D&D 5E Coming Around on the "Not D&D" D&D Next Train

[innerdude]

So I've been ambivalent-to-mildly negative towards D&D Next to this point. It's had some interesting ideas, but haven't been able to play it with a group yet, to really put it through its paces. But I'm coming around to the idea that maybe this really WILL be a "D&D" worth playing--insofar as I'm actually interested in "D&D" as a game / genre / trope.

I'm pretty much DONE with "bog standard" D&D 3.x, including Pathfinder, though I love the Golarion campaign setting and Paizo's adventure paths. Had a great Pathfinder campaign in 2011, but really have no desire to run it ever again (if I'm going to bother with the 3.x "chassis" at all it's going to be Fantasy Craft). And though my earlier feelings of disdain for 4e have considerably lessened, at this point it's just too much of an investment to even get started--$100+ to either get the PHB 1 and 2, DMG 1 and 2, Monster Vault, Essentials, etc.--and I'm just not willing to commit that to a game that I might run once. If I want a 4e-style, "heroic" D&D fantasy vibe, 13th Age or a modded Radiance RPG are much more likely candidates.

But the more I think about what D&D Next is trying to accomplish, the more I realize that the final rules themselves are almost irrelevant at this point. It's clear by now that D&D Next is most DEFINITELY its own thing now. It's NOT 3e. It's NOT 4e. It's not 2e or 1e. And strangely, right now that's pretty much good enough.

When I think about it, I still WANT a "D&D" in my life, but I'm not really interested in what has come before. Though I still have my original Rules Cyclopedia on my shelf, I'm not a grognard. I'm not nostalgically attached to 1e or 2e. I've played out 3e as much as I can handle. 4e isn't really a consideration at this point.

But I want "D&D," because sometimes you just want to have the option available to you. It's . . . comforting, somehow, to know that it will always be there as a fallback, and right now I don't have a D&D system that does that for me. There's no existing version of D&D, Pathfinder included, that I think about running for a group without going, "Yeah, I guess I could run this, but . . . ."

When my current Savage Worlds group finishes this campaign, I'd love to pull down my D&D 5e handook and say to the players, "Hey let's give this a shot. It's D&D! You guys know D&D, right?" And my group would jump on it in a heartbeat, because---it's D&D. They know D&D. They get it. It's the literal ancestor of nearly every RPG, CRPG, and MMO that has ever existed.

I don't think it's ever going to be my "go to" system. With each passing week of my current Savage Worlds campaign, SW more firmly entrenches itself in that regard. But I DEFINITELY want D&D Next as a viable alternative, heck, even a good-to-great alternative when I want a "true D&D fantasy experience." Pathfinder is great in its own right, but it's no longer my preferred system, or even my "preferred D&D."

It seemed a bit of paradox at first, but the more I think about it, D&D Next makes a whole lot of sense to me as the "Not Yet Anybody's D&D" edition. If D&D Next manages to straddle the line between editions even moderately well, then I'm okay playing a D&D that ISN'T anything that came before it, and just manages to be "D&D" on its own terms.

 

[Weather Report]

I'm seriously digging 5th Ed (and the ease of converting previous edition material is huge), it's sort of like what I wanted 3rd Ed to be.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Not D&D." Do you mean you don't care if the rules are different from previous editions, so long as it feels like D&D in a way that everyone can identify with?

 

[innerdude]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Not D&D." Do you mean you don't care if the rules are different from previous editions, so long as it feels like D&D in a way that everyone can identify with?

I think that's part of it. It's something with a D20 chassis, with classes and skills, hit points, and as much as I have come to dislike it generally, Vancian magic. If I'm going to "play D&D," I might as well play D&D, if not in its "purest" form, in its most recognizable form.

I guess I'm partially saying I finally get why people always say, "If you don't want to play D&D, play something else, but quit messing with my D&D." The thread about D&D being a toolbox vs. setting got me thinking about it. If I'm going to play D&D, by golly, why don't I just play D&D and enjoy it for its "D&D-ness," instead of playing D&D while griping about the 85 things I wish D&D did differently.

And I think 5e has a chance to really do that.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

This is my feeling nearly to the letter, including the bit with Savage Worlds being my go to system.

D&D is still special to me, even if it isn't my preferred game. And I want there to be a version of it that I can reach for when I want some D&D. Something that plays well while still being all the things I expect out of D&D.

I think that's why I'm happy with most of it, but very unhappy with racial ability score modifiers. I expect 3d6 to be the range and bell curve of human capacity. It's the first thing I learned when making my first D&D character all those years ago.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Aye, agreed. 3d6 is pretty brutal in d20-esque stat layout though. In AD&D 2e it was workable since you only started getting serious negs around -7 and below (if I remember correctly). They went middle of the road with this one, it's still very very hard to have more than one or two 18s, and quite easy to have at least a couple bad penalties. IRL my friends have a good mix of ups & downs, things they are good at and things we all suck at. I really don't see why our "heros" can't at least have some variety to them.

I saw way too many 20 str or 20 dex characters at level 1 using point buy last go around to ever play a game like that again. I want D&D to feel closer to Game of Thrones in brutality than, say, Merlin. And real life middle ages was far, far, faaaaar more brutal than GoT, and probably most D&D campaigns I've seen. Let alone WWII, obviously. I just can't relate to a playing a fantasy setting about monsters and heroes that's less dangerous than the one we already live in.

 

[innerdude]

I saw way too many 20 str or 20 dex characters at level 1 using point buy last go around to ever play a game like that again.

I agree. I've never understood the "arms race" with stats in D&D. At a certain point, the stat is no longer modeling anything except the need for the mechanics to support an additional +1 to whatever. I guess in some cases it's about trying to make characters unique, or special (i.e., "you're the only bipedal humanoid in the world with a 28 Int"). For me stats beyond 20 feel like pure gamism.

I want D&D to feel closer to Game of Thrones in brutality than, say, Merlin. And real life middle ages was far, far, faaaaar more brutal than GoT, and probably most D&D campaigns I've seen. Let alone WWII, obviously. I just can't relate to a playing a fantasy setting about monsters and heroes that's less dangerous than the one we already live in.

Interestingly, early editions are totally in this mindset. A level 1 BECMI character is a fragile, fragile thing. The whole "Calibrating your expectations" / "Gandalf was a level 5 wizard" really brings home the real "power level" attained by a typical PC. But I think 5e has a chance to support both the "zero to hero" and "hero to superhero" playstyles.

 

[Raith5]

I think the key thing is how modularity plays out.

I really like DDN for a basic starting point for a casual game with lapsed players or new players. But I am not at all sure that DDN will satisfy my interest in a more advanced game with my core group of friends who have all being playing for 20-30 years each. They dont want to go back to early edition play. I still think 4th ed is more well developed for advanced play which encourages complicated teamwork in combat and social contexts -especially for high fantasy type of style.

I am interested to see if advanced DDN will be better than 4th ed in this respect. It would be great to have one core system that unfolds in different ways for different needs.

 

[teitan]

I was kid of iffy on Next, watching in anticipation and kind of snickering at the line in the 4e books about them being d&d for the next ten years (fyi I just got essentials and really like what I am seeing as it fixed every issue I ad with 3.5, the original 4e books the presentation was just confusing and the constant updates really made the original books obsolete as printed and ever reprinted). I see things I like and things that I think are a step back though the new spell prep model is nice though I could see it limiting casters options unless they are going to include ritual magic. But so far I am not sure I will upgrade though I have to get a group together once I move to Detroit.

 

[teitan]

I think the key thing is how modularity plays out.

I really like DDN for a basic starting point for a casual game with lapsed players or new players. But I am not at all sure that DDN will satisfy my interest in a more advanced game with my core group of friends who have all being playing for 20-30 years each. They dont want to go back to early edition play. I still think 4th ed is more well developed for advanced play which encourages complicated teamwork in combat and social contexts -especially for high fantasy type of style.

I am interested to see if advanced DDN will be better than 4th ed in this respect. It would be great to have one core system that unfolds in different ways for different needs.

I agree with you. I think that WOTC is maybe making a bad decision in not revising 4e to not rely on miniatures. It's obvious they want to move away from that model, requiring minis or tokens to play and 4e could easily be modified to follow the model they want to support with a rules module to put that option back in since they are going that route anyway. Instead they are risking further fracturing their customer base creating yet another new system and taking steps backward in the design. 4e really pulled d&d into more modern design expectations, more so than 3e.

Don't get me wrong, I loved 3e, it got me back in the game after the buy out killed my interest in d&d and rpgs in general. I miss my 3.5 books like the fat kid misses the cup cakes when they are all gone. I loved the rules because it was d&d with cohesion, even with how crazy it got in the complete & races of series of books and the rules bloat. One more book with umpteen feats & I was going to choke a witch.

What 4e needed was more support for the other two pillars and less emphasis on minis with better adventure support. They could have based fifth on essentials builds to simplify classes. Revised the skill challenge system more & added the exploration rules. They could have tested the rules in a fourth edition supplement similar to how they tried 4e rules out in Star Wars Saga, tome of battle etc during the 3.5 says. I'm still amazed how many people loved Saga & spit on 4e. Mainly until essentials 4e to me felt incomplete and like they were always testing it, even the initial 3 books. They got a lot wrong and with essentials they fixed most of it.