D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Zardnaar]

I gave it a look during the OGL fiasco, but yeah I'm not a fan.

Same. Played the playtest. Kinda fun but good luck running it.

Almost nostalgic for 3.5 or early PF1. May be reading their adventures.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Who they listened to is the problem.

General forum bitching (mistake number 1) and the RPGA (mistake number 2).

Most players don't post on forums or play in organized play.

They didn't do an open playtest.

You're the one aways complaining about being unable to find 4E games. There's a reason for that. They didn't listen. They did for 5E biggest selling edition ever. You'll probably find 5E games in 30 years time.

So instead....they listened to....people who heard about the "D&D Next" playtest....on forums...?

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

 

[Zardnaar]

So instead....they listened to....people who heard about the "D&D Next" playtest....on forums...?

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

250k responses, PF1 iirc had 50k.

The playtest was also advertised. You may have heard about on forums but you don't know how many did. Most successful D&D ever blew up the market by about 10.

Forums they magnify the negative just like Facebook, Twitter etc. You heard about the negative about 3.5 a lot. But there used to be lots of posts about fixing it. You didn't see the casuals.

I kinda did 2002/3 local university. My group was the only one plugged into the online meta. Most groups had core and maybe 1-2 books not 10+ the forums kinda assumed.

I also suspect most of the builds that broke 3.5 were theoretical. It explains a lot with 4E death and Pathfinder soldiering on for a decade.

Then as now most player base are casuals. I suspect a lot of games ended around level 7 as well. I suspect most groups wouldn't have seen xyz 5/prc1/prc2/prc3.
So 4E fixed stuff most people didn't care or know about. And broke the game just in a different way and had its own issues.

 

[Lanefan]

For its virtues and faults, 4e was near 20 years ago. Thats hilariously long ago.

Reading this makes me feel far too old, given my current campaign started about 4 months before 4e was released.

It would seem to me, that the value would be found in looking at the current edition, and seeing what could be changed to make it more palatable, since 'just make 4e' is a nonstarter to likely the vast majority of us.

Thing is, in order to see what might be changed in current 5e to make it more palatable we first need to look at the prior editions - all of 'em - to see what made them unpalatable and thus avoid blundering back into those same errors. At the same time, looking at all the prior editions might yield some good ideas, since lost, that are worth reviving.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean so did 1e /Bx and now those has clones and offshoots. Even DCC which is 3e-like has somehow been assimilated into the OSR space.

To the bolded: that's a connection I have a hard time seeing no matter how hard I squint.

DCCRPG is, if anything, somewhere between a 1e-adjacent and a 1e-parody.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, after how long?

3, 3.5, PF1, that's quite a run.

Sure, but IMO much more to the point, they gave a specific breakdown of exactly why they did so--and it is pretty much the same criticisms that have been brought up over and over and over again for decades. The system is fundamentally unbalanced in a way that makes it difficult to design anything for. Any fix that would actually fix the problem necessarily means stripping out something fundamental--at which point, you're already reworking the system to begin with.

And it's not like there weren't attempts to preserve PF1e. Porphyra was just one of them, I'm pretty sure there were others--none flowered, because as much as there were many cool things in and about PF1e and 3.5e, the system's flaws are legion, notorious, and sufficiently off-putting that most folks have left it behind. That doesn't mean people who still love it are bad for doing so, any more than people loving 2e or 1e are bad for still doing so. But there are understandable, well-justified reasons why people have moved on to pastures new.

And I don't deny, 3rd edition got quite a run! Despite its serious, frequently debilitating mechanical issues, it truly captured an entire generation of fans and didn't let go for a decade and a half. Even PF1e held on for a decent while after 5e hit. Not a long time--probably a couple years--but long enough.

 

[Minigiant]

250k responses, PF1 iirc had 50k.

The playtest was also advertised. You may have heard about on forums but you don't know how many did. Most successful D&D ever blew up the market by about 10.

Forums they magnify the negative just like Facebook, Twitter etc. You heard about the negative about 3.5 a lot. But there used to be lots of posts about fixing it. You didn't see the casuals.

I kinda did 2002/3 local university. My group was the only one plugged into the online meta. Most groups had core and maybe 1-2 books not 10+ the forums kinda assumed.

I also suspect most of the builds that broke 3.5 were theoretical. It explains a lot with 4E death and Pathfinder soldiering on for a decade.

Then as now most player base are casuals. I suspect a lot of games ended around level 7 as well. I suspect most groups wouldn't have seen xyz 5/prc1/prc2/prc3.
So 4E fixed stuff most people didn't care or know about. And broke the game just in a different way and had its own issues.

Not casual.

New

3e was in addition that when you're new to the game you really don't know how to abuse it. So when you're new to the game you really didn't run into the balance problems or the optimization problems, or the lack of options issues.

But once you get experience in the game and you are a veteran you got stifled by the rules and were forced to buy or Homebrew more product in order to get the sort of balance and options that you desired.

The same thing for 5e. 5e popularity is mostly built off of new fresh players. However as baby came veterans and gain experience with the game there was nothing but grumbling and desire for new material.

Too many games lean too hard to the new player experience or too hard to the veteran fan experience.

The number one thing that I would do with a sixth edition is make friendly to new fans, veteran players, and people experienced with it.

Diversity.
Embrace the diversity.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure, but IMO much more to the point, they gave a specific breakdown of exactly why they did so--and it is pretty much the same criticisms that have been brought up over and over and over again for decades. The system is fundamentally unbalanced in a way that makes it difficult to design anything for. Any fix that would actually fix the problem necessarily means stripping out something fundamental--at which point, you're already reworking the system to begin with.

And it's not like there weren't attempts to preserve PF1e. Porphyra was just one of them, I'm pretty sure there were others--none flowered, because as much as there were many cool things in and about PF1e and 3.5e, the system's flaws are legion, notorious, and sufficiently off-putting that most folks have left it behind. That doesn't mean people who still love it are bad for doing so, any more than people loving 2e or 1e are bad for still doing so. But there are understandable, well-justified reasons why people have moved on to pastures new.

And I don't deny, 3rd edition got quite a run! Despite its serious, frequently debilitating mechanical issues, it truly captured an entire generation of fans and didn't let go for a decade and a half. Even PF1e held on for a decent while after 5e hit. Not a long time--probably a couple years--but long enough.

Ran into a Pathfinder group on Saturday. Bought Kinfnaker at the store.

They had a 4E phb on the shelf as well.

Mist of the good PF1 books and 2E.

Need to have a decent dig through everything. Went to buy model glue $200 later....

Just adding the 4E engine to 3.5 would do wonders. Read a bit of 3.5 material recently. Its really good except for the system itself when you read the stat blocks. Good adventures, FR, world building , things like that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ran into a Pathfinder group on Saturday. Bought Kinfnaker at the store.

They had a 4E phb on the shelf as well.

Mist of the good PF1 books and 2E.

Need to have a decent dig through everything. Went to buy model glue $200 later....

Just adding the 4E engine to 3.5 would do wonders. Read a bit of 3.5 material recently. Its really good except for the system itself when you read the stat blocks. Good adventures, FR, world building , things like that.

So....4e mechanics, but with better presentation?

I feel like you've dismissed this exact same proposal multiple times before...so it's strange to see you so confidently making it now.

 

[Zardnaar]

So....4e mechanics, but with better presentation?

I feel like you've dismissed this exact same proposal multiple times before...so it's strange to see you so confidently making it now.

Only the basic engine not the class, power, roles design.

Could also be tweaked 5E.

4E big problem was playstyle. They used its engine in SWSE.

My final 3.5 had a ban list and some 2E rules.