EpicureanDM
Explorer
Eternal gratitude to my AD&D DM for letting me play the Jester NPC class.
D&D General Are You Ready For A "New" D&D?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I'm down with that, but have been accused of being a neophiliac so there's that!
Yeah. Like, I'm not "refuse to play" levels of done like I have been with a few RPGs (hello Rifts, Shadowrun), but whilst I like a lot of the little design ideas in both, for me, I want something that seems more, I dunno, 2020s.
D&D has had this issue with every edition except 4E (and arguably 1E but I would argue against), where, essentially, it lags 5-15 years behind where modern, intelligent, reflective, considered design in RPGs. I'll give 5E its due here - it was one of the less-laggy ones. Bounded accuracy and Advantage/Disadvantage worked out, and were modern, but a lot of other elements were retrograde because of the apology edition elements, and honestly so far 1D&D looks like it's a curious combination of one of the weaker elements of 4E (obsessive standardization - for example of subclass levels and spell preparation and lists), together with a lack of any real vision re: improvement. I'm sure it'll be "fine" but it's not going to really be any advancement on 5E, and I'm not sure it'll even hit the low bar of "clean up", just a different direction. Black Flag seems a little more advanced, but so far doesn't really seem like it's doing anything daring - I would like to see their class/subclass visions though. Anyway, I'd like to have seen a much bigger jump, one that more embraced how D&D seems to increasingly being played (i.e. more heroically), rather than just rearranging deck chairs.
Please define "advancement" in this context. Is chocolate an "advancement" over vanilla?
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
I recommend "Esper Genesis," for ~$25 on DriveThruRPG. I'm excited to try it out with @Steampunkette 's new kickstarter, "Paranormal Power."
DriveThruRPG.com
Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.
wingsandsword
Legend
No, I'm not.
I still prefer 3.5e and play it.
I've bought some 5e books to more-or-less stay up with current trends, and to support the game (effectively ending the boycott I began when 4e came out).
If, big if, I wanted a new D&D, I'd make something homebrew combining the best elements of 5e and 3.5e, and I don't really think WotC's design goals for a new edition would align with mine.
I still prefer 3.5e and play it.
I've bought some 5e books to more-or-less stay up with current trends, and to support the game (effectively ending the boycott I began when 4e came out).
If, big if, I wanted a new D&D, I'd make something homebrew combining the best elements of 5e and 3.5e, and I don't really think WotC's design goals for a new edition would align with mine.
TwoSix
Unserious gamer
It's complicated. On the one hand, I'm perfectly content with the myriad of choices already available to play D&D type games. On the other hand, I also like novelty, so I'm generally more interested in seeing some truly new rather than a slight polishing of something existing. On the third hand, I like the core 5e chassis enough that I don't want to see a ton of 3pp support fracture between supporting 5e and whatever this truly new version would be.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
As I use it?
Looking at what works and what doesn't, learning from changes and additions to the TTRPG design sphere, and designing towards a goal in a conscious and considered way, that gets closer to that goal than previously. 2E I think could honestly be seen as at least intended to be an "advancement" on 1E, for example. Or 5.5 on 5. Or indeed most edition changes for non-D&D RPGs.
Like, some bits of 5E just don't work very well, mechanically - the three pillars is a great example - because they're seeming an important concept, but 5E isn't really designed in a way that supports that concept. So if we say that is a design goal that we want to achieve, still, which is reasonable, we'd expect 1D&D to make a conscious effort to make those pillars a bit more prominent in design, and to redesign classes, abilities, spells, etc. to allow people to engage with those three pillars more.
But so far there's curiously no evidence of that.
Instead what we're getting are say, "chocolate vs. strawberry" changes (avoiding vanilla because it has additional connotations re: simplicity, and I don't think you intended those - correct me if I'm wrong). Like the spell preparation change is just chocolate fudge instead of strawberry-chocolate swirl. It's not an advancement, AFAICT, because it doesn't advance D&D towards some kind of acknowledge or "obvious" (sorry to use such a term, I'm struggling for the right word) design goal, it just changes stuff around.
Aldarc
Legend
This is kinda where I am. 5e D&D feels a bit stale for me at this point. Even with a facelift, One D&D and Project Black Flag look as if they will be more of the same. That's great for people who like 5e D&D as it is and can keep playing it for the rest of their lives; however, that does not spark much joy or enthusiasm from people like me. Neither of them seem different enough for me to care. Maybe there will be a future 5e clone(-adjacent) that sparks joy.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Actually, I'd say that is quite the opposite example in the OneD&D test: Crawford has laid out the reasoning there, and it is to advance the design goal of not punishing players for build choices. And making decisions players make non-punative is definitely a design goal.
Neonchameleon
Legend
We've not seen anything that's DM facing - and that's IMO where 5e needs the work.
I'm going to disagree. The spell prep changes are to me streamlining the menu. They're trying to make all casters work the same way. It's not "replacing a strawberry-chocolate swirl with chocolate fudge". It's seeing that on part of the menu you've a chocolate cheesecake or strawberries and cream, realising that more people like chocolate than strawberries, and replacing the strawberries and cream with chocolate creams because more people in a poll like chocolate than strawberries. Never mind that the people who currently are choosing strawberries might not like chocolate or might prefer the way strawberries contrast with cream to go with other parts of the menu. And yes, I consider this a change in philosophy.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
That's an interesting take, though I feel like it's unlikely that the decision was based on popularity as per the example, because most of the "streamlining" changes have not been ones people were suggesting, nor do they actually make the "menu" less complex player-side (indeed the Bard spell-list change makes it far more complex than just a list, because you have to pick through each spell, unless you pay for D&D Beyond of course). Rather they make it a bit less demanding on the kitchen (WotC), perhaps. Which is a weird priority, because I don't feel like the kitchen was struggling here (maybe it was?).
I would agree that it represents a change in philosophy, albeit not a drastic one. 5E's philosophy has already changed at least once though - the original 5E approach was basically an "apology edition", designed to win people back, especially those lost in earlier edition changes and the like. That I think changed to a more positive philosophy of making the game better for players and more diverse (albeit weakly) over the last few years. This seems like they're prepping it to make it easier for them to produce material for, which would be another change, and a strange one.
I'm happy with D&D being D&D. 5e gets new people to enter the hobby, and getting more people to play any RPG has always been the hard part. I don't want them to break that pipeline because right now it's working better than it ever has.
What I actually want is for D&D to be stable enough that there are larger and larger groups of players every year who are confident enough in their ability to play D&D, but are just slightly bored with it and so become willing to try just one other system to see what's outside of the D&D bubble.
That's what D&D was in the late 80s and early 90s, and if we're going for the true D&D nostalgia, well, let's get back to that!
What I actually want is for D&D to be stable enough that there are larger and larger groups of players every year who are confident enough in their ability to play D&D, but are just slightly bored with it and so become willing to try just one other system to see what's outside of the D&D bubble.
That's what D&D was in the late 80s and early 90s, and if we're going for the true D&D nostalgia, well, let's get back to that!
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I think that's what we're going to get with 1D&D to be honest.
1D&D, for better or worse, just absolutely seems reminiscent of 2E (even some of the concepts behind the changes are similar). An attempt to sort of tidy up and rationalize a system, to fix some issues that the previous one had, and so on. There is a shade of 4E in making it potentially more suited to the 3D VTT, but I'll be honest - I don't think the 3D VTT is developed enough and I suspect the team is separate enough that that's not (yet) a big issue.
But I do suspect that in, say, 2029 or 2030, we'll have a lot of people who came to RPGs with 5E from 2017 onwards, who are a bit bored with 5E/1D&D/similar, and eager to try whatever the New Hotness is then. Or just things that are different.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I just want cleaned up and clarified 5e with quality of life improvements, which is what 1DD is looking like it will be.
OTOH, I am also working on a new SRD based game Chevar: Champions of The Ninth Realm, that leans more toward making classes exist in-world, and turning some other dials here and there, with a lot more mysticism and ritual.
OTOH, I am also working on a new SRD based game Chevar: Champions of The Ninth Realm, that leans more toward making classes exist in-world, and turning some other dials here and there, with a lot more mysticism and ritual.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
My guess is that Cubicle 7's take on 5E is going to look a lot like their Adventures on Middle Earth books, which won praise in their time. (Heck, they'll probably even use the Vault branding they're using on their Journeys book.) I don't think anyone will jump back and say, "whoa, how daring," though.
I would assume the wilder stuff won't come out until 2024 or later, since the CC decision is so recent, and I don't think everyone's fully digested the possible implications yet.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
I mean, obviously.
MockingBird
Hero
No, I'm heavily invested into 5e and am happy with it.
I agree. The only way the VTT team is having input is if there's some particular rule that they're finding hard to put into the game. Mostly I'd expect that to be clarification on spells where the language is unclear (though those all generally have some errata or Sage Advice ruling clarifying them, so likely they're working from that).
I actually think that it's mostly the D&D team driving this change. Because of the 50th anniversary they have to have a new printing of the books and so it's time to get their own little tweaks and changes out there. I don't expect anything radical to come of it, and in fact I suspect they'll get a bit of pushback on a lot of the "little things" they're pushing because players don't see the inconsistencies as problems to the degree that a designer does.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Similar Threads
D&D General
D&D Creator Summit--VTT & One D&D
