Is it time for 5E?

I'm up for 5E- assuming it meets my tastes. If it doesn't, I don't really care though. I was not happy w/ 3E, I was not happy w/ 4E at first, but grew to really like it in many aspects.

However, D&D is so far removed these days from my style of play and what I want/need out of the game (for the most part) I just am not concerned with what happens with the WOTC editions anymore. I am not the target market anymore and am OK with that. So if 5E is announced, thats cool & it will be nice to see something new, but I have plenty of other D&D system options that are meeting my needs, and plenty of support for them (Thanks Mr. Dancey!)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Then again, my ideal is for 5e to be like Savage Worlds or True20 Revised, but I'd settle for d20Modern or Grim Tales as the base with
a) No level Drain
b) Ability score reduction gives penalty to appropriate rolls rather than reduce the score itself
c) True20 Conviction/M&M Hero Points and their uses
d) True20/M&M Damage Save (gets rid of hit points and escalating Armor Class)
e) M&M Complications
f) Psychic's Handbook (Green Ronin) system for mental powers
g) Elements of Magic: Mystic Earth (EN Publishing) for magic
h) Blood and Fist (RPGObjects) for Martial Arts
i) Magic Item Creation as per Artificer's Handbook (Mystic Eye Games)
j) Revision of the Grapple rules
k) Smart and Agility Tricks as in Savage Worlds
l) 4e Saves as Defenses
m) 4e single save progression for all classes
n) 4e Heroic Tier Multiclassing based on feats
o) 4e Disease Track
p) Add incantations/rituals
q) Revise many of the class abilities
r) Advanced Classes use Talent Trees
s) d20 Modern Foe Factory (Adamant Entertainment) NPC design
It's probably a good thing you and I aren't both on the 5e design team, as (other than 'j' and 'q', which I agree with; and 'e' and 's', which I've no idea what they are) my reaction to the entire list above pretty much amounts to "bleah".

For 'q', I'd like to see the revision become a division, so there's less overlap between what the classes can do thus allowing each to shine at what it does best.

But overall from reading the above it still sounds like there'd still be a need for a character builder, and that alone is enough to turn me away. :(

That said, props to you for thinking it through in some depth.

Lan-"characters are not built before play, they are forged during it"-efan
 


I was there, too, and in northern Illinois and just south of the heart of what I call the Cradle of D&D (a crescent shape running from Chicago to Minneapolis, its outer arc encompassing Milwaukee and inner arc cresting through northern Illinois :D ). In the local game clubs which including mostly wargamers, often from Fort Sheridan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center, there was a great deal of looking down the nose by wargamers toward early RPGing. Some of us were young enough not to make the distinction and just did lots of both.

I had exactly the same experience in the UK at around the same time.


Here's where the modern use of the term grognard stems -

The Word "Grognard"

Oh, I'd heard the word in the wargaming context. I don't remember hearing it applied to a player of RPGs until the 1990s, describing someone who had a virulent hatred for White Wolf games (not proper RPGs :hmm: sounds familiar) and didn't mind complaining about it at every opportunity in my FLGS. He got described as an old grognard, which sounded strange at the time since I associated it with people older than me and he was younger.
 

I had exactly the same experience in the UK at around the same time.


There seemed to be a lot of game clubs back then (from what I know talking to people at conventions and reading in various publications of the time). Nowadays, I don't hear of many that meet outside of gamestores and individual homes. I wonder if public space has become too cost prohibitive for such networking.


Oh, I'd heard the word in the wargaming context. I don't remember hearing it applied to a player of RPGs until the 1990s, describing someone who had a virulent hatred for White Wolf games (not proper RPGs :hmm: sounds familiar) and didn't mind complaining about it at every opportunity in my FLGS. He got described as an old grognard, which sounded strange at the time since I associated it with people older than me and he was younger.


I've seen similar misuse of the modern version of the term as a pejorative, sometimes applied by persons to anyone who plays games that are out of print, or to anyone who doesn't play the most recent edition of their chosen game, or even just to anyone who doesn't use the most recent supplements or upgrades. In other cases I have seen the modernized form of the term misused as a self-applied badge of honor to depict someone as a throwback to any time previous when they felt a particular game or brand was still a valid form of their game of choice. I tend to refer to these latter individuals as neo-grogs.
 

There seemed to be a lot of game clubs back then (from what I know talking to people at conventions and reading in various publications of the time). Nowadays, I don't hear of many that meet outside of gamestores and individual homes. I wonder if public space has become too cost prohibitive for such networking.
I suspect many such groups were in fact college/university student clubs. I'd like to think such things still exist, they're certainly not as obvious as they once were...

Lan-"Clubs are good. Swords are better"-efan
 

Well, I guess I don't fit the mold.

I don't have anything against people who want 4e.

But I am frustrated that we only had a couple of years of support for 3.5e/d20 though. That was a bad move and they should've waited a few more years before going on to 4e.

I just wish that some 4e players had the same kind of respect for me, that they wouldn't hold anything against me because my preferred game is 3.5 and d20.

And a LOT of the OD&D, 1e, and 2e players that stuck with it would like the SAME respect from the D20/3.X die hards...but that never happened.

Still hasn't.

Perhaps turn around is fair play.

Overall, it would be great if everyone could respect everyone else's game of choice, but they don't.

I think the worst offenders actually were the 3.X players originally. Not a majority, or even most of them, but some particularly hard nosed die hards who constantly derided older editions of the game as inferior.

I think some of the older players may not have really preferred 4e either, but jumped on the bandwagon when 4e initially came out to poke the hot stick from the fire right back at those tormenters who suddenly had their idolatry of D20 shoved from under them and had the same experience as some of the older gamers when 3e came out.

However, I think that some of those that have switched to Pathfinder, or are the really hard nosed die hards of D20 have only aggravated the situation over the years. I feel it could have died out. The D20 hardnosed die hards (the small but LOUD minority I've talked about) can't let dead dogs lie. They take every opportunity to praise their D20 game and put down everything else.

That automatically puts people on the defensive. They're continued arguments about "improvements" over past editions...but that 4e destroyed D&D simply puts fuel on the fire with people firing back about how 4e is actually an improvement and how 3e was so terribly unbalanced.

I actually like 3.5 a lot. I think it's a better game ever since the migration of players went to Pathfinder, including a majority of this small minority of die hards who complain loudly and insult everything but their chosen messiah of a game. Now the 3.5 players don't seem to have to deal with these people.

I think pathfinder is a good system as well in all likelihood. I asked about it a little while ago and even gave it a try. However, two people of the group simply could NOT let me be. They'd deride the fact that I had no problem with 4e or AD&D constantly...and spout all sorts of nonsense about how superior Pathfinder and D20 games were. Instead of taking a baseball bat to their heads, I left the group and have never gone back. I'll probably NEVER play Pathfinder again. It was a group of around 5 people...so they were absolutely the minority...but made life so painful to game around them...I don't want to put up with it.

In otherwords, it's not the game system I have a problem with, it's the people that play it.

I've never had a problem like that with others for any other game system...maybe I'm just blessed.

Where was a I going with this...got sidetracked with just how disgusted I got with those two guys...It was so disgusting it actually turned me off of what probably was a good game system overall.

Ah, that's right...I think a LOT of this was actually a small minority of people, specifically a minority that plays some D20 type games. I'm not certain what attracts this mindset to that type of game, but it's the only place I've ever actually seen it in public...and seen a reflection of it on the internet.

I remember wargames and the change (I still call myself a wargamer and boardgamer overall, and typically will not actually admit to being part of an RPG group amongst them unless they play RPGs as well), but I NEVER SAW ANYTHING even close to the insults and catcalls, the derision and fury I've seen the edition wars of late. Much of that was probably if many of these items were stated to one's face, it would have ended up in a fist fight. People tend to be more polite when face to face.

I don't really recall any such fury over the 1e to 2e change. Most seemed to be take it or leave it. Some were very angry, but again, nothing like these edition wars of late. Much of it could have been TSR's official stance was a grandfather clause which stated that anything in 1e could be used with 2e via grandfather clauses when 2e came out. I think there was a LOT of those who used 1e intermixed with 2e. Others simply ignored 2e. Some hated on 2e...but again, nothing like what I've seen when 3e came out.

When 3e came out it was like holy fire from the sky with wars concerning the differences, whether it was or was not D&D, whether it was inspired by Diablo or not (I actually feel it was inspired by the Diablo games as much as 4e was inspired by MMORPG's) and a whole slew of forum wars about them. Things we'd never say to each other face to face went on, and insults abounded about both editions.

I've never seen anything that completely embattled about an edition before or since. Even these latests 3e to 4e wars seem tame in comparison to just how much and how far reaching these arguments went. Forums would simply be full from top to bottom with these arguments.

There was unhappiness with 3e to 3.5, but once again, the editions wars of AD&D/D&D to 3.X were still there and probably were just as disruptive as the 3e to 3.5 arguments.

3e to 4e was big, and still is, but still nothing like when 3e came out. I actually think it may die out if some of the minority of die hards could let it die out.

I know I was shocked when 4e was announced. Part of me was angry, and I saw WotC as the new T$R (the $ is on purpose...symbolizing what some saw them representative of), perhaps as the new WotC$. For a while I went back and forth between whether to really simply drop anything and everything WotC from there on out, or stick around and see what happened with 4e. I stuck around, especially when I saw those making the loudest noise typically were those who had insulted every edition prior to 3.X previously anyways...and saw the hypocrisy of their actions. I really didn't want to be a part of that...and for a while there it didn't seem like there was any middle ground.

Since then I've grown to like 4e in many ways. I feel it gets rather bloated with all the powers and such at later levels, but it is itself a fine game system.

For the future, ideas for 5e are already in development. Whether it will be called 5e or not...remains to be seen. Perhaps a new game system called AD&D will come out again...with a separate team working on revising 4e with ideas of the collectible cards and other elements from Gamma world being worked on. Whatever it is, I expect the new status quo will be yet another big edition war, with the usual culprits leading it...probably offended because it's not a D20 system recap.

I still play boardgames and wargames. The groups are still around. A new edition is not going to change that. I still play AD&D with those I can find...a new game system isn't going to change that. I still play 3.5, and with those that I enjoy their company in. I don't know of a group that I will play PF with currently...may never be able to unless I can be assured to avoid a small but hostile group that seems to play that game (though a majority of them I'm certain are great people to be around...I know a group of people who Play Rolemaster and are excellent people...and also play pathfinder...but with that group are some undesireables occasionally). I play 4e...and if a 5e comes out I'll probably give it a whirl.

This is a LOT longer than I intended to be originally, probably should have made it a blog or it's own topic...especially since all I wanted to say was that I don't recall edition wars being this hot or bad prior to the internet or prior to 3e coming out. Maybe I was disillusioned with youth and simply didn't see it. I do see those promoting these edition wars and continually bringing them up to attack every game system as a small minority however...and not representative of the gaming community as a whole.
 



I've never had a problem like that with others for any other game system...maybe I'm just blessed.

I agree with nearly everything you say, but...

[tongue in cheek] You have been blessed. Traveller: The New Era; that had a real flame war, not the mamby-pamby stuff that passes for one nowadays.[/tongue in cheek]

Seriously, it got nasty. And it still lives on, twenty years later.
 

Remove ads

Top