People have the strangest deal-breakers

[Crazy Jerome]

If they buy the rights to The Game That Shall Not Be Named, reprint, slap "D&D" on the cover--then I'm out, for sure.

Short of that, I'll probably eventually get it. Whether I buy on launch will depend on the buzz and my finances.

 

[FireLance]

I can't think of anything that I would consider a "deal-breaker" at the moment. However, I'm more likely to be upset at something that is left out rather than at something that is included.

I find the opposite mindset to be mystifying. It seems to me to be no better than dog in the manger behavior.

 

[Nivenus]

No deal breakers for me, though I have a few "warning signs." Like races as classes. Or no classes (we definitely know this isn't the case anymore).

But that's all they are: warning signs. I'd have to see how the rules work in action and whether things I don't like could be easily ignored. If they work well or are easily removable than I don't feel they'd "ruin" the game for me. If they aren't? Well, then it all depends how many of those warning signs are set off.

In the end, though, I don't expect 5e to be a catastrophe or make me swear off WotC or D&D. So count me among those who finds the purist approach of drawing some arbitrary line in the sand annoying, especially when it impedes the enjoyment of others.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Almost everything I would be disappointed about has been cleared up.

A deal breaker though, can't much think of one. I guess total satisfaction with my current system and no money to spend on new books. That'd be it.

 

[Incenjucar]

My deal-breaker is if the edition is not more enjoyable for me to play in and run than another fantasy RPG I am aware of. That's kind of it.

I can't say that I'm in the "Feels like D&D" boat at all, since what many people describe as D&D sounds horribly boring to me. My only taste of their definition of D&D involved me knocking down towers instead of going inside of them and making the DM throw away the adventure he'd wasted his evening preparing.

Give me the game that facilitates contemporary fantasy roleplaying as I envision it best, and I'm happy. Whatever edition of whatever game that may be. I don't do brand loyalty.

 

[GSHamster]

My deal-breakers would be excessive amounts of DM prep time, or excessive book look up time during the game.

Everything else I can take or leave.

 

[trancejeremy]

My deal-breaker is if the edition is not more enjoyable for me to play in and run than another fantasy RPG I am aware of. That's kind of it.

I can't say that I'm in the "Feels like D&D" boat at all, since what many people describe as D&D sounds horribly boring to me. My only taste of their definition of D&D involved me knocking down towers instead of going inside of them and making the DM throw away the adventure he'd wasted his evening preparing.

Give me the game that facilitates contemporary fantasy roleplaying as I envision it best, and I'm happy. Whatever edition of whatever game that may be. I don't do brand loyalty.

And I'm the exact opposite. I don't want D&D to be the game the represents the game playing fad of the moment, I want D&D to be well, D&D.

It's sort of like how the NFL wants to expand into Europe, possibly moving the Rams there full time (since they likely will be leaving St. Louis since we won't build them a new stadium).

What if it doesn't prove to be popular there? Should they make it more like European football rather than North American? Use a round ball, get rid of downs? The end result might be great, but it just wouldn't be North American football.

It just seems to be that so many people simply just don't like D&D and would be happier playing a different game, but instead they want D&D to become that other game.

Which then ironically, forces those that actually like D&D, to go to clones of past editions. And in this case, Pathfinder is doing well enough that it is taking significant market share away from D&D.

That's really the thing involved here - in the past, when D&D moved on, you pretty much had to move on if you wanted new products (beyond fanzines and the like). But now you don't - in Pathfinder's case, the product quality exceeds most of WOTC's output...and some of the OSR stuff is pretty nice as well.

 

[Nivenus]

The central problem here is that D&D was the first major roleplaying game of any kind and the first fantasy roleplaying game in particular. That puts it in an awkward position.

It's expected to be the leader of the industry and to maintain that leadership it has to move with the times. On the other hand, a lot of people have some pretty intense nostalgia tied up to particular versions of the game - because it was the first roleplaying game they'd ever played and they loved it.

Other RPGs don't have this problem as much. But D&D is caught between two opposing goals: to appeal to its existing fandom and to maintain its role as the industry leader.

FWIW, I think it's possible to blend the two. World of Warcraft and Skyrim as two examples of modern (C)RPGs have enough recognizable elements of D&D that I don't think it's impossible to blend them in. Mind you, I don't think D&D should be identical to either and I don't think it has to be. The problem, I think, arises when people are opposed to change of any kind or when the designers throw the baby out with the bathwater.

WotC is showing they've learned from 4e. The baby's pretty secure, insofar as I can tell. The only question remaining is whether the fans of 3e and earlier editions are willing to forgive them and if they're willing to allow what others want to exist alongside their own preferences.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I don't think it's possible for the new D&D to disappoint me, because I don't really have any expectations for it; I never got into 4e, and I was already growing quite disillusioned with 3.X when 4e was released. So when I talk about my personal "deal-breakers", I'm not a current customer threatening to withdraw my support-- I'm a former customer talking about what caused me to stop buying their products before, and the elements of their previous products that I liked and that would encourage me to come back.

For me to buy the new D&D, it has to be more appealing to me than the edition I never bought and the rival product that I consider to be superior. To me, that means changing the parts of those products that turned me off in the first place.

 

[harlokin]

Ultimately, the only deal-breaker for me is if Casters return to overshadowing Non-Casters because the former are MAGIC, while the latter are MUNDANE.

Other than that, I'd going along with pretty much anything (even a return to Alignment mechanics ).