D&D 5E What is most important to you for 5e?

[FireLance]

Humour aside, there are quite legitimate ways of having the game challenge a player; none of them physical. Puzzles, riddles, etc. all challenge the player to a) think like the character and b) solve them. Social situations can similarly challenge players quite well.

How about the most basic challenge of all: making a competent character? (Seriously, sometimes I think the only difference between challenging the player and challenging the character is whether the challenge is direct or indirect, through the character creation mini-game.)

Taken to extremes, the philosophy of "challenge the player, not the character" raises the question of why you need a character to play in the first place. If the player is the one solving the puzzles and riddles and interacting with the NPCs, then the character really is nothing more than just a collection of combat statistics and magical "I win" buttons.

 

[Lwaxy]

While good adventures are essential in general, they aren't for me, especially as I have 100s of adventures not yet tried and can easily convert them to any system.

What is most important to me is that it gives me plenty of character options without needing hours to go through books of feats and think about skills fitting for a class. I want a logical way to build a PC, so that someone could have grown up as the son of a thief and have thieving skills while still being a paladin (as an example) without the GM needing to invent an extra rule or give everyone else something extra, too. I would like basic PCs to be build in less than an hour so my new players don't need to pick premade PCs or need to rely on others to help them.

And I want battles to handle quick enough so I can arrange an epic battle for the games without it needing 7 + sessions just to get to the BBEG (as it happens right now in one of my epic campaigns).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

To be honest, the most important thing in 5E for me is modernity. The more D&D tries to go forward, break new ground, and improve the brand the more interested I am. The more it is stuck in the past and trying in vain to recapture past glories, the less interested I become.

 

[Emerikol]

To be honest, the most important thing in 5E for me is modernity. The more D&D tries to go forward, break new ground, and improve the brand the more interested I am. The more it is stuck in the past and trying in vain to recapture past glories, the less interested I become.

I like new things as much as anybody. But not all knew things. I don't like new toothaches or new bruises for example.

I'm open to some things but I do think D&D represents it's own genre. I want D&D to at least fall within that genre. (4e did not for me). I'd be happy if WOTC created another fantasy line based upon more "modern" design tropes.

Over the years there have been many games with more "modern" design than D&D. Right now though traditional D&D just keeps winning. So a lot of people want that fantasy flavor. Why would the owner of the #1 franchise (at least until very recently) want to abandon it's position?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I like new things as much as anybody. But not all knew things. I don't like new toothaches or new bruises for example.

I'm open to some things but I do think D&D represents it's own genre. I want D&D to at least fall within that genre. (4e did not for me). I'd be happy if WOTC created another fantasy line based upon more "modern" design tropes.

Over the years there have been many games with more "modern" design than D&D. Right now though traditional D&D just keeps winning. So a lot of people want that fantasy flavor. Why would the owner of the [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] franchise (at least until very recently) want to abandon it's position?

That's an opinion. My contrasting opinion is that not only does 4E fall within the D&D genre, it added some thing to D&D which I'm not willing to accept D&D without in the future.

Adding to my 1st priority of modernity/not being stuck in the past:

1. Real balance, between classes and balance against encounters. Being balanced over an adventuring day of X rounds of combat is NOT balance.
2. Mother may I kept to a minimum, at least as an option.
3. Robust options to play any character option in D&D without being forced to use vancian magic, and robust options as a DM to remove vancian magic from the campaign without leaving unacceptable conceptual holes(like no Wizard class).
4. Continuing 4E's focus on D&D as a strong, class based system as opposed to being undermined by 3E multiclassing or classes being merely packages of abilities from a menu.
5. Characters having multiple something interesting to dos every turn.

 

[Emerikol]

That's an opinion. My contrasting opinion is that not only does 4E fall within the D&D genre, it added some thing to D&D which I'm not willing to accept D&D without in the future.

Adding to my 1st priority of modernity/not being stuck in the past:

1. Real balance, between classes and balance against encounters. Being balanced over an adventuring day of X rounds of combat is NOT balance.
2. Mother may I kept to a minimum, at least as an option.
3. Robust options to play any character option in D&D without being forced to use vancian magic, and robust options as a DM to remove vancian magic from the campaign without leaving unacceptable conceptual holes(like no Wizard class).
4. Continuing 4E's focus on D&D as a strong, class based system as opposed to being undermined by 3E multiclassing or classes being merely packages of abilities from a menu.
5. Characters having multiple something interesting to dos every turn.

I respect your opinion and I think you should play what you like. I do disagree though that 4e is in the tradition of D&D. It's a new thing and it did integrate many modern concepts that have been rejected by many D&D'ers long before 4e appeared.

Why cling to a brand that mostly throughout it's history wasn't a game you enjoyed? I enjoyed all versions until 4e. I suppose if 5e and 6e continued in the vein you prefer then I'd stop thinking D&D is the style of game I like. But 4e lost a lot of players. No one was even close to competing with D&D until 4e. And what's even funnier is that the product that is competing against 4e successfully really is just another version of D&D. Pathfinder to me is far closer to traditional D&D than 4e.

So I'm for a 4e style game. And maybe it would attract some of the 4e players. Unlike you though I don't believe all the 4e players are die hards on all the stuff you care about. Against thats my opinion. I think 5e if it returns to traditional D&D tropes will find itself being a great success.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Why cling to a brand that mostly throughout it's history wasn't a game you enjoyed?

I enjoyed AD&D 2E as being better than the alternatives. I wasn't completely happy with it, and checked out many of the other systems out there in the mid-90s and found that while I had some issues with 2E, I liked the other systems less. The only exception to this was Vampire, which I preferred as a system but didn't scratch the fantasy itch D&D did.

3E I found completely frustrating. I was completely seduced by its promise, and never seriously considered anything else while I was playing it, but it never delivered on that promise being too bogged down in its flaws. I struggled against 3E's flaws trying to achieve the game it promised and never succeeded, giving up after 4E was announced.

 

[Emerikol]

I enjoyed AD&D 2E as being better than the alternatives. I wasn't completely happy with it, and checked out many of the other systems out there in the mid-90s and found that while I had some issues with 2E, I liked the other systems less. The only exception to this was Vampire, which I preferred as a system but didn't scratch the fantasy itch D&D did.

3E I found completely frustrating. I was completely seduced by its promise, and never seriously considered anything else while I was playing it, but it never delivered on that promise being too bogged down in its flaws. I struggled against 3E's flaws trying to achieve the game it promised and never succeeded, giving up after 4E was announced.

What I find kind of ironic is that Pathfinder to me is more D&D than 4e. I wish 4e was Pathfinder and Pathfinder was D&D. I'm not against a game existing that you like. I just hate that the long tradition of D&D with all of it's history is lost in the transition. I don't see that as much of an issue for you. I do wonder if they shouldn't have two versions of d&d. I'm against the basic and/or advanced naming but perhaps something else. I think they could still improve both 3e and 4e (a lot! in both cases) but if they understood their target audience they could focus.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Most important? That it achieves what it sets out to do, and plays well while doing it. That's kind of the minimum for me. After that, then I'll start worrying about whether what it does is something that I want to do more than some alternative fun.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Simple. It needs to deliver the play experiences I have had playing 1st Edition, 3rd Edition OR 4th Edition better than 1st Edition, 3rd Edition or 4th Edition already do. (And better enough that it justifies the costs associated with switching editions.)

Idealy, the end product will deliver the play experiences I have had with 1st Edition, 3rd Edition AND 4th Edition at a reasonable (i.e. $100) price point.