D&D 5E So why are you buying 5th edition?

[PeacemakerSG]

On the other hand, just because you've had trouble finding a group that plays newer editions of the game well, doesn't mean we all have.

I've played D&D an average of twice a week for 27 years with a few hundred different players, and I've seen good ones and bad ones in all editions, of all ages, all that time.

While my current group is almost all 30-40ish, I've played recently with 10 year olds who role-play better than some of the adults I've played with.

I made no such comment regarding finding a group that plays it well. I've found and enjoyed playing in groups that knew the system(s) like the back of their hand so playing the game has not been an issue. I've played with mixed groups of all ages and walks of life and there is a distinct difference in how people play, most often consistent with their age group and/or to what RPG system they were first introduced. In fact, and incidentally, WotC formerly employed me to DM in their stores, yes, paid to DM. How 'bout that. The younger the new players were, the more video-game/CCG they wanted it to be like. When I first started playing, at 10 years old, I did not have the lack of patience nor instant gratification mindset of today's youth.

I've seen just about everything so I'm a pretty good judge of the trends. WotC would be wise to maintain multiple types of games, a tactical one (based on 4e - Warammer-lite) and role playing one (edition 1-3.5 hybrid).

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I'm in the maybe field. The playtest will tell me if I buy it or not.

To be frank, I feel like they are going backwards in play design, not forward. Then again, I much prefer 4E to 3E and I liked 3E more than AD&D.

It has nothing to do with roleplaying, you can do that fine without any rules (entire sessions can be played in 4E without picking up a die, I've run them), it has more to do with balance.

Going back to Casters = Gods is not something I want to see again. I already had that with both AD&D and 3E.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I haven't been sold yet. Though optimistic, there remain some obstacles for me:

1) I will not buy 5E if they continue with the 3E/4E business model of releasing must buy supplements with imprtant feats, prestige classes, classes, etc. If they release multiple players handbooks or if I have to make multiple purchases to play the game I want (for example if they stagger the modular options over several books) I will not buy 5E. There are just too many good games that require 1-2 books to play. I am not a magic the gathering player, i am a D&D player. WOTC needs to understand there is a difference.

2) I want good flavor supplements that aren't must haves. Really what I want are GM guidebooks, stuff like module cool settings and supplements. A core game is great but the biggest rpg company in the industry should be able to put out quality flavor support. If hey dont there are other companies that do.

3) I do not want 4E, and I dont want something revolutionary. I play D&D because it tastes like D&D. There are other games that do innovative design better when I need that fix. So this edition needs to feel like D&D to me to convinve me to buy.

4) If stuff like healing surges and 4E powers are in the core and not modular add-ons, i won't buy. This is just personal preference, but these really interupted my enjoyment of 4E.

Basically, I am not interested in a game that shows me how brilliant monte cook or mike mearls are as designers (though i respect their skills here). This is about the game and bringing that D&D experience back to the table. Fine tune some of the mechanics by all means, but I am not interested in something as new and different as 4E. Bring back the flavor and realize this is as important as the mechanics themselves.

All that said, should WOTC go in another direction, I wont hold it against them. It is their game, they need to make the call on where to go with it. I've just learned over the last few years what I like and what I don't. If a game doesn't align with my tastes i wont spend money on it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Honestly, I'm pretty tired of buying new editions waiting for classes and other things to come out that already exist in other games. It's not dissimilar to buying a new console, the lack of backwards compatibility has now become a major issue with me. I will buy 5th edition, but for collection purposes only. Starting over is extremely annoying. 3rd edition had prestige classes to make pretty much whatever you could think of. 4th edition has multi classing and hybrid classing, pathfinder has archetypes. I can't understand the logic of wanting to begin again, unless 5th edition had full compatibility with all these systems allowing a full range of options from the beginning instead of the what.. 10 or 11 classes that are standard?

My $0.02.

Lack of backwards compatibility was among the reasons I didn't buy any 4Ed beyond the Core 3 until the new guy in the group decided to run a new campaign using those rules, and one of the reasons it doesn't feel like D&D to me. Had it been more compatible with what came before, I probably would have been an early adopter.

On its own merits, 4Ed is a decent RPG...but not good enough for me to want to run a game. I'll play it happily, and I buy player-centric supplements, but they won't get me to buy MMs or DMGs or anything too DM-centric. I simply have no need for it.

5Ed, like 4Ed, will have to win me over on its inherent qualities. If it has backwards compatibility, that will be a selling point, but not a decisive one.

So, like 4Ed, I will probably buy the initial release of 5Ed, then make my decision as to whether it is a game I want to run. If it is, then I'll buy into some more products. If it isn't, then I won't buy anything unless and until someone else decides to run a game.

 

[Hassassin]

I will buy it for the reasons it is superior to what I currently play. If it is.

On backwards compatibility, I would like to be able to run an adventure for edition X in 5e easily and port a character from edition X to 5e accurately (less important). I don't need to be able to use anything as is in either direction.


(Even if it is not superior and I want to continue playing something else, I may buy a starter set or fluff products like campaign settings. Not splatbooks, though. Probably not even if I start playing it.)

 

[avin]

I will buy it and try it.

I'm not a conservative man, I like to experiment, run a few games, understand the spirit of the edition/system, then keep moving.

Not saying that it's wrong or badwrongfun, but I can't understand how some people don't have fun by just trying out new stuff... like it or not is something to decide, but it must be tried to blame or to love...

 

[thedungeondelver]

If I buy this new D&D it will be based on what the playtest tells me, and what the final product looks like (e.g., did they listen to suggestions that put it in an area I like in terms of rules mechanics and assumed defaults for various features). If I pull the trigger it will be that and the fact that I haven't purchased a new D&D product since 1983. Not "new to me", but new, as in packaged up and sent to a store. I've bought lots of D&D items - every one secondhand since then. Additionally I will buy it because it might fit a niche of "good second game" - a go-to game when I'm in the mood and the group I'm with doesn't want to play AD&D. Finally, if I buy it it will be to reward good behavior. Re-releases of AD&D? Good behavior. Saying "we intend to support all editions of D&D from now on"? Good behavior.

I reward good behavior.

 

[am181d]

WILL I buy 5e?

Ask again in 18 months.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

I've bought every new version of D&D on launch day, 5e isn't going to be any different. Whether or not I buy a bunch of supplimental material is a completely different matter.

 

[boredgremlin]

I'll probably buy because I dont like 4e at all and its easier to build a group around an existing, supported edition.

 

[billd91]

I don't know of I'm buying yet or not. I'm interested enough to hear more and play test though.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm buying the PHB for sure, and maybe the starter box and the MM too. Hoping that is enough to run a campaign, it shouldn't be so hard ot figure out from the DM booklet, the beta test and previous DMGs on how to run a campaign.

Of course I'm buying 5e, if it provides simplicity to beginners it could make easier to form a group. (4e while simple wasn't worth the effort and 3.5 was too hard to teach to new people)

 

[was]

I may by the PHB, but that's probably about it

 

[boredgremlin]

No, later editions of D&D have added so much complexity that even creating the basic of characters is an immense labor. The systems have become convoluted. They were not well thought out in terms of organization. While each new edition, and bevy of supplements, have added to play options to cater to the it-needs-to-be-about-my-obscure-interest generation, it has done so in a convoluted manner that has become a barrier to play. At the same time, the new generations, while loving the attention, do not enjoy the effort role playing takes. This is what led to 4e, a option-heavy game for the impatient.

More recent generations of players tend to not have the same patience and thoughtfulness as their elders, and thus less creative input and investment in the game. Products of their times where so much is done for them (or little expected of them) that they need not, nor have they learned to problem solve (you can see this if you are outside of their generation). This is why 4e is more to their liking, more procedural than creative. There are exceptions, so please do not go crazy defending your youthful creativity.

One 20-something said one evening during our 3e session in a Planescape themed campaign, "I would pay more attention if this were real role playing". This from a girl stuck in her telephone device all night between naps. She is too impatient and self oriented to invest in the group story.

Role playing is not a video game, it's a story, the more drawn out, the more immersive, the better. But immersive, while maintaining flexible play options, does not necessitate chaotic rules as has been the pattern in later system engineering. I know a proper system can be built because not only do I design business processes for a living, I've created the framework for a RP system that I believe handles all of the many interest that our community has been asking for for decades. So when I read the early releases from WotC regarding 5e, I see that they are on the wrong path, again, to achieve the maximum buy in. I hope they can get it right because then I can stop my work on my own system and move on to any one of my dozens of other personal projects. I'd feel relieved and probably very happy and have no problem plunking down for the books needed to play the game.

Sounds like someone has Alzhiemers setting in. Creating a 3e character takes about 10 minutes unless its insanely high level. In which case it takes 20.

LOL and the complex systems? a couple of small bonuses to specific actions from feats or spells and AC scaling up instead of down.

Maybe its just me but these old people (and I'm 29) constantly sitting here talking about anything but basically ruleless AD&D navel gazing as lacking creativity is extremely insulting and annoying.

Maybe 5e can build a nice retirement home for these old addition grognards. Cause sorry but I started in AD&D too, and it frigging blew compared to 3e and even, I shudder to say it, 4e.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

At the same time, the new generations, while loving the attention, do not enjoy the effort role playing takes. This is what led to 4e, a option-heavy game for the impatient.

I had a very long winded, angry reply typed up for your original post. Then I deleted it, because it would have been needlessly vitriolic and mean spirited. Here is the edited for clarity version:

- Your slight towards my generation and those younger than me, whether passive-aggressively apologized for or not, is hurtful and senseless.

- In what universe are options a bad thing?

- In what universe were 1st / 2nd edition well organized?

- Exactly which part of 4e stopped you from RPing during a session? Oh, you can't have ranks in Profession: Blacksmith? That's what your backstory is for. Any DM worth his/her salt takes backstory into account when you attempt something. You come across some horseshoes. You, being a Blacksmith before you started adventuring, want to know what sort of metal they're made of. Your DM, aware of your backstory, tells you to make a Perception check with a +2 bonus for your familiarity. If you succeed at the check, you know that it's made out of a mixture of Iron and Silver. 4e allows players to make interesting characters without having to take skills that detract from their effectiveness.

- If we're so impatient, why is it that you're the one clammoring for a system which doesn't take so long to create characters?

(There's probably more rebuttal I could muster, but I'm going to walk away before I say something hateful about The Older Generations.)

 

[Savevsdeath]

No, later editions of D&D have added so much complexity that even creating the basic of characters is an immense labor. The systems have become convoluted. They were not well thought out in terms of organization. While each new edition, and bevy of supplements, have added to play options to cater to the it-needs-to-be-about-my-obscure-interest generation, it has done so in a convoluted manner that has become a barrier to play. At the same time, the new generations, while loving the attention, do not enjoy the effort role playing takes. This is what led to 4e, a option-heavy game for the impatient.

More recent generations of players tend to not have the same patience and thoughtfulness as their elders, and thus less creative input and investment in the game. Products of their times where so much is done for them (or little expected of them) that they need not, nor have they learned to problem solve (you can see this if you are outside of their generation). This is why 4e is more to their liking, more procedural than creative. There are exceptions, so please do not go crazy defending your youthful creativity.

One 20-something said one evening during our 3e session in a Planescape themed campaign, "I would pay more attention if this were real role playing". This from a girl stuck in her telephone device all night between naps. She is too impatient and self oriented to invest in the group story.

Role playing is not a video game, it's a story, the more drawn out, the more immersive, the better. But immersive, while maintaining flexible play options, does not necessitate chaotic rules as has been the pattern in later system engineering. I know a proper system can be built because not only do I design business processes for a living, I've created the framework for a RP system that I believe handles all of the many interest that our community has been asking for for decades. So when I read the early releases from WotC regarding 5e, I see that they are on the wrong path, again, to achieve the maximum buy in. I hope they can get it right because then I can stop my work on my own system and move on to any one of my dozens of other personal projects. I'd feel relieved and probably very happy and have no problem plunking down for the books needed to play the game.

A lot of the things you say here are not good endorsements of your preferred game style, and even makes you sound like a huge hypocrite. In particular your contempt for anything new and/or anything with a structure that allows players a large number of options. You complain that the new generation is impatient and lack creativity, but in the same breath you blast them for favoring an edition that gives you more options and ways to be creative than any previous edition of that game. It's okay to have an opinion, but don't clutter up a discussion forum with your opinions if you have nothing to back them up. All you're doing is widening a rift between members of a hobby where the rift is already wide enough, so stop it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I made no such comment regarding finding a group that plays it well. I've found and enjoyed playing in groups that knew the system(s) like the back of their hand so playing the game has not been an issue. I've played with mixed groups of all ages and walks of life and there is a distinct difference in how people play, most often consistent with their age group and/or to what RPG system they were first introduced. In fact, and incidentally, WotC formerly employed me to DM in their stores, yes, paid to DM. How 'bout that. The younger the new players were, the more video-game/CCG they wanted it to be like. When I first started playing, at 10 years old, I did not have the lack of patience nor instant gratification mindset of today's youth.

I've seen just about everything so I'm a pretty good judge of the trends. WotC would be wise to maintain multiple types of games, a tactical one (based on 4e - Warammer-lite) and role playing one (edition 1-3.5 hybrid).

I don't refute that. And you are probably right that many kids these days, grown up on video games, will use it as a point of reference for how they play.

But your generalizations are generalizations, and it's not exclusively true that the kids have shorter attention-spans, role-play less, or lack a sense of immersion that older players have. It's more a product of the individual.

There are plenty of short-on-attention video game-style playin' 40 year-olds and plenty of thoughtful, creative 10 year-olds. Perhaps more often the other-way-around is true, but by no means always or even frequently.

 

[Henry]

Sounds like someone has Alzhiemers setting in. Creating a 3e character takes about 10 minutes unless its insanely high level. In which case it takes 20.

Maybe someone who has strong proficiency with the game system can create a low level character in 10 minutes, but I strongly disagree that "creating a PC takes 10 minutes" in 3E (or 4E, for that matter) - in my experience, the average gamer does not have the proficiency to create a fully written down character in 10 minutes. and if you can create a 20th level wizard in 3E in 20 minutes, complete with wealth by level and all spells known, especially with book, pen, and paper, my hat is off to you.

I could cheat with a character generator, but that's with any game system.

 

[boredgremlin]

Never played 4th edition enough to get proficient with the system so i cant speak to that.

But in 3e spell casters have a couple of must have spells at every level that you can quickly choose with barely a thought. Your really only choosing 3 or 4 spells per level and the flavor of character you want chooses those pretty quickly.

I suppose if you allowed every single splatbook to be wide open to all the players then it would take longer because they would have to read spells they werent familiar with but so many of those spells are messed up that you really shouldnt allow that as a DM.

 

[BluSponge]

Because I want a supported version of D&D that I can like again.

This is about as close as it comes to reflecting my opinion. I really wanted to like 3e, but after 2 years of RPGA play, the niggling aspects of the ruleset and "game mastery" aspects began to make my teeth itch. I love the DMG for 4th edition, but I can't make it more than 5 pages into the PHB or MM without throwing up my hands and cursing convulsively.

Will 5th edition get it right? I don't know. The info has already made me give C&C a second look. I cut my teeth on D&D. I would love to consider myself part of the D&D family again. But the fact is I already have a heavily customizable, gamist system I love (Savage Worlds). 5e needs to be something different from that.

Tom