• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Why I Feel Hopeful about 5E (and why I think it may be closer than some think)

[MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION], we seem to basically agree. I guess the one question I have is which will come first, a starter box set or the holy trinity. Traditionally it has been the latter, but I kind of suspect the former this time around - especially with the whole approach of a simple, core set.

But you make good sense that something will be out before GenCon. I just stick to the idea that it will be a starter box first, then the big three at GenCon...or at least that's how I'd do it.

On the other hand, it could be that the starter set is what comes out for the holidays - "everything you need to play the classic game of adventure!" I can think of one or two young people I'd get one for.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

[MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION], we seem to basically agree. I guess the one question I have is which will come first, a starter box set or the holy trinity. Traditionally it has been the latter, but I kind of suspect the former this time around - especially with the whole approach of a simple, core set.

But you make good sense that something will be out before GenCon. I just stick to the idea that it will be a starter box first, then the big three at GenCon...or at least that's how I'd do it.

On the other hand, it could be that the starter set is what comes out for the holidays - "everything you need to play the classic game of adventure!" I can think of one or two young people I'd get one for.


We do seem very much in agreement. I like the idea of a 40th anniversary special starter set for the holidays. That would be a cool thing indeed. :)
 

0. Disclaimer

I want to try to integrate some thoughts from various threads, both about what I think about D&D 5E, as well as when we might expect to see it. Please bear with me as this is long, somewhat rambling, and very, very subjective.
The problem I have with your analysis is that I basically like 4e, and I don't see much of what I liked about it in 5e. So, for people who largely agree with you, and find 4e too "gamist" or whatever, it may be an improvement. But most of those folks are playing Pathfinder, and I don't know that they'll switch. For people like me, 5e doesn't seem all that compelling, and I'll probably either continue with 4e or switch to something closer to that.

Actually, I'm fine with playing 5e (or almost any variant), but I don't think I'm going to DM it -- just don't find it compelling.
 

I think Gen Con 2014 is when we will see the Core Set of books (PHB, DMG and MM) released. They may released other books before then so that people can start playing before then, but I think the major release will be at GenCon.
 

The problem I have with your analysis is that I basically like 4e, and I don't see much of what I liked about it in 5e. So, for people who largely agree with you, and find 4e too "gamist" or whatever, it may be an improvement. But most of those folks are playing Pathfinder, and I don't know that they'll switch. For people like me, 5e doesn't seem all that compelling, and I'll probably either continue with 4e or switch to something closer to that.

As far as I understand it, the intention with 5E is to have a modular option that will allow 4E-style play but the reverse is not true (you can't play a simpler game with 4E without completely changing it).

Think of 3E and 4E as two very developed paths; 5E is meant to be a bit further back up the path, a simpler (more "classic") game that should, theoretically, allow for variants and options that are similar to both 3E and 4E. The problem with both 3E and 4E is that they're both to specific; they require too much buy-into their respective paradigms (detailed simulationism on one hand, gamism on the other).

As for whether Pathfinder players will try 5E, I think a chunk will. This poll only has 65 participants so far, but its interesting to note that 46% (so far) are at least open to trying 5E.

But 4E and Pathfinder players aren't the only D&D players out there. They represent the bulk of current players, but there are also a bunch of current players that play older (or retro) editions, and of course the untapped many that are either lapsed players or people who have never played.

As for lapsed players, let me say this: Don't underestimate the number of lapsed players who don't play not because they don't want to, but because they "don't have time to play that complex game" - which could apply to either 3E or 4E. Imagine that you haven't played in about 10 years, and the last time you played was 3.X. You were in your mid-20s and had the time to play. Now you're married, have a couple kids, and a busy career. You have some time, but can't see getting back into "that complex game." But out of nostalgia sake you check out the RPG section in Barnes & Noble and come across a shiny box set: "D&D, 40th Anniversary Edition - Play the game you grew up with! An all new, classic version, easy to start-up"...yada, yada.

You get the picture. Every new edition is an opportunity to re-capture old, lapsed players. This time around not only can WotC think about the people who haven't played in 20+ years, but those who haven't played in 3-10 years - lapsed 3E and 4E players who stopped for various reasons. A simpler, more classic game has a better chance of reeling them in then yet another complex game geared towards serious-to-diehard gamers.
 

The problem I have with your analysis is that I basically like 4e, and I don't see much of what I liked about it in 5e. So, for people who largely agree with you, and find 4e too "gamist" or whatever, it may be an improvement. But most of those folks are playing Pathfinder, and I don't know that they'll switch. For people like me, 5e doesn't seem all that compelling, and I'll probably either continue with 4e or switch to something closer to that.

Actually, I'm fine with playing 5e (or almost any variant), but I don't think I'm going to DM it -- just don't find it compelling.

Like Mercurius, I think a good chunk of Pathfinder DMs and players will try it. Although I've only played Pathfinder a few times, I ran a long-standing 3.5e campaign. To me, 5e is so much easier to run than 3.5e (and most likely Pathfinder, especially at higher levels). I'm sure many DMs who give it a try will feel the same way.

As for players, I played a few D&D Next playtests as a low level Dwarven Lifegiver Cleric who used a shield to protect others (earlier playtest package), and concurrently, I played a Human Cleric of Pelor in Pathfinder. To me, the D&D Next game kept up a good pace, and I felt like I was involved in a number of aspects of the game in a satisfactory way (combat - both offense and defense, spell casting/healing, interaction, exploration). In the Pathfinder game, I felt sluggish, and overwhelmed with healing duties. In addition, in the Pathfinder game, our party spent about 40 minutes trying to kill 10 kobolds. Often, I would miss when I attacked, and others would miss too.

I realize that they haven't worked out the numbers yet for D&DNext, but the pace of combat made it much easier to immerse myself in character and feel like I was part of a fluid story. DMs and players who like that feel will most certainly switch over if they give it a chance.
 

The problem I have with the "intention" is that absolutely nothing has been demonstrated, so I think that is putting a lot more faith in future developments than I feel. If/when something actually shows up with that characteristic, I'll evaluate it then.

I'm a skeptic that it will recruit any sizable number of lapsed players, but if you are right I'll be happy about it. If they really want to go that route, they need a lot better online tools and better licensing.
 

I am a lapsed player. I'm really looking forward to 5E. I played every previous edition (although I greatly disliked 4E). I got old and gained responsibilities.

I started a little Pathfinder game for a couple of old friends a while back, but I just don't have it in me to run such a complicated game anymore. Just the thought of going back to something that complex and complete is exhausting.

I still game, but it is now Savage Worlds with my sons, nephews, and any of my very old gaming friends that might happen by. I will admit that I'm not entirely happy with Savage Worlds though. I'm always on the lookout for something that doesn't take a lot of preparation, I can run on the fly, has a little crunch to it, but is easy enough for kids under 10 to learn and play. I have that hope for the modular design of 5E.

As a lapsed D&D guy, if 5E turns out to be a decent game, I will make the jump with both feet, and I will bring a new generation of little boys with me. I don't think I am unique.
 

With any luck I can run a game with the rules and options cranked up to 11 when my old friends drop by, and play almost rules free with the kids using the same basic rules.
 

With any luck I can run a game with the rules and options cranked up to 11 when my old friends drop by, and play almost rules free with the kids using the same basic rules.

And that's exactly what's been lacking pretty much since BECMI went the way of the dodo bird. Even then, it was difficult to go back and forth between AD&D and BECMI.

Its so obviously a positive thing to do - have a basic/simple game with advanced options attached to it - that I'm surprised WotC never tried it before.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top