D&D 5E What (if anything) do you find "wrong" with 5E?

[Rogerd1]

Everything dies eventually.

That said, what you say is simply not supported by any evidence. There is no current evidence that a game must be able to support multiple genres, or it will die. Indeed, D&D, a mostly one-genre game, seems to be doing better than all the multi-genre games combined! At nearly 50 years old, the oldest name in the business, it has not significantly broadened its genre coverage, but appears to be selling and growing its player base to unprecedented heights.

So, maybe you need some better support on that idea before folks are going to accept it.

By the way, evolution, on the whole, does not drive creatures towards generalization. It more usually drives creatures towards specialization for a given niche. Invoking evolution, therefore, is maybe not your best bet either.

Whether people here accept it or not matters very little.

Modern Age and Modern Age: Threefold has a better thought out cosmology, and allows for use across multiple genres, deliberately so. And it is some stellar work by Green Ronin.

As to evidence, this is also false. Let's look at the number of 3PP releases that tap into different genres using the 5e engine shall we? The latest being Doctor Who. So all the support I need is to list the plethora of products.

 

[Umbran]

Modern Age and Modern Age: Threefold has a better thought out cosmology, and allows for use across multiple genres, deliberately so. And it is some stellar work by Green Ronin.

And how it is selling compared to core D&D?

As to evidence, this is also false. Let's look at the number of 3PP releases that tap into different genres using the 5e engine shall we? The latest being Doctor Who. So all the support I need is to list the plethora of products.

You seem to misunderstand. You need evidence that this is necessary to survive. That was your assertion - D&D must broaden genres, or it will wither and die. That needs support.

The sales of all those 3pp products are, as I understand it, a pittance compared to the sales of D&D proper. It is not clear they offer any significant support to D&D itself. So, how are they necessary for survival? They appear to be a (sometimes quite enjoyable) side effect, not a necessary component.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why? Why does D&D need to emulate other genres? There are great games for emulating other genres.

I've never understood this impulse to pound every game into D&D. There's a whole library of great games out there. There's no need to have Kaiju battling mecha in D&D.

While I mostly agree with you, while D&D is the big dog in the room, there's always going to be incentives for people to want their new game to be able to tap that market, if for no other reason than the resistance some people to learning new mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They had Mike "shout their guts back in" Mearls as head of the design team. It seems like having an edition warrior in charge probably had more to do with the lack of overt 4e in the design than any commercial considerations.

Unless you're of the opinion no one upstream of him knew his views on this, I don't see how that changes my point any.

Note that in the early days of DDN they talked a lot about how there were going to be things for fans of all editions, and for 4e specifically (things that never materialised of course).

_
glass.

I did see that. It was almost always in response to 4e fans feeling like they were, effectively, being betrayed. I.e. it was performative aimed at trying retention on some elements of the market.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because if DnD cannot do other genres it cannot evolve and expand and will eventually die out, the same way that Palladium is currently in its death throes.

History does not support this premise. That hasn't happened in nearly a half century now, what makes you think its going to change now?

 

[Umbran]

History does not support this premise. That hasn't happened in nearly a half century now, what makes you think its going to change now?

Specifically, I think there's been significant evidence that the game has changed ( not "evolved", just changed) in a way that has led to growth, specifically without abandoning the fictional genre it focuses on.

 

[Helldritch]

Which do not fix the problematic ruleset which is out of date.
Fact since PF & HU there have been no new rules.

Fact is that current rules do not favour images, such that most on the PB board say that if a mage wants to shoot something they should get a gun and not use magic.

Which is in fact in opposition to the Books of Magic which says that mages believe magic is superior. This would not be the case if they ran out of juice within half a minute of fighting.

The ruleset does exactly what its fans wants it to do.
Call it out of date for you only. I know a lot of people that love Palladium system, myself included.
When a system does exactly what it claims to do, strive for and perform as expected, why change it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Specifically, I think there's been significant evidence that the game has changed ( not "evolved", just changed) in a way that has led to growth, specifically without abandoning the fictional genre it focuses on.

The problem with that is that its very difficult to assess how much of its growth has any discernible relationship with systemic changes. Its such a thing that exists in a cultural matrix more than most games that separating the threads out of that is probably impossible for pretty much anyone.

But that said, the other poster's premise is not supported in any notable way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The ruleset does exactly what its fans wants it to do.
Call it out of date for you only. I know a lot of people that love Palladium system, myself included.
When a system does exactly what it claims to do, strive for and perform as expected, why change it?

Well, there's a couple problems here:
1. There's always the ability to claim that a rules set does not, in fact, do what it claims to do;
2. There's always the potential for a system to have more appeal in general even if its current design is something its fanbase is okay with. The question always is how much you want to leap into that unless you feel very sure you're going to gain more fans than you lose.
And, of course, in a way, 3. Its extent fans may not give a damn if you gain more market if they're not getting what they want. Almost no one wants their favorite game system to grow in the abstract; they want it to do so because they'll get more cool stuff and more people to play with. Otherwise, as far as they're concerned, the new game just took the one they loved, killed it and wore its skin.

 

[glass]

No, your point was that it was KS age, not evolution which is false.
It is the lack of evolution, whereas DnD has had at least two iterations in that time.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but I think you are trying to mischaractrise my argument. To restate, if Palladium is finally winding down (I had no idea whether it was or not, but according to other posters apparently it isn't), it was most likely due to KS's advanced age rather than the lack of new editions. Because the lack of new editions has been the case for 17 years, so is unlikely to be a proximate cause to something happening now.

Unless you're of the opinion no one upstream of him knew his views on this, I don't see how that changes my point any.

I'm of the opinion that nobody upstream cared.

I did see that. It was almost always in response to 4e fans feeling like they were, effectively, being betrayed. I.e. it was performative aimed at trying retention on some elements of the market.

I think you have that backwards. 4e fans felt betrayed in response to a process which promised and "edition for everyone" and then making it clear they meant "everyone except 4e fans" (and then eventually abandoning the promise entirely). The feeling could hardly have predated the betrayal!

_
glass.