D&D (2024) You're not planning on getting 2024 D&D? Why is that?

[Stoutstien]

Funny how that's never happened in any game that I've run that had ability checks or skills.

This is true. Ability checks =/= DM.

You're ignoring the point to focus up climbing with a rope. That wasn't the point at all. And sure, failure could also be that they didn't do it quietly enough. As I said, there are many possibilities that can fit the context.

Um, I said that you only roll if the outcome is in doubt and failure is meaningful. You have to know both of those things BEFORE THE ROLL in order to determine if a roll is needed. So I'm not sure why you are talking about determining it after seeing the roll. What I think you are missing is that you don't need to know the specifics of the failure in order to know if failure has meaning or not.

In every other instance you know what rolling a D20 means in terms of success and failure. Why divert from the pattern? Does it expite action resolution? Does it supports gms in reinforcing the ideatjst then need to provide all the information the PCs would have? Does it allow a situation they player can reaction at all?

Heck ever example that you gave about possible failures for the climb are triggering events that could possibly call for a check to begin with.

Rope starts to fray what do you do?

Wind blows off a ledge. You held on but you are swinging towards some sharp rocks what do you do?

You feel the anchor point slipping what do you do?

Making an ability checks to avoid damage they way you describe is just a crappy trap with no warning and no choice.

 

[Maxperson]

In every other instance you know what rolling a D20 means in terms of success and failure. Why divert from the pattern? Does it expite action resolution? Does it supports gms in reinforcing the ideatjst then need to provide all the information the PCs would have? Does it allow a situation they player can reaction at all?

None of that matters.

First, the pattern is roll a d20 against the DC to see if you succeed or not if the outcome is in doubt.

Second, there is no uniformity of systems in D&D. That is more of a pattern than knowing the results of failure and success before the roll.

Third, it also doesn't matter if it expedites resolution or not. It isn't as if the 2 seconds(less most of the time) it takes me to figure out what failure means slows things down by enough to matter.

Fourth, the PCs aren't going to have the failure information a lot of the time. The PC isn't going to know that the rope will come undone at the top. The PC isn't going to know if his pack will open up and something valuable will fall out. Sometimes the failure result will be obvious and the PC will know it. Often it will not be and the PC will be appropriately ignorant.

Heck ever example that you gave about possible failures for the climb are triggering events that could possibly call for a check to begin with.

Rope starts to fray what do you do?

Wind blows off a ledge. You held on but you are swinging towards some sharp rocks what do you do?

You feel the anchor point slipping what do you do?

So what. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Just because those things could potentially trigger an ability check has no bearing on whether or not they are appropriate failure states.

Making an ability checks to avoid damage they way you describe is just a crappy trap with no warning and no choice.

In your opinion. In my experience that is wrong. So maybe it's crappy in your game, but it's great in mine and always has been.

 

[clearstream]

If someone is climbing a cliff on a rope, failure could mean falling a bit and being caught by the rope, the rope coming undone, the rope breaking which leaves them stuck on the cliff face without a rope, cutting themselves for damage and bleeding on a sharp rock, and much more.

Agreed

The DM should know that failure is possible or there is no reasonable reason for the check to occur, but you don't need to know what that failure will be before a check is reasonable. You just need the outcome to be in doubt and failure to have meaning.

I agree about the commitment to uncertainty and meaning (being of consequence).

The timing - before rolling or after - is (as you and others imply) a balance between player authorship and agency, and fluid play. If player and DM negotiate what failure means before committing, player has better agency and depending on how they manage that negotiation stronger authorship. The former relies on a supposition that agency to pick A rather than B is only meaningful if you know what the difference between them is. "Button A could ignite the atmosphere killing all life on Earth? Whatever, I press it."

But doing that negotiation assiduously at the table can slow play (increase the time at table between scene advances). Groups have different takes on how much of their time is worth paying (as do game systems, FTM.) What this becomes about is what a group gets satisfaction from at the table. Surely it's worth paying the cost of negotiation up front if I enjoy said negotiating!

To me there isn't one right answer on the timing, which is interesting given that I've apparently argued that there is one right answer on rolls being consequential. So I'll weaken that latter commitment slightly and say that there is a kind of play that works pretty well where dead ends signal "try something else". The obviously degenerate case is "try the same thing again, with zero change to game state (fiction and system)". Just so long as one remembers to include tempo and information as dimensions of state.

 

[Daztur]

I'll probably break this down further in a week or two, but so far here's what I am observing...

We know that about half of previous survey-responding ENWorlders want to get 2024 D&D, and about 1/3rd do not want to get 2024 D&D. I want to be clear that I'm not discounting the folks voting "I'm getting 2024 D&D" – that's just not the focus of this poll. Also, not discounting folks voting "I'm happy with 1e/2e/3e/4e/BXMI", they just probably were not in market for 2024 D&D.

If you consider that ~6,000 folks viewed that previous thread and only 172 voted... well, it's hard to know how many viewers are members or guests... but the point is that we're looking at a niche (survey-responders) of a niche (ENWorlders). Polls on ENWorld might get up to 300 or so respondents (sometimes less, sometimes more), but compare that to polls on YouTube or Reddit with 3,000 respondents, and it's clear we're a niche here.

So I'm not making any assumptions about overall gaming community. Just folks on ENWorld who are actively engaged on the forums and caring to vote.

Also, the way multiple-choice polls work here, I don't get to see the total number of voters, so I'll have to work that out in a spreadsheet later on. Edit: Though 1/3 of 172 previous respondents would be about 57.

The top 3 concerns so far are:
1) Concerns about the practices of WotC/Hasbro (41.8%) - there seems to be a roughly even split between folks for whom this is a "poison pill" issue, and others for whom this is a "tipping the balance" issue.
2) Power creep for PCs (22.4%)
3) Looks harder / more frustrating to GM (21.2%) - there's a fair amount of overlap of folks who voted both for "power creep for PCs" and "looks hard / more frustrating to GM."

There are a bunch of "Other"/write-in answers (24.2%) too. I'll have to sort through patterns more, but the one that jumped out to me was: I'm happy with 2014 D&D, and don't see a need for 2024 which is alternately described as "glorified errata" or a "different game."

We also can see that many of the survey responders (48.5%) have already moved on to other RPGs, predominantly completely different ones but also including variants of 5e, and are content there.

Yeah, it's hard to parse how much of the current 5e playerbase isn't going to jump on board 5.5e since on EnWorld people who aren't currently playing 5e in the first place are over-represented compared to the overall hobby.

 

[Aldarc]

Same reason I’ve given for the last year-plus; it’s simply not novel enough.

Reorganized 5e is still 5e.

More or less the same here. It's less an individual, specific aspect of the game, and more of an overall assessment that the game doesn't excite me enough to buy it.

I agree with the above.

It's a confluence of factors for me.

I already have 5e 2014, and 5e 2024 is not novel enough. While it is a slight upgrade, it also feels like a sidegrade. I have no sense of urgency to buy a game for a slight upgrade and a partial sidegrade. There are fundamental design issues that I have with 5e D&D (e.g., Short Rest vs. Long Rest class design), and there is no sign that these issues are being sufficiently addressed.

D&D 2024 is still 5e D&D, and I have that game already, and I don't have a desire to buy this particular game twice. If I want to play 5e D&D, then I have that. If 5e 2024 releases to the CC, then I will have plenty of resources to play that too.

Once I got past the honeymoon and discovery phase of 5e D&D, it wasn't really sparking joy as a game any longer. 5e has worn out its welcome for me. We've had nearly ten years together, but it's clear that we are growing in separate directions. It's okay to move on.

5e increasingly feels like a "Milquetoast Edition" to me. It feels like a game that is terrified of having an opinion about anything, including how it should be played. Nowadays I want a strong, independent game that isn't afraid to speak its mind or share its opinion about play.

WotC seems to pretend that 4e and the Nentir Vale don't exist. Celebrating 50 years of D&D doesn't seem to include 4e D&D. What feels like an unwillingness from WotC to engage with many of the good innovations and ideas from 4e kind of soured me to WotC and 5e by extension over time. The elements from 4e that were brought into 5e exist in a sort of bastardized form: e.g., healing surges -> HD, rituals, bloodied, etc. We also never got the modularity that was promised.

I have stopped actively playing 5e D&D. My last 5e game was a two-shot during Covid lockdown. But even before then, my previous gaming group in Austria was getting burned out on D&D 5e.

Regardless of the outcome, the OGL Fiasco did take some wind out of my sails about WotC and D&D 2024. I have a limited amount of funds for my hobby, so I would prefer to spend money supporting other creators in the hobby space. Hasbro is a publicly traded company. The reality is that this will have an effect on decisions made for the game as Hasbro is legally obligated to create a profit for their shareholders. And I don't think that what's good for D&D or WotC is necessarily best for the hobby.

Fact of the matter is that there are other games that are sparking more joy for me now, with Stonetop, Dragonbane, and Fabula Ultima probably being in my top three at present.

If I want D&D-esque fantasy adventure, I am lucky enough to be drowning in excellent options created by enthusiastic designers and hobbyists: e.g., OSE, Shadowdark, Beyond the Wall, Knave, Index Card RPG, Worlds Without Number, Mausritter, Cairn, etc. This is not to mention the other fantasy adventure TTRPGs out there: Fantasy AGE and Blue Rose, Dragonbane, The One Ring 2E, Forbidden Lands, etc.

If I play D&D-esque fantasy, my limited game time is driving me towards games that are easier and quicker to setup and run. A lot of these games are easier to learn, setup, and run than 5e D&D.

 

[clearstream]

I agree with the above.

It's a confluence of factors for me.

I already have 5e 2014, and 5e 2024 is not novel enough. While it is a slight upgrade, it also feels like a sidegrade. I have no sense of urgency to buy a game for a slight upgrade and a partial sidegrade. There are fundamental design issues that I have with 5e D&D (e.g., Short Rest vs. Long Rest class design), and there is no sign that these issues are being sufficiently addressed.

D&D 2024 is still 5e D&D, and I have that game already, and I don't have a desire to buy this particular game twice. If I want to play 5e D&D, then I have that. If 5e 2024 releases to the CC, then I will have plenty of resources to play that too.

Once I got past the honeymoon and discovery phase of 5e D&D, it wasn't really sparking joy as a game any longer. 5e has worn out its welcome for me. We've had nearly ten years together, but it's clear that we are growing in separate directions. It's okay to move on.

5e increasingly feels like a "Milquetoast Edition" to me. It feels like a game that is terrified of having an opinion about anything, including how it should be played. Nowadays I want a strong, independent game that isn't afraid to speak its mind or share its opinion about play.

WotC seems to pretend that 4e and the Nentir Vale don't exist. Celebrating 50 years of D&D doesn't seem to include 4e D&D. What feels like an unwillingness from WotC to engage with many of the good innovations and ideas from 4e kind of soured me to WotC and 5e by extension over time. The elements from 4e that I see got brought into 5e exist in a sort of bastardized form: healing HD, rituals, bloodied, etc. We also never got the modularity that was promised.

I have stopped actively playing 5e D&D. My last 5e game was a two-shot during Covid lockdown. But even before then, my previous gaming group in Austria was getting burned out on D&D 5e.

Regardless of the outcome, the OGL Fiasco did take some wind out of my sails about WotC and D&D 2024. I have a limited amount of funds for my hobby, so I would prefer to spend money supporting other creators in the hobby space. Hasbro is a publicly traded company. The reality is that this will have an effect on decisions made for the game as Hasbro is legally obligated to create a profit for their shareholders. And I don't think that what's good for D&D or WotC is necessarily best for the hobby.

Fact of the matter is that there are other games that are sparking more joy for me now, with Stonetop, Dragonbane, and Fabula Ultima probably being in my top three at present.

If I want D&D-esque fantasy adventure, I am lucky enough to be drowning in excellent options created by enthusiastic designers and hobbyists: e.g., OSE, Shadowdark, Beyond the Wall, Knave, Index Card RPG, Worlds Without Number, Mausritter, Cairn, etc. This is not to mention the other fantasy adventure TTRPGs out there: Fantasy AGE and Blue Rose, Dragonbane, The One Ring 2E, Forbidden Lands, etc.

If I play D&D-esque fantasy, my limited game time is driving me towards games that are easier and quicker to setup and run. A lot of these games are easier to learn, setup, and run than 5e D&D.

Nice post. Factors that matter, put clearly.

My assessment of 5e is as frankly commercial game design (designed for the broadest possible audience) which to me it carries off incredibly successfully. That's (partly) informed by the 5e books having both the most and the most favorable (by stars) reviews among TTRPGs on Amazon. (Second is CoC.) When I read those reviews, I can see that the game design is working for players.

I also count heavily in my assessment that D&D is committed to DM curation, meaning it's up to the group, not the game system, to bring opinionated play to the table. That said, I too greatly enjoy an opinionated game design and - in the dark as it were - rate opinionated designs above others.

Can't believe you don't also own Torchbearer, Blades, Ironsworn, Thousand Year Old Vampire and FF L5R. Shocking oversights I guess one can't own all the games...

 

[Aldarc]

Can't believe you don't also own Torchbearer, Blades, Ironsworn, Thousand Year Old Vampire and FF L5R. Shocking oversights I guess one can't own all the games...

I didn't list everything that I own or have been playing. I also have a lot of games in digital format.

For purposes of this 5e-oriented thread, I wanted to stick to a truncated list of my D&D fantasy adventure alternatives that exist in a more "traditional" game space. I did mention a few games outside of that sphere, such as Fabula Ultima and Stonetop, but these were as a highlight of the top games that currently spark joy.

That said, there are other d20 fantasy games I own that I didn't mention, but perhaps should have: e.g., Shadow of the Demon Lord/Weird Wizard, Black Hack, 13th Age, etc.

I have Blades (physical and digital), Ironsworn (digital only), and the FF LF5 beginner box set (physical). I don't have Thousand Year Old Vampire, but that game also doesn't interest me.

I was initially a backer of Torchbearer 2, but then Luke Crane tried to smuggle Adam Koebel back into the hobby with his now-cancelled Zine Kickstarter without telling his other writers, so I was one of the people who opted for a refund on my TB2 Kickstarter as a result. I no longer have plans of buying Torchbearer 2.

 

[clearstream]

I didn't list everything that I own or have been playing. I also have a lot of games in digital format.

I meant to convey humor as you had a pretty good list.

I was initially a backer of Torchbearer 2, but then Luke Crane tried to smuggle Adam Koebel back into the hobby with his now-cancelled Zine Kickstarter without telling his other writers, so I was one of the people who opted for a refund on my TB2 Kickstarter as a result. I no longer have plans of buying Torchbearer 2.

That was very much not great. I haven't come down that hard myself... maybe I should. I do avoid anything from authors I find egregious. This one (Crane, not Koebel) is in a grey area where I'm "still deciding". Pretty crap of me, honestly. I have switched my interest in DW entirely to Stonetop.

 

[payn]

5e increasingly feels like a "Milquetoast Edition" to me. It feels like a game that is terrified of having an opinion about anything, including how it should be played. Nowadays I want a strong, independent game that isn't afraid to speak its mind or share its opinion about play.

I think vanilla D&D is the right flavor for everyone. New players (and there are many that dont have decades of experience so dont worry about 4E,3E,2E,1E,Chainmail) are still cutting their teeth on TTRPGs. They are not yet masters of the milquetoast yet. Sure way to buck them off is to completely overhaul D&D every 2-5 years. No, I think the days of D&D being an independent radical progressive RPG are over. It is now the game of casual and beginning players. You want strong, independent games go out and find them and grow their communities (which will, now that D&D has settled into a place of milquetoast!).

D&D wins because it maintains a casual base, indies win becasue folks graduate on from D&D for new experiences. YMMV

 

[Aldarc]

I think vanilla D&D is the right flavor for everyone.

You may think that but I also know you don't speak for me.

New players (and there are many that dont have decades of experience so dont worry about 4E,3E,2E,1E,Chainmail) are still cutting their teeth on TTRPGs. They are not yet masters of the milquetoast yet. Sure way to buck them off is to completely overhaul D&D every 2-5 years. No, I think the days of D&D being an independent radical progressive RPG are over. It is now the game of casual and beginning players. You want strong, independent games go out and find them and grow their communities (which will, now that D&D has settled into a place of milquetoast!).

D&D wins because it maintains a casual base, indies win becasue folks graduate on from D&D for new experiences. YMMV

And this feels more like you are talking past what I said so that you can give 5e a congratulatory pat on the back for winning in some imaginary contest while trying to lecture me. Knock that crap off, payn. This is not about who wins or indie games vs. D&D, and I don't know why so many 5e fans try to turn this sort of thing into some sort of competition. I was writing nothing of the sort.

I don't discount that 5e is an overwhelming success. We can talk about why 5e was a success. We can talk about why 5e works for so many people. We can talk about what it does right and well. We can talk about why 5e is the greatest TTRPG that we should bow down to worship and adore. However, that is not what this thread is about.

I am here to give my personal reasons why I don't plan on getting D&D 2024 and why it personally doesn't work for me. I don't fault others for getting D&D 2024, and I have been quite intentional in framing my language here in terms of what I how personally think and feel so as to not speak for others.

I didn't say that I am looking for D&D to be an "independent radical progressive RPG." I said that I prefer when games have strong, independent opinions about how they should be played, and I feel that 5e D&D is an edition "that is terrified of having an opinion about anything, including how it should be played." @EzekielRaiden may have been the first to make this observation. If not, at the very least, he put a finger on the sentiment that I had been feeling.

To be clear, part of the reason why I was using this language has to do with language that I was using earlier when I said that 5e and I had grown apart. I was using the language of a friendship or relationship in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. People can grow apart as friends and romantic companions. Likewise, just as I value strong, independent people who have opinions of their own in my friendships and romantic partners, I have come to value games where the authorial voice comes through and the author has an opinion about how the game should be played. That is my own personal preference, because I personally have an easier time with learning and playing those games.

I think that games can be new player friendly while still having a strong independent opinions on how they should be played. Likewise, I think that games can be new player friendly and casual games without being milquetoast. These are not the sort mutually exclusive ideas that you are framing them to be here.

B/X D&D has a voice about how it should be played. Likewise, Fabula Ultima is a game with a strong authorial voice. It also did a much better job of onboarding and convincing my TTRPG newbie partner that TTRPGs can be fun, as they were reluctant to give TTRPGs another shot after they bounced hard off of "new player friendly" 5e D&D. My partner told me that they appreciated how Fabula Ultima provides clear guidance and instruction. Some of the helpful passages they mentioned were the ones where Emanuela's authorial voice came shining through the text.

D&D 5e has a DM shortage problem, and I personally think that part of the problem entails the fact that the game feels afraid to have an opinion about how to run the game.