D&D 5E What direction should 5th edition take?

[Turtlejay]

This is why I try to stay away from such threads. If it hadn't grown to such a nice size I would have continued to ignore it. Some people see this as a thinly veiled invitation to just bash on a system they don't like, and fans of it feel like those very people are insulting *them*, and fun, reasonable speculation goes nowhere.

On topic, I don't think 5e will be recognizable to us (and not because we will play it with chips in our brains). The 3.5->4e jump was big. Sure, in retrospect it is easier to see what direction they were going, but the implementation of a power system for all classes was a huge change. I would think 5e should change just as much to avoid being called 4.5e.

What changes could they introduce? I like the already mentioned ability score change, and think maybe eliminating ability scores altogether might be called for. Your character is built around that framework, and then it is rarely touched the entire rest of his adventuring career. Maybe have a set of bonuses that races get (+1 with certain weapons or something) and leave it at that.

I would also love to see classless go, games that have pools of buildpoints are a little tougher to learn up front (maybe? does anyone disagree?) so tiers of options with some flexibility would work (like, you can chose to be a caster, and chose implements, and what type of magic (power source) you'd like).

I don't think we could even guess what it will look like.

Jay

 

[Garthanos]

I would also love to see classless go, games that have pools of buildpoints are a little tougher to learn up front (maybe? does anyone disagree?)

It is a toss up to my eye, some are a pain and some are not. Some use both the points and core Archetypes (as pre-built uses of the points).

Point systems do not have.. good ways of managing there synergies it seems to me this is worth X points and this is worth Y points but if you buy them together tripple that???

so tiers of options with some flexibility would work (like, you can chose to be a caster, and chose implements, and what type of magic (power source) you'd like).

I don't think we could even guess what it will look like.

Jay

It seems a long ways off in the future to me... too many things can be introduced in the meantime because the rules are very modular.

 

[fba827]

well, i've always liked classless, i know d&d would probably never get completely there.. but maybe something like 'choose your role' and that determines stuff like hp and other stuff like that. and you choose your power source (or equivalent)... and you choose your selected skills.
and then basically all your powers (or whatever the equivalent is called) is has a variety of prerequs (such as 'role' or 'skill ' or 'power source' or combination there of).
so it would allow more 'bleeding' around in to stuff that has historically been for other classes but not abandoning classes entirely.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What might be the design goals of the 5E design team?

Do they want to follow the path along usability and immediate gameplay value? In that case, 5E might refine on stuff done in 4E, maybe finding new tricks to keep the balance and playability of the game that they have learned during the run of 4E.

Or do they want to increase the value "off" the game table (complex character building, fleshing out lots of details).

Do they want to go a more "simulationist" approach, which rules that are less abstract and more descriptive (or prescriptive) of what happens in the game world?

Do they want to focus more on narrative techniques supported by rules, stuff like drama points, building up connections?

What do we, as gamers want to see more? Are we willing to lose something of the goals that were achieved in this edition to achieve others? Some things will always remain at odds with each other and require compromises.

 

[Garthanos]

What might be the design goals of the 5E design team?

Do they want to follow the path along usability and immediate gameplay value? In that case, 5E might refine on stuff done in 4E, maybe finding new tricks to keep the balance and playability of the game that they have learned during the run of 4E.

Or do they want to increase the value "off" the game table (complex character building, fleshing out lots of details).

Do they want to go a more "simulationist" approach, which rules that are less abstract and more descriptive (or prescriptive) of what happens in the game world?

Do they want to focus more on narrative techniques supported by rules, stuff like drama points, building up connections?

What do we, as gamers want to see more? Are we willing to lose something of the goals that were achieved in this edition to achieve others? Some things will always remain at odds with each other and require compromises.

Or enabling of rule versatility for instance - Chose the cinematic wounding rules, where the player gets to accept the wound effect (in return for not losing hit points) or the grittier wounding rule which happens from critical hits and failed saving throws.

Narrative empowerment rules could be modularly included in the current game without necessarily a dramatic shift in game emphasis.

Character building is already going down a route which both enhances choices and affects the game table (hybrid rules)...

On/Off the game table? character building could include characters gaining another form of treasure in the form of contacts ... or organization based status ranks (offset by responsibilities / requirementes and expectations).--- alignment could be modeled here in a more flexible and variable fashion. This treasure could be used to acquire the renewable service of minions among other things.

 

[invokethehojo]

This is why I try to stay away from such threads. If it hadn't grown to such a nice size I would have continued to ignore it. Some people see this as a thinly veiled invitation to just bash on a system they don't like, and fans of it feel like those very people are insulting *them*, and fun, reasonable speculation goes nowhere.



Jay

Sorry guys, I was pretty surprised to see my humble thread make it to 4 pages in length. After a bad day at work I let myself get riled up about 1 post and put a troll type post on there. After I got off my computer I thought about it and realized how stupid it was, and that my post would probably be cut out by a moderator. I apologize, I didn't want the thread to take that route.

On the flipside I think 4e has made huge strides in tactical gameplay. Positioning, movement and range have all become a huge factor in the game, where before they didn't seem so Important. Also the rationing of resources, powers mostly, have made an impact on tactics. I wish they had made the healing surge system less reliant on running multiple encounters in a row. I tend to run short sessions where the story dictates the fights, and usually the players only have one or two encounters per day, so it's hard to wear them down, especially when they have several dailies at mid and higher levels.

That is something I think 5e should do, be accomodating to multiple play styles/speeds.

 

[Garthanos]

Sorry guys, I was pretty surprised to see my humble thread make it to 4 pages in length. After a bad day at work I let myself get riled up .

I would like to say Im sorry as well.(and me too about the bad day at work and being riled)
Sometimes good ideas get buried by bad arguments though...
There are actually more troll like posts on this thread even (ala it cant be done on a puter so you wont see it in the game) - but those which seem to support disinformation get under my hide at times.

Allowing the game to be more easily adaptable to differing styles of play is a very good idea.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Or enabling of rule versatility for instance - Chose the cinematic wounding rules, where the player gets to accept the wound effect (in return for not losing hit points) or the grittier wounding rule which happens from critical hits and failed saving throws.

This is also a good example of a conflict with "ease of play" - you now have to discuss or at least decide which ruleset you use - the gritty or the cinematic wounding rule system, both, or neither.

And it also might be hard to design a system that is balanced with these 3 different options alone - and then imagine a few more variations.

Of course, one could say: "Route X uses these options and we have balanced everything according to that. If you pick a different route, good luck". It still easily leads to frustration, since even if you want gritty wounds, you'd prefer the entire game to be balanced with that in mind.

 

[Garthanos]

This is also a good example of a conflict with "ease of play" - you now have to discuss or at least decide which ruleset you use - the gritty or the cinematic wounding rule system, both, or neither.

Making the game more enjoyable since it fits your players and you better... is on the "fun enhancing goals" ... trading ease of play is one of the elements the game book should discuss ie potential as well as real discovered implications for taking the various routes as you put it.
Any additional rule increases complexity hence "ease of play"

And it also might be hard to design a system that is balanced with these 3 different options alone - and then imagine a few more variations.

Of course, one could say: "Route X uses these options and we have balanced everything according to that. If you pick a different route, good luck". It still easily leads to frustration, since even if you want gritty wounds, you'd prefer the entire game to be balanced with that in mind.

No one said a versatile rules were easy to design (would I spend money on it if were?).. permutations are frequently serious, allowing the users choices to be based on informed decisions is then the game designers responsibility.

I would like to see signs that lower player count games were supported in some fashion (it doesnt have to be a primary design goal just a nod)

 

[DracoSuave]

I would like to see signs that lower player count games were supported in some fashion (it doesnt have to be a primary design goal just a nod)

There is a section of the DMG devoted to this, even mentioning what roles to use in such a party -and why they suggest them-.