D&D (2024) 6e? Why?

[Tony Vargas]

Not to get into edition wars, but the issue I had with 4E was not with low levels (and I'm an old-school guy). It was higher level play that it just started grinding to a halt and turned me (and my group) off.

Nod. That happened to my old group when we first hit Paragon. Not a halt, litterally, of course, but there's a definite shift at paragon, you get Path abilities to think about, and off-turn actions become much more common. It took a little getting used to.

So it wasn't just that it didn't feel like "traditional" D&D or turning off old school players.

'Old School' to me means the guys who've been playing since back in the day and are really hard-core about it. I'd be one of them if I hadn't played so many other games besides D&D over the years. But there was a huge demographic of folks who played D&D back in the day, and then never touched RPGs again, when they come back, they think "I know this stuff" or "I'll start out simple with a fighter" and when they find out they don't, and it's not, it turns 'em off. Saw it happen more than a few times.
The really hard-core old school had already abandoned WotC over 3.0! The ones that hadn't jumped ship to Arduin Grimoire decades before...

That was part of it, but it was also that those newbies that grasped the game easily at lower levels all seemed to drop out when we started hitting higher levels.

The transition into running 4e was surprisingly easy, and the game remained functional at high level, so you'd get someone showing up for a season or two of encounters, then running a season, then home games would spin off - they'd even go through Epic.

It's not like everyone who tried D&D has loved it, ever, but the immediate rejection, the try it once & never again reaction that I was acustomed to from 1e & 3e (and a few other games, for that matter), and still see in 5e, was just less pronounced in 4e. It was just a more accessible version of the game.

Likewise, I was used to high level campaigns falling appart in the low double-digits, but 4e held up much better than that. I'm still running a campaign that's at 25th, and playing in one that's at 23rd, both intend to go through to 30. The highest I'd ever gotten a campaign to in 1e was 14th (with a standard class, there was one PC who hit 18th, but it was with a custom class that needed very little exp to level), that's also the best I've seen a 3.x campaign do, usually a lot worse.

In addition, there was always that persistent, but hard-to-identify aspect of 4E that killed innovation and creativity.

It's not hard to identify: 4e was just functional out of the box (OK, and a year or so of errata!) and easy to run. The game itself, was innovative (for D&D, which is damning with faint praise, indeed). You could be creative all you wanted: you just weren't forced to in order to keep your game from imploding. You could be creative as a player just be re-skinning choices, you didn't need to rip out the guts of the mechanics and re-wire them just to make something a little off the wall.

OTOH, I noticed, after running 5e at AL for a bit, I got back into the habbit of running in the improvisational style I'd favored back in the day, and it crept right back into my 4e camaign, as well.

That general sort of thing seemed true with a lot of the 'sytle' complaints. People would say "this doesn't 'support' my style!" No, it just doesn't force your style.

 

[Oofta]

Nod. That happened to my old group when we first hit Paragon. Not a halt, litterally, of course, but there's a definite shift at paragon, you get Path abilities to think about, and off-turn actions become much more common. It took a little getting used to.

'Old School' to me means the guys who've been playing since back in the day and are really hard-core about it. I'd be one of them if I hadn't played so many other games besides D&D over the years. But there was a huge demographic of folks who played D&D back in the day, and then never touched RPGs again, when they come back, they think "I know this stuff" or "I'll start out simple with a fighter" and when they find out they don't, and it's not, it turns 'em off. Saw it happen more than a few times.
The really hard-core old school had already abandoned WotC over 3.0! The ones that hadn't jumped ship to Arduin Grimoire decades before...

The transition into running 4e was surprisingly easy, and the game remained functional at high level, so you'd get someone showing up for a season or two of encounters, then running a season, then home games would spin off - they'd even go through Epic.

It's not like everyone who tried D&D has loved it, ever, but the immediate rejection, the try it once & never again reaction that I was acustomed to from 1e & 3e (and a few other games, for that matter), and still see in 5e, was just less pronounced in 4e. It was just a more accessible version of the game.

Likewise, I was used to high level campaigns falling appart in the low double-digits, but 4e held up much better than that. I'm still running a campaign that's at 25th, and playing in one that's at 23rd, both intend to go through to 30. The highest I'd ever gotten a campaign to in 1e was 14th (with a standard class, there was one PC who hit 18th, but it was with a custom class that needed very little exp to level), that's also the best I've seen a 3.x campaign do, usually a lot worse.

It's not hard to identify: 4e was just functional out of the box (OK, and a year or so of errata!) and easy to run. The game itself, was innovative (for D&D, which is damning with faint praise, indeed). You could be creative all you wanted: you just weren't forced to in order to keep your game from imploding. You could be creative as a player just be re-skinning choices, you didn't need to rip out the guts of the mechanics and re-wire them just to make something a little off the wall.

OTOH, I noticed, after running 5e at AL for a bit, I got back into the habbit of running in the improvisational style I'd favored back in the day, and it crept right back into my 4e camaign, as well.

That general sort of thing seemed true with a lot of the 'sytle' complaints. People would say "this doesn't 'support' my style!" No, it just doesn't force your style.

All I can say is that I was a fan of 4E ... for a while. Then I hit the caster that could lock completely lock down the battlefield, modules that compensated for PC abilities by taking away all their toys/abilities (every monster immune to pretty much everything), etc. I've also done 5E up to 20th now, and while 20th level PCs can be annoying, it's just not to the same level. Unlike 3.5 (or earlier) the game holds up okay even at higher levels, as long as you build taking PC abilities into consideration.

As far as the creativity/innovation aspect. Since powers were so distinctly spelled out and we had conditions like "hidden", I think people eventually just stopped trying to do something outside the boxed text. I know people complain about how critical DM rulings are in 5E, but it seems to make the flow of the game better.

But anyway, I don't think it's worth getting into much more edition wars. I'm glad you enjoyed 4E, I just think 5E is a better game for old and new alike. The sales seem to back that up, although there are a great many reasons for the success of the current edition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

All I can say is that I was a fan of 4E ... for a while. Then I hit the caster that could lock completely lock down the battlefield

Yeah, that was 'updated' away fairly quickly...

, modules that compensated for PC abilities by taking away all their toys/abilities (every monster immune to pretty much everything)

doesn't ring a bell, which module was that?

I've also done 5E up to 20th now, and while 20th level PCs can be annoying, it's just not to the same level. Unlike 3.5 (or earlier) the game holds up okay even at higher levels, as long as you build taking PC abilities into consideration.

I'll believe it if I ever get there.
BA does seem like it should help keep things on an even keel, numerically, just like treadmill did (and 3e & earlier very much didn't), but aside from that, it's very much like the other eds that broke down at high level.

As far as the creativity/innovation aspect. Since powers were so distinctly spelled out and we had conditions like "hidden", I think people eventually just stopped trying to do something outside the boxed text. I know people complain about how critical DM rulings are in 5E, but it seems to make the flow of the game better.

Nod. There's different ways to approach a game. If you approach 5e a certain way, it doesn't work. If you approach 4e that same way, it does work just fine, but you could concievably get the effect you describe.

That's the thing I noticed when after playtesting for a while, I started running 5e 'for real.' In "playtest mode," just torture-testing the rules and letting bad things happen when the rules said so, 5e, even the finished product, could be pretty ugly. But, when I reached back to my old AD&D bag of tricks (no, not the one you pull random animals out of), I got 5e games that went swimmingly. When I then used those same techniques in 4e, they also worked nicely - maybe they weren't necessary, but they were still fun, for me (I'm not sure my players noticed or would have appreciated it if they did).

I just think 5E is a better game for old and new alike.

I've played & run them both, including lots of introductory games. The results I've seen have been pretty consistent: 4e was more accessible to genuinely-new players but downright toxic to some old & returning players; 5e is much more acceptable the hard-core, familiar & nostalgic for returning players, and unintuitive (to try to put it nicely) to new/casual players. But, 1e was even more confusing & off-putting to new players, and it was a huge fad in the 80s. So it works out.

The sales seem to back that up, although there are a great many reasons for the success of the current edition.

There were probably many reasons for the market failure of 4e (one of them being a minimum revenue goal for 'success' that 5e hasn't met, either, but, fortunatley, no longer needs to), and for the current stunning come-back of D&D.

None of them have anything, directly, to do with the relative merits of either as a game.

 

[Mercurius]

I ran for Encounters...were problematic at the time.

5e is more acceptable to longtime fans and much more welcoming to returning ones, which creates a more welcoming environment for new/casual players, even though the system itself is harder to grasp and less accessible. It's a critcial 'balance' that 5e has struck, and one that's entirely different from (and probably incompatible with) the usual sense of game 'balance.'

What you say highlights my view that for an edition of D&D to be truly successful, it must appeal to both longtime/returning fans and casual/new fans, as two broad groups. 5E has done a good job with this, despite what you say about it being unintuitive to newbies.

I think also there's an important point here, that many longtime gamers don't understand, what we could call "Expert's Myopia." The appeal of a game for the vast majority of casual fans, including those coming into the hobby, has little to do with rules minutiae, mechanical design, game balance, etc; all of the stuff that diehards like to argue over. It has more to do with "fluffy" elements like presentation, flavor, art, and also just cultural zeitgeist.

Yeah, I'm not sure how it's going to shake out in the long term. 5e is more acceptable than exciting, to the hard core, I think. We have to make our own excitement. But we're used to that.

This is why I think they could design a secondary line of "advanced D&D" books that explore possibilities beyond the core of the game for the hardcore. In fact, if I was in charge, I'd take the following approach:

*Design a "Basic D&D" game in the form of a box set, similar to what someone said above. A simplifiied/stream-lined version of the game that is complete in itself, but can also serve as stepping stone to getting into the full D&D game. I've actually wanted something like this to get my daughters into playing, feeling daunted by the idea of teaching them the full D&D game.

*Start an "AD&D" line that is fully optional and offers any number of fun elements, which can be used as modular options.

The risk is that having three levels of the game--basic, standard, and advanced--could confuse people wanting to get into the game, but I don't think it has to work that way. The Basic box would be a one-off (with the possible exception of further published adventures or PDF conversion guides to the story arcs), and the Advanced line would be secondary and labeled differently, but fully compatible.

To be fair, that approach was very successful from the mid-80s on, and only 'failed' when it was called upon to pull down MMO-like revenue as the minimum bar for success (something even the wild success of 5e hasn't done).

Well, it first failed in the mid-90s with TSR's over-reach. And then again in the latter days of 3.5 with over-saturation. Then again with 4E's failure to please many longtime players.

But I think WotC has stumbled upon a formula that is succeeding beyond all expectations and I wouldn't recommend they veer from it too much, in spite of wishing there was a bit more product. At some point, though, diminishing returns will kick in and they'll have to adjust and adapt. Who knows how this will look.

Also agreed. Essentials & 5e are actually very similar in their goals, 5e is just far enough removed from the controversey of the edition war, and much closer to the form & feel (& dysfucntion) of the classic game. Essentials was openly meant to be evergreen and proved decidious very quickly. 5e has been more measured in presentation, but is a lot more likely to be evergreen.

I personally don't see a lot of dysfunction, but haven't played 5E a huge amount (I played a bit early on, and just joined a game a few months ago). But a portion of your perception of this could have to do with "Expert's Myopia." What you perceive as dysfunction may be because your view is far more granular and detailed than for the vast majority of people. Your expertise makes you lose sight of the fact that what bothers you doesn't bother the majority of people.

 

[Henry]

Because "need" is not objective. Different people have different needs.

Edition wars are basically an Old-West conflict between cattle ranchers and sheep ranchers. They both use the land for similar things, but they're needs are slightly different, and mutually exclusive.

...And the sad thing is, they can’t even have a proper gunfight to resolve it because their stats and combat rules don’t mesh, so they just keep arguing back and forth. ;-)

As long as D&D keeps having “best year evers”, and the “new player acquisition engine stays running”, to recall a phrase from Mike Mearls at a round table, then I don’t see a 6e or 5e on the horizon for years at least.

 

[Ratskinner]

I gotta think the only relevant "need" for a new edition will be if sales start to flag, and I see no signs of that. WotC seems to be shepherding that part of this edition carefully. Lessons learned, I guess. At some point, sure. Even at this slow and careful release schedule, cruft will eventually build up. Maybe a round of personnel changes will accelerate it at some point, but who knows.

I don't see the new Pathfinder edition as being a real competitor, either. I don't think its a bad thing or anything, but I don't think its going to find a new audience, or splinter the 5e audience like Pathfinder 1 did to the 3e audience.

I suppose there is the theoretical possibility that the tabletop rpg audience's desires will radically shift, or some new tech will render D&D style rules irrelevant...but I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one. I think I'd be one to be in that vanguard...but I have been for near 20 years now. If stuff like the Apocalypse Engine and other "Indie" designs haven't done it...I'm not sure what would. (Not that that's going to keep me from trying all sorts of "weird" rpg games, mind you.)

IMO.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, that was 'updated' away fairly quickly... doesn't ring a bell, which module was that?

I'll believe it if I ever get there.
BA does seem like it should help keep things on an even keel, numerically, just like treadmill did (and 3e & earlier very much didn't), but aside from that, it's very much like the other eds that broke down at high level.

Nod. There's different ways to approach a game. If you approach 5e a certain way, it doesn't work. If you approach 4e that same way, it does work just fine, but you could concievably get the effect you describe.

That's the thing I noticed when after playtesting for a while, I started running 5e 'for real.' In "playtest mode," just torture-testing the rules and letting bad things happen when the rules said so, 5e, even the finished product, could be pretty ugly. But, when I reached back to my old AD&D bag of tricks (no, not the one you pull random animals out of), I got 5e games that went swimmingly. When I then used those same techniques in 4e, they also worked nicely - maybe they weren't necessary, but they were still fun, for me (I'm not sure my players noticed or would have appreciated it if they did).


I've played & run them both, including lots of introductory games. The results I've seen have been pretty consistent: 4e was more accessible to genuinely-new players but downright toxic to some old & returning players; 5e is much more acceptable the hard-core, familiar & nostalgic for returning players, and unintuitive (to try to put it nicely) to new/casual players. But, 1e was even more confusing & off-putting to new players, and it was a huge fad in the 80s. So it works out.

There were probably many reasons for the market failure of 4e (one of them being a minimum revenue goal for 'success' that 5e hasn't met, either, but, fortunatley, no longer needs to), and for the current stunning come-back of D&D.

None of them have anything, directly, to do with the relative merits of either as a game.

The mods I was referring to were living campaign specific. But I also had PC wizards shut down combats even after the errata, so not sure what you're talking about. Still somewhat possible in 5E at a high enough level of course.

As far as newbies, I've started up a couple of groups now, the newbies don't have a problem with 5E.

But I don't know. They were different games. While 4E had it's merits, every character had supernatural abilities that were spelled out in detail which seemed to limit thinking outside the box. Monsters were just a pile of stats with no flavor or description. I remember asking our DM for one of my first games what the monster was and he just shrugged and could give me no description because there was none. By trying to make everyone have similar power levels, everyone became generic.

All I can say is that as time went on I saw more and more people that were going to give up on 4E and go on to something else. New people and old just kind of burned out on it after a while with only a small minority remaining enthusiastic until the end. You seem to be one of those minority that stuck with it and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[JediSoth]

Personally, I have no desire for a sixth edition of D&D at this time. I'm happy with the game the way it is and its current pace of development. 5E currently hits a sweet spot for me.

In contrast, I was ready for a new edition when 4E was announced. Likewise, I was excited for 3E when it was announced. I met 5E with great skepticism because I was never happy with 4E, so I did not have high hopes that another edition would be any better for me, my group, and our play style. In fact, I was looking for an alternative fantasy RPG to scratch that itch when I decided to try 5E using the free Basic rules they released. I was surprised and thrilled to find that I LIKED it, and even happier when my group all decided they liked it enough to play it again.

There's still a lot I want to do with 5E. It will be years before I'm finished with it (at the pace we game).

 

[Jester David]

It's funny. Someone mentioned the success of WotC's 5e release in the long term. But we're kinda approaching "the long term" already.
By this point in 3e's lifespan, we'd had 3.5 for a year. And by this point in 4e... we had 5e.

Ten years seems to be the record. Pathfinder is going to *just* hit it, and only by overlapping with Pathfinder 2. It'll be interesting to see if 5e can keep going past 2024 in decent shape.

With all the other systems out there that I wish I had to try, if I get tired of 5e, I would likely just move to a completely new system. I don't think a new edition would bring me back. That's how it was with 1e for me. I was heavily into 1e and then branched out into other other systems: Gama World, Star Frontiers, Warhammer, etc. When 2e came out, it wasn't compelling enough for me to buy a whole new set of books.

Of course, now I have so little time to play that it will take a longer time for me to tire of 5e and I already have more material than I have time to go through it. There would be no reason for me to buy a whole new edition.

But who knows, maybe when I retire in 15-20 years, I'll have come full circle back to D&D and ready to become excited over a new edition again.

Plus, after taking a break from 5e, you might also come back.
Which is the dream for WotC. The first wave of people burn out after 2-4 years but new players keep coming. By the time the second wave is burning out, the first wave is coming back. Which creates a sustainable long term audience not built entirely on growth.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A slower release schedule certainly is extending the lifespan of 5e. Hard to believe it's been 6 years now since the first playtest came out. And from what I can tell, 5e is still going strong and isn't wavering or starting to decline. AD&D was out from 79 (when all 3 books were available) to 1989. Will 5e make it to 2024, 10 years after official release? Certainly looks like it. We'd typically hear talk about 6e 2 years before official release, so when we hear about that, that will give us a clue.

Kind of odd to think that in this day and age where turnover is faster for pretty much everything (instant information sharing), that 5e could be the longest running edition. AD&D is my favorite edition, but I'd have to say if that happens, then 5e would have to be considered the best edition of D&D from a more objective standpoint. It seems like yesterday when we were playing playtest material in 2012. Another 6 years from now doesn't seem that far away. Heck, The Big Lebowski came out 20 years ago....