D&D 5E Should 5e reflect the designers' point of view?

[Ichneumon]

And why did they take out getting exp for getting gold? If getting gold isn't the fastest way to earn EXP, it's simply not D&D! (to me)

If you're a few xp short of a level, a quick beg on the streets will see you right.

 

[Obryn]

I liked it when you actually got XP for doing things besides killing creatures.

Gold for XP is the only way I'm ever using an XP system again.

 

[the Jester]

I liked it when you actually got XP for doing things besides killing creatures.

To be fair, every edition of D&D published so far gives xp for things other than killing monsters (even if just in an optional rules section). 1e and earlier had xp for treasure, 2e had xp for class-based activities, 3e has a section on "Free-Form Experience" and awards xps for traps, and 4e awards xp for skill challenges, traps, hazards and quests (and even has an optional guideline for "just roleplaying for a while" xp awards).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Every edition of the game needs to get people excited. It needs some fired-up evangelists to go out and win new converts for D&D. It needs to have people talking, arguing, and buying books. It needs to do that even at the cost of some old players. Because those folks aren't going to make the new game succeed. It's new kids who will do that.

5e should be somebody's favorite game, even if it's not yours. And that's okay.

At the same time, 5E specifically promised to accommodate all D&D gaming styles and groups.

This was an absolutely core and foundational part of the design, and the only reason a lot of us are interested. This matters a great deal because virtually all of us have some "acceptable" form of D&D that we run. This wasn't true when 3E came out - back then, many of us had stopped running D&D entirely. Even with 4E, whilst a lot of people did have "perfectly good D&D" (3.XE/PF, mostly), many did not.

Now, though, pretty much everyone has one of the following as "their D&D":

A) Pathfinder

B) 4E

C) 13th Age

D) A OSR-type game

The only reason to even look at a 5E D&D is because it seems better than what we've got. If it has a very particular and narrow vision, it's going to end up more like 13th Age or an OSR game than, well "A D&D". Having a vision does help - but it must be a broad, beautiful one, not a narrow, opinionated one.

I'm okay with 5E not being my favourite game. If it's not up in my top ten, though, WotC are going to need to be okay with not getting my cash, and I don't think they are okay with that.

 

[Emerikol]

Once you get enough versions of D&D out there, the game which is everyone's second choice is probably the game played by the most number of people at the end of the day.

Between OD&D, B/X, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, AD&D 2e+Player's Options, 3.0e, 3.5e, Pathfinder, 4e, 4e+Essentials, and 5e...if 5e is the edition everyone can "live with" as their second choice at any given table, what are the odds that everyone at a given table will agree on what their first choice will be? I think a meaningful number of tables will default to the second choice that everyone can live with.

And that's in addition to the tables who choose 5e as their first choice, which according to polling data seems like a fairly significant number as well.

I guess this sort of negotiation occurs at some tables. As DM, I just announce the edition we use and it's always my first choice. As a player, if I see an announcement for a game that interests me, then I accept all acceptable editions.

I think a lukewarm game will fail. I think modularity has to come home and fulfill the promise of DMs turning the game into a game they can love. Otherwise just keep on playing what you currently like.

 

[Mistwell]

I think a lukewarm game will fail.

Has Munchkin failed?