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

[El Mahdi]

I want a D&D that is faster, better, smarter...and realer!

 

[Ratskinner]

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

Well, I think I'd characterize the last two edition jumps as trying to make the game better by "fixing" the problems with the edition before. In the process, they also added, changed, and re-invented things. In that way, you're bound to make missteps, and the game drifted along the way.

I get a different feeling this time. I don't think they are trying to "fix" anything in particular about the game's previous incarnations so much as recreate something ineffable about the way the game can/should/would play. I find it encouraging that they went back and played all the previous editions, and a lot of the things we've heard sound pretty good to me. I'm fairly optimistic about their chances from a game design standpoint.

I'm less optimistic about their chances with the social engineering goal of "reuniting" the fans of previous editions. They may make a big enough umbrella for all of them, but some will choose to stay outside. Its possible that the next "edition war" will be intramural, as fans of 5e's "Rock'em Sock'em Super Heroes I-spit-in-Gruumsh's-coffee" modules rail against the "Gritty Deadly Farmboy I-don't-name-my-characters-until-they-hit-5th" modules' fans and vice-versa.

But! We've got time.

 

[Ranganathan]

I want 5th ed to be a sleek, modern design that's reminiscent of earlier editions of the game, without being beholden to them. Take thaco and BAB as one example of a modern iteration of an old mechanic. It's mathematically identical in most places, but BAB and ascending AC are easier to use and don't require charts. Do that kind of fix to other bits of the game and it's got my money.

 

[RoboCheney]

I do want a "faster, better, smarter" D&D, but what that would look like is subject to interpretation. For me, it would be a streamlined 4e, and it wouldn't be announced for another 2 years or so . . .

 

[n00bdragon]

I'd love an edition that faster, better, smarter. I'm always about making things better. But then if that's the stated goal why make an article about bringing back old failed ideas that clearly didn't work before. As much as it's good to listen to your customers designers also need to realize that they need to rub some actual brain-cells together on their own as well. I don't care if 99% of the people who answer that poll demand gender-specific ability maximums. That doesn't mean it should actually become a part of the game. Sadly, this set of designers looks too timid to kill the sacred cows and appears to instead be courting them to capture that "sacred cow feel".

But D&D isn't a religion. It's just a game. They're just cows.

Kill em already.

 

[CM]

I voted for harder, better, faster, stronger.

 

[Kynn]

Faster, Better, Smarter

If you could have two of the three, which would you pick?

Faster?
Better?
Smarter?

Part of the problem with 5e's Big Promises is that have a rather naive view of being able to provide everything to everyone all at the same time. The truth is that along the way, it may not be possible to be all things to all gamers, and sometimes it's good enough to just get two out of three.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Hopefully I don't have to pay six million dollars (in 1974 dollars) for this game.

 

[Cadfan]

When I read 3e for the first time, I was AMAZED at all the cool things I could do in it that I couldn't do in previous editions.

The same thing was true of 4e.

And every well written expansion book that's been published for either system. At some point while reading it, I got really excited about some new, cool thing I could do that I couldn't have done previously.

D&DN needs to do that. Or else its a no-buy. Faster, better, smarter, all of those things are nice. But more important is the ability to do something new. If its just a better written version of 2e, then I'm uninterested.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sure. D&D is definitely too slow, too bad, and too dumb.