Do You Want A D&D That Is "Faster, Better, Smarter"?

[Weregrognard]

I was reading today's Legends and Lore and something Mr. Cook said in the article gave me pause:

"We don't want a new iteration of the game to be only a "best of" of the prior editions. If we did, there would be no reason to play it. It needs to achieve the goal of not only giving you the play experience that you want, but also giving you that play experience in a way that's better than what you've had in the past. Faster, better, smarter."

Here's the thing: it seems that every edition I've jumped to was because I wanted something "better". I jumped to 2e not long after starting with BECMI because, heck, it was "Advanced". I changed to 3e from 2e because it "fixed" my perceived problems with the previous edition, and finally, I (reluctantly, at first) switched to 4e because, once again, it seemingly improved on the game.

Maybe my tastes have changed, or I'm getting older, or I'm experiencing edition fatigue, but I don't think I want D&D to be improved anymore. I just want to play a cleaned-up game with most or all its idiosyncrasies. I'm on board with this:

"...a new iteration of the game to be only a "best of" of the prior editions."

But not this:

"...play experience in a way that's better than what you've had in the past. Faster, better, smarter."

You'd think I'd be silly to not want a D&D that plays better, but it's obvious (if you like RPG message boards) that some improvements on editions have led to changes that are not well-received, to say nothing of changes that make previous editions incompatible.

So how do you feel about this? Do you want D&D to be "Faster, better, smarter"? Can a balance be struck between improving the game without changing it too drastically? Personally, I think they can pull it off, but I'm still worried a little

 

[MortalPlague]

I'm not worried. And yes, I do want a faster, better, smarter D&D. I think there's room to take a look at some of the classic rules and ideas which have grown a little long in the tooth in their implementation and to put them into the game in a more streamlined, less clunky way. If the mechanics play faster but still evoke the same feel, then more power to them.

THAC0 for instance. When they took that out and replaced it with base attack bonus, I don't think anyone was complaining. I hope to see similar mechanical changes that make the whole game easier to play.

 

[BobTheNob]

I feeling edition fatigue too. I think everyone is.

Problem is, i dont think they have yet hit the design "Sweet Spot" Im looking for. That point where I can say "You nailed it with that last one, just clean it up a bit"

I think there is a little room for re-design here.

Perhaps I dont want them to "regress" to old design, but I do want them to look at what did and didnt work in all the editions and take that into account when designing 5e.

I dont expect 5e to be a refinement or a revolution. I expect it will be its own beast, but lets hope its a beast which is mature enough to hold a broad audience for a prolonged period, as they are going to need it to do.

 

[kitsune9]

For me, I agree with you in that it needs to clean up its idiosyncracies, but it does need to offer a new experience too in which adopting to 5e is a reasonable choice. For example, if I pick up 5e and it's core rules plus a couple of module rulesets and it plays like 3.5, then why would I switch from Pathfinder to 5e? Now if 5e plays like Pathfinder and does it with "Faster.Better.Smarter" plus 100% more whoppin wizbang, then that's a good incentive to switch.

I'm curious as to how they will pull it off.

 

[Filcher]

If I vote 'no' is it a vote for slower, worse, stupider?

 

[the Jester]

Yes; especially the faster part.

I want to be able to run about 15 combats in one session without feeling rushed.

 

[Someone]

With every new iteration they've (IMHO) looked at what they thought it didn't work and tried to improve it, but by doing that enough babies were thrown along with the bathwater that they may be a bit wiser now and desing a system that's truly better and smarter.

 

[Quickleaf]

"We don't want a new iteration of the game to be only a "best of" of the prior editions. If we did, there would be no reason to play it. It needs to achieve the goal of not only giving you the play experience that you want, but also giving you that play experience in a way that's better than what you've had in the past. Faster, better, smarter."

As long as he means extensive playtesting by a broad section of gaming community, then that sounds great. If he means professional game designers doing what they think is best, then it sounds like vapor. Fortunately, we've got lots of play-test reports indicating it's probably the former.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yes, I think they can and should do things better.

There are still a lot of clunky rules in 3.5 and 4E taht could use refining, and not make people look them up every time they come up in combat.

Im looking forward to waht they do.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm going to be learning a new system anyway; I should hope it's an improvement. Fortunately, the guys in charge of making it are both veterans of previous edition changes--Monte Cook from 2E to 3E, and Mike Mearls from 3E to 4E--and I think they have both learned from their experiences during those transitions, as well as (hopefully) gotten the urge to totally revolutionize D&D out of their systems. I want incremental improvements, but I do want improvements.