D&D General Chris Perkins and Stan! - previous D&D edition thoughts

[payn]

Whereas I am quite convinced we're going to get a 6e, or something functionally equivalent to a 6e even if it isn't called that, by 2032, or 2034 at the absolute latest. I don't think 5.5e has more than six years' worth of play in it. It has nothing to do with Mearls' claim that "D&D isn't cool anymore"; it has everything to do with "second verse, same as the first" will never last as long as the original thing did, not least because plenty of the things in 5.5e are not well-liked by all fans of 5.0, and that's encouraging at least some people to start looking elsewhere.

Remember, they've made gestures at "evergreen" twice now, and both times they've backtracked. One was with 4e. The second was 5.0. And people swore, up and down, that 5e would be evergreen! That there would never be a need for an overhaul, they'd just do piecemeal, iterative updates comparable to TCoE. We've already seen that come and go.

"Evergreen" is a myth. If--I say, if--5.5e goes a full decade without any announcement of a new thing, if in 2035 folks are still playing "2024 D&D" and not even hearing a whisper about any kind of new playtest, then I'll buy that they've made something evergreen. Not a day before.

I hope you are wrong, but I guess we will find out. I'm not convinced that folks are not happy with 5.24 now coming from folks that were not happy with 5.14 either. I think looking at the rules themselves is a mistake, and not looking at adventures and digital offerings when it comes to legs of an edition. 3E proves it can go for a very long time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

4E like a video game? But I've been told repealed that isn't true

If I am being scrupulously fair and honest: 4e almost certainly did learn lessons from video games, including MMOs (though most likely it would have started from looking at EverQuest, not World of Warcraft, since the latter didn't come out until after work on 4e had already started.)

But playing 4e is very little like playing a video game, unless you use only an extremely superficial analysis--in which case, most editions of D&D would be like video games, so the comparison is not very useful.

As said above though, I don't think a productive conversation can be had about video game design and what effects it has had on WotC-made editions of D&D. Because, as noted, there are far too many partisans ready, waiting, and eager to pounce on any such discussion.

2E closest to 5E? Yeah no. You can actually die in 2E. And I don't recall any adventure in 2E being "You walk down a road, you are now 2nd level".

I never "properly" played 2e, as my only exposure to it is through video games like PS:T, IWD, and the first two Baldur's Gate games. So I can't really say whether 5e is or isn't like 2e.

But I can say that a lot of people over the years have said something along these lines. A common descriptor during the late D&D Next playtest and the first like 3-4 years of 5e was that the game was "AD&D 3e"--that is, a more fitting successor to 2e than the actual Third Edition was. I never took that claim particularly seriously, but the sheer number of people I've seen make it over the years is certainly worth considering, if nothing else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find the argument itself not holding much water to begin with, inspiration can come from all kinds of places, CRPGs, boardgames, novels, TV, you name it. None of it is inherently bad.

Sure. But from experience, people took it as a given that if D&D learned anything at all from video games, it would be the Worst Thing Ever.

As I said in a totally different thread, I think the last 5-8 years in video games, and in particular Baldur's Gate 3 specifically, have finally broken the back of the "eeeew, video games?!?! That's BAD!" argument/reflex. Like, there have been great video games before, even great D&D video games, but BG3 was so well-made, and so inherently D&D (including an excellent DM-like function, via the Narrator!), that even folks who would normally be 100% on board for this argument can no longer support it. BG3 proved that video games could be true to D&D--and if that game is, then maybe other games could, possibly, have at least a little of D&D in them too. You can no longer intuitively feel that VG-ness is The Worst Thing Ever for D&D. I mean, I'm sure some people can. But the wind is out of the sails for the argument. It no longer catches thinkmeats in its vicelike jaws.

What I find interesting in your post is that even the WoW guys saw that as a negative, I would have expected them to not have an issue there.

The person who taught me to hate 4e without having read it was one such player. I am supremely confident she never read the 4e rules either.

And yes--I was an anti-4e partisan for a bit! Believe it or not.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But I can say that a lot of people over the years have said something along these lines. A common descriptor during the late D&D Next playtest and the first like 3-4 years of 5e was that the game was "AD&D 3e"--that is, a more fitting successor to 2e than the actual Third Edition was. I never took that claim particularly seriously, but the sheer number of people I've seen make it over the years is certainly worth considering, if nothing else.

And beside which... all 5E has to do is be more than 2E as compared to AD&D, 3E and 4E, LOL!

No one is saying 5E and 2E are mirrors of each other... all that is being said is that 5E and 2E are more alike than 5E and the other editions. The two might only have 15% in common with each other... but if AD&D, 3E, and 4E are only 5% like 5E... then that statement for a lot of people is going to be absolutely correct.

 

[TheSword]

I wonder if ‘more daring’ means to release harder campaign settings? Dark Sun per chance? Birthright?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And beside which... all 5E has to do is be more than 2E as compared to AD&D, 3E and 4E, LOL!

No one is saying 5E and 2E are mirrors of each other... all that is being said is that 5E and 2E are more alike than 5E and the other editions. The two might only have 15% in common with each other... but if AD&D, 3E, and 4E are only 5% like 5E... then that statement for a lot of people is going to be absolutely correct.

I mean, I think it's pretty inarguable that the edition 5e most resembles is 3e. With the sole exclusion of iterative attacks (which were always a bad idea to begin with!), 5e is nearly identical to 3e with just a couple tweaks. Feats are now tied to class level, but they're still there; skills are now gained chunky-style, rather than by skill points; spells other than cantrips no longer automatically scale (but you can still make them stronger). Even the cantrips are really just making 3e's Reserve Feats a general caster feature.

But, I think you can also argue that despite 5e being more similar to 3e than it is to any other edition, I think there can also be room to argue that of the WotC editions, 5e is the one that is closest to 2e. I don't personally think they're in any way closely related, based off the game design choices in each. The only thing that's even remotely similar IME and IMO is 2e's "Kits", but those were both MUCH more extensive and far more daring (for good and for ill) than 5e subclasses.

I wonder if ‘more daring’ means to release harder campaign settings? Dark Sun per chance? Birthright?

Would be cool, but we're never getting 5e Dark Sun.

That would require them to finally decide what psionics is. They're never going to do so, because the only way for them to create psionics rules is to pick some specific thing those rules are going to be. Nothing they pick will ever clear their mandatory threshold of ~70% of players, because there are at least three distinct, large factions who have Strong Opinions about what psionics should be. So long as each faction looks at the proposed rules and hears, "Well, it could still end up different if we just make sure these rules don't succeed...", there will never be success on that front.

Psionics will always be the albatross around the 5e designers' necks, because 5e has fully and exclusively committed to a practice that cannot produce psionics rules. They require major consensus before iterating. This is not possible on a large number of issues. Therefore, they never will iterate, and thus, they never will produce any finished products, even though a reasonably large portion of 5e fans would in fact like to see rules for psionics.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh geez, not you too, Chris Perkins. Edition warrior badge earned.

Perhaps just accept people opinions on 4e differ? We can all have our own opinions about this without taking it so personally.

He worked on 4E, seems he is just sharing his perspective as one of it's designers?

 

[Reynard]

I mean, I think it's pretty inarguable that the edition 5e most resembles is 3e. With the sole exclusion of iterative attacks (which were always a bad idea to begin with!), 5e is nearly identical to 3e with just a couple tweaks.

Again, only superficially. 3E is a very different game in play, and its built in mini games don't exist or don't work in 5E.

 

[payn]

Again, only superficially. 3E is a very different game in play, and its built in mini games don't exist or don't work in 5E.

Yeap, I just made a comment in another thread about how folks weave prior editions into and out of 5e based on whether they like that particular aspect or not. You can kinda make the case in any way, but you can also kick the legs out from under those positions as well.

 

[Parmandur]

I wonder if ‘more daring’ means to release harder campaign settings? Dark Sun per chance? Birthright?

Problem is, if they being more daring, it us hard to speculate.

But based on the "card-based" character design...they might mean genuinely different sorts of products, like The Deck of Many Things set?