Obligatory 5E D&D Thread

[Xeviat]

Rather than blow up the shouts, I'm making a thread. I'm sure most of us know, and everyone does now, that D&D5E was announced today, in the New York Times of all locales. It's going to be showed off in a limited fashion at GenCon and D&DExperience, then this summer they're going to invite people to playtest (which is a great sign). I was hoping we could get as many CBGers to submit to the playtest so one of us could get chosen and we could do some Skype or IRC games.

Now, we have absolutely no information on the new system, unless something was talked about while I was at work. Part of the obligitory nature of these types of threads is for us to list what we would love to see. Here's mine:

Keep

• Monster progression table: I want this to remain largely the same. Having a monsters defenses, hp, attack, and damage be based on their level/role is an excellent balance mechanism. CR was too kitschy.
• Roles/Power Sources: I loved this, as I love grids and symmetry.
• At-Will Spells: Nothing made my group's first spellcaster hate the game more than having 3 spells a day and having to resort to a crossbow when it was all said and done (Sorcerer, 3E)
• Tiers: These were a great story telling structure.
• Themes: Late in the Edition power creep that really opened the game up for more diversity. This could be something later, though.
• Classes: Classes need to remain for it to feel like D&D.

Change

• Start Classic: The initial class/race offerings should be the classics from 2E/3E, though it wouldn't hurt to toss in the Warlord and Warlock as they are the 4E PHB1 classics. Though I really think almost everything could be done with the initial 3E classes, minus sorcerer and plus psion/psychic warrior.
• Bring Back Class-spanning spells: One of 4E's weaknesses were the specificity of class powers; magic missile didn't belong to all arcanists, dispel magic didn't belong to all casters ... this made it hard to identify with the powers used.
• Avoid Card Structure: I didn't like power cards; they were hard to read at a glance. At least include lists with descriptions, like I was working on before the announcement. Martial attacks can simply be described by how they modify the basic attack, for instance.
• Less Stuff: 4E characters bloated fast. It seemed that everyone was fighting to find the best use for every action they had in each round. If minor action and immediate action abilities are reduced, the game can progress faster.

I am very curious that Monty Cook was brought back to WotC. It screams of a very different departure point for D&D5E. I also need to try to not throw out my shoulder patting myself on the back for being right about a new edition; apparently I have a few ranks in "Divination (Internet Rumblings)".

[Numinous]

I'm glad somebody made this thread, I saw the NYT and saw it in the shout box here, but didn't feel qualified to make the thread due to my lack of specific crunch-based opinions.

The things I liked about 4E?  At-will spells and the removal of mental and social stats (Int, Wis, Cha).  The things I hated?  That combat was a pain for me.  I just felt disengaged, waiting until my turn in the initiative to use the same at-will against the guy next to me.  Mind you, I'm notoriously bad at building good characters, but it did not engage me.  So, with the combat not being engaging in a combat-based system, it bugged me.

My primary concern however is this crowd-sourcing of mechanics.  Yes, the WotC forums ahve historically been filled with better material than the splatbooks themselves (although I haven't been there since the CBG got it's own website), however I generally dislike generalist approaches.  D&D might be losing because it strives too hard to be inclusive.  A clear goal and a proper execution of that goal is what I think brings success, like some of our best settings.  Nobody points to Jade Stage and praises it because it has a place for every new spell, we like it because it is a discrete piece of art that is internally consistent and flavorful.  I have seen my friends and colleagues drifting from D&D into other games, because those games are capable of approaching a specific flavor competently, without trying to be universal.  Maybe it's time D&D chose a direction and committed, either that or it can fade away amongst the crowd of genre-specific RPG's out there now.

[Xeviat]

4E didn't remove mental and social stats ... not sure what you meant there. But I agree that something about the mechanics of D&D4 made players distinctly aware that they were playing a game. I have never seen players more disengaged when it wasn't their turn, but I can't see a mechanical reason. Perhaps it's too many options for you once your turn comes around, so you're focusing on what you're going to do next instead of watching the game go?

[Elemental_Elf]

4E nailed DMing. 4E failed on the player side.

What 5E needs to do is:

- Make individual classes feel more unique : So many of the powers in 4E were just variations of the same thing everyone else has.

- Make Power Sources feel more unique: 3.5 did a fairly good job of making each power source feel different where as 4E did not. I love the idea of Power Sources mattering but 4E didn't pull it off as well as it could have.

- Eliminate Power cards and return to the old style spell/ability description.

- Make the chance to hit higher than 50/50 base.

- Less immediate interrupts: Makes the game flow better.

[Numinous]

Oh blarg.  I don't know what I was thinking when I said they removed mental stats.  Maybe my memory is shot.  I guess I meant the reduced emphasis on social rules, where the rulebooks pertained almost entirely to functions of combat and mechanics.  I originally thought it would be great, but instead of filling in the blanks with DM creativity, that part of the game seemed to atrophy and we ended up playing a mini's combat game.

[Xeviat]

I fully agree with E_E, and I still think writing your name like that looks like a worried emoticon looking over it's shoulder.

Numinous, 4E put social firmly into the combat, but compartmentalized it more from the other abilities. Aside from choosing whether your skill training went into Diplomacy instead of Athletics, being a good social character didn't hurt your ability to fight. Skill Challenges, though poorly explained at first, were the way to incorporate the mechanics with the roleplay.

I truthfully never got to run a game of my own creation in 4E beyond 2 sessions; my longest games were premades, and those are intrinsically dungeon-crawly. Perhaps my opinions would have been different had I ran more of my own social games.

[LD]

>>My primary concern however is this crowd-sourcing of mechanics.

I doubt they really care or will listen to any customers on that issue. They see that it helped Paizo win plaudits and seem to want to jump on the bandwagon by appearing to value customer input, but my gut instinct is it will be smoke and mirrors. I do invite them to prove me wrong, however. :)

Wizards was a very good company that believed in a strong message board presence with back and forth with users until it went insane and launched Gleemax. It may or may not have improved since Gleemax's demise, but I doubt it.

[sparkletwist]

It looks to me like what's going on here is that WotC basically wants a do-over on 4th edition.  :grin:

I wonder how much of this is in response to Pathfinder. It seems 4th edition was a somewhat bold attempt to redesign the game mechanics that generated a lot of controversy and a lot of people ended up hating. Part of this was because they did a lot of stupid things in 4e, but part of it is also that some people want to play the same game until the end of time and they hate change. On the other hand, Pathfinder is essentially a few bandages and a coat of paint on the same old 3rd edition rules, even the broken 3e rules. So, there are probably a lot of people who want to play Pathfinder not so much because of anything that it did inherently, but because it manages to be able to be both "new" (because it is a new game) and "the same old 3e that you're familiar with" at the same time. So, all this talk about trying to pull in mechanics from previous editions is their way of trying to do the same thing, to come up with something "new" but yet not so new it'll scare away all the people who don't really want anything truly new.

I agree with Light Dragon on the whole thing about listening to customers being more of a PR thing than anything legit. To be honest, it's probably good, because I'm not sure what useful information they could get from listening to the internet mobs, anyway. The fans hanging around on the forums bitching about whatever feature of the game is going to be a vocal minority, but a minority is what they will be, and you don't want to base too many of your important decisions on the opinions of a small, vocal group that is very radicalized and doesn't really know what they're talking about.

I don't really know enough about D&D these days to have an actual list of wants. My gut feeling would be to get back to a less combat-centric game, or, alternatively, do like FATE and Exalted (and Asura!) and a bunch of other systems, and come up with some rules that enable the use of the normal combat mechanics during social conflicts. That might not be the kind of D&D that most people these days even want, though; I honestly don't know. It would also probably require getting rid of the 4e thing where you use a battle map all the time, but that's something else I'm perfectly fine with.

If this post seems mostly negative, it probably is. I'm rather skeptical.

[Ninja D!]

This has been a long time coming. I think most people that noticed WotC brought back Monte Cook, one of the head designers of 3.0, knew this was why. I didn't know it had been announced, however.

I'd like to say, "that's it, I'm out, I'm done," but I know I'll probably get suckered into buying the first PHB, DMG, and MM...at least out of curiosity. I'll try to get in on the playtest for sure.

I honestly hoped that this wouldn't happen at least until after they delivered on their promise of fully-functioning online tools and game table...and they were pretty close to that goal, too.

[Gamer Printshop]

Well luckily for me I've only played 3x for about 4 years - so I hadn't played it long enough to be burned out by it, so when Pathfinder came along and I joined in that game, and I moved to that, I didn't have any negative 3x baggage to carry along.

4e did not impress me, and 5e at this point doesn't even intrigue me, so I won't worry about it until one of my players sticks a book in my face, and even then, I might not even look. WotC has never been my go to publisher... good luck with the company though, I wish them the best. All I really want to say to them is "Go away, you bodda me, kid!"

[Steerpike]

I'm starting to feel very cynical about the whole D&D endeavor, really.  Is releasing a new edition really about improving the game, or is it about selling books and having an excuse to re-release old books and settings with new rules?  It seems to me that the latter is more likely.  Isn't a new edition of the rules essentially an admission of failure, a suggestion that the last edition was not only flawed, but flawed enough that an entire new version of the game is required?  And if not one - not two - not three - not even four - but five iterations (so far!) of the same game are required to perfect the gaming experience, what does that say about the game in question?  Either it was deeply flawed to begin with (in which case, why spend so much time improving it?) or another edition isn't really necessary.

I don't think releasing a new edition is about creating a superior gaming experience; I think it's about releasing the same tired, safe, risk-free stuff in the name of making a buck.  Why not create a bunch of new settings, or adaptations of the rules-set for different time periods and genres?  Heck, why not make something totally new?  The answer, tragically, seems to be that creativity is too risky, and not profitable enough.  Better to trot out the beholders and half-elves for another ride round the block.  It's the same reason Hollywood is obsessed with remakes and sequels, the reason we have to suffer through a dozen Spider Man reboots and Transformers movies and Crystal Skulls and Stranger Tides for every Avatar or Hugo, the reason there are 10000 games about space marines or dragons or alien invasions and stuff like Amnesia: the Dark Descent only shows up once in a blue moon.  The thing is, it's not even the fault of the creators, who're probably just trying to keep the wolves from the door: it's the hopelessly commodified, artistically indifferent system itself, and the people who fuel it, rubes and nostalgic suckers included.

I'm definitely out.  Unless 5e is hailed as a revolutionary new system that completely reinvigorates a tired franchise and brings some great new, exciting settings with it to boot, I'm not buying the books.  Because what`s the need?  If I want to play D&D, I can.  I really, really doubt that a tweaked rules-system to run the same old dungeon delves is worth the money.

[LD]

>>or is it about selling books and having an excuse to re-release old books and settings with new rules?  It seems to me that the latter is more likely

I would assume that. I wouldn't blame them for it though. :) They need to make a profit. I'm annoyed when they keep adding the PR-assh*t BS that "oh this is the most amazing thing kiddos" like Gleemax; but I don't blame them for trying it. ... They just lose me as a customer when they treat me and the audience like stupid 13 year olds (as opposed to shrewd 13-year-olds).

>> Isn't a new edition of the rules essentially an admission of failure, a suggestion that the last edition was not only flawed, but flawed enough that an entire new version of the game is required?  

Well recall that was the selling point of 4E? "3E is cr*p, dumb*****. Upgrade." And Exalted's puerile "upgrade your game" ads. :p

It's not unique though... don't forget, Call of Cthulu has gone through about 7 or 8 editions now? Although the amusing thing about that is that 3E's pretty much the same as 8E... I GM a group where I have the 3E book, someone has 5E another has 7E or something along those lines. Chaosium just improved the quality of the rulebooks. The difference is that you get more bang for your buck with a DnD upgrade- you get a new system :) But the other difference is there is no reason to upgrade CoC since the editions are interchangeable- whereas with DnD that isn't the case.

The risk they have in introducing 5E is in further fragmenting their playerbase... Wired Magazine's article on this subject touched on that.

---
Tangent. But steerpike- beholders were unique... they're product identity. They were a risk. I'd also take a shot at Avatar being original- the plot was tired- 3D was a risk, but the plot was tired.

I'd also defend Wizard's change of systems from a creativity standpoint. 4E was a risk because it changed a lot... staying with 3E wouldn't have been a risk. Now, I don't like 4E but heck, that's an example of a risk backfiring on their part :). Another risk--the open design license that allowed Paizo to flourish. Another risk--the terrible online content of Gleemax. Eberron was also a very new setting- a risk. Their 3E strategy was to not inundate the market with settings like they did in 3E ... when they did that they divided the market too much so it wasn't profitable to release books in all the lines.  It's a part of the reason for 2E's money woes. The Dungeon and Dragon magazine editorials and 30 Years of Adventure went into the economics, If I recall correctly.

The 3E focus was crunch and not fluff... and near its end-life they started producing adventures again to create a shared feeling like 1E player's had when they all adventured in the classics... which were really terrible adventures in a lot of ways when you look back on them (lots of gotcha moments, etc. that one couldn't plan to circumvent "eg. tomb of horrors"). 4E was beginning to focus a bit more on settings with their "year of ..." dark sun, eberron, forgotten realms, etc. And speaking of inventive- Dark Sun is inventive... not my cup of tea, but it's inventive. It's from 2E-era, but still- it hadn't been touched in years.

[LD]

Also; Note to the OP (Xeviat)- could you please change the thread title to : "obligatory". Thanks.

[Elven Doritos]

I never converted from 3.5 and I'm soon to be converting to Pathfinder, but my first and last thought on 5th edition:

Already?

[sparkletwist]

I think one of the problems is that they do try to do something "new," but then, at the same time, they try to do something that can still be called "Dungeons & Dragons." So, it has to have new stuff, but not too much new stuff. As I stated before, I think this is why Pathfinder is successful-- it adds just enough new stuff, mechanics fixes, and other little shiny goodies that everyone regards it as this shiny new thing, but then at the same time it's still, fundamentally, basically 3e D&D in a way that 4e definitely isn't. 4e was a more radical departure, and, even if it wasn't full of fundamentally stupid problems (which it is) there would still be people who didn't like it simply because it was different, and yet, it was still called "D&D." It has a legacy.

I wouldn't always think of the need for a new edition as a failure. In theory, it could simply be an attempt to add new and innovative mechanics that weren't around when the original game was first released, or to tweak things that didn't quite work in the original, or, well, any number of improvements. Truthfully, some of it is probably just a response to changing preferences of gamers, too.

But that's just the theory. In practice, yeah, the "D&D brand" probably means a lot more to WotC than innovation and originality and all that other stuff put together. Like I said, it has a legacy. Even if they do try to do something new, they'll still try to cash in on that legacy. They'll slap the D&D name on it and include enough references back to the old stuff (think 4e) and if that fails, then maybe it was just because they didn't include enough old stuff (think Pathfinder) or they really should have just never changed anything in the first place (think various OD&D retro-clones) or whatever. They're trying to balance doing something new for the people that like new but not so new that they lose out on the people who like old.

Too often, all that results is them ruining something that might have been better without trying to bring in a whole bunch of "traditional D&D stuff" from the 1970s and 80s and 90s and so on. I think that Eberron would have been a much better setting if it wasn't loaded down with a whole bunch of stereotypical D&D crap that it needed to have in order to be a "D&D setting."

I share your cynicism. The odds of them coming up with something truly new, going off in a new direction, and with a new name and a lack of baggage are... not good.