D&D General 6e guesses

[TwoSix]

Sure you are right, its more that I fear that the "its implemented this way" could in the end really influence 6E which I would find a bit sad. I had not thought about that before, so the argument was a bit of a shock.


Of course being optimistic about 6e (that its a completely new innovative system) is better than just fearing the worst.

Oh, for sure. I have concerns that a new edition will be built specifically to be tailored to an online/subscription based model, with well-defined, chunky game pieces (all classes and subclasses, not a lot of feats and spell lists) with relatively little granularity, designed for a play model where a table blasts through the new module every 3-6 months and then switches to a new module to play the new "Season of Roblox" subclasses.

I only have some concerns because I think a lot of those ideas are actually pretty good, but I like shorter games with high character turnover.

 

[payn]

Sure, but I'm assuming you don't also only play cribbage to the exclusion of other games. There are an awful lot of games that are variations of the "Let's play a card game with a 52-card poker deck" theme, and the existence of one doesn't invalidate the others.

And no one is questioning the ability of other game makers to innovate; the difference is that no one else can innovate with the scope and impact of a new D&D release.

And crucially, it's not like 5e would suddenly go away with the release of a non-backwards compatible 6e; it will continue to exist and maintain a fanbase just like every other D&D edition has.

See, its funny you say that. The folks most invested in a hatchet job on 5E are ones that prefer a former edition despite that edition still existing.

 

[Scribe]

See, its funny you say that. The folks most invested in a hatchet job on 5E are ones that prefer a former edition despite that edition still existing.

Or have existing modern options.

People are far too tied up with the name "D&D".

 

[Zardnaar]

Okay. Still, 11 years when 1e lasted all of....13 years IF you decide that "there's literally only a monster manual, nothing else" counts as the game having launched. (For my part, I put 1e's launch at 1978, because at that point you had the rules to actually PLAY the game, even if you didn't have the DMG to tell GMs how to run it.)

I don't think it's remotely valid or accurate to describe 2nd edition as having "all-but-die[d] shortly thereafter".

Yeah 2E is ip there for longevity. 11 years vs 12ish 1E.

You used OD&D iirc with 1E early on.

Basic line lasted 17byears in pony officially 19. But with two or 3 revisions. BECMI lasted 11/13 of that.

 

[TwoSix]

See, its funny you say that. The folks most invested in a hatchet job on 5E are ones that prefer a former edition despite that edition still existing.

Hey, I like 5e. It's just been 12 years, that's way too long for any one game to stay interesting.

It's not a diminishment of 5e for me to feel it's reached its natural endpoint. RPG lines need energy, they aren't meant to be evergreen like chess.

 

[Zardnaar]

Or have existing modern options.

People are far too tied up with the name "D&D".

Na they want their edition to be right one so they can find players.

Its basically jealousy.

Ive been hearing about how bad D&D is since 1994. I started playing 1993.

People like D&D for its D&Disms.

 

[payn]

Hey, I like 5e. It's just been 12 years, that's way too long for any one game to stay interesting.

It's not a diminishment of 5e for me to feel it's reached its natural endpoint. RPG lines need energy, they aren't meant to be evergreen like chess.

Depends on the user. I still play 3E/PF1 to this day. I dont buy the argument RPGs cant be evergreen. D&D just hasnt done it yet.

 

[Tigris]

Elegant is just more (ooh! a chance to use my new phrase!) sparkle talk. Dressing your opinion on what the game should be as "elegant" doesn't change that it's just your preference.

Maybe you look up first a bit on gamedesign before you insult me just because you dont know what elegance in gamedesign means? I know its trendy in RPGs to not understand gamedesign, but some people come from other genres of games like me and do.

Good news is there are plenty of new games being released all the time.

No. New version of old games are released all the way. Like shadowdark, and pathfinder etc. which in boardgames would not even count as new games and would be disqualified from competitions for prices for being too much of what is there.

So do we need more innovation or more D&D?

Both. We need new versions of D&D

Again, why do you have to wait for D&D to get something new? Why would WOTC, who's target is to go after the biggest market possible which includes a significant percentage of casual players, make drastic changes if what they've got sells? Innovative is not automatically good nor does it necessarily have mass appeal.

Because WotC has money to hire good gamedesigners, and good gamedesigners do want to innovate. Also because maybe at some point some marketing person thinks that something else might sell even more.

Innovation is always good, it brings new things so more variety. We dont need old things because they already exist.

Which supports my position that what they have works and there's no demand for dramatic changes. Meanwhile finding other games is easier than ever, especially if you can play online. But that's not a D&D problem. You're banging the drum of "D&D needs to change" but the reason I see is "Because it's not the game I personally want to play".

"Other games" are mostly D&D clones or narrative games. D&D needs to change because it could be much better than it is, and because new is always better, since the old still exist.

D&D wants new target audiences, old people dont bring growth in the end, and for new target audiences you normally need change. Sure maybe another stranger things/critical role happens, but you cant hope for that and must do your own plans.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hey, I like 5e. It's just been 12 years, that's way too long for any one game to stay interesting.

It's not a diminishment of 5e for me to feel it's reached its natural endpoint. RPG lines need energy, they aren't meant to be evergreen like chess.

This isn't a marriage, though. You are allowed to move on if it's not working for you any longer, especially since, with all the fantasy games out there, the style of play you're looking for is almost certainly available in multiple game lines today.

 

[TwoSix]

]

Depends on the user. I still play 3E/PF1 to this day. I dont buy the argument RPGs cant be evergreen. D&D just hasnt done it yet.

If you're still playing 3e/PF1, how is it NOT evergreen?