People have the strangest deal-breakers

[Glade Riven]

Note: please, please to not edition war. The mods don't like it, many posters don't like it, and I'm not trying to invoke nerd rage.

So we've only got a few bits and pieces, mostly discussing design theory. Already, comments are flying about how one thing or another is a deal breaker, even though from what we're hearing, the new system is designed to allow you to say "no" to anything you don't like.

I dunno. I guess I find this sort of thing odd - I'm an inclusionist. I like variety, and the ability to structure my campaign world however I like. Heck, even dropping Orcs from my current Pathfinder campaign setting feels...a little uncomfortable, even though I have a different race in too similar of a role. If 5e has a checklist of what is and isn't in a particular game as part of the group contract, it seems like a decent compromise.

 

[Number48]

The funniest thing is I've been going into this whole thing incredibly open-minded. I only had one deal-breaker... and it looks like they've broken the deal. I want 5E to be a NEW D&D, not an old D&D with a little makeup and powder. Unless they are playing their cards close to the vest, we're getting a tricked-out 1970 Impala.

 

[grimslade]

4E was the 'new D&D' and while some liked it, many thought it was too much change at once. 5E looks like it will smooth some of the bumps out of previous editions and get them to play nice together. This enables the game to become a platform to try out some really different stuff as an option so we don't have system shock set in at the change. Remove option and continue campaign. 5E is not going to set the world on fire, but it is going to make it much more flammable.

 

[Oni]

It almost feels like some people are trying to take the process hostage by drawing a line in the sand and saying do this or I won't buy your game in some wrong headed attempt at playing chicken with WotC.

And then there are just a few people who are looking for an excuse to nerdrage.

Personally I think it's a tad early to be line drawing, given that we haven't even seen the first public draft of the rules, not to mention give feedback on them. We really have no notion what the beta is going to look like, much less the final product.

The saddest thing to me is that I can see getting a bit upset about something not being included, but all the people upset because some option for other people to enjoy is being included absolutely boggles the mind.

 

[Number48]

Is 5E going to be a complete, well-thought out game? Almost definitely. Certainly a good choice for brand-new players. But for those of us with plenty of old edition books and only so much money... not sure yet. I am not making a decision until the book is in my hands, but it sounds like they are fixing up a 30-year-old game, not making a new one.

 

[Ainamacar]

I think we'll find that most of the various "deal-breakers" will make it into the system, but that modularity will push the actual deal-breaking from the system level to the table level.

For something like Vancian casting, for example, I think there will be plenty of people who will avoid playing those classes like the plague, but tolerate the idea of Vancian casting for other PCs or monsters. A smaller number hate it enough never to play at a table in which it appears (in the past these people would have avoided the edition entirely). An even smaller (probably miniscule) number of grumpy people will avoid the edition because the deal-breaker could be present, even if it actually wouldn't be if they play. That is, the very possibility of such things offends them. Or a person who hates the very idea that wizards are Vancian casters may avoid the entire edition because some other class that works the way they think the wizard should isn't called wizard. I think these last groups a really small segment of the potential D&D player community, though. Still it's a hazy transition from splitting logs to splitting hairs, even though most people know a hair when they see it.

In some respects, finding a 5e game may be more difficult because the "5e" label is insufficient to convey many fundamental aspects of the game. I expect community acronyms and other shorthand to pop up for the major modules pretty quickly to convey precisely this information.

 

[Wormwood]

I don't have a single deal-breaker. Every edition (even my beloved Moldvay and 4e) have bits I don't like but am willing to work around.

THAC0? Okay, I'll do the math.
Vancian spellcasting? I can make it work.
No tieflings, drow, warforged or [X]? I love creating races.
Alignment? Ignore as usual.
No Warlord? Hmmm. Lemme get back to you

I'm sure I won't like everything, but I'm willing to reserve judgment until I see the final product.

 

[Stormonu]

Well, I'd like to say there are no deal-breakers for me, but that wouldn't be true.

Still, I'm trying to keep open and positive about where 5E is being led. I've signed up for the playtests and I'm trying to do my best to reserve judgment until I've actually tried the thing out. That said, there are things I'm hoping won't reappear in 5E, or that will be optional or removal.

More than anything, I think the tone of the pre-made adventures will be the biggest determining factor for me. In me old age, it's harder and harder for me to have the time to put together adventures, and I've come to rely more and more on prebuilt adventures. If I don't like the direction they're taken, that will probably end up being my dealbreaker.

 

[modeminitstring]

I have no deal breakers myself. If it looks like it will be fun to play on a sunday afternoon with a few of my friends, cool. If I can DM while slightly intoxicated, all the better.

 

[Piratecat]

I don't give a crap whether it's "new" or "old." I want a really fun game that feels like D&D to me. If I get that, I'll be on my way to happy.