D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Parmandur]

Not really, no. Other than using odd numbered dice sets, its very pre-D20.

Mathematically, there is a lot of OGL tech in place. The vibe is old school, but the rules have a 3E base and build new takes that are actually more innovative than they are retro, with the aim of relocating pulp literature more than older edition gameplay.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Ah you are right, my apologies. That is quite mad to give the troll multiple full turns.
That's much too much. I have seen a friend try run a free-form combat where it doesn't necessarily follow the structure completely but wwhat ou're describing takes the cake. Did the table not question the GM during or after?

We had the conversation before actually. It was an experiment. Our GM had heard that this style of boss monster works well. It did not. But perhaps it was just a poor fit for this particular combat as well.

 

[Minigiant]

It's basically this. You can make a thousand D&D clones with different names and have each one play differently from D&D and people will love them all, but make one of those clones the "official" D&D game and people will cry bloody murder about the changes to the mechanics, tone, feel, and especially the lore.

Which is the crux of the matter. 6e could be the best RPG ever designed, but by having the name D&D it's going to bring the baggage of 50 years and five wildly different editions with it.

5e's success and lack of initial criticism by it's fans was do that half of the customer base had it as their first edition. And a noticeable amount of the "experienced" fans for laps fans who barely pay attention to the old games they used to play so they can little in their memory to compare it with.

6e is not going to be able to repeat that.

 

[Zardnaar]

5e's success and lack of initial criticism by it's fans was do that half of the customer base had it as their first edition. And a noticeable amount of the "experienced" fans for laps fans who barely pay attention to the old games they used to play so they can little in their memory to compare it with.

6e is not going to be able to repeat that.

More than half more like 75-90%.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, WotC did just that in the D&D Next process, went over every prior edition woth a fine tooth comb.

Well, then, I have to seriously question the quality of the comb they were using.

All I remember from the Next process was an initial promise of being able to play in the style of (or, if read differently, even compatible with!) any prior edition - the whole "modularity" piece - which then went up in smoke as the playtest process went along.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, then, I have to seriously question the quality of the comb they were using.

All I remember from the Next process was an initial promise of being able to play in the style of (or, if read differently, even compatible with!) any prior edition - the whole "modularity" piece - which then went up in smoke as the playtest process went along.

Those rules were in the 1st DMG.

People thought they would get total conversion mods and tgat was never promised.

What they went was you coukd select different types of complex classes inspired by previous editions.

Some people literally thought they were going to do a 1E fighter, 4E fighter etc.

What they did was things like flanking, changing the time for short or long rests things like that.

 

[Lanefan]

As this point there are too many versions of D&D to make the fanbase settle for one official version.

I still maintain, however, that it's possible to get the fanbase to settle for two official versions: very broadly a 1-2e-like (more gritty, harder, war, more sim-based, more detailed) and a 4-5e like (less gritty, easier, sport, more game-based, streamlined).

 

[Scribe]

I still maintain, however, that it's possible to get the fanbase to settle for two official versions: very broadly a 1-2e-like (more gritty, harder, war, more sim-based, more detailed) and a 4-5e like (less gritty, easier, sport, more game-based, streamlined).

I think you can do it in one honestly.

Just look at the numbers dropped around most often. Most campaigns end at 7 for example, most adventures start low level. As far as self published the vast majority of old content or OSR content is low levels.

 

[Zardnaar]

I still maintain, however, that it's possible to get the fanbase to settle for two official versions: very broadly a 1-2e-like (more gritty, harder, war, more sim-based, more detailed) and a 4-5e like (less gritty, easier, sport, more game-based, streamlined).

Not worth doing. Stripped down 5E 2914 was your simple version.

If I was doing 6E vs a 5E revision I woukd be asking the simple vs complex divide and provide examples/explain what you mean.

By then its 15-20 years since 5.0 landed and close to 20 since 5.0 playtest.


.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the era of monthly adventure material is over, sadly. Though, id love to see a monthly adventure module from WotC for a 6E in which it was a complete adventure with lite links to the next so they can be chained into a campaign like APs. Even if it was digital only (not going to happen with WotC.) id be a-ok with that.

WotC could still do this and without a whole lot of work on their part. All they need to do is track what's on D&DBeyond and each month find a well-written interesting module. Then, make an offer to that module's author of X-amount of money to sell the rights to that module to WotC, who then repackage it and make it 'official'.

I can't see a downside to this approach, but can see lots of potential benefits.