D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Ruin Explorer]

I think I’m there too, mostly.

I mean, is it "WotC's direction", or is it that 5E has simply run its course? Or some combination thereof? Or is there even no difference, is the decision to continue 5E rather than doing a 6E the directional issue?

Because for me, I find nothing hugely wrong with WotC's direction re: content/material now that wasn't at least equally "wrong" in say, 2015 - in fact, I think the current direction is probably better than the direction say, 3 years ago (OGL 2.0, "Dark Sun will never happen" etc.) or 10 years ago ("Minimal books per year", "MtG settings are at least 50% of settings" etc.).

However, I don't find 5E itself, as an RPG, as interesting or cool as I did used to. So many amazing games have come out since 2014. To me, 5E, even the 2024 version, seems, well, a tad dated. Laden down with decent-but-kinda-clunky systems and weirdly narrow ideas (esp. re: classes and magic), and arguably outperformed at "being D&D" by a whole bunch of games that aren't quite D&D. 2024 could have revised it so much more, but whilst I do see it as an overall improvement, it's kind of like, fiddling around the edges rather than giving us something clearly better and clearly of this era.

 

[billd91]

Memory isn’t that good, but there was stuff in White Dwarf, along with non-D&D RPGs, such as Traveller (and Travellers’ Journal). Bunch of other RPGs with suggestions about how to run the game I read at the time as well (Ghostbusters FTW!) The RPG community wasn’t all about D&D back then.

There was also the 'zine scene. All of these debates about how to run/play D&D from adversarial (even extremely so) to far more cooperative with the players have been raging for virtually as long as D&D has existed. Jon Peterson's The Elusive Shift is quite the chronicle.
Granted, the 'zines were never as widely circulated as Gygax's bully pulpit in The Dragon Magazine. But the debates were there in the forms of networking and communication that existed.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

actually, I'm really wanting them to make some decisions and drive the story

I’m glad it’s not just me!

 

[mamba]

I mean, is it "WotC's direction", or is it that 5E has simply run its course? Or some combination thereof? Or is there even no difference, is the decision to continue 5E rather than doing a 6E the directional issue?

as far as the blog goes, it sounds more like the change is the issue rather than 5e getting long in the tooth. Not sure 6e would have helped if it were moving in the same direction while being less held back by compatibility

Because for me, I find nothing hugely wrong with WotC's direction re: content/material now that wasn't at least equally "wrong" in say, 2015 - in fact, I think the current direction is probably better than the direction say, 3 years ago (OGL 2.0, "Dark Sun will never happen" etc.) or 10 years ago ("Minimal books per year", "MtG settings are at least 50% of settings" etc.).

not sure about 3 years ago vs now, the points you brought up are definitely things that got resolved in a positive way, but Tasha’s and 2024 are on the same line originating from 2014, so the design direction hasn’t really changed.

Minimal support also was more a reaction to 4e’s failure and maybe to a degree a lesson learned from all prior editions, rather than a design decision

However, I don't find 5E itself, as an RPG, as interesting or cool as I did used to. So many amazing games have come out since 2014. To me, 5E, even the 2024 version, seems, well, a tad dated. Laden down with decent-but-kinda-clunky systems and weirdly narrow ideas (esp. re: classes and magic), and arguably outperformed at "being D&D" by a whole bunch of games that aren't quite D&D.

I agree with the sentiment but am curious what games you are thinking of here (I might think of different ones…)

2024 could have revised it so much more, but whilst I do see it as an overall improvement, it's kind of like, fiddling around the edges rather than giving us something clearly better and clearly of this era.

agreed, but even if it were still not ‘of this era’, for me 2024 just did 1) too little and 2) did not move towards a direction I was looking for. Everything that was of interest to me got killed off halfway through the playtest

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I agree with the sentiment but an curious what games you are thinking of here (I might think of different ones…)

I mean, there are a lot - Shadowdark, Daggerheart and PF2 are probably the most prominent, but we're in a golden age if you want a game that's a lot like D&D, but caters to a more specific taste (there are the close 5E-likes, like ToV and A5E, but also Cairn, Draw Steel!, OSE, WWN, 13th Age 2E, etc. etc. etc.).

Everything that was of interest to me got killed off halfway through the playtest

Samsies.

as far as the blog goes, it sounds more like the change is the issue rather than 5e getting long in the tooth. Not sure 6e would have helped if it were moving in the same direction while being less held back by compatibility

Yeah I'm talking more generally - I think the blogger is just knee-jerk reacting to change, because his exaggerations are so extreme as to silly. But I do think 2024 has, I dunno, failed to really energise many people who play RPGs. It'll keep D&D going, for sure - because it also means few people will quit over it, but I think usually on an edition change you probably get more people coming back to D&D than you lose to quitting, with 4E the exception, and a lot of that being down to the exact timing and the truly spectacular series of PR disasters 4E managed to have before launch. I don't know anyone who came back to D&D because of 2024. I'm sure someone here did, but I suspect it's a pretty small number.

Also re: the same direction - I think without the need for compatibility, it's inevitable that the direction change would have been larger.

 

[Thomas Shey]

(As aside, everything I've read about Champions/HERO campaigns in even the mid-1980s seems to show very modern-seeming, character-and-story focused approaches to the games. So that's another mark for "there has always been before-their-time" stuff.)

One of the things that helped there is the scope of superheroes tends to have a broad impact on their setting and does so, well, very often. You don't see a lot of zero-to-hero stories in that genre, and when you do its usually in the young-supers subgenre. So basically both the system and the people who got into it had a completely different set of expectations than those in D&D (and in cases of those who didn't, problems showed themselves awfully fast).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, there were definitely people who at least espoused an Agatha Christie approach to adventure creation and this is still common in the OSR, especially amongst the Baby Boomers and Gen X creators.

"Well, all the information is in there. If you chose to get yourself killed, that's your fault."

Of course, the information "being there" is often debatable. If the players found that rock dust on the stone floor of the dungeon, was that really sufficient indication that there was a stone block trap over their heads? Maaaaaybe?

Well, that runs into the wall you see all the time in investigative situations in any trad game where how obvious things seem to the GM and the players can be radically different.

But the difference was that there was at least an intent to do something other than basic power-tripping.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It sure can be yeah!

Especially when they suddenly decide they're "enjoying the ride" but actually, I'm really wanting them to make some decisions and drive the story. This is part of why I much prefer scenario-type adventures to any kind of more directed story with or without decision points. They engage with those a lot better. Or maybe I'm better at making those engaging. Hard to say.

Skill issue on my part I'm sure (though I've seen even the mighty Matt Mercer furrow his brows at this sort of thing before - I daresay BLeeM can handle it but I've seen less of his work).

I've said before "Some people just want to know where their chalk marks are", and that can be a real problem if you want your players more self-motivated. But its a real thing.

 

[haakon1]

is it that 5E has simply run its course?

Yes, but more that I was never into 5e. I’m tired of playing it and of hearing about it. I know I’m not the target audience.

I’m supposed to level up to 10th for a 5e2024 game on Saturday, and I’m just not feeling it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

2024 could have revised it so much more, but whilst I do see it as an overall improvement, it's kind of like, fiddling around the edges rather than giving us something clearly better and clearly of this era.

I think they're likely to be very conservative with the ruleset (although they'll hopefully stretch their wings with settings and adventures, at least) until the wheels really come off.

I would expect the 2029 or 2034 edition to be the one where they start going down the roads many other RPGs have gone in the years since 2015. Even if they just pick up a bare handful of them, it'll get a lot of customers really excited again.

By the time the next big innovation is politically feasible, they'll be spoiled for choice for good ideas to catch up on.