D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Bobbum Man]

In your humble opinion, of course, and the milage of others may vary.

No it doesn't.

Third edition in general was a steaming pile of crap for soulless bureaucrats, but the multi-classing rules were especially feculent, and people who like them are not only just plain wrong, but probably make terrible decisions in other areas of their life as well. I'm willing to bet that instances of bankruptcy and spousal abuse among fans of 3E multi-classing, for example, are through the roof.

Mod Note: Ladies and Gentlemen, please see my note below ~Umbran

 

[ForeverSlayer]

As long as 5th edition is nothing like 4th edition and I have time outside of Pathfinder then I will play it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No it doesn't.

Third edition in general was a steaming pile of crap for soulless bureaucrats, but the multi-classing rules were especially feculent, and people who like them are not only just plain wrong, but probably make terrible decisions in other areas of their life as well. I'm willing to bet that instances of bankruptcy and spousal abuse among fans of 3E multi-classing, for example, are through the roof.

Thank you for

1) your assessment of my preferred version of D&D

2) your assessment of my personality & life

3) your worldview that assumes that your opinions are objective facts.

That makes you special.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sigh.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Seconded!

Unless it is in response to something grossly out-of-genre, like space monkeys or tommy guns, I consider all replies to the effect of "That's not D&D" to be admissions of defeat.

Hey! Don't tell me that Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and Spelljammer weren't D&D. You'll have to go a lot further than that to go out of genre

 

[Tony Vargas]

I find the "That's not D&D" response perfectly acceptable - especially when you can directly see what mechanics the respondent was referring to. It tells you exactly what the other person doesn't want in his/her D&D experience.

There are other, more accurate and less inflammatory ways of stating "I don't want that in my D&D experience" or "I don't like that because it's not what I'm used to" than "That's not D&D!" Even a factual "that would be a radical departure from the way the game has worked in the past" or "that could dilute the game's identity in a marketing sense" would say the same thing as "That wouldn't be D&D anymore."

As for how D&D next can win me over - It just has to be a game I enjoy playing AND give me the gaming experience that I associate with D&D.

The gaming experience I associate with classic D&D is one of frustration and disappointment punctuated with occasional moments of wonder - the latter possible only because I was relatively young, and the former tolerable only only because I was very enthusiastic and hadn't yet experienced anything better. I'm a different person with different experiences, now, and those early experiences can't be duplicated. I can enjoy a pang of nostalgia when they're alluded to, but that's not enough, for me, to base a campaign on, nor a good enough reason to buy a new edition. It might be worth playing a 1e AD&D game at a convention, for instance.

With modern D&D, OTOH, the amount of boredom and frustration you have to wade through to get to the good bits has steadily lessened, and the moments of awesome (not so much wonder anymore) have become more frequent. If 5e can continue that trend, great. If it brings back boredom and frustration by wallowing in nostalgia, no thanks.

 

[Umbran]

No it doesn't.

Oh, yes, yes it does.

Ladies and gentlemen,

If you haven't figured it out, the moderation staff of EN World does not support a "one true way" position on gaming. We also do not support using "The TRUTH!!!1!" as a springboard for name-calling, insults or other uncivil behavior. This went way, way over the line, and we don't suggest you emulate this approach to discourse on this site.

We expect you to treat each other with respect. If, at some moment of heat, you find you cannot do that, we expect you to walk away from the keyboard until you can.

Please continue your discussion as if Bobbum Man here won't be taking part, 'cause he won't.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

Seconded!

Unless it is in response to something grossly out-of-genre, like space monkeys or tommy guns, I consider all replies to the effect of "That's not D&D" to be admissions of defeat.

Weren't there tommy guns in the 1e DMG? Or maybe that was a Dragon issue that had WWII German soldiers meeting a fantasy party?

 

[Tony Vargas]

No it doesn't.

Third edition in general was a steaming pile of crap for soulless bureaucrats, but the multi-classing rules were especially feculent, and people who like them are not only just plain wrong, but probably make terrible decisions in other areas of their life as well. I'm willing to bet that instances of bankruptcy and spousal abuse among fans of 3E multi-classing, for example, are through the roof.

Mod Note: Ladies and Gentlemen, please see my note below ~Umbran

You've been modded, so I need say nothing more on that topic.

To the point worth addressing, though: 3e's multi-classing rules were perhaps the single most innovative and (along with consolidating on the d20 resolution mechanic) most elegant things 3e did. Classes went from straight-jackets that defined your character for his whole career to building-blocks that let you build for concept (or optimize for power) with a flexibility never before seen in the game's history. It was a real quantum leap for D&D, and it's sad that 4e didn't find some way to incorporate or build upon that advance from the beginning.


For 5e, 'taking the best from each ed' would mean (among other things) somehow delivering both the class balance and clarity that 4e achieved with the common "AEDU" advancement structure, Roles & Sources /and/ the build-to-concept customizeability that 3e achieved with it's innovative multi-classing. That might seem impossible, on the surface, but both rested upon the use of a single experience chart for all characters, and, I think both /could/ be built up from there. It'd be a matter of a common structure, but not one like AEDU that locks class features in at 1st level, and options like Themes (or Skill powers or racial power swaps or multi-classing) that let a character choose what he gains at each level from more than just the class he picked at 1st (ie: including other classes picked after first level, as in 3e). The exact implementation would be tricky, and making it familiarly "D&D" perhaps problematic, but it'd be worth trying for the sake of that 'best of each ed' objective.

 

[Derren]

To the point worth addressing, though: 3e's multi-classing rules were perhaps the single most innovative and (along with consolidating on the d20 resolution mechanic) most elegant things 3e did. Classes went from straight-jackets that defined your character for his whole career to building-blocks that let you build for concept (or optimize for power) with a flexibility never before seen in the game's history. It was a real quantum leap for D&D, and it's sad that 4e didn't find some way to incorporate or build upon that advance from the beginning.

And thats why I don't give much to the "its not D&D" complain, at least when it is about the mechanic.
Any improvement of the game mechanics can only come from outside D&D as otherwise we would already have it.