D&D 5E (2014) 15 Petty Reasons I Won't Buy 5e

[Thaumaturge]

Whoa, I'm crying foul on that. What could possibly be better than mint chip/

Ugh. Almost anything.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Anything with more chocolate and less mint?

Haagen-Dazs did have this "chocolate chocolate mint" flavor once that was fantastic. It's gone now, though.

 

[Nagol]

Haagen-Dazs did have this "chocolate chocolate mint" flavor once that was fantastic. It's gone now, though.

A small ice cream place I used to frequent had both the standard mint-chocolate (green mint ice cream with flecks of chocolate) and a chocolate-mint (dark chocolate ice cream with a light minty flavour).

The latter was fantastic. It's gone too

 

[Bluenose]

My sympathies to everyone for whom D&D is your second (or third, or fourth) best friend! I gamed with such a guy once, and he ran his favorite scifi rpg for us when his turn to GM came up, but when we ran our D&D campaigns...yeah, I could tell he was in the group because fans of his game are so scarce.

Come to think of it, I have a new thread idea...

Actually, people for whom D&D isn't their first (and/or only) love have it relatively easy. If the latest edition of D&D changes the rules in a way you don't like, you can shrug and move to another game happily. It's the D&D fans who feel betrayed that the latest edition is "doing it wrong" that need the sympathy.

Oh, that's right! The wails over being deprived of the bard, the barbarian, and last but not least, the bardbarian! I also remember quite a few bewailments over 4e's original race line-up. "What, no half-orcs in the PHB1?! Oh, the travesty!"

I think that might be a reference to not being able to make a great archer character with Fighter written at the top of the sheet. Because the character concept isn't a great archer, it's a great archer who has Fighter written on the sheet and no alternative will be accepted.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's definitely the case. They sent out all those playtest surveys, but there wasn't any opportunity within them to express any really meaningful opinions, only to confirm or deny their opinions (with a heavy slant towards confirm).

I think you're confusing the Playtest surveys that they sent out, with the ones on the WotC website.

The ones on the WotC website match your description precisely. They expressed an opinion, often a weird-arse one, and then said "HOW MUCH DO U AGREE?!", and were very frequently worthless, because you could indeed not express any meaningful or directional disagreement (or even agreement).

The ones that they SENT OUT to Playtesters of 5E were totally different. They did not take the "HOW MUCH DO U AGREE?!" approach at all, rather giving a lot of criteria to rate classes and aspects of the game on, and they had TONS of "Describe what your opinion is in words" boxes, and let you agree/disagree in a much more complex and reasoned way.

So I think either you're conflating the two, or you didn't actually see the sent out Playtest surveys, or didn't look at them seriously.

I suspect that most ENWorlders could probably write a better game than 4e for a while; the same may end up being true of 5e as well. It's a big time investment, but not necessarily a bad one, especially if you copy existing elements you like and keep things light. Why let the market constrain you?

Better than 4E in what sense? I doubt one ENWorlder in fifty could write a game as mechanically sound and complex as 4E, if even that. More pleasing to you, who doesn't value those things? Probably quite a few, though certainly not most, because your preferences are somewhat peculiar.

Again, with 5E, you could probably write a game you liked better. I doubt you could write one that worked as well or better, even with 5E's loose math, unless you were basically cribbing 90% of it from a previous edition.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Other than as a creative endeavor or intellectual exercise, I'm not sure why a person who likes the basic framework of 5e and not certain particulars would build a brand new game instead of using house rules to modify 5e to his particular tastes.

House rules just seem like less work.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You got a citation for that? That's a pretty bold charge.

A few years ago I did have, but I can't find it ATM, so I'm afraid it's "believe me or not" unless I come across it again!

Anecdote: last time I got seriously called on something I had no citation for I was proved right six years later!

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think you're confusing the Playtest surveys that they sent out, with the ones on the WotC website.

Possibly, but both of them meet that description.

The ones that they SENT OUT to Playtesters of 5E were totally different. They did not take the "HOW MUCH DO U AGREE?!" approach at all, rather giving a lot of criteria to rate classes and aspects of the game on, and they had TONS of "Describe what your opinion is in words" boxes, and let you agree/disagree in a much more complex and reasoned way.

Exactly. Did they ask us whether said class should even exist? No. Did they ask us how we felt about the progression of attack bonuses? No. Did they ask us whether we liked the health system? No.

Better than 4E in what sense?

Any sense. I think anyone who is a reasonably competent DM could write an rpg that better suits their specific needs, and probably a lot of other people's as well. There are an enormous number of conceivable ways that could go. I have no doubt that you could write one that I'd think was better, whether or not you'd endorse the converse.

I doubt one ENWorlder in fifty could write a game as mechanically sound and complex as 4E, if even that. More pleasing to you, who doesn't value those things?

Huh? I value being mechanically sound more than most. I'm expecting the rules to provide a working world that isn't specific to the D&D genre.

Complexity is a different issue; I think simplicity is the ideal, so no I wouldn't want basic elements spread out over endless splats.

Again, with 5E, you could probably write a game you liked better. I doubt you could write one that worked as well or better, even with 5E's loose math, unless you were basically cribbing 90% of it from a previous edition.

Well, it would be very hard for any professional or amateur game designer to do anything that was 100% original and used no ideas found elsewhere. The homebrew 3.X melange I'm using is obviously incorporating a lot of sources, but it is definitely a much smoother and more cohesive mechanical entity than anything I ever saw in the 5e playtests.

But if I were to flesh out the standardized, skill-based system I briefly laid out a framework for, I have no doubt that it would "work better" in the generic sense, not just for me. Do I have any interest in entering the publishing business? No.

I also have no doubt that someone else's completely different approach might also work. The bar, frankly, is pretty low. It's not a question of whether we can write a better fantasy story than George R. R. Martin.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Exactly. Did they ask us whether said class should even exist? No. Did they ask us how we felt about the progression of attack bonuses? No. Did they ask us whether we liked the health system? No.

They did ask about both the latter two. The former is at the core of D&D, like it or not.

Huh? I value being mechanically sound more than most. I'm expecting the rules to provide a working world that isn't specific to the D&D genre.

Well that's your problem right there! No edition of D&D has done that. Nor is likely to. You want a generic fantasy RPG, not D&D.

But if I were to flesh out the standardized, skill-based system I briefly laid out a framework for, I have no doubt that it would "work better" in the generic sense, not just for me.

It's called GURPS, bro.

I also have no doubt that someone else's completely different approach might also work. The bar, frankly, is pretty low. It's not a question of whether we can write a better fantasy story than George R. R. Martin.

You wildly underestimate how hard writing a really good RPG is, mate.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well that's your problem right there! No edition of D&D has done that. Nor is likely to. You want a generic fantasy RPG, not D&D.

Um, why not both?

It's called GURPS, bro.

No thanks.

You wildly underestimate how hard writing a really good RPG is, mate.

I'm not talking about writing a really good rpg necessarily. Just a good enough one.