D&D (2024) Hypothetical Direction Shift For 1D&D/6E

[deganawida]

Okay, listed my dream of an updated SAGA version, but, keeping with the

In a vain attempt to actually get back on topic:

They could also introduce actual storytelling tools and dramatic metacurrency that would help it become the game many new players seem to want it to be -- one about dramatic action and epic stories. Part of doing this would also include killing the adventuring day (ie resource management) once and for all.

I would argue that, if they did take this approach, they'd need to rethink classes. Current classes exist in a void, and make the most sense in the traditional dungeon-crawl environment. Adding more of a focus on story, likely taking place outside of a dungeon environment and with characters designed more as literary or cinematic heroes, would necessitate defining better roles for characters that place them within a world. "Knight", for example, has greater meaning that "dude who charges from horseback"; it has a societal role that is equally as important as how it fights.

 

[mellored]

I sincerely doubt 1DnD will change directions.

However. I could totally see a VTT that runs another version of 4e (with bounded accuracy).

Call it DnD: Tactics.

 

[tetrasodium]

In a vain attempt to actually get back on topic:

They could also introduce actual storytelling tools and dramatic metacurrency that would help it become the game many new players seem to want it to be -- one about dramatic action and epic stories. Part of doing this would also include killing the adventuring day (ie resource management) once and for all.

not likely, that kind of compel type thing was a proto5e thing that got cut Mearls talks about it at around 1:21:20 here. If it's not compel & just a player power bump it would exacerbate all kinds of issues. d&d and 5e especially isn't really designed for that kind of toolkit to just get bolted on.

 

[TheSword]

Things that 3pp are producing - monsters, classes, feats, spells, races/ancestries, adventures, magic items.

So that is the stuff they could change if they want to push people to 6e.

It’s very risky.

 

[Reynard]

Okay, listed my dream of an updated SAGA version, but, keeping with the

I would argue that, if they did take this approach, they'd need to rethink classes. Current classes exist in a void, and make the most sense in the traditional dungeon-crawl environment. Adding more of a focus on story, likely taking place outside of a dungeon environment and with characters designed more as literary or cinematic heroes, would necessitate defining better roles for characters that place them within a world. "Knight", for example, has greater meaning that "dude who charges from horseback"; it has a societal role that is equally as important as how it fights.

That's why my first suggestion was to reduce the number of classes and broaden them through customization options.

 

[Scribe]

Things that 3pp are producing - monsters, classes, feats, spells, races/ancestries, adventures, magic items.

So that is the stuff they could change if they want to push people to 6e.

It’s very risky.

Its risky for Wizbro to add monsters, classes, feats, spells, (pc options), and adventures?

I mean the only real risk in your list that Wizbro ISNT or has not already done, is Items, and thats because their system is so barebones, it hardly supports it mathematically.

Why can't, or hasnt, Wizbro already dominated those other markets completely if the 3PP's are able to, and how is it a risk?

 

[deganawida]

That's why my first suggestion was to reduce the number of classes and broaden them through customization options.

Completely with you on that. I would reduce them to Warrior, Social*, Magical. Let each other class spin off from that core concept, as an idea that you're constantly refining and specializing what you do, and have the societal roles fit into it.

*I think this describes bards, thieves, assassins, and so forth better than "Expert" or "Rogue". These traditional classes have some very distinct social roles and skills. Putting it that way would also put more of an emphasis on the social pillar.

 

[Reynard]

Completely with you on that. I would reduce them to Warrior, Social*, Magical. Let each other class spin off from that core concept, as an idea that you're constantly refining and specializing what you do, and have the societal roles fit into it.

*I think this describes bards, thieves, assassins, and so forth better than "Expert" or "Rogue". These traditional classes have some very distinct social roles and skills. Putting it that way would also put more of an emphasis on the social pillar.

Iike one per attribute because it helps focus the core concept. But then I really liked D20 Modern and wish it has survived and evolved into the current system.

 

[Umbran]

I think they ar going back to the drawing board and compatibility is out the window.

Then they probably aren't going to hit the anniversary target date.

 

[deganawida]

Iike one per attribute because it helps focus the core concept. But then I really liked D20 Modern and wish it has survived and evolved into the current system.

I respect that. I personally do not, as I would rather each character be able to pick the attribute that they use to attack/defend with, so that I can finally play a smart fighter, rather than a strong fighter. Probably will never happen in D&D, where I can play a fighter with Int as attack/defend stat, but one can wish.