D&D 5E DMs Expectations for Next

[Manbearcat]

We have all manner of topics going on at any given point but sometimes it is difficult to discern the origin (PC, DM, conflation of both) of concerns, opinions and mechanical preferences. I figured I would create a thread to focus these issues from one side of the screen. Everyone who is posting on this thread, please enter DM stance before expressing any expectations relevant to your current needs as a DM. This is easy for me to do because even though I've been playing for over 20 years, I've literally DMed every bit of it (Cthulu one off evening session and a few other silly one offs here and there notwithstanding). So without further ado, my expectations for Next:


1) PCs

I expect some measure of reasonable, micro-balance within the PC build framework, enough tools for various archetype representation, and I want "what this guy is supposed to do and how he should be expected to do it" (roles?) clearly conveyed. The reasons for this are as follows:

a) I want to know what I can consistently expect from a PC regarding their mechanical output. I want the upper bounds and lower bounds of their proficiency constrained and elucidated in some capacity within the rules text. If I have these two things and I know "what they're expected to do" then I can consistently create encounters (in and out of combat) that are dynamic, compelling and in-line with my climactic expectations. Yes, there will be times when strategic play turns a difficult encounter into a walk-through. However, I would like these situations to be anomalous in the extreme. Never again do I wish (nor do my players) to construct a rich, thematically compelling, tension-inducing encounter for a plot arc climax and have it fail miserably due to the absurd lack of constraints on certain PC resources. Never again do I wish to construct an important encounter that utterly marginalizes one or more PCs due to it having to be a challenge (lest it be a walkthrough) for one overpowered build/class.

b) I want my players/friends to be able to construct and play their favored archetypes and have them be functional. Without the ability to construct them, or if their functionality is limited or incongruent with their expectations, then my PCs will lose heart, interest, and their attention will arbitrarily wax and wane.

* As a tacked-on addendum, I would like it if there was a rules module or clear, well balanced mechanical options (not merely guidelines) to downsize party (all the way to 1 PC).


2) Monsters

I expect my monsters to mechanically represent my expectations of their physiology, their tactics/abilities, and their roles/place within their tribe hierarchy or their ecology/behaviors if they are a non-social creature. I want a diverse and tactically compelling set of monsters to work with. I want their combat relevant abilities/stats self-contained to small blocks. As important, I want their functionality (such as the case with my PCs) and their math to consistently produce in-line with their XP value, CR (however it will be defined in Next) so that my built encounters (from a dynamism and a difficulty standpoint) meet my preconceptions as predicated on the rules text. I already know pretty much every monsters' lore (and I am very independent in my flavor needs) but obviously this must be fleshed out as concisely as possible.


3) Tactically Rich Combat (which, if appearing, will be Modular)

Admit that a single combat round is filled with a myriad of abstractions, from HPs to Attack Rolls to Movement, and don't try to imply the deception of action = direct, linear response from dice roll/process simulation (a singular attack role is a sequence of offensive flurries and defensive parries...not one Rock-Em Sock-Em Robot Swing - or more depending on edition). We're adults. We can handle it. Embrace it. Leverage this Abstraction. As full disclosure, I readily enjoy the tactical richness/composition of 4e Combat Mechanics. In my experience, their elegance supports the ability to easily create dynamic, compelling encounters (swiftly and consistently) filled with variety and interesting PC Decision-Points (and my own) which consistently comport with the challenge level that I expected when I composed it...and as importantly, let my players flex their chosen archetype muscles within the fiction. It doesn't have to be 4e-esque...but the design goals that make 4e tactical richness work need to be brought to bear.


4) Non-Sentient Threats


Traps, Hazards, Poisons, Diseases, Gasses, Suffocation, Environmental, Falling, etc. I want my Non-Sentient Threats to possess clear, intuitive, coherent mechanics that can threaten the PCs throughout the life of the game. It would be nice if most of these could be represented using "Track" mechanics as they functional quite well and produce the required tension (when done right). The more tools I have to create varying, genre relevant threats, the more compelling and dynamic the tension will be within the fiction (and down my players spines hopefully).


5) Divination Constraints and Hard-Coded Mechanics

This can be any of the various power Divination spells (Commune, Legend Lore, Scrying, etc) to the lower powered spells (Detect line) to their painful, at-will analog (if any exists...please no). I've said it multiple times at this point but once more won't kill me. Unconstrained, Powerful, Limited-Use Divination abilities, when adjudicated fairly as RaW, obliterate intrigue or investigatory plot arcs. Mildly-Constrained (or narrow in scope or weak in power), At-Will (or near it due to proliferation of spell slots) Diviniation abilities, when adjuticated fairly as RaW, can send a DM into a never-ending Rock-Paper-Scissors Consideration Game when composing intrigue or investigatory plot arcs. I want to create intrigue and investigatory plot arcs and I would like it if they are compelling and solvable primarily through engagement with the fiction (rather than I win buttons), but I am certainly just fine with hard-coded divination mechanics helping the fiction along. Further, I do not want it to be an exercise in agony during prep as I am attempting to contrive these arcs.


6) Constrained Transmutation (Teleportation, Flight, etc) and Conjuration (Phantom Steed, etc)

I want Exploration and Chases to maintain their relevance throughout the campaign. Unfortunately, Unconstrained, Powerful, Limited-Use Transmutation and Conjuration abilities, when adjudicated fairly as RaW, obliterate the tension/compelling nature of chases, travel to far-to-reach places or travel through inhospitable places (eg phantom steeding out of the Mines of Moria or riding eagles, or turning into an eagle, to fly to Mordor).


7) Simple, Clear, Limited Buff Mechanics

Poorly-Constrained Abjuration/Transmutationg (Buff) Interaction and stacking undermine upper and lower bounds of PC/group viability, thus creating contests that are virtually impossible to forecast. Encounter building becomes dominated by a wing and a prayer.


8) Non-Combat, Closed System, Fiction Resolution Mechanics

I have little hope for these making it into the core (which is fine). But I would like a module for resolving various, genre relevant, DnD scenes that are Meta-Game, Narrative, "Fiction First" driven, and are Closed Systems (Encounters) where players are expected and incentivized to take author stance and mold the fiction (temporarily) without my prodding. This is the best place for Player Agency (outside of some kind of narrative point system) that comes to mind for me. For a much more thorough explanation of this, hop over to Pemerton's "Why I like Skill Challenges" thread. There are a great many posts that are both great and many that illuminate the ins and outs of this sort of resolution mechanic.


9) Reputation/Honor/Fame Module

I've always found these systems (even though horrifically mechanized) to be rewarding mini-games for my players. I would like to not tack-on my own ad hoc version. A functional system with tight math would be a delight.


10) Mass Combat Module

Just as genre relevant scenes (chases) and non-sentient threats (environmental exposure) are wonderful ways to captivate PCs and create dynamic sessions, so too is mass combat (used sparingly for climactic battles). A user friendly system, with clear, concise, balanced mechanics (that allow for players to take on the role of commander of legions) and quick resolution would be ideal.


11) Clear and Concise Rules Texts

Self explanatory.


12) Rich Setting Support

I'll hearken back to 2e for this...and that's all I'll say on that...because I'm tired of writing.


So DMs. Lend me your voices! Your expectations?

 

[delericho]

I'm a DM. My favourite edition is currently 3.5e, which I enjoy a great deal, but I am also only too aware of its weaknesses. Consequently, I'm not really satisfied - I want better.

I have two expectations from 5e:

- It has to be distinctly D&D. Other game styles are absolutely fine for what they are, but I'm looking for a replacement for 3.5e, so I want it to do the same things, but better.

- It needs to be significantly better than 3.5e, good enough to compel me to switch. Moreover, it pretty much needs to do that in the core - if I have to mess about with a whole load of modules (which I read as "official house rules") then I'm almost certainly not interested.

And that's it. Meet those two admittedly intangible and subjective goals and anything else is open for discussion. Fail to meet either of them, and it doesn't matter how good the rest of the game is; it hasn't done what I want it to do.

(I do, of course, have ideas as to how I think it might best achieve those goals. But I'm not absolutely wedded to them. If they ignore everything I say, but meet my requirements, I'm in - I'm happy to admit it when I'm wrong. )

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

I'm a regular DM. Been DM'ing 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 3.5, 4E, Pathfinder, and many other systems. I have three expectations of D&D Next:

- Easy to prep for.
- Easy to run.
- Fast combats.

And two honourable mentions:

- Fun magic items disconnected from expected PC "power" (in 4E and 3E it felt like work selecting and handing out magic items)
- Easy to prep for and easy to run high-level play. (I fully expect this not to be the case.)

The only dealbreaker I have as a DM, is if the game starts to feel more like work than fun.

 

[CleverNickName]

I am a lifelong DM as well, having started back in 1986 when my mom bought me the D&D Red Box Set for my birthday (long live Bargle!) I believe that the Rules Cyclopedia was the best D&D book ever written, and it should be the standard by which all other editions of the game should be judged.

I currently run a 3.5E game with Pathfinder elements, however, because there is no longer any official support for my benchmark version of the game, and because the System Reference Document and Open Gaming License give me the tools and legal standing to modify the game as I see fit, and share it with others.

I expect all editions of D&D to evoke the same "feel" as the original Red Box Rules. I am fine with add-ons and options, like extra classes, multiclassing, non-class races, etc. And I have no problem at all with improving the mechanics, like when they simplified the save throws and got rid of THAC0. The things that disturb me the most are the things that try to change my base assumptions of the game that I have enjoyed for more than three decades: things like touchy-feely hit points, magic being ordinary and everyday, warlords that can shout people healthy, attacks that damage you even when they miss, etc. These are the things I watch for in the playtest, and the things I give the most feedback on.

If D&D Next wants me to drop my custom 3.5E/PF game and pick up their new books, they need to carefully preserve those base assumptions of the game, that old-school look and feel. I don't care so much about how they do the math; I can tweak that easily enough. I don't care about the default setting either; I have been using the same setting for 30+ years without any complaints. Tons of spells, monsters, classes, and races? I'd rather they keep that stuff small, and give me tools for creating my own...but whatever, I can always ignore them if need be. An Open Gaming License would be nice, but it's not a deal-breaker.

But if they want my money, the game must have the same look and feel as the Rules Cyclopedia...not the look and feel of, say, a comic book or Hollywood action movie. Otherwise I will politely decline.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I want a game that gives me character-building tools, campaign-building tools, and then gets out of my way.

I want mechanics that robustly and faithfully describe a believable fantasy reality, including but not limited to character statistics, as well as magical and supernatural elements that break limits in a variety of interesting ways. I want an involved combat system that describes choices more involved than "I attack" and health more substantively than "you take 5 damage", presented as an option but with no arbitrary restrictions or resource management. I want a skill system that simply but broadly describes a wide range of possible behaviors, and integrates with the combat mechanics. I want all the nuts and bolts for the rules presented transparently, so that I can use them as I like.

I don't care about legacy, beyond the fact that one should be able to do "classic" D&D if one desires. I don't care about balance; I'll handle that. I don't care about prep time; that's my responsibility.

Of course, if you want to be literal about it, I expect that we will get a watered-down basic D&D with few improvements and some 4e elements shoved down our throats, one that won't offer enough advantages to be worth switching. But there's always hope.

 

[Li Shenron]

My biggest expectations:

• I want a fairly reliable CR/XP system that makes it a piece of cake to combine monsters together into an encounter and assess its challenge level
• I want combat rules that are simple enough so that I can run most combat encounters without checking the rules (checking the DM screen tables is ok)
• I want the game not to assume anything about magic items owned by the PCs, I want to run a settings where magic items are interesting and magic shops non-existent
• I want lots of options to focus on the exploration phase (my favourite pillar) so that I can make it interesting and engaging to the players
• I want the game to last a fairly amount of levels before campaign-altering spells (such as Fly and Teleport) are available
• I want monsters description to be well-organized to support the 3 pillars easily, I want good monsters pictures and a modicum amount of quality fluff
• I want it to be definitely D&D, with all the traditional classes, races and monsters, and all its sacred cows!

I'm going to use some of your bullet points to continue...

a) I want to know what I can consistently expect from a PC regarding their mechanical output.

From my DM's point of view, I am more concerned with the amount of stuff the PC will get... If they have just enough new stuff at each level then I can handle their capabilities in advance, but if they gain too much each time then I'm sure I won't be able to.

4) Non-Sentient Threats - Traps, Hazards, Poisons, Diseases, Gasses, Suffocation, Environmental, Falling, etc.

Absolutely agree! Those are a major part of my adventures and I want the game to support them well and make them interesting... I want poisons to be device plots, not stupid damage bonuses (as if the game was scarce with them...).

10) Mass Combat Module

Only if they can succeed at providing rules that allow the PCs to affect mass combats with what they do, but not if the rules are just useless mechanics for rolling "who wins" between two armies. If it's not possible, I'll just live without mass combat rules as usual.

 

[Mallus]

I just want 5e to play faster than 3e/Pathfinder/4e and offer a few more mechanical options/customization routes for PCs than AD&D.

I'm simple!

I'd also like it if the rules came were written in a strong voice (voices) with some baked-in flavor. I'm not asking they go the Full Gygax, just a bit more personality, whimsy, and sense of playfulness please.

 

[jcayer]

I want it to be less mechanical. It's a game played in a collective imagination, I don't need that many mechanics to make it work.

I want magic items to be fantastic again. Not just mechanical modifiers.

I want to be able to to easily create characters without using a computer.

I want a monster builder similar to what we have with 4e, but that runs quicker than molasses in January.

And amen to easy prep.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, I'm not going to get the main thing I want, which would need to be the foundation of the whole design, namely the realization that in game design, sometimes "less is more". Yes, you can have too many races, classes, spells, feats, powers, items, etc. So I'd like a game that wasn't predicated on selling character building information spread over 20 odd books. Maybe if you've got 30 or so ideas in a category, give us the 10-12 best ones, and leak out the other 3-5 borderline ones over the years?

Ahem. So mostly back here on Planet Earth, I'd like the modular pieces to be constructed with serious intent to work, which means that every module joint has at least two or three things plugged into when tested, to prove that the pieces swap. If we get that, then 75% of those aforementioned books that focus on things I'm not all that interested in can be both safely ignored by me and enjoyed by their respective fans.

Then the pieces I'd enjoy would be:

• Roughly the scope of BECMI/RC rules in combat pacing, adventure focus, etc.
• But with the organizational/structural cleanup of 3E and the further transparency/cohesion of 4E.
• Multiple layers of complexity, from bone simple to very complex for both monsters and characters (not necessarily the same, either, but they can be if that works).
• 1E magic items and sensibilities.
• An optional set of interaction and exploration systems with real mechanical heft, that really work to do what they say they do.
• A "Dungeon Craft" series for a mostly sandbox world, constructed over time by someone who knows sandbox cold, and is willing to lay the construction out there, warts and all.
• DM Advice writting by your wacky Uncle Gary, not Ms. Freedbush, your kindergarden teacher, that tells you stuff straight, but also indicates the reasons behind the advice -- i.e. treats us like adults.

Assuming we have all of that, then I'd also like a resurgence of the Al-Qadim setting done for the more traditional campaign set, adventure series, as this is the one really good setting they haven't revisited yet. If we don't have at least most of that, then I don't really care whether they visit Al-Qadim or not, as it will probably be botched.

I'd also like all the Dungeon adventures from issue #1 to issue #36 , whether reprinted, PDF, reworked for 5E or original, I don't care. (I've already got #26 and #29 - #36 , but the 1-36 is the span I'm interested in.)

 

[billd91]

I want a game in which I can convert and play older edition modules without too much hassle.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the more pertinent question here is not "what do you expect" to satisfy your needs for D&D Next... but rather "what do you need IN ADDITION TO OR IS DIFFERENT from your current edition you are playing" to satisfy your needs for D&D Next?

Because it seems like answers have been more about repeating the things they already get in what they're already playing... so there doesn't seem to be any reason for people to actually switch over.

If you're considering swapping your game to 5E... there must be some things in your current favorite that you don't want anymore or don't like. So what is it that you aren't getting from your current edition that you want to have added or changed that would make you play the game?

***

And to answer the question myself (by basically dodging it)... frankly, I have NO EXPECTATIONS for D&DN. I have bought and played every edition of D&D and will buy and play this one too. Because to me they are all different games and I am not beholden to any particular one (nor any particular RPG in general for that matter.) I do not have one "D&D holy grail" that I'm looking for to answer all my D&D needs... I'll just play a fun game regardless of when it was made or what number is on it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Because it seems like answers have been more about repeating the things they already get in what they're already playing... so there doesn't seem to be any reason for people to actually switch over.

There is very little that I want from D&D that it has never at least touched upon. The problem is, no single edition has every hit the target dead center.

A decade or more ago, had someone asked me this question, I'd have wanted D&D to be more like RuneQuest or Fantasy Hero or GURPs or Rolemaster or something. Now, I want D&D to be more fully itself--in depth and breadth.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

5) Divination Constraints and Hard-Coded Mechanics

This can be any of the various power Divination spells (Commune, Legend Lore, Scrying, etc) to the lower powered spells (Detect line) to their painful, at-will analog (if any exists...please no). I've said it multiple times at this point but once more won't kill me. Unconstrained, Powerful, Limited-Use Divination abilities, when adjudicated fairly as RaW, obliterate intrigue or investigatory plot arcs. Mildly-Constrained (or narrow in scope or weak in power), At-Will (or near it due to proliferation of spell slots) Diviniation abilities, when adjuticated fairly as RaW, can send a DM into a never-ending Rock-Paper-Scissors Consideration Game when composing intrigue or investigatory plot arcs. I want to create intrigue and investigatory plot arcs and I would like it if they are compelling and solvable primarily through engagement with the fiction (rather than I win buttons), but I am certainly just fine with hard-coded divination mechanics helping the fiction along. Further, I do not want it to be an exercise in agony during prep as I am attempting to contrive these arcs.


6) Constrained Transmutation (Teleportation, Flight, etc) and Conjuration (Phantom Steed, etc)

I want Exploration and Chases to maintain their relevance throughout the campaign. Unfortunately, Unconstrained, Powerful, Limited-Use Transmutation and Conjuration abilities, when adjudicated fairly as RaW, obliterate the tension/compelling nature of chases, travel to far-to-reach places or travel through inhospitable places (eg phantom steeding out of the Mines of Moria or riding eagles, or turning into an eagle, to fly to Mordor).

I think these two might be best divided between "heroic" and "paragon" tiers in 5e: while it's reasonable to expect PCs up to about level 10 to still be sailing ships and riding horses around, I think a lot of people would be unsatisfied with a game where a level 18 party was still renting mules.

Likewise, I hate adjudicating at-will Detect Evil myself, but if I'm playing a cleric, I'll start to get a little testy if I get to level 15 and still can't actually schedule a few sentences one-on-one with my deity.

The trick is that even higher-level travel adventures and sleuthing should still be possible, because those magical forms of travel and investigation should be carefully balanced and limited. That is, long-range teleportation should be very, very difficult, almost epic, because after riding horses for a while, the PCs should get to ride griffons or turn into birds or something. Teleportation is really the most boring form of transportation, narratively speaking, and should only be available once there is really nothing of potential interest for the party between points A and B - in other words, once they're near epic-level and more worried about extradimensional threats than low-level political intrigue.

Likewise, a high-level wizard might be able to send out insect or raven minions to spy on his enemies, or sense whenever someone says his name, but 3e-style scrying just ruins the fun. It should be saved for near-epic levels, where the only real threats left are highly magically capable and can block or counteract scrying.

TL;DR: Heroic-tier parties should mostly communicate, explore, and travel in a fairly mundane fashion. Lower paragon-tier characters may have some magically enhanced options (overland flight, etc.) but no "win buttons" for the exploration and investigation aspects of the game. Long-distance teleportation and scrying should by 9th-level spells, so they're only affecting the highest-level parties, who are primarily focused on epic-level threats anyway.

 

[Zustiur]

I want the game to enable me to run the game style I want. I want it to allow me to run whatever story I want. Nothing offends me more as a DM than being told by the book that the PCs are already heroes at level 1. In all of my stories, 'hero' is a title that must be earned.

I want the stat blocks to be simple, to the point, and reproduce-able. If I can't quickly dump it into MS word, I'll end up making my own statblocks anyway. This means either, no fancy symbols, or those symbols available as freely downloadable fonts. I want the monster info to be at least as evocative and informative as 2e MM.

I want the core rules to be short and to the point - short enough that even my casual players will read them all the way through.

I want to be able to have my casual players pick up a spell caster and not be overwhelmed by the spell list and mechanics.

I want book indexes that are fast and effective.

I want all level based options (ala feats) to be balanced internally. i.e. 1 feat doesn't obsolete another feat.

I want the books (DMG and MM) to support me as a reference tool during the game.

I want the official adventures to be of a far higher fidelity than 4E's H1-H3. By this I mean that it's not just a series of rooms with a combat in each room.

I want practical advice on ad libbing NPC personalities (shop keepers et al). I want a myriad of other things in this line as DMing is something I enjoy but am not sufficiently experienced with. I am currently unable to bring my ideas to fruition at the game table.

I want a book of traps, hazards and obstacles akin in size and scope to the monster manual. Something that really focuses on the 'exploration' phase. A similar book for the interaction phase would be good (this stuff doesn't all have to be in DMG1 afterall...) In fact, I want the DMG to be a guide to DMing, rather than a repository for rules that didn't fit in the PHB. Additionally I want the PHB to be readable again.

I want much of the information provided to DMs to be system independent - If I choose to run 2e then all the advice should still be relevant even if the tables and mechanics may need tweaking.

I want any online tools to be as practical and effective as MapTool, without being as invasive and necessary as the Character Builder. I want ready access to maps small and large that can be readily opened within said tools. Random dungeon generation would be a bonus. In fact I want the e-tools, whatever they might be, to focus on DMs first, and be a true aid to game prep. If there are things like treasure parcels and random treasure tables, I want simple automated tools that help me dump this stuff straight into OneNote or a Word document without having to dig out my dice and roll all the treasure myself. * more on this later

I want to be able to read the books and not notice errors that should have been picked up by an editor on the first pass-through. I'd also love to read it in Australian English or at least British English. 'Armour' not 'armor' please.

I feel that a rule which takes more than two paragraphs to explain is generally too complex for its own good. This applies doubly to corner case rules like spells in 3E. That is; the rule only exists as part of that spell and it still takes several paragraphs to explain.

I want the concept that 'everything is core' to 'die in a fire'. Core means core, the center, the bit in the middle, not the whole of the thing.

I want to switch to the BECMI style book division. Say in 4E terms, PHB1 contains the heroic tier. PHB2 contains paragon and so on. A broad base with short range is more useful to me than a small base with a long range.

I want introductory versions to be available for miniature play and for theatre of the mind. i.e. I want there to be an introductory version that doesn't also hope to sell a bundle of miniatures and make parents dig deep in their pockets.

I want to see splatbooks that aren't necessarily tied to an edition and which focus on things outside of the rules. Things like how to improve your roleplaying. How to be more expressive. How to introduce and use different accents and voices.



* = I sparked my imagination with that point. I'd love a tool that literally builds you a random dungeon complete with monsters and treasure. Various options get picked then it rolls up everything for you. Example: Pick size/length, target party level, and an optional themes (goblinoids. Cave. Dungeon. Castle. Undead. Forest). Click the button, get a map that you can use in an e-map-tool during game, or PRINT OUT (in selectable scales from 5mm squares to 1" squares) in both DM's copy (with all the rooms, monsters and treasure marked) and player's copy (just a map) version. Speaking of map, I don't just want rooms and corridors. I want it to furnish my dungeons. That step right there is something I suck at.

 

[Manbearcat]

I want the DMG to be a guide to DMing, rather than a repository for rules that didn't fit in the PHB.

Its early but you may have just won the thread.

 

[n00bdragon]

If I'm going to stop playing 4e I need the following (this is not a list of wants, this is needs. 4e is a perfectly good game that I'm happy with and have no intention of switching from unless I see something better):

- It needs to have a clear sense of what characters can do, what they cannot do, and what they can be expected to to be able to do all the way from level one to whatever level the game ends at. Those abilities should be roughly balanced between classes. Not exactly balanced but the same ballpark is necessary. Characters cannot be playing wildly different games at any point.

- Monsters must be easy to create and the math behind them must be standardized. Also there should be a clear idea of what monsters should be able to do at certain difficulties. When designing my own monsters I must be able to say "The party is level X therefore it's appropriate that I give the monster the ability to do Y to them." I should not especially have to consider the party's composition or their specific abilities when designing or appropriating monsters.

- The game must be a fun and interesting game without the addition of any roleplaying whatsoever. I know it sounds like an odd requirement but the engine must be able to run before we start talking about building a car around it. Roleplaying should make the game even more fun. We shouldn't be having fun roleplaying in spite of the game.

 

[pemerton]

I want to know what I can consistently expect from a PC regarding their mechanical output.

<snip>

I want my players/friends to be able to construct and play their favored archetypes and have them be functional.

<snip>

I expect my monsters to mechanically represent my expectations of their physiology, their tactics/abilities, and their roles/place within their tribe hierarchy or their ecology/behaviors if they are a non-social creature. I want a diverse and tactically compelling set of monsters to work with. I want their combat relevant abilities/stats self-contained to small blocks. As important, I want their functionality (such as the case with my PCs) and their math to consistently produce in-line with their XP value, CR (however it will be defined in Next) so that my built encounters (from a dynamism and a difficulty standpoint) meet my preconceptions as predicated on the rules text.

<snip>

Tactically Rich Combat <snip> filled with variety and interesting PC Decision-Points (and my own) which consistently comport with the challenge level that I expected when I composed it...and as importantly, let my players flex their chosen archetype muscles within the fiction.

<snip>

I want to create intrigue and investigatory plot arcs and I would like it if they are compelling and solvable primarily through engagement with the fiction (rather than I win buttons), but I am certainly just fine with hard-coded divination mechanics helping the fiction along. Further, I do not want it to be an exercise in agony during prep as I am attempting to contrive these arcs.

<snip>

I want Exploration and Chases to maintain their relevance throughout the campaign.

<snip>

Simple, Clear, Limited Buff Mechanics

<snip>

Non-Combat, Closed System, Fiction Resolution Mechanics

<snip>

Clear and Concise Rules Texts

From the OP, these are the things that are especially important to me.

I want the DMG to be a guide to DMing, rather than a repository for rules that didn't fit in the PHB.

Yes. I would add - a big part of that guidance should be advice on how to use the mechanics of the game, and the mechanical elements (like terrain, monsters etc) to do stuff as a GM. 4e has good advice on the purely tactical side of things, but poor advice on the story side of things. I hope the next DMG works on that.

 

[pemerton]

The game must be a fun and interesting game without the addition of any roleplaying whatsoever. I know it sounds like an odd requirement but the engine must be able to run before we start talking about building a car around it. Roleplaying should make the game even more fun. We shouldn't be having fun roleplaying in spite of the game.

I think I disagree with your first sentence, though maybe it depends what you mean by "roleplaying."

An example - skill challenges are of no interest, as a mechanic, if you ignore the shared fiction, because all the pressure points for decision, and the stakes that make the challenge engaging, arise from the fiction. (It is not like the D&D combat rules, which in every edition can be fairly easily adapted to tactical skirmish play). But that doesn't make them bad mechanics. And I wouldn't mind it if the combat mechanics made engaging with the fiction more important than it is now.

But I completely agree with your last sentence. Having fun in spit of the mechanics, for me, is suggestive of free-form resolution, GM fiat, and other resolution systems that I'm not the biggest fan of. The mechanics should support, underpin and reinforce the fiction that we're aiming for in play (eg if combat is meant to be tense and scary, the mechanics need to make it a tense and scary experience - I don't want to have to have everyone at the table pretending it's scary even though the mechanics tell us it's a fait accompli).

Unfortunately, I think this is a big divide in playstyles - the idea of "illusionism" has been coming up on a few threads recently, and far from everyone is against it.

 

[BobTheNob]

- The game must be a fun and interesting game without the addition of any roleplaying whatsoever. I know it sounds like an odd requirement but the engine must be able to run before we start talking about building a car around it. Roleplaying should make the game even more fun. We shouldn't be having fun roleplaying in spite of the game.

Much Like pemerton on this. The first and last sentence are intriguing.

The first one : I understand where you are coming from, but Im glad nooby dm's wouldnt have to think like this, cause if they did, they would get it wrong. Its a dangerous statement but I suspect most here are of a level of maturity an sophistication to understand it.

But that last sentence sais it all. At the end of the day, TT RP is all about letting players tell the story and letting their imaginations solve the problems before them (Hell, if that wasnt true I would just be subbing an MMO instead). My greatest requirement of 5e is that, when the RP begins, the rules dont start acting like shackles and that players are able to solve the problems before them in more ways that the numbers and powers on their sheets suggest. That stepping outside the box is a facet of the system, rather than the exception to it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As a DM (or GM, more generally), personally, I don't have a lot of concerns or requirements for 5e. It's simply easier to find players, as a GM, than it is to find a good game as a player. D&D, thanks to it's name recognition, is almost always the easiest game to find, so, from the player perspective, how good or bad the widely-played versions of it are is important to me, because non-D&D (or obscure/unpopular versions of D&D) may not be an option. As a GM, I can run whatever system I want and generally find players.

If I have friends who really want to play D&D, and specifically want to play 5e, then I can run it, regardless of how it turns out, because I'm a very experienced DM, I have a talent for improv, a knack for mechanics, and I can make anything work at the table. I might be figuratively holding my nose, or might change a few things (w/in my hypothetical players' tolerance for change), but I ran an AD&D campaign for 10 years solid, I doubt 5e could be screwed up enough that it'll give me trouble.


Hmm... OK, there is /one/ thing that, as a DM, I'd be happy to see 5e do: work the reverse of the sea-change upon the community that 3e did, and restore a more general acceptance of variants and house rules. That does make a DM's job easier, even a really 'good' DM who can fix anything - because players who think everything should be 'RAW' can be put off by any fix, no matter how reasonable.