate under the OGL, all their rules are open. This is contrast to 3E and 3.5, where only the core books were covered y the license. For me, this was a major contributing factor to go Pathfinder - I could no longer be bothered to leaf through 10+ rule books for that spell or feat I wanted. No edition has been as available as Pathfinder, the 4E database was much worse and behind a paywall.