D&D 5E D&D on Forbes

[teitan]

I think rules light will appeal to more than some posters here think. A big part of the OSR is that it is rules light editions that lack the complexity of 3+. Part of the mission statement from WOTC was a system to appeal to fans of all editions. I think they are pulling that off in spite of some people complaining on message boards, which is a vocal minority and in many cases people who will never be pleased because it isn't 3.x or 4e and some just hate WOTC. There are many who are vocalizing legitimate issues that will play out through the playtest as well but some of the problems being discussed have always been issues in d&d aside from 4e, but it homogenizes characters a good bit to get that balance.

What I hope for is the basic game being a single book but I doubt we will see that sadly. As rules light as it is I don't think the monsters will be as concise as they were in BECMI. I plan to buy it when released and possibly run it. I just bought into 4e though with the Essentials books a month ago. So I'd like to get a campaign going with that. But if this game is anything remotely close to 0e or 1e I may stop that campaign when it starts to do a Next game a couple months after it comes out. So far I like the playtest, I was a DM where it was the DM's job to make sure the characters got their spotlight so some of the issues that have cropped up are no never mind to me.

 

[Blackwarder]

The thing with OSR is that different parts of the rules are rules light but you got a lot of different rules to play with. it's easy to mess with the rules and home-brew your own concoction of the game, instead of a central system where a small change in one part might have profound effect on the rest of the game you got systems that interact only in the abstract on the grand scheme on the game.

At least IMHO.

Warder

 

[teitan]

I'd agree with that. I think the way 5e is being developed though that a similar paradigm is happening there though. Isn't it the whole point of the rules modules?

 

[Dausuul]

It's a mistake to assume that the focus on mechanics at ENWorld means we all want a rules-heavy game. There's a large contingent of folks here (I'm one of them) who like the rules-light approach. But that doesn't mean we don't care about the mechanics! If you're only going to have a few rules, it's all the more important that those rules be good ones.

I like what I'm hearing in this interview. Especially...

What you can expect to see in the next couple months are things that are like the mass combat rules, how to handle interactions, and rules for urban adventuring.

MASS COMBAT RULES. Yes. He said that.

The problem (perhaps) that I see developing is if you end up having another distinct group of players. 5e may be what beginners go to because it's in the stores or because it's easier, but if experienced players invariably gravitate towards 3e/PF or various other games, 5e ends up being a sort of "gateway drug"; a game for beginners only that gets them started in the hobby and leads them to other things.

Anecdotal of course, but from what I've seen, many experienced players enjoy complexity at first, then get tired of spending more time working the rules than playing the game, and ultimately want to return to something cleaner and simpler. That was the arc for me and for a number of my gaming friends.

I think 5E is going to get a lot of buy-in from veterans as well as newbies. I've been playing D&D for 25 years and I love where 5E is headed. It's already my favorite edition, even in its incomplete state.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Anecdotal of course, but from what I've seen, many experienced players enjoy complexity at first, then get tired of spending more time working the rules than playing the game, and ultimately want to return to something cleaner and simpler. That was the arc for me and for a number of my gaming friends.

Agreed 100%

I think 5E is going to get a lot of buy-in from veterans as well as newbies. I've been playing D&D for 25 years and I love where 5E is headed. It's already my favorite edition, even in its incomplete state.

But I don't see how you get to that. The 5e playtest stuff to me is loaded with unnecessary complexity. It makes my head hurt. That's why I think the experienced crowd won't do it.

 

[Mark CMG]

Forbes also interviewed the 13th Age guys about that game. I don't think Forbes' attention is indicative of D&D going "mainstream".

I'd imagine writers get to proffer a list of article subjects and pitch each one, then the editors make the call on what to pursue. Forbes (online) having more tabletop gaming articles is probably indicative such things becoming more acceptable to more folks in the process. Of course, such things becoming even more prevalent likely hinges on the relative number of readers compared to other articles so hyperlink to them whenever you get the chance.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The 5e playtest stuff to me is loaded with unnecessary complexity. It makes my head hurt.

I agree, but a lot of that will be cut down as the development process continues. This latest major update crossed the line for me in terms of complexity, but everyone agrees bonus feats are bad, everyone agrees the Rogue isn't ideal, etc.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I agree...for the most part. Ideally, I'd like to see a rules light version and a slightly more complex but still rules light version.

I think too many people are holding on to hope that the "complex" version will be some sort of rules beast like 3.5e or 4e. I'd like to see that even at it's most complex it never gets to about half as complex as either of those editions. I'd prefer the "complex" version to be as complicated as maybe 2e was after all its splatbooks came out.

I will say +1 on that. Too many rules for 3.5E and too many exceptions/interrupts/reactions in 4E to make it all flow smoothly. I hope more complex rules don't involve 8 or 9 different buffing spells and 7 or 8 different bonuses, etc.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I agree, but a lot of that will be cut down as the development process continues.

You have more faith in that than I do. I see a skill system I don't quite understand, spellcasters with variable recharge times, a fiddly maneuver system, and a whole host of other things that if they're a problem for me aren't likely to be any better for beginners. I see a lot of mechanical text that says very little.

Clearly, the sentiment you're expressing is the obvious truth that the final product will be different from the playtest. I think it will be different, but seeing as how each iteration of the playtest seems to get more confusing, and given who's working on it and who isn't, I am not confident that the final product will be better.

 

[Iosue]

Naturally the playtests will increase in complexity as they go on, as WotC tests, well, more complexity. Mearls has never stopped banging the "simple, easy buy-in" drum, though, so I think its reasonable to expect that the game as finished will have a highly streamlined version.