D&D 5E Evolution of D&D, and choices

[ccs]

Personally, I fear that a lot of the recent discussion is striking at the heart, the identity, of the game. The discussion of inclusion goes beyond x or y setting or A, B, and C options, but to things iconic to the game. Races. Classes. Alignment. Ability Scores. The very description of elves, orcs, and other creatures. And while complaints about said things have existed for quite a while, the current climate we find ourselves in has raised the volume and forced WotC to have to respond to these complaints in a much more vocal manner. For now, WotC will play damage control; point to Wildemount or Eberron as examples of PC orcs, pull alignment from generic humanoid stat-blocks, clean up some problematic text via errata, or add an optional rule in a new tome (only $49.99!) to fix ability score complaints. And that will work, in the short run. but 5e was supposed to be thier "evergreen" edition and increasingly, while the mechanics of 5e might more-or-less be evergreen, I think there will be significant pressure to "update" the game to remove the problematic elements entirely, and that will mean a new edition with a different tone.

The only people who believe 5e was ever meant to be "Evergreen" are those who failed their Save vs Marketing roll (DC: Don"t roll a 1)
Everyone else knows perfectly well that a 6e will be trotted out at some point. The only question is when.

And it's what that will look like that gives me pause. D&D has changed before (I can recall the days dwarves couldn't be wizards), but the core components have remained. What will "race" look like once the term is gone and the concept revised? Will classes like monk and barbarian remain or are they too problematic? Will WotC change ability scores to be less ableist? Will Alignment as a concept survive? Do orcs, goblinoids, and the like enter the PHB? If they do too much, they risk alienating their base (like 4e did), change too little we'll be doing this again in five years. It's not an envious position to be in.

For a glimpse of the future now follow the link:

paizo.com - Pathfinder Core Rulebook

paizo.com

 

[Oofta]

The only people who believe 5e was ever meant to be "Evergreen" are those who failed their Save vs Marketing roll (DC: Don"t roll a 1)
Everyone else knows perfectly well that a 6e will be trotted out at some point. The only question is when.
...

I'm not sure I agree 100%. At the end of 4E, D&D was on a downward trajectory and was the 2nd edition to do so. I think there was a very real possibility that 5E was kind of a Hail Mary, one last try at getting some return out of a minor IP. They've repeatedly stated that 5E has exceeded expectations, I suspect that if it had performed to expectations or below it would have simply limped along on life support.

 

[Haldrik]

Reading this and other threads has me thinking that the evolution of D&D needs to be total - a new edition will come sooner than later.

So far 5e is doing well. There are still things I want 5e to get right before moving on to a new edition. I appreciate the effort to make reallife players feel more welcome. I would like to see psionics work well. Lets get this stuff right before worrying about a new edition that will have its own new problems to deal with.

 

[Haldrik]

Why is having darkvision because of biology ok but not being stronger because of biology?
What you propose is basically removing races entirely and everyone playing a human.

Darkvision is magic. I get it, some snakes have heat vision, some sharks have electrical senses, bats and dolphins have sonar. But they dont work like darkvision does. Darkvision is magic.

In my campaigns, I often treat halflings and orcs as other species of human, with reallife counterparts. They are natural and lack magical explanation. But most D&D humanoids are magical creatures. Magic makes anything possible, and makes arguments from "biology" moot.

Even regarding reallife humans. Male and female often tends to be overlapping bell curves. Men might tend to be taller, but actually, many women are taller than many men. When it comes to the extremes of the bell curve, anything is possible. So while it is less probable that a woman will be the strongest human on earth, it is statistically possible.

When it comes to a fantasy game, arguments from "realism" have limited usefulness.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ah, man, come on people... why can't we all just get along!?

Seriously, though, to address @Sacrosanct in the OP:

Sure, the game changes. Most games do. We either look at the new version and decide to give it a try, or don't. Even after trying it, we might not like it and fall back to the "older" game. Like you, I played a little 3E (like maybe a year?), but then life happened and D&D didn't anymore. About two years ago a younger friend of mine from work was talking about D&D, we struck up a conversation and he told me a bit about 5E (honestly, I was so out of the scene I hadn't even known it was on the shelves!) and I told him tales of the 1E/2E I played for decades. I stopped by the bookstore, glanced through the PHB, and decided for less than $100 I could give it a whirl. Although there is lots about it I don't like, there are new ideas which I love, and so closing on two years later we are still playing it.

This player I first started with and another both embrace just about everything 5E comes out with. Me? No, thank you. I don't like CR or their book, not crazy about Eberron (?) or a lot of the "new" material. I find it unbalanced and not to my liking or the style of play I enjoy. Depending on the direction 6E takes when it emerges, I might finally get of the train and just stay with 1E/2E if I can find players or our house-ruled 5E.

But it is interesting that one of our group really wants to play 1E. I had him make up some characters and we played a couple times. He loves it. He likes the different mechanics, tables, dice, and systems it uses instead of the same d20 for nearly everything. Another player is willing to give it a shot now as well.

Frankly, I'm with @Oofta on a number of things, but I also realized recently on a new character sheet I developed (and love, one of my best IMO) that I forgot to put alignment on it!! It just isn't a big thing in 5E. Personality, Ideal, etc. has more weight. For monsters, however, it gives DMs a board stroke as to the typical case (we all know there are always exceptions) and I am okay with that. Will I not play 6E if they take out alignment or make orcs variable for alignment? Nah, I'll still look into it. It just isn't that important to me, and if makes others happier playing the game without it, it is a small sacrifice I am more than happy to make for them so they enjoy the game more.

Do I represent non-hetero NPCs in my games? Sometimes, if it is relevant somehow to the story. But otherwise they are just "there" and it doesn't matter to me if they are hetero or not. If a player imagines an NPC is gay for some reason and has his PC act I on, I'll roll with it and play things out either way.

As others have said, 5E has redefined ability scores to the point that having a STR 20 doesn't make you necessarily a muscle-bound person. Application of what those scores represent is just as important. Thus, decreases due to gender or folk or whatever just don't make sense to maximums. If you want to apply them to initial scores? Well, maybe. I could see arguments both ways.

Regardless of what happens with WotC and the future of the game, I agree completely we all can have the game that our tables want to play, even if others don't like it.

 

[ccs]

I'm not sure I agree 100%. At the end of 4E, D&D was on a downward trajectory and was the 2nd edition to do so. I think there was a very real possibility that 5E was kind of a Hail Mary, one last try at getting some return out of a minor IP. They've repeatedly stated that 5E has exceeded expectations, I suspect that if it had performed to expectations or below it would have simply limped along on life support.

Even had they pulled the plug after 4e, Hasbro would've just put on ice & let it sit for few years. Then some years down the line they'd pull it out, dust it off, give it a slight re-vamp & you'd get a new edition. Probably as a 50th year edition (they like that sort of thing). They do this all the time with the various toy/game lines they own. Meanwhile they'd keep it slightly active by licensing it out to computer games etc. We might've even seen an actual MTG: D&D set/block.
So yeah, we're getting a 6e at some point.
And a 7th, and an 8th, &.....
My prediction is at 8-10 yr intervals - unless something goes seriously 4e style awry.

 

[Oofta]

...
My prediction is at 8-10 yr intervals - unless something goes seriously 4e style awry.

That or the alien AI nanotech robot zombie plague apocalypse will happen and it won't matter.

 

[Oofta]

...
Frankly, I'm with @Oofta on a number of things, but I also realized recently on a new character sheet I developed (and love, one of my best IMO) that I forgot to put alignment on it!! It just isn't a big thing in 5E. Personality, Ideal, etc. has more weight. For monsters, however, it gives DMs a board stroke as to the typical case (we all know there are always exceptions) and I am okay with that. Will I not play 6E if they take out alignment or make orcs variable for alignment? Nah, I'll still look into it. It just isn't that important to me, and if makes others happier playing the game without it, it is a small sacrifice I am more than happy to make for them so they enjoy the game more.
...

Well, for what it's worth, I don't really pay much attention to the alignments of PCs either. I do consider what to put on my own, but it's just one slice of the personality pie, and not even a very big one most of the time. I have no clue what my player's PC's alignments are because it doesn't really matter.

We're on the same page with monsters, it's quick and easy.

The big difference to me is that most monsters (and NPCs for that matter) are only "on screen" for a very short period of time. PCs have a lot more depth and nuance if that's something that matters to the player.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Personally, I fear that a lot of the recent discussion is striking at the heart, the identity, of the game. The discussion of inclusion goes beyond x or y setting or A, B, and C options, but to things iconic to the game. Races. Classes. Alignment. Ability Scores. The very description of elves, orcs, and other creatures. And while complaints about said things have existed for quite a while, the current climate we find ourselves in has raised the volume and forced WotC to have to respond to these complaints in a much more vocal manner. For now, WotC will play damage control; point to Wildemount or Eberron as examples of PC orcs, pull alignment from generic humanoid stat-blocks, clean up some problematic text via errata, or add an optional rule in a new tome (only $49.99!) to fix ability score complaints. And that will work, in the short run. but 5e was supposed to be thier "evergreen" edition and increasingly, while the mechanics of 5e might more-or-less be evergreen, I think there will be significant pressure to "update" the game to remove the problematic elements entirely, and that will mean a new edition with a different tone.

And it's what that will look like that gives me pause. D&D has changed before (I can recall the days dwarves couldn't be wizards), but the core components have remained. What will "race" look like once the term is gone and the concept revised? Will classes like monk and barbarian remain or are they too problematic? Will WotC change ability scores to be less ableist? Will Alignment as a concept survive? Do orcs, goblinoids, and the like enter the PHB? If they do too much, they risk alienating their base (like 4e did), change too little we'll be doing this again in five years. It's not an envious position to be in.

Perhaps it is the fear of the unknown that causes these fears. I like 5e as it stands. I personally see little wrong with it. But my opinion as a hetero-white-male isn't what is being considered. The game will grow and evolve, but I can't help but worry that it will grow past me...

the gamecan never grow past you. Keep the books you have and play on!

Personally, I fear that a lot of the recent discussion is striking at the heart, the identity, of the game. The discussion of inclusion goes beyond x or y setting or A, B, and C options, but to things iconic to the game. Races. Classes. Alignment. Ability Scores. The very description of elves, orcs, and other creatures. And while complaints about said things have existed for quite a while, the current climate we find ourselves in has raised the volume and forced WotC to have to respond to these complaints in a much more vocal manner. For now, WotC will play damage control; point to Wildemount or Eberron as examples of PC orcs, pull alignment from generic humanoid stat-blocks, clean up some problematic text via errata, or add an optional rule in a new tome (only $49.99!) to fix ability score complaints. And that will work, in the short run. but 5e was supposed to be thier "evergreen" edition and increasingly, while the mechanics of 5e might more-or-less be evergreen, I think there will be significant pressure to "update" the game to remove the problematic elements entirely, and that will mean a new edition with a different tone.

And it's what that will look like that gives me pause. D&D has changed before (I can recall the days dwarves couldn't be wizards), but the core components have remained. What will "race" look like once the term is gone and the concept revised? Will classes like monk and barbarian remain or are they too problematic? Will WotC change ability scores to be less ableist? Will Alignment as a concept survive? Do orcs, goblinoids, and the like enter the PHB? If they do too much, they risk alienating their base (like 4e did), change too little we'll be doing this again in five years. It's not an envious position to be in.

Perhaps it is the fear of the unknown that causes these fears. I like 5e as it stands. I personally see little wrong with it. But my opinion as a hetero-white-male isn't what is being considered. The game will grow and evolve, but I can't help but worry that it will grow past me...

the game cannot grow past you! Keep your books! I played 1st edition until 1999. Might play it again!

The reason most of us play D&D is brand recognition and archetypes and conventions.
Otherwise pathfinder or some retro clone would be just as good.

if the game loses its flavor, play what you like and stop buying product. Period.

if they take things too far in a direction I dislike, I am done buying. But they cannot take the game I love. They can only stop publishing it.

If they are wise, they will have choices. If not, my only protest will be no money to them. That’s all you can do.

but by all means keep playing.

no alignment, no racial bonuses, no archetypal monsters? At a certain point it won’t be D&D but rather a different fantasy game. Which is fine but I am in it for more traditional play and tropes.

Am I wrong? I don’t care. It’s my leisure time and my disposable income. Do what makes you happy. And don’t buy junk you don’t like. We will see what they put out next and we don’t have to buy it.

 

[Catolias]

So far 5e is doing well. There are still things I want 5e to get right before moving on to a new edition. I appreciate the effort to make reallife players feel more welcome. I would like to see psionics work well. Lets get this stuff right before worrying about a new edition that will have its own new problems to deal with.

I’m not sure that this is an either / or situation. Yes, 5e is doing well. And it’ll do so until it’s not. Change is not incremental. It is radical. It is transformative. It is unexpected. It can totally change the expectations and our understanding of how things have worked before. History is littered with it and, in the current times, COVID and BLM are spectacularly apposite and modern examples.

I was suggesting that if WotC is being honest about being inclusive and diverse it will need to be more than the minimal window dressing being suggested thus far. It is not a bunch of errata to the core books or some rule changes. It is not re-jigging or creating new origin stories.

Real change in D&D will mean a new edition sooner rather than later because it requires a rethought on mechanics for handling difference and “race”. (And, yes, that might mean they will also involve improvements to psionics)