People have the strangest deal-breakers

[William Ronald]

Let us assume that WotC succeeds at what they set out to do and creates a solid and inclusive game that feels very much as D&D ought to. Then there is still one final hurtle to be overcome, the fans themselves. After a certain point it is up to us to be accepting of what other people like. If we ourselves set so many barriers to the games success by putting our foot down on every little thing and crying, "not in my game!" (and by that I mean how dare you sully my PHB with things other people like but I don't care for) then we have no one to blame but ourselves when the house falls down, because we insisted on tearing it apart from the inside.

That is one of my concerns. I think that there is a great chance that WotC will create a good game, whether it personally appeals to me or not. However, just a casual glance at the threads show that there will be no pleasing every poster. (I would like mirrors of opposition but they are not a deal breaker!)

My motto is that if you are gaming and having a good time, I am happy for you. Your gaming tastes and mine may differ, but I can still want your game to do well both at t he table and the market.

Maybe a good question to ask is how many people will be satisfied with a new iteration of Dungeons and Dragons and will it be enough to make the game a success?

Great post, Oni! I like to say that the worst enemy I often face is the one in the mirror.

 

[Oni]

No idea here yet at all. The format and number of books has not even been hinted at yet. We can hope for a one-book-one-edition to rule them. I think a Rules Cyclopedia style book for this edition would do a lot to lower the entry costs for new players.

I think your other desires are unlikely to manifest as everything you list is fairly integral to the feel of classic D&D. Unfortunately I think the one I'm quoting is also unlikely to happen given the longstanding tradition of three "core" books, however, I think it does bear some real consideration, or at least lowering the barriers to entry does.

Personally I would love a single volume book, I enjoy having everything in one place. But I wonder which is really more off-putting to new potential players, three cheaper volumes that ultimately cost more in total or one single volume that would likely be near double the price of any one book from the the three volume set. I'm sure there are people here that could probably answer that musing, but ultimately I don't really think it matters that much how expensive the books are, the real barrier to entry lies between the covers. I think we have to accept that ours is a hobby that is hard to get into without help from people that already play. Outside of that I think the best we can do for people trying to learn on their own is to simplify what is between the covers, that is to say having a basic starter set available that will allow people to get a taste for the game before they get washed away in a deluge of rules.

 

[delchrys]

Yeah, if you limit feats to those examples and similarly-sensible ones, you're right. Now reconsider what I wrote in light of the 8 billion OTHER feats that make far less sense.

 

[Oni]

Yeah, if you limit feats to those examples and similarly-sensible ones, you're right. Now reconsider what I wrote in light of the 8 billion OTHER feats that make far less sense.

Such as?

 

[Halivar]

I think your other desires are unlikely to manifest as everything you list is fairly integral to the feel of classic D&D. Unfortunately I think the one I'm quoting is also unlikely to happen given the longstanding tradition of three "core" books, however, I think it does bear some real consideration, or at least lowering the barriers to entry does.

Opening 5E with a starter boxed set has the double advantage of lowering the barrier of entry for players, while still allowing WotC to capitalize on the number of books sold per gaming group.

 

[Glade Riven]

The only issue I have with people who have very selective "my way or the highway" dealbreakers is that it contributes to "Comic Book Guy" syndrome (well, only issue beyond them confusing me). Edition Wars make us look bad to non-players, which then makes it harder to recruit people and for publishers to sell books. 5e looks to be a compromise - and it sounds like Monte Cooke & crew want to make it more than a compromise, which I applaud.

 

[OpsKT]

I think your other desires are unlikely to manifest as everything you list is fairly integral to the feel of classic D&D. Unfortunately I think the one I'm quoting is also unlikely to happen given the longstanding tradition of three "core" books, however, I think it does bear some real consideration, or at least lowering the barriers to entry does.

I know, which makes me sad. As I said, I have three games that do most every genre I want really well, but I'd like there to always be a place for the 'current' D&D as that is the game that got me started. I want to like this new version, but at the same time I do not have the time for the usual prep work that 'proper' D&D requires, Castles & Crusades aside. Most of the things mentioned would contribute to lower prep time (mine or my players).

I can only wait and see at this point.

 

[Votan]

Right now not undoing the 4e hit point inflation is the closest to a deal breaker, and it looks like I'm going to be pleased based on the description of fireball.

I reserve the right to invent future deal breakers.

This is a good point. I was not a fan of the very slow 4E combats. Of course, increasing damage would be okay for me as well . . .

 

[Aldarc]

I agree, and this has puzzled me to no end.

Is any dissent with D&D design decisions allowed without being accused of "not liking D&D" enough to your satisfaction?

 

[delchrys]

Such as?

axiomatic strike (hey i've "learned" how to do extra damage against "chaotic" opponents!)
destructive rage (hey i've "learned" how to increase my strength by 8 on command!)
faster healing (hey i've "learned" how to heal faster!)
greater resiliency (hey i've "learned" how to not take as much damage when hit with things!)
intimidating rage (hey i've "learned" how to yell at an enemy and make them "shaken"!)
weakening touch (hey i've "learned" how to make enemies lose 6 strength by hitting them!)

these are just from the complete warrior book. most books containing feats contain a solid percentage of crap feats that grant quasi-magical abilities that make no intuitive sense in a world where characters (prior to 3.0) always had to pray for or study for spell-casting. the shift from a limited source of "magical" effects to a nearly-limitless variety of powers changed the game from a lower-magic setting to an over-the-top high fantasy cliche, and with 4E it got even closer to video game design, complete with the reality-defying "once per encounter" abilities. seriously? how does your body know what constitutes an 'encounter'? you can use it only once a day if you have only one encounter, but if you have ten encounters, suddenly it is available ten times--but never twice in the same fight. huh?

if they continued this trend, 5E would be nearly guaranteed to have a "save game" and "load game" feature. with feats and skill tricks, the game went from one where the emphasis naturally was on problem solving, role-playing, and imagination to trying to emulate a video game with powers falling off trees every time you turn a corner. with 3.0-4E, dnd became a parody of its earlier incarnations.