D&D General Are You Ready For A "New" D&D?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My preference for a 50th anniversary edition would have been a tidied up AD&D.

Fingers crossed they monetize by giving us deluxe reprints of each edition's corebooks, as we got some years back (but better -- ribbon bookmarks, for starters).

Depending on the treatment, they could definitely re-sell me 1E and 3E books again, assuming they were deluxe enough.

 

[Xamnam]

Based on the playtest content so far, I think 5.5 will give me about 80% of what I'm looking for, constrained by roughly 10% of changes I don't like.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

My preference for a 50th anniversary edition would have been a tidied up AD&D.

To me that describes Adventures Dark and Deep.

"Well, that's because Adventures Dark & Deep isn't quite a retro-clone. Almost, but not quite. Adventures Dark & Deep (abbreviated ADD) bills itself as being "based on Gary Gygax's plans for expanding the game." So it's claims to be a clone of neither 1st or 2nd edition AD&D. Instead it is a spiritual successor to AD&D 1st edition, with a distinctly Gygaxian design. Constructed by Joseph Bloch from notes, articles and blog posts by Gary Gygax it claims to be written as what the author believes AD&D 2nd edition might have been if the game's original creator had not parted ways with TSR some time before the release of second edition."

"The book works under the premise of what would 2nd Edition have looked like if Gary Gygax had stayed at TSR. Joe has taken articles, interviews and discussions and something like an anthropologist pieced it all together to get something new and yet familiar. Unlike the previous book, the Player Manual makes no assumptions that you have AD&D1 or OSRIC. There are some obvious roots in those games, but this is now it's own thing."

"The book does capture the feel of old D&D with some interesting twists. None that would trip you up, but still enough to make you go "huh, that is kind of neat"."

"ADD is, if nothing else, a clone of AD&D 1e with lots of new options and classes. It reads much like 1e to me just more user friendly, which is a compliment. ADD cleans up much of what was broken in Unearthed Arcana (sometimes known as AD&D 1.5) and fixes it.

Much of the draw of Adventures Dark and Deep are the new character classes, which can be easily dropped into any AD&D 1e / OSRIC campaign with little effort. I’ve always felt an affinity to Bards, and Joseph Bloch has an excellent version included. The Jester subclass reminds me of the old NPC class from Dragon Magazine - I remember my sister playing one."

"So: what to say about ADD? Imagine you had collected for an OSR game a rule-set of AD&D that included everything Gary Gygax ever wrote about the game, all the crazy stuff he put in Unearthed Arcana, stuff he put in Dragon, stuff he shared in private thoughts, stuff elaborated from vague ideas about how to remake the AD&D game, just packing as much stuff as Gary Gygax possibly could. Now imagine its not Gary Gygax at all, and just some guy named Joseph Bloch."

"What we get from ADD is a VERY complete Old-school RPG; I'd dare to say that it is truly more complete a game than AD&D 1e itself. Out of all the various old-school editions, it is most similar to AD&D 1e, since it uses it as its starting point; I'd go as far as to say that more specifically, you'd particularly like this game if you're a big fan of playing AD&D with Unearthed Arcana and with all kinds of weird ideas culled from old Dragon magazines. What you get in it, in fact, is a very odd variant of 1e with some unusual modifications, enough that it would certainly feel like quite a different game (while still being very recognizably old-school)."

 

[the Jester]

I don't care about a "new" version of D&D. If the version I'm using had giant glaring flaws, I might. I want my D&D to constantly progress and get better, and a "new" version might better the game, but it's certainly not guaranteed.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I have a hard time picturing people playing AD&D without incorporating the hotness of the month from the latest issue of Dragon. (Sure, that Bandit class was for NPCs, but when did that stop anyone?)

 

[cbwjm]

I'm pretty happy with 5e as it currently stands and I'm liking most of what I see in the onednd playtests.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

(Sure, that Bandit class was for NPCs, but when did that stop anyone?)

Or Archer-Rangers (Dragon Magazine #45)?

 

[dave2008]

And -- yes-- I am well aware that there are hundreds of examples of other fantasy RPGs out there. None of those are a new D&D.

I am happy with what I have, but this last sentence rings true to me as well. I would want a new D&D, not some other RPG. Can't tell you why - it is just what I would want.

 

[deganawida]

Yes, and no. Obviously, I went with, “It’s complicated…”

My first official D&D game was right after 2nd Edition came out. 2E was kind of my junior high and high school sweetheart, in some respects. We grew apart in college, and I moved on to more gothic types, but she always had a special place in my heart.

However, 2nd edition AD&D isn’t really where my heart lies. I wasn’t allowed to watch the D&D cartoon, or hang out with the older kids when they played, but what got my heart racing were the archetypes in basic D&D. I didn’t know that there was a difference at the time, but the idea that all fantasy (at the time I just thought it was swords and sorcery) heroes could be distilled down into 3-4 basic character types, structured around how they solved problems and interacted with strange worlds, was revolutionary for me.

Some time in the early 90s, while riding back from a Centrifuge trip, a slightly older teen did a complete ToM adventure using what I know now to be be BECMI D&D. It was kind-blowing for me. There were neat locations, peoples, puzzles, mysteries, and the occasional fight. I was in love.

Then, in 1999, I played a little CRPG called Planescape: Torment. At first I had dismissed it, as there were only four classes. Yet, I broke down, bought it, and fell in love. There may have only been four classes, but each of the fighter and multi class fighters had different strengths and played and were written differently. There was more variety there than I’ve seen in practice with any number of kits, PrCs, paragon paths, or subclasses. It rekindled that childhood wonder for basic archetypes, and demonstrated to me that they are flexible by themselves.

So, what does this have to do with the topic? I would love a new D&D that used B/X and BECMI as its bones rather than AD&D. Use the AD&D settings, but let me start as basic fighter or basic thief, and let me grow into something as I level. Gate options at higher levels. Give me something to strive for. Keep it at the core 4, but as we play and reach milestones, give us more options. Don’t present me with a glut of choices as I am making a character. Instead, let me play the character, learn who it is, and then grow into the world’s foremost illusion master or a trick shot with a quiver of unending arrows, or anything else like that. Start me basic, then let me grow like I have in real life.

That’s my complicated answer.

 

[pukunui]

I wouldn't say I'm "ready" in the context of being sick of 5e / d20 RPGs, but I would be open to trying out a brand new version of D&D that isn't just an iteration of what's come before. After what happened with 4e, though, I don't expect WotC to try it again any time soon. Perhaps if the D&D brand ever gets sold to / bought by another company we'll get something brand new.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes. So much yes. 5e's overreliance on "ask your gm" & "Your GM might..." footnotes has done its damage

 

[Neonchameleon]

Show me what it does better. I'm not particularly wedded to 5e - but for the least bad D&D it does pretty well (others are better at being them - but 5e is good at being least bad)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am always ready for a new D&D. My only problem is, I always want the designers to only fix the things that I'd like fixed, not wholesale rebuild the game, like they tend to do. So usually when there's a new edition, there's things I like, and things I don't like about it.

Take 5e: great overall chassis, decent options. Boring monsters. Terrible equipment options (practically nothing to buy whatsoever!) I don't like the skills list and I really don't like how tools work. Too much magic, not enough mundane.

Otherwise, it's one of the better D&D editions, IMO. (My dislike list would be longer for all other editions - but different!)

So I'm always happy for a new edition, with the vain hope that they'll fix things I don't like without throwing out things that I do.

 

[Minigiant]

I wouldn't say I'm "ready" in the context of being sick of 5e / d20 RPGs, but I would be open to trying out a brand new version of D&D that isn't just an iteration of what's come before. After what happened with 4e, though, I don't expect WotC to try it again any time soon. Perhaps if the D&D brand ever gets sold to / bought by another company we'll get something brand new.

This is what I mean. Pretty much all but one edition and D&D clone since 2000 is an iteration of a previous edition with different math and one innovation. It makes sense since it is easier to convert someone with something similar to what they liked. But it means innovation comes in drips and drabs. And It comes with the assumption that everyone loves what exists.

Well... unless your favorite is 0e, you couldn't love your favorite edition or clone until it was created. Right?

 

[aco175]

I was fine with 3e when 4e came out and then found that I liked 4e. I was fine with 4e when 5e came out and now I like 5e. I'm not ready, but would likely enjoy a new edition. I could still play this one for a few/several more yours though with some of the stuff I have.

 

[Reynard]

This is what I mean. Pretty much all but one edition and D&D clone since 2000 is an iteration of a previous edition with different math and one innovation. It makes sense since it is easier to convert someone with something similar to what they liked. But it means innovation comes in drips and drabs. And It comes with the assumption that everyone loves what exists.

Well... unless your favorite is 0e, you couldn't love your favorite edition or clone until it was created. Right?

I don't think it is fair to call 5e an iteration of 3.5 (in the same way that 3.5 is an iteration of 3E, i mean). Of course they use the same core mechanic and hold on to a lot of legacy elements, but 5e and 3.5 play significantly differently. The devil is, as they say, in the details. They aren't the same game.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think it is fair to call 5e an iteration of 3.5 (in the same way that 3.5 is an iteration of 3E, i mean). Of course they use the same core mechanic and hold on to a lot of legacy elements, but 5e and 3.5 play significantly differently. The devil is, as they say, in the details. They aren't the same game.

I didn't say it was the same game. 5e, however, has 3e as its skeleton with a different math structure, a few 4eisms, and a new adv/diadv innovation. It's a whole new game but very little of it didn't come form a previous edition.

Most of the D&Dverse is mixing elements of previous editions,changing the core math, and adding one new cool mechanic. Sometimes... sometimes you'll get two new major mechanics.

There was one time we added a bunch of new ideas to D&D. And although it scared a lot of people, I think a game community built on hombrewing should embrace big experimentation from a major publisher sometimes.

 

[Reynard]

There was one time we added a bunch of new ideas to D&D. And although it scared a lot of people, I think a game community built on hombrewing should embrace big experimentation from a major publisher sosometimes

I can only assume you are talking about Player's Option.

 

[Minigiant]

I can only assume you are talking about Player's Option.

Player's Option is a supplement. Which is my point.

The desire is there. Usually always there. Just usually not when the base game is created.

 

[TerraDave]

Less new, but more better.