D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[dave2008]

I find it a little frustrating and a little sad that so much of this discussion is backward looking. But I suppose I should have guessed that.

well it is easier to look back at something you liked previously and is no longer present than to make up something new that you in truth have very little idea if it would actually work well in play.

 

[Aldarc]

I find it a little frustrating and a little sad that so much of this discussion is backward looking. But I suppose I should have guessed that.

I would prefer if WotC looked forward with D&D but the fanbase tends to look backwards.

 

[Parmandur]

But you are right, 5E was inherently mechanically regressive (from 4E) and that was a major point of its early success.

Game design, like human history, is never merely getting better or getting worse; it wobbles.

2014 took a step back to take two steps forward, so 2024 could take a single cautious step forward.

Thst is what I would like to see from the next revision in the 30s, and on and on forward.

 

[kermit4karate]

Sure. but here, on EN World, a lot of people are talking about bringing back older stuff, from 3.x and 4E is TSR-isms.

But you are right, 5E was inherently mechanically regressive (from 4E) and that was a major point of its early success.

I'm unsure how this opinion will go over here, but I felt that 4E was a total disaster. It didn't turn me off from D&D entirely. I waited it out. But it did lessen my enthusiasm for it.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe someone has addressed this already, but next time you use the term sacred cow consider an alternative, like dead dude on lumber, and consider if someone might find it offensive. If you do, that's fine, feel free to offend everyone's religion, but don't act like the one you're familiar with is better than the one you aren't.

Well, indeed, I would say this use of "sacred cow" in a dismissive "that's juat silly!" way is precisely what went wrong with 4E: treating "sacred cow" as an object of ridicule that needed to be "slaughtered" to make "sacred hamburger" (actual language from WotC designers at the time, astonishingly). So, yeah, bad use of language all around.

"Vital touch points to the game's identity", perhaps? There are certain changes that maybe could make a great game in the abstract, but just wouldn't fit with the identity of D&D as...D&D.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm unsure how this opinion will go over here, but I felt that 4E was a total disaster. It didn't turn me off from D&D entirely. I waited it out. But it did lessen my enthusiasm for it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The current system, that would be 5.5, doesnt support the back catalog, any more than I can take 'any' OSR adventure, and run it with Shadowdark, after I make my own adjustments.

Nature and Nurture? What does that even mean structurally? There is no Culture object in the 5e or 5.5 books.
Backgrounds. OK you want to revert to 5e, thats a functional change from how 5.5 operates, and will operate, going forward until it gets its own 'Tashas' floating ASI update.
Expand Support for other pillars, this goes to what I was saying.

6e, needs to be intentional in its design. 5.5 is a mess of conflicting and half implemented ideas all in the hope they could be 'interoperable' enough to pull the wool over the eyes of 5e players.

Regardless, this is intended to be a 6e (+) thread. Not a '5.5 and anything else daddy D&D does is great' thread.

I feel 5.5 has moved to a more intentional design, at least more than 5.0 has. I think it could have and should have done so more, and I hope a real 6e drops the marketing salve of backwards compatibility and truly works to make the game the designers want it to be, but to be honest the main reason I want that is so I can ignore it more easily, as I already have the games I want.

The main thing I want from WotC is for them to finish opening up the IP on DMs Guild.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What I'd like (and probably won't get, but whatever) in 6e:

--- species mechanics strengthened and expanded: more baked-in benefits and penalties for different species, along with...
--- ...way fewer PC-playable species in core; an optional splatbook can cover all the oddball species
--- greatly downplay (ideally to the point of near-eliminate) the "character build" side of the game; make char-gen fast and easy and let the character develop from there through what it does in play
--- along with this, make characters easier to play - e.g. fewer feats-abilities-bonuses-etc. to remember - such that playing more than one at a time becomes a viable option
--- more niche protection for all classes; if this requires reducing the number of classes to avoid overlap, that's fine too
--- a flat power curve such that low-level PCs and monsters can be and remain at least a minor threat to their higher-level counterparts over a greater range of levels; this also allows mixed-level parties to function
--- drop the 'tier' concept and have each level's power increase be (on average) roughly the same throughout
--- it's a zero-to-hero game, focus on that journey rather than the destination
--- ignore cries for more power with every level; either make some levels "dead" (no new feats, powers, or abilities) or reduce the number of levels overall, such that high level characters still fit in with the setting and aren't demigods
--- design to 20th level open-ended but make it abundantly clear with great big letters that the usefully-playable range is only intended to go to about 12th and after that you're on your own
--- release an optional splatbook later that takes care of beyond-high-level play
--- greatly slow down level advancement; focus on the day-to-day play and emerging story rather than on "moar numberz"
--- no appreciable power gap at the very low end: commoner, regular militia, and 1st-level character should be on a smooth -1st, 0th, 1st power progression that fits in with subsequent levels
--- design the core game to be very harsh and unforgiving on its characters then include easy-to-implement DM-side options to make the game a bit kinder
--- more randomness in character generation: rolled stats, rolled hit points, etc.; along with an underlying philosophy of "play what the dice give you" rather than players coming in with preconceived character ideas
--- a more easy-come easy-go design and "sense" in terms of wealth, items, maybe even levels, maybe even characters
--- make downtime the fourth pillar and lean into it; forcing downtime is easy via making training a requirement to level up, and downtime is when the PCs get to engage with the non-adventuring parts of the setting
--- starting right at core release and continuing for years thereafter, a long run of single standalone adventure modules of all levels that showcase the system and yet are also good adventures on their own. No more hardcover campaign-in-a-book APs.

That's a great game; I have several on my shelves, a couple of them even called D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

e.g.

I recently had the experience of taking a brand-new-to-roleplaying player into my 5th ed D&D campaign last year, creating a character from scratch.

It took them two hours for them roll up their 1st level character. That is, done in earnest, with the PHB, and they had the benefit of someone besides me who was versed in the basic rules sitting next to them to explain what they didn't understand or were confused over at each step.

It should not take that long.

Why did it take that long? I've helped people make A5e characters (a more complex process) in half that time, at worst.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What would you wholesale cut or replace?

When I look at an iterative edition, I'm not looking to replace the whole thing, otherwise I can just play a different game.

D&D has a complicated relationship with iterative editions, since they're always chasing what they think the most potential customers want, more than they're trying to make the best game they can.