D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Micah Sweet]

There is much here that I agree with.

I am of the opinion that 5.x character generation is a sub-system that requires computer software.
I want a tabletop game. With math rocks.

Coming back to the game (from 3.0/d20) after a twenty year absence, my reaction to the subclasses of 5.x was Wizard Treant Fighter, am I being railroaded during character creation?!

Give this aging grognard some recognizable Core / Iconic / Legacy class(es) so I can play with the younger folks and their newer edition! I don't want to have to put in unenjoyable work just to play a game.
Obligatory exclaimation: "Get off my lawn!"

Of course, folks have different ideas as to whether or not the work is enjoyable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is a little off topic, but I think about pre-3.0 saving throws A LOT in relation to what is being communicated.

The short version is: in TSR era D&D, saving throws were inherent to the PC, based on class and level, and very, very rarely modified in any way by the source of the thing being saved against. Couple this with fighters and half lines having such good saves and you can really see the influences on the game.

The 3.0+ saves are a different thing. I don't mind the consolidation into intuitive categories, but taking away the inherentness of saves really changed the way we look at that thing at the intersection of system and fiction.

So, in my 6E, that is another thing I would like: saving throws return to being inherently about your class fantasy being ablevto resist X, y or z. I wouldn't necessarily go back to the TSR categories, but I might find a middle ground between those and Fort, Reflex and Will. Ability score saves can just go.

Reducing the number of things ability scores affect would be a good thing IMO, but not for mainstream D&D. It's not IME what people want from it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is everyone looking to make a new fantasy heartbreaker that attends to their specific preferences, or a new edition of D&D? Because I thought the OP was asking for the latter, but most folks are providing the former.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And how do you get the 1e or BX feel back in there?

By playing 1e, BX, or a game based on those editions?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay.

Now what happens if the fighters are under-equipped, because the GM thinks giving out items means you're running a "Monty Haul" campaign? Because they think giving out items is "bad GMing"? Because that's what I hear over and over and over again from OSR types.

No magic items. No feats. No bonuses. Nothing. Just what you are as a fighter, nothing more. Possibly less, if they're feeling even slightly spicy today.

Plenty of OSR games and games that inspired the OSR have many magic items. It's a major source of differentiation for PCs, and a major source of power. Not sure where you're coming from here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is if the edition is designed with strong but unstated expectations and many GMs act exactly counter to those expectations.

Funny, guess what I think one of the greatest problems with 5e is?

Which, on that subject, 6e: convert every assumption into an explicit instruction. Lots of people will still ignore it. But making it an explicit instruction is enormously helpful for showing people why what they're choosing to do is the cause of their problems.

Sounds good for 6e. Right in line with the more intentional design I think they should follow.

 

[Piperken]

It did take a lot of effort as it was also a birthday party. There is a picture somewhere of me, after the party, asleep on the battle map with our cat sleeping on me!

Just doing a bday party is trial enough! I can imagine!

 

[The Soloist]

Wishful thinking: A single 150-page hardcover with a light version of the game. I mean really simplified, not the usual 5e Basic reduced options PDF. About 50 pages for players, 50 pages for the DM, and 50 pages of adversaries and allies. This would be in addition to the regular 3 core books.

 

[Scribe]

Now what happens if the fighters are under-equipped, because the GM thinks giving out items means you're running a "Monty Haul" campaign? Because they think giving out items is "bad GMing"? Because that's what I hear over and over and over again from OSR types.

You point them to the rule book that demonstrates that magic items are an expected component of the game design?

 

[dave2008]

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

Let's be honest, what you really want is for WotC to make the game exactly the way you want it:

• The mechanics you want
• The lore you want
• The writing you want
• The art you want

I bet that is what we all secretly want to some extent, even if we don't admit it to ourselves.

PS - For the purpose of this discussion WotC = any company that owns D&D. So if don't want to give WotC/Hasbro money anymore, that is irrelevant.