D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Lanefan]

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.

Early in the process one of the questions I specifically asked was whether I'd be able to play characters from different previous editions side-by-side in 5e (then called 'Next') and was told that this was indeed the hope.

And then....... ----- poof -----

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Even at the lowest levels the differences in rules-style-tone-intent between a 1e-like game and a 4e-5e-like game are big enough that they likely can't be reconciled under one system.

And in most aspects those differences only get wider as levels advance.

 

[Zardnaar]

Early in the process one of the questions I specifically asked was whether I'd be able to play characters from different previous editions side-by-side in 5e (then called 'Next') and was told that this was indeed the hope.

And then....... ----- poof -----

Not cagiebess. Hope. They don't explicitly promise. Also did you hear what you wanted to hear?

 

[Reynard]

Even at the lowest levels the differences in rules-style-tone-intent between a 1e-like game and a 4e-5e-like game are big enough that they likely can't be reconciled under one system.

And in most aspects those differences only get wider as levels advance.

Yeah, it seems very strange to me that some people think OSR=low level and that's the defining feature.

 

[Scribe]

Even at the lowest levels the differences in rules-style-tone-intent between a 1e-like game and a 4e-5e-like game are big enough that they likely can't be reconciled under one system.

And in most aspects those differences only get wider as levels advance.

Yeah, I accept that, but what I dont accept currently is that it has to be that way.

Bring early 5e down a bit, and let there be a bigger ramp and then SUPPORT that ramp at the upper end with actual adventure support to reflect the 'end game'.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, it seems very strange to me that some people think OSR=low level and that's the defining feature.

Almost all the popular modules were level 1-8.
The monsters topped out around then as well. Balors had 8+8 HD.

Excepton was demon web pits. The epic levels were essentially 10-14 though.

B/X only went to 14.

Level 20 as default wasn't until 2E.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, it seems very strange to me that some people think OSR=low level and that's the defining feature.

I'm not suggesting its the defining feature, but if I look around (and I have) at a whole bunch of adventures, modules, whatever, the vast majority are not at the upper end of the level range.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

I've been playing D&D since 1981 and I love 5E.

I played BEC and 1E extensively and loved those too, played 2E quite a bit and thought it was ok, not as good as 1E but still great. Played 3E some, it was ok but a definite downgrade. We tried 4E for one adventure and absolutely hated it and 4E drove us back to 1E swearing off any newer versions. We kept on playing 1E in our group and by 2016 had lots of turnover new players joining, old ones leaving and had some younger players not even born when 1E was published. We saw no point in ever moving to another version and if you asked me in 2015 what I would be playing in 2025 I would have told you 1E AD&D.

We did not participate in the original 5E playtest and we kept playing 1E until around 2016 when some of the younger players suggested trying 5E (they were playing 1E at the time and enjoying it). At their urging, I reluctantly went out and purchased the Phandelver starter set and gave it a try. We loved it, switched immediately to 5E, bought some new books and never looked back.

Additionally, I personally liked 5E so much I actively started looking for additional gaming groups and looking for groups online.

I played every version of D&D since 1981 and played 1E extensively right up until we switched and I think 5E is substantially better than all those other iterations, much better than some of them. I am well versed enough that I could DM a Basic, Expert, 1E or 2E game immediately, right now, with no brush up at all and I have the books to do it. I think I could manage a 3E game with a little study. I would not waste my time with 4E. I "barely pay attention to those old games" because 5E is just a better game in my opinion, both as a player and as a DM. Its just like I barely play Checkers, War or Gin any more, but I play Chess, Hearts and Pinochle quite a bit ... those games are just better and more fun for me, so why play the others?

 

[Zardnaar]

I've been playing D&D since 1981 and I love 5E.

I played BEC and 1E extensively and loved those too, played 2E quite a bit and thought it was ok, not as good as 1E but still great. Played 3E some, it was ok but a definite downgrade. We tried 4E for one adventure and absolutely hated it and 4E drove us back to 1E swearing off any newer versions. We kept on playing 1E in our group and by 2016 had lots of turnover new players joining, old ones leaving and had some younger players not even born when 1E was published. We saw no point in ever moving to another version and if you asked me in 2015 what I would be playing in 2025 I would have told you 1E AD&D.

We did not participate in the original 5E playtest and we kept playing 1E until around 2016 when some of the younger players suggested trying 5E (they were playing 1E at the time and enjoying it). At their urging, I reluctantly went out and purchased the Phandelver starter set and gave it a try. We loved it, switched immediately to 5E, bought some new books and never looked back.

Additionally, I personally liked 5E so much I actively started looking for additional gaming groups and looking for groups online.

I played every version of D&D since 1981 and played 1E extensively right up until we switched and I think 5E is substantially better than all those other iterations, much better than some of them. I am well versed enough that I could DM a Basic, Expert, 1E or 2E game immediately, right now, with no brush up at all and I have the books to do it. I think I could manage a 3E game with a little study. I would not waste my time with 4E. I "barely pay attention to those old games" because 5E is just a better game in my opinion, both as a player and as a DM. Its just like I barely play Checkers, War or Gin any more, but I play Chess, Hearts and Pinochle quite a bit ... those games are just better and more fun for me, so why play the others?

I want unified ability scores and probably a engine to power D&D.
. B/X. 5E and household 1.5 (2E with 1E add ons) are about the best it gets.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, it seems very strange to me that some people think OSR=low level and that's the defining feature.

Less low level and more low power and low customization.

OSR is heavily player skill over character skill and you only get that if characters start with low power, gain power slowly, and have little ability to enhance strength nor cover weaknesses.

OSR typically does that by killing or retiring PCs before they get to high levels.