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

[Ruin Explorer]

Probably, but as a matter of relative judgements, I bet it's at least clearer and more coherent than anything WotC has put out in a decade.

There's something to be said for taking an idea and doing it well. My ideal D&D has its own characteristics, but there are many other approaches one could do and do well.

You seriously should make a thread in the general RPG forum with your requirements, so we can suggest stuff accurately. I bet we'll suggest something interesting, and it's not like you're bound by it or anything!

 

[Ahnehnois]

You seriously should make a thread in the general RPG forum with your requirements, so we can suggest stuff accurately. I bet we'll suggest something interesting, and it's not like you're bound by it or anything!

I try not to have requirements. Preferences, maybe, but I'm open to changing them.

Again, it's a question of whether the idea is executed well more than what the idea is.

 

[Umbran]

That's a statement more about how the developers feel or want to feel. The reality is that the games are, in fact, going to be in competition with each other because they'll both be for sale in the same market and can't be paid for with the same dollars nor played at the same time. Competition is inevitable and no feel-good statements are going to change that. That competition may not be hostile and it may not be aimed at driving competitors from the market, but they will be in competition.

By that logic, Rice Crispies are in competition with dish soap. They're for sale in the same market, and cannot be paid for with the same dollars - and time you spend washing dishes is time you can't spend eating cereal! This is a very simplistic view of competition.

I would suggest, instead, that two things are in competition when purchasing one greatly reduces your likelihood of purchasing the other and that lack of purchase impacts progress to the company's goals.

As an example - imagine there are two concerts in town on the same night (let's say, Aerosmith and Postmodern Jukebox). There's significant overlap in their fans. If you buy a Jukebox ticket, you aren't going to the Aerosmith concert. Does Aerosmith care? They're going to sell out whether or not they're sell the ticket to you. And Postmodern Jukebox is trying to sell out a much, much smaller venue - if they can do that, no matter what Aerosmith does, there's no issue. So, in this case, the overall market is large enough for everyone to meet their goals, and there is no effective competition.

If, as has been suggested, the Dungeons and Dragons brand, as a whole, has bigger fish to fry than the tabletop RPG business, then maybe they really aren't in competition. So long as they get enough sales to keep the brand name cemented so that they can sell other products and media, they really may not care - the brand may really be aiming for revenue from a different market.

To make up examples out of thin air - If D&D had one single successful blockbuster movie, sales of the RPG would mean zilch. Or, if they got a real hit mobile app game, again, the tabletop RPG sales would not be an issue.

As a more likely scenario - Let us face it, Pathfinder's a complicated game. WotC may be positioning themselves to be the "entry game" for the market again (*free* Basic!). They may be intending to grow new market for themselves in a way that Pathfinder and other games just *can't*. If they can meet their goals in this manner, then they are not in competition with Pathfinder.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I try not to have requirements. Preferences, maybe, but I'm open to changing them.

Again, it's a question of whether the idea is executed well more than what the idea is.

Have you ever looked at Artesia: Adventures in the Known World? I feel like it's got a lot of the world-sim-capable, consistent elements that you might like, but it's much less fantastical than D&D. Also it has amazing art.

 

[Cybit]

With regards to 3E and C&C not having dissociative mechanics; if you ever pop 3E, 4E, PF, and 5E in front of a group of 12 year olds who have never played a TTRPG before; they will point out all the completely dissociative mechanics that are involved in 3E / PF / C&C as well as 4E and 5E that make absolutely no sense in real life.

Got a truth bomb dropped on me earlier this week from my younger players; they astutely pointed out that most of us who believe 3E is simulationist probably started late 2E or with 3E, so our baseline perception of "simulation" is completely tilted towards 3E.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Here comes the pettiest reason ever.

Long time on-and-off player of mine. "Nah, 5e sucks because what they did to the paladin. A paladin has to be lawful good and follow a strict set of divine rules."

Confused stare from the rest of us. "But we houseruled in NG and CG paladins a long time ago."

"Yeah but those are houserules! Now it's going to be official!"

Communal facepalm from everyone else in the shop, not only my group.

Oh and that player recently played a CG paladin. For about 5 month.

Is he perchance from Florida? Does he possibly have long flowing locks of golden hair? Might this guy have written several pop rock songs?

Because I think that only one man is that Petty.

 

[evileeyore]

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

Well.. I distinctly recall it going down the way RE said it did. Not a cite, but...

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.

GURPS is my love. I still have GURPS 3e if 4e hadn't wowed me.... and the D&D fans have the same thing (in fact they have it better since there has been very little change in GURPS across it's editions, whereas there are 4 distinct previous editions of D&D to chose from).

There are tons of good FRPGs out there, too, many of them which seem to support what you want...

I'm pretty sure that what he wants* is an RPG that dominates the market share strongly enough that he'll never lack for other players. Rather like D&D is now, but with rules shaped to fit his specific desires.



* This is the only explanation for edition warring I can even begin to understand. And I still don't grok it.

In particular, I feel it's a mistake to count out GURPS Fantasy so quickly. For generic fantasy it's amazingly flexible. It can be anything you want; just not D&D.

Oh, I disagree. GURPS Dungeon Fantasy simulates D&D very well....

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have my doubts that I will buy 5e myself. I don't really have any petty reasons for that position that I can think of. I just can't imagine it being more fun than the game I have and enjoy playing (4e).

*tear*

And I thought that nobody knew how I feel!

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

However, that is a big ask. The 4e solution was, as I understand it, to make magic items not particularly useful and to create this weird kind of fudging with the inherent bonuses.

Correct to the first, wrong on the second. 4e items, aside from the enhancement bonuses they grant, aren't necessary at all. Fans have mixed feelings about this.

The DMG2's inherent bonus variant is everything that a low-wealth D&D variant should be; it provides a simple solution to a common desire without fundamentally changing gameplay. I suppose one might quibble about the particular levels at which the bonuses are granted, but I've never heard anything but positive feedback for this variant.

I myself wrote a very similar house rule for 3.5 back in about 2006, and I'm not the only one. I've seen several similar variants written by various 3.0, 3.5, and PF fans.

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?

Seventeen pages. We made it seventeen pages before someone took a potshot at not one, but two separate editions. If you're going to make broad, sweeping, inflammatory generalizations, Ahnehnois, please start a new thread. Because I'd prefer to ignore a thread than have to put you on ignore.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

True enough. *shakes fist at the heavens*

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.

Oh, right! How could I forget the stink over the betrayal that is melee-only fighters?