D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Reynard]

Yes. You do.

Few of the people in this thread want the same 6E. I don't even know what you are talking about.

 

[Reynard]

It will be interesting to see how it pivots. The slow release of 5E has left a lot of room to add in settings books, player option books, etc.. Hard rule resets are not the only place they have to focus player interest. Of course, there might not be anything popular enough within those aspects, but i'm guessing we will find out before 6E.

Traditionally we see a lot of experimentation (some might call it "flailing") before a new edition, which I certainly don't think we are seeing with the post-Core Book 2024 releases. Of course we don't know what 2026 holds but my guess is that CR using 2024 is going to bolster those rules and provide some opportunity for growth.

 

[TiQuinn]

If they started today, we would have it in what, two years at a minimum? They are not going to do that, so… 7-8 years? 3 or 5 seems definitely out

We went from 3e to 3.5 in about 3 to 4 years, and then it was 5 years after that when 4e came out, so we do know they can move quickly when they feel they need to. I'm thinking seven to eight's probably the right time frame, too, with planning to start in about 5 years.

 

[TiQuinn]

It will be interesting to see how it pivots. The slow release of 5E has left a lot of room to add in settings books, player option books, etc.. Hard rule resets are not the only place they have to focus player interest. Of course, there might not be anything popular enough within those aspects, but i'm guessing we will find out before 6E.

I'm thinking that by the time 2030 rolls around, we'll have had 16 years of largely the same system, and people will start itching for new mechanics and something more than just a refresh. So, not due to a lack of success, but more of a need to try something new as an impetus.

 

[Remathilis]

We do all want the same 6e.
Just different level ranges of it.

That's the problem.
Everyone fights to stretch their preferred level range over other fans'.

Not quite. It's not like the people who want AD&D style play only want levels 1-4 and the people who want 4e style play only want levels 15-20. They want fundamentally incompatible styles of play. Part of the Noble Goal of D&D Next was the vision of someone playing a 1e like Dwarf Fighter (champion) and a 4e like dragonborn fighter (battle master) at the same table; and that dream was never going to work because the 1e player sneered at the very existence of the dragonborn and the 4e player didn't feel the battle master went far enough to bridge the gap with wizards.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take the flack from both sides.

 

[payn]

I'm thinking that by the time 2030 rolls around, we'll have had 16 years of largely the same system, and people will start itching for new mechanics and something more than just a refresh. So, not due to a lack of success, but more of a need to try something new as an impetus.

It's possible. I know id still be playing PF1 now if Paizo continued it, but mostly becasue their AP and setting line was so fantastic. Though, im not necessarily a mechanics chaser I still prefer Traveller for sci-fi and enjoy Call of Cthulhu.

So, chicken and egg, do players really get tired of mechanics and want hard resets, or has the tradition taught them to want it?

 

[Reynard]

I'm thinking that by the time 2030 rolls around, we'll have had 16 years of largely the same system, and people will start itching for new mechanics and something more than just a refresh. So, not due to a lack of success, but more of a need to try something new as an impetus.

That is already the case -- hence Shadowdark, Daggerheart and Draw Steel (plus others like Nimble and DC20 I guess).

 

[payn]

That is already the case -- hence Shadowdark, Daggerheart and Draw Steel (plus others like Nimble and DC20 I guess).

Right, good point. The eco-system now is more robust than ever so the pressure for D&D to change is likely lower than its ever been.

 

[Reynard]

Right, good point. The eco-system now is more robust than ever so the pressure for D&D to change is likely lower than its ever been.

Probably, though I do think there is something to the brand power and inertia. Some folks just won't buy or play things that don't say D&D on the cover.

 

[Remathilis]

I think you are underestimating the potential of the sub-class system. The fact that the champion, battlemaster fighter, and Eldritch Knight can be part of the same class while playing so differently is astounding.

Not really. They are all mostly "I attack" classes that occasionally get to do something else cool (use a maneuver, cast a spell). The biggest flaw in subclasses is that they don't go far enough to make most subs feel different than the base class. Exceptions exist, but does a evoker and a abjurer REALLY feel like all the big a difference?

Imaging taking the wizard, but have each sub-class alter the way spell slots work and the way they are recovered. A Harry Potter wizard might require all at-will spells; a1920s CoC one might require ritual sacrifice to recover spell slots; a Vancian Dying Earth wizard would work like a warlock with a few more spell slots, but need to study a specific set of spells (and can't memorize a spell more than once in a single payload). All of this should be doable in a small page count. In the spell lists, use little symbols to marks spell which spells are appropriate to which fantasy genres.

. And how are you going to balance that against one another? Part of having it all under one cover is the ability to mix and match. How are you planning to balance HP like at will magic with Tolkien like "I cannot melt snow" magic?

I'd be willing to sacrifice the whole concepts of adventure modules (that's what the DM is for) for a nice tool-box game. Balance would suffer, but that's fine. I can live with that.

So your willing to accept the system would be broken? Well I can design my own system if making it work isn't a factor.

The goal would be that no two D&D tables would quite be playing the same game system. Every DMs game would be mechanically unique, built to that individual group's preference.

They don't already. You don't need 400 incompatible systems to do that. You need a robust ttrpg scene selling RPGs tailored to specific types of play.