Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8287435" data-attributes="member: 59082">OK, yes, I basically agree. My one caveat, and it is a significant one, is that they have reached this level of popularity with that very same game they published in 2014. There were other factors, of course, and really it was a combination of things coming together in a totally unexpected and pleasing way, but one of those factors was the game itself, that was clearly more approachable than the last two editions, and one that found a compromising middle ground between old and new, traditional and post-Warcraft fantasy. Meaning, they were successful with the game they designed, so should be hesitant to veer too far away from that, at least as far as the core rules are concerned.The two main areas of complaint that I see for 5E is in one of two general areas: One, the culture war stuff, with extremes on either side. I tend to think this is much milder among the total player base than it seems on the internet, and think WotC should be careful not to go too far in one direction or the other, and that any changes should always have "better playability" in mind (which is why, I think, the racial bonuses going away is fine, because it doesn't limit anything or stop DMs from still having them as an optional rule, but it opens up character creation so they aren't focused on race-class optimization; meaning, regardless of the politics behind it, it actually improves playability).The other area of frequent complaint, at least on the internet, is some variation of it is too bland, too simplistic, not enough options, not made for "real gamers," etc. And this isn't only coming from diehards. My group is comprised of casual Gen-Xers, most of whom, when we got our group together in 2008, hadn't played since college or 2E. For the most part, they really liked 4E and I know one, at least, hasn't been as struck with 5E because of the reduction in tactical options. On the internet I see some complain about the overall failure to make good on the whole modular option/complexity dial thing, or keeping the scope of D&D too narrow (FR campaign after FR campaign).On the other hand, I'm guessing these complaints are mainly from older players who miss elements of crunchier editions, be it 4E or 3E. But I do wonder if at some point, the new player base will also want something more.(There is also a relatively small, but vocal, contingent of folks who say 5E sucks because it isn't 1E or "real D&D," but most of them have moved on to OSR games, although still complain about 5E not being what they want D&D to be...it is a bit of a head-scratcher).Anyhow, I think the time is ripe for 5E to take it up an octave. They've established a huge player base mostly (but not entirely) comprised of new players, a lot of whom have been playing for several years. While it made sense not to broaden the scope of D&D in the first half decade or so, I think some of these players will eventually want something more or different, be it non-traditional settings (which, since 2018, they're starting to get with the Magic settings) such as Dark Sun and Planescape, or alternate approaches to the game (modular options/complexity dials), even a new sub-edition that is a bit more bold.So if I were WotC, I would keep doing what they're doing for the next few years, fleshing out the classic offerings with the planes and Dark Sun, and then take the lessons from first decade of 5E and polish it up for a revised edition, and then after keep expanding outward, with a greater range of "styles of D&D" in terms of adventures, worlds, even crunch. I would also think, at some point (maybe 2025?) a new game line of science fiction games and settings, perhaps following the Alternity approach. So something like this:2021-23: Flesh out "first phase" of 5E with planes, Dark Sun, perhaps a capstone FR setting book. Another Magic book or two.2024: Revised core rulebooks.2025+: Wider approaches to D&D, with a core stream remaining of "classic D&D" adventures. "Alternity."</blockquote>

Verification