D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

If only I could "wing" Hero like I could AD&D; I'd never need another system.
It is possible to "wing" Hero. I've done it, for much of a campaign, in fact. As with any system you just have to be very familiar with it... there's just a lot to be very familiar with. ;) And, of course, there's a knack to it that's not entirely learned - part of it is just liking to run in that style. I know very good DMs who will not 'wing' anything more than they absolutely have to.


I've been pleasently surprised by how much they have innovated so far, with things like bounded accuracy, ability-score saving throws, skills being tied to background instead of class,
Bounded accuracy is just the 4e treadmill switched off. Ability-score saving throws I seem to recall from classic D&D (maybe 2e - not in the same sense, mind you, it was rolling under your stat for things not covered by regular saves). Skills by Background reminds me strongly of the AD&D 'secondary skill' table, where you determined what sort of work you were learning to do before you took up adventuring.

Advantage/Disadvantage is the only new idea I noticed in the playtest. Not sure how good an idea it is, but it's new. And, even it's not /that/ new, as 4e was full of re-rolls.


3) Create a basic ruleset that celebrates the key distinction of D&D being the first RPG ever made - and not reliant upon miniatures and wargaming tropes in order to be able to play.
So, celebrate D&D's origin, while at the same time denying its roots? D&D grew out of Chainmail, which was a wargame, and 0D&D had 'wargames' and 'miniature figures' right on the cover.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BobTheNob

First Post
At this stage I like what I hear coming from WOTC. Frankly, so much of what they have promised are the things I was crying for whilst playing previous editions (for example, flattened probability math).

For me though, its a return to the strength of tabletop. Less combat emphasis, more RP emphasis, and above all else a system that rewards creative thinking relative to capability.
 


Harlock

First Post
Ah. Well, in that case, they don't have much chance, with me. Games are not "significant others". I see no reason to devote myself to just one for longer than one campaign.

Well, without side-tracking the thread too much, I am fascinated by this comment! Just how long has your longest campaign been?
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Well, without side-tracking the thread too much, I am fascinated by this comment! Just how long has your longest campaign been?

Well, I've had my share of campaigns that just never go anywhere - people get busy, scheduling issues arise, and such. But the ones that don't die young? Multiple years. The longest that I've run was probably 4 or 5 years - they generally end as lives change and people move away and such.

But, it sounded like your "stick with it" is more akin to "D&D is my game - it is the game I play". Right now I am running a Classic Deadlands game, I'm playing in one Star Wars Saga Edition game, I'm in an online Dresden Files game, and someone I know may be starting a White Wolf game soon that I might be asked to join, as the GM has moved to be within a mile of my house.

Fidelity? Not so much. I like to play around. :p
 

So, celebrate D&D's origin, while at the same time denying its roots? D&D grew out of Chainmail, which was a wargame, and 0D&D had 'wargames' and 'miniature figures' right on the cover.

D&D's legacy was that it evolved from war-games, and created a new medium for interacting in fantasy worlds where you were only limited by your imagination.

When I first played D&D there was no requirement to use miniatures at all, and it's only been in recent editions where designers have chosen to make this aspect more prominent again, and hardwire it into the rules. Personally, I find that this approach is rejecting the single aspect of D&D that made it significantly different to war-games in the first place.
 

Stormonu

Legend
Like my Mom taught me, long ago, concerning dinners - you need to try a bit of it first before you decide you don't like it.

Well, don't know about you, but I'd never try a dinner of escargot, no matter what - so there are some things (well, actually a lot) that I just am unwilling to try. Same goes for RPGs - say, like F.A.T.A.L.

Don't stray too far from my cheeseburger and fries (or steak and potato) :D.

I don't get the sense though, WotC's offering is off and away from the "fast food" menu.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Same goes for RPGs - say, like F.A.T.A.L.

Ah. Well, for these purposes, FATAL is not really an RPG. It is either a satire (assuming the author was joking) or a socio-political screed (if the author was serious). Either way, it isn't a playable game - if only because the approach to the subject matter makes the players want to vomit. :)
 

Celestian

Explorer
To get me to buy "next" product they will need to make it so I can use the product in my AD&D games. Or allow me to use AD&D modules using the "next" system without a huge amount of conversion. Ascending AC/BaB is ok, all the skills/feats/powers is not.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Ah. Well, for these purposes, FATAL is not really an RPG. It is either a satire (assuming the author was joking) or a socio-political screed (if the author was serious). Either way, it isn't a playable game - if only because the approach to the subject matter makes the players want to vomit. :)

So...what you're saying is...F.A.T.A.L. is a Retch Provoking Game.
 

Mengu

First Post
With its current direction, it is highly unlikely it'll ever be my primary game of choice. If they make enough customization options, I might play a short campaign but I'm not likely to devote much time to it. I like 4e. For me it is a superior gaming experience than all previous editions. For me to really get on board with 5e, they need to stop this "what does D&D feel like" line of thinking, and give me a game that allows me to make it feel however the hell I want it to feel.

I'd be happy with either:

A. They make a new non-clone edition, starting from scratch for mechanics without sacred cows, mechanics that give us freedom, rather than restrictions, and innovation, similar to what they did going from 3e to 4e, but taking steps forward from 4e.
B. They use 4e chassis.

We pretty much know neither of these are going to happen.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
So...what you're saying is...F.A.T.A.L. is a Retch Provoking Game.

In considering this response, I was reminded of the immortal wisdom of one penguin, by name of Opus, who opined:

"PPPBLTHTTBLPTPTH!"

And that's all I have to say about that :)

-Um "this gives me images of 'raspberry sorbet' that I never wanted" bran
 


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
In considering this response, I was reminded of the immortal wisdom of one penguin, by name of Opus, who opined:

"PPPBLTHTTBLPTPTH!"

And that's all I have to say about that :)

-Um "this gives me images of 'raspberry sorbet' that I never wanted" bran

I thought that was originally a Bill the Cat line...
 

Mallus

Legend
Like I've posted before, I'll use D&D Next if...

... it's less complicated than 3e/4e/Pathfinder.

... it plays faster at the table than 3e/4e/Pathfinder.

... it offers more robust mechanical options for PCs than AD&D/2e.

If it doesn't, I'll mine Next for useful rules and then switch off between Pathfinder, AD&D, and possibly 4e for my D&D needs.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
So far, based on the play test, D&D Next is already making good moves to win me over. It plays reasonably quickly and has plenty of old-school D&D feel to it.

However, articles that have been coming out are a decidedly mixed bag. I like the idea of moving back toward 1e/2e magic item sensibilities and GM authority over the magic items in the campaign. But the monster creation article and discussion about balancing characters by managing an estimated daily number of combat rounds leave me cold. I start to feel that the game is being over-designed around certain specifications and may not tolerate deviation from those very well. And if there's anything we've learned from communication with other gamers, there's a lot of variation out there, some of it pretty radical.
 

I'll run it as long as it can present itself as being the best game going for what I want to play. I'll play it if it's what the DM wants to run.

At the moment it doesn't look like improving on 4e in the slightest (I'm looking hard at 13th Age as something that might).
 

KidSnide

Adventurer
Like I've posted before, I'll use D&D Next if...

... it's less complicated than 3e/4e/Pathfinder.

... it plays faster at the table than 3e/4e/Pathfinder.

... it offers more robust mechanical options for PCs than AD&D/2e.

That is almost exactly what I'm looking for as well. I'd like a game that provides speed and simplicity of play that is closer to BECMI than the WotC editions of D&D, but with sensible modern mechanics and more flexibility.

I would also like to see an attempt to solve the problems that 3.x introduced to the game, especially in magic items, class imbalance and time consuming character gen and adventure prep. 4e made strides here, but I'd like to see solutions without adding the 4e's poorly chosen keywords, focus on unimportant tactical complexity or encyclopedia of thinly differentiated powers and feats.

-KS
 

innerdude

Legend
It could cease to exist.

Seriously.

It's not to everyone's taste, but 4e is far and away the best at what it does, and is actually a unique entry into the market. Let 4e "be D&D" for a decade. Reprint old systems occasionally, maybe, but the community doesn't really need 5e. I've seen NOTHING from the 5e playtest that made me want to use it over anything else I have on my shelf RIGHT NOW.

If I want fast, easy-to-play rules that don't totally sacrifice tactics? Savage Worlds nails it. If I want "classic" D&D? I've got hundreds of megabytes of OSR retroclones on PDF, print-on-demand, and my Rules Cyclopedia. If I want a more modern take on "classic" D&D, I've got Pathfinder (with excellent GM material from Paizo) and Fantasy Craft (which frankly blows every other d20 system out of the water). If I want "gritty" fantasy, I've got Runequest / Legend.

But if 5e is going to have ANY chance of winning me over, it needs to be FAR AND AWAY the most deeply supported version of D&D EVER. It needs to be OGL. It needs to allow third-party publishers to create supplements, modules, and settings. It needs if not innovative at least COMPETENT digital support. It needs to be available on PDF so I can use it with my Android tablet. There needs to be so much cool stuff available for it that I can't HELP but want to buy it. Every time I walk into my FLGS, if I'm not tempted to walk out with $100+ of D&D Next stuff, then it's a failure in my book. I've probably spent $700-800 on RPG stuff the last 24 months. Other than a $20 set of dungeon tiles, not a cent of that has been on WotC stuff.

I forget who said it in another thread, but it's absolutely the truth--I don't need D&D Next, but it definitely needs me.
 

delericho

Legend
In order to win me over, 5e needs to be significantly better at providing me with a D&D experience than my current edition of choice (3e). As for what that actually means, it is both ill-defined and necessarily subjective - I'll know it when I see it.

In particular, I'm not particularly interested in 'modularity'. If I have to make significant changes from the Core, whether these are house rules or are the "official house rules" that modules represent, the game will quickly reach a point where it's just not worth my effort. I know that's a very demanding requirement, but there it is: the Core needs to nearly match my requirements in order to win me over.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top