A difficult question

[Warbringer]

I want it to address the key failings of 3.5 and the subsequent failures of 4 Ed


Specically...

3.5 out of game planning for spell effects
3/3.5 desire of nova at the sacrifice of non vancian characters
3x atrocities of dm prep
4 Ed obsession of balance, that is really making fighter equal with out sacrificing hit points ( sorry . But this is avoided in every post I read )
4 Ed clearer rules for between encounters
4 Ed flavor sacrifice for balance ... Yes I will get hung for this


I own every book from 1st on that was official ... And I've created house rules, excel, HTML, iOS riles since ... I don't do this professionally as I make way too much telling companies how to really behave

They key, let players be who the characters are Nd let the dm have the world s/he wants.... Sorry but dm put x 10 into a campaign what players do... And without them there no d&d experience

 

[Steely_Dan]

I thought about this a bit, to try to give an honest answer (rather than deluding myself into thinking I'm more inclusive than my feelings really are).

It's important to me 5e that it supports the majority of D&D players from past editions.

It's not important to me that it supports components that were exclusive to either 3e or 4e at the expense of supporting multi-edition standards. I don't think there is usually going to be a need to choose, because of modularity.

In general, I think that 95% of players (and a somewhat smaller majority of DMs) are going to get basically what they want enough to be interested in switching, and that rarely are sacrifices going to need to be made.

Specifics:

• I'm not willing to sacrifice the Planescape/Spelljammer unified cosmology as an officially supported and fleshed out option that include relevant rules for using it in all the standard campaign settings to which it was originally connected with (Everything in 2e).
• I am willing to sacrifice that cosmology as a default option.
• I'm not willing to accept 4e setting displacing previous edition setting (including presentation of core subraces and classes).
• I am willing to grudgingly sacrifice my "purist" desires to allow core modular inclusion of some innovations I don't like (such as 4e added races), because others do want those.
• I am not willing to sacrifice what I consider distinctive features of D&D (traditional races, classes, alignments, Vancian casting, etc) to make it what I objectively confess might be a better game. I want the best D&D, because there will, IMO, always be better games out there than D&D, but there shouldn't be better D&D out there than D&D.
• I am willing to sacrifice pages of the books to rules I don't need or want to make happy people who do want them.
• I am not willing to sacrifice what I feel is the "essence" of pre-3e D&D for a wider audience.
• I am willing to accept support for some of that essence relegated to modules.

All those considerations aside, I honestly don't care if the game continues to publish new product after establishing the basic material that I want (which includes core, old-school campaign settings, rules for planes, deities, psionics, oriental adventures, and mass combat).

I don't believe the hobby will collapse if D&D folds. As long as I have friends willing to try this "role-playing thing," I don't care about the popularity of the hobby.

Dig you.

Baffles me that people want D&D to be another game, there are so many games out there, we're spoiled for choice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In regards to what a given person wants out of 5E, is it more important that 5E delivers the D&D you want or that it delivers everyone else playing the D&D you want?

I think the most important thing is that it deliver, not the details that people scream about wanting, but, rather, that it deliver a strong enough system that it can handle what many different people want without falling apart. Not for altruistic reasons, either. I want to be able to find games that I'll enjoy playing in, and D&D games have always been easy to find. If 5e is a robust system, I'll be able to play the sort of character I like, the way I like, with quite a range of groups without their style ruining that character, or my character ruining their campaign.

If it's a delicate, tense, or outright imbalanced or un-playable system, OTOH, I won't be able to do that. That's D&D's appeal to me, at the moment: it's easy to find games, and they can be enjoyable enough with any reasonably good-natured DM. There are other systems I'd like to play, too, but they'd be harder to find - most likely, I'd have to run them myself. If the GM running them is any good, they'd be harder to find an open spot in, too. If 5e is crap, it'll /still/ be easy to find D&D games - I'm sure there'll be some ongoing organized play, for instance - it'll just be harder to find good games, and harder still to find good ones that accommodate a given style of play or even a given character concept. If it becomes hard enough, there's no reason not to just look for a different game that does deliver what you want consistently.

To go further, if 5E appeals to you, is it ok if it doesn't appeal to others and a(not necessarily the current) schism in the community continues?

It's OK if others don't like it - there's always personal preference - but it's not OK if there's 'only one right way to play' (for instance, if you need to have X rounds per day or you're just doing it wrong), or if the game's mechanics focus too much on rewarding one style or punishing another.

How much are you willing to sacrifice, or are you willing to sacrifice at all, getting what you want for the sake of the game appealing to most everybody?

I'm willing to 'sacrifice' in the sense of putting up with bits I don't like, personally, as a matter of taste. Like Psionics. I've always despised them, they have no place in a fantasy game, but, I don't need D&D to purge psionics from the game - just to present them in a balanced fashion, so those who insist on playing them don't ruin the game in a fundamental sense, even as they ruin it's fantasy pedigree, and so those who are looking for the strongest class don't always play psionicists. What I'm less willing to compromise on is game balance. Imbalances 'force' the game to be played a certain way, and effectively remove a lot of options from play as they become non-viable compared to the optimal ones.


tl;dr: I want to be able to easily find a D&D game I can enjoy, since I don't expect it to be custom-made for me, that means I want 5e in it's 'default' mode (whatever that may be, core or 'anything goes' or some sort of 'official' organized play ruleset) to allow all characters and most styles to be played without issues.

 

[Mercule]

I'm selfish. I want the game to fit me ideally and fit enough others sufficiently that I can find players.

Now, on my list of concerns is the health of the TTRPG industry. I definitely want that to happen. Realistically, though, it's somewhat further down my list than my own personal entertainment.

 

[Mercule]

Noone seems to be willing to acknowledge that "unite the fanbase" means squish Pathfinder, 4e et al so that everyone is playing D&D next. Anyway....

I wouldn't say that I'm unwilling to acknowledge it. I more find it so glaringly obvious that it does not warrant mention. It's no more newsworthy than the fact that they will be charging for their product.

2e replaced 1e. 3e replaced 2e. 4e and Pathfinder ganged up and replaced 3e. 5e will replace 4e and may or may not replace Pathfinder, though I'd expect WotC to hope so. I played 1e and though 2e changed too much, so I continued with 1e and cribbed what I could from 2e. I certainly didn't get mad at TSR for "abandoning" me. Eventually, I did get over my issues with 2e and played all the subsequent editions.

It turns out neither 3e or 4e were "for me". I can't imagine being angry with WotC over it, though. Mock them, maybe, but it's not like the game rules are software that won't run on a new operating system.

From a selfish perspective, I don't play Pathfinder, 3e, or 4e. I actively want 5e to sink all those games and steal their players. Why? More people to subsidize the products I want to buy. Pretty simple, really. I don't want those people to lose out on having fun, though. I want 5e to be fun for them, also. I'm just not going to shed any more tears for them than I'd expect the 4e fan to shed for me over AD&D, if it doesn't. Those games still work fine.

 

[Emerikol]

My only rule would be - is the game better than my other options? One of which is spend the effort to write it myself. Thats a lot of work though so it could easily be good enough especially if only minor houserules are needed.

Unlike what a lot of people think, I am not a devoted lover of 3e or Pathfinder. I just intensely dislike 4e.

I have no problem with others though who enjoy different styles enjoying 5e in a 4e way as long as I can enjoy it in my way. I probably don't want the 4e people at my table but there are many tables in this world besides mine. What happens there doesn't bother me a bit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have no problem with others though who enjoy different styles enjoying 5e in a 4e way as long as I can enjoy it in my way. I probably don't want the 4e people at my table but there are many tables in this world besides mine. What happens there doesn't bother me a bit.

Except for the arbitrary mention of 5e, that's prettymuch the status quo.

You should have no problem with others who enjoy different styles enjoying 4e, as long as you can enjoy Pathfinder (or your other retro-clone of choice) in your way. You probably don't want the 4e people at your table but there are many tables in this world besides it. Right?


Currently, everyone's getting new content custom-made for them. The grognards are getting a slew of retro-clones, the 3.5 set is carrying Pathfinder to glory, and the 4e fans have what's left of 4e when Essentials was done screwing it up (which, actually, by HotFW, was starting to look pretty decent again).

Only 4e fans are going to see that change. If a classic D&Der doesn't find 5e classic for him, well, there are plenty of retro-clones. If the 3.5 fan doesn't find 5e 3.5-enough for him, there's Pathfinder. If the 4e fan doesn't care for 5e, too bad, 4e is dead and the GSL prevents it from being cloned.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

1. 1st Edition D&D.
2. 2nd Edition D&D.
3. 3rd Edition D&D.
4. 4th Edition D&D.
5. Pathfinder.

I don't want 5th edition to be like the above and yet I do.



If I want to experience the above then I will just go and buy it or either download it or it's likeness.



I want 5th edition to bring me something new but with the flavor of old. It's like having your favorite hamburger cooked a different way with a little something else that makes it unique.



In other words, I want something that is unique and yet familiar at the same time.

 

[drothgery]

Only 4e fans are going to see that change. If a classic D&Der doesn't find 5e classic for him, well, there are plenty of retro-clones. If the 3.5 fan doesn't find 5e 3.5-enough for him, there's Pathfinder. If the 4e fan doesn't care for 5e, too bad, 4e is dead and the GSL prevents it from being cloned.

I'm less convinced of this, because if OSIRIC could essentially reverse engineer 1e from the d20 SRD, I think you could probably get at least as close to 4e. On the other hand, without the online tool support, 4e fans might well end up gravitating to something like 13th Age rather than a full-on 4e clone.

 

[Emerikol]

Except for the arbitrary mention of 5e, that's prettymuch the status quo.

You should have no problem with others who enjoy different styles enjoying 4e, as long as you can enjoy Pathfinder (or your other retro-clone of choice) in your way. You probably don't want the 4e people at your table but there are many tables in this world besides it. Right?


Currently, everyone's getting new content custom-made for them. The grognards are getting a slew of retro-clones, the 3.5 set is carrying Pathfinder to glory, and the 4e fans have what's left of 4e when Essentials was done screwing it up (which, actually, by HotFW, was starting to look pretty decent again).

Only 4e fans are going to see that change. If a classic D&Der doesn't find 5e classic for him, well, there are plenty of retro-clones. If the 3.5 fan doesn't find 5e 3.5-enough for him, there's Pathfinder. If the 4e fan doesn't care for 5e, too bad, 4e is dead and the GSL prevents it from being cloned.

I would like for the name Dungeons and Dragons to be on a game that carries forward the tradition it had for three versions. I am not in love with 3e so I am hoping 5e is a big improvement. I don't mind if 5e supports your playstyle in addition to mine. 4e will be cloned if the market is there.