This topic came up in the deceased "damage on a miss thread" and I thought a thread about this topic would be a great discussion. Now just to be clear, a compromise can't always be reached, nor will one be reached even if it could at times. If there is a way for everyone to get what they want then happy days, but if my happiness has to come at the cost of yours then I can say with all honesty that I can accept that.
The problem is that everyone else can, with all honesty, accept it if their happiness comes at the cost of yours, too. So this isn't really all that constructive of a position to take.
There are certain mechanics that make or break the game for them and sometimes we are faced with the decision that we either play the game or we don't. If WoTc could apply these types of conflicting mechanics, such as damage on a miss, in a way to make them optional then everyone can be happy because you can either use it or leave it out. WoTc unfortunately, aren't known for their compromise and will leave you having to make the difficult choice of either playing the game or walking away.
What about playing the game but house-ruling dealbreaker mechanics out? What about using the many, many options we haven't yet seen, but have been assured are going to be part of the game? This needn't be nearly so binary. Heck, back in 1e and 2e, most groups had a binder full of house rules (or maybe several!). Tons of groups altered 3e in any number of ways, from E6 to feat-per-level to generic warrior-expert-caster classes. Why can't you do this to 5e, too?
Moreover, one of the criticisms most widely leveled at WotC in their development of 5e seems to be that they are compromising
too much. So I find your assertion a bit dubious.
I feel like if there came a choice, I want to be happy. I had to endure 4th edition and now I feel it's my turn to be happy if a compromise can't be met. I was told I'm being selfish for feeling this way, but I feel I am just being realistic
Sorry, but there's absolutely nothing "realistic" in feeling like it's "your turn to be happy". That's simply not how the world works. We don't take turns getting our way. Either the game appeals to you, or it doesn't. You aren't entitled to it any more than I am.
The guys who make the game- WotC- are doing it to make money. Money to pay their employees (the guys actually writing the books). Money to pay their shareholders. Money to pay their printing costs and layout costs and art costs and overhead. They aren't out to make anyone unhappy, but you can bet your last dollar that they are going to choose a larger group of people over a smaller group. Ain't no taking turns here, just business. Now, I'd love to love 5e, and I have high hopes, but am I
entitled to a game of D&D tailored to my tastes? Nope- and I haven't really had one since 1e. Nevertheless, I've managed to make the system sing for myself and my players in every subsequent edition- largely because I recognize that my game is
my game, and I can bend, deform, tweak, rewrite or otherwise change any bits of it not to my taste. That's my job as dm.
As for "having to endure 4th edition" (do you really have to take shots at it in
every single thread you post??), who held a gun to your head? The idea that you "had to" anything with 4e is ludicrous. Don't like it? Stick to 3.5. Or play Pathfinder. Or go back to 1e. Or play a retroclone. Or od&d. Or 2e. Or heck, even switch systems to Savage Worlds or World of Darkness or TORG. There were plenty of other options, and good ones at that. If 4e kept kicking your dog, why didn't you leave it behind?