D&D 5e Basic Rules

[Steerpike]

And thinking about your comment about making a buck, yes, this is all about making a buck, but also in the 'long-term survival' theory for WotC, and hopefully gaining back market share lost to PF before it is too late.

Yeah, probably.  There are all sorts of business decisions swirling around something like 5th edition which might be sort of interesting from an "industry" standpoint but which mean nothing to me as a player/DM/consumer.  I really don't care whether WotC survives, I care about whether people are making cool products for RPGs that I might want to buy.  5th edition feels perfectly adequate but totally pointless in and of itself.  I won't be buying it on the strength of the system.

Now, if they come out with a bunch of really fascinating, creative, unique new campaign settings with high production values and world sourcebooks, or bestiaries full of innovative monsters we haven't seen before, or mold-breaking modules that do more than retread old ground but actually do something cool and unexpected, I might shell out for the books.  If all they do is re-release Forgotten Realms and a bunch of old school redux dungeon crawls ("5th edition Tomb of Horrors" or whatever) and Monster Manuals full of the same old monsters we've all seen before, I will continue to ignore this edition.

This is why I became a bit of a Paizo fan: they basically just kept the old, flawed but perfectly serviceable mechanics, and poured their energy and resources into making cool stuff like adventure paths.  That's the stuff that actually interests me - content, ideas, creativity.  Not reinventing the wheel.

It's like with the current generation of consoles... I have a PC and an XBOX 360 and get along just fine, and I won't be buying a new console unless some game comes out for it that I absolutely must have (or, rather, if a whole bunch of games that I really want to play come out just for that console).

[Xeviat]

I hate the idea of Inspiration, as it goes against  a lot of what I consider roleplaying, and is kind of kicking Gygax in the nuts beyond the grave.  But most of all, as you say, there is nothing earthshaking here, no real reason to go out to buy it to find something new, more of their attempt to reverse their sales trend.

What don't you like about inspiration? The advantage mechanic it's tied to, or the mechanic itself? It's a mechanic in several other rpgs; it's almost exactly Hero Points from M&M in fact.

[sparkletwist]

I hate the idea of Inspiration, as it goes against  a lot of what I consider roleplaying

A complaint that a mechanic that is designed expressly to encourage roleplaying your character somehow goes against roleplaying is rather confusing.

[Steerpike]

What I think some might not like about Inspiration is that it assumes roleplaying requires an external reward, that what player's "really want" are combat bonuses and quantifiable points, and that roleplaying is a kind of means to that end rather than and end in and of itself.  Some might even find it insulting.  By incentivizing roleplaying with mechanical rewards it implies that without such incentives, players won't roleplay, or won't roleplay as well as they would otherwise.

It also feels absolutely like a (rather cheap) attempt to appeal to the storygamer crowd, to me way more so than just having codified personality traits.

[LordVreeg]

I hate the idea of Inspiration, as it goes against  a lot of what I consider roleplaying, and is kind of kicking Gygax in the nuts beyond the grave.  But most of all, as you say, there is nothing earthshaking here, no real reason to go out to buy it to find something new, more of their attempt to reverse their sales trend.

What don't you like about inspiration? The advantage mechanic it's tied to, or the mechanic itself? It's a mechanic in several other rpgs; it's almost exactly Hero Points from M&M in fact.

I have enough trouble with Metagamed, dissociative mechanics in general when used in a Role playing game.  I have no issue with them in Chess or monopoly.  But Hero Points are a perfect example, a mechanic that forces the player from the 'in character/in setting' position and back into the 'player changing the game from the outside' position.
In D&D?  You are trying to marry both ends of a continuum and remove the space in between.   
The inspiration mechanic is, like Hero Points, a dissociative mechanic, the opposite of playing from with the role.   
It might not ruin the game, it may make it more fun for some people, it may be better for the newer players.  But it is still a metagame mechanic.

[Hibou]

And thinking about your comment about making a buck, yes, this is all about making a buck, but also in the 'long-term survival' theory for WotC, and hopefully gaining back market share lost to PF before it is too late.

Yeah, probably.  There are all sorts of business decisions swirling around something like 5th edition which might be sort of interesting from an "industry" standpoint but which mean nothing to me as a player/DM/consumer.  I really don't care whether WotC survives, I care about whether people are making cool products for RPGs that I might want to buy.  5th edition feels perfectly adequate but totally pointless in and of itself.  I won't be buying it on the strength of the system.

Now, if they come out with a bunch of really fascinating, creative, unique new campaign settings with high production values and world sourcebooks, or bestiaries full of innovative monsters we haven't seen before, or mold-breaking modules that do more than retread old ground but actually do something cool and unexpected, I might shell out for the books.  If all they do is re-release Forgotten Realms and a bunch of old school redux dungeon crawls ("5th edition Tomb of Horrors" or whatever) and Monster Manuals full of the same old monsters we've all seen before, I will continue to ignore this edition.

This is why I became a bit of a Paizo fan: they basically just kept the old, flawed but perfectly serviceable mechanics, and poured their energy and resources into making cool stuff like adventure paths.  That's the stuff that actually interests me - content, ideas, creativity.  Not reinventing the wheel.

It's like with the current generation of consoles... I have a PC and an XBOX 360 and get along just fine, and I won't be buying a new console unless some game comes out for it that I absolutely must have (or, rather, if a whole bunch of games that I really want to play come out just for that console).

This is essentially my stance too, particularly the monsters bit. I understand that it can be pretty hard to come up with yet more unique creatures when there are already so many out there, but seeing another round of Monster Manual I/II/III/IV/V/Fiend Folio/Monsters of Faerun/Monster Vault/Monsters of the Tree I Just Happened to Walk By/etc. will be very frustrating for a large number of people. To me, it feels like that sort of money grab tactic really kills homebrew creativity, as even if you have a GM who is an expert designer and balancer of past monsters in lieu of shelling out $40 for a splatbook, you will encounter compatibility issues and players who feel uncomfortable not using the "official" variations.

What will really impress me about 5e will be if they release a splatbook or two that go into detail about tweaking the system. An example would be the way magic is handled and spells are created, maybe like a combination of what Tome of Magic, Complete Arcane, and Unearthed Arcana were in 3.5 with a hint of a more balanced version of the Epic Level Handbook's grossly broken epic spell system. Resources that give a whole campaign more mechanics to play with might just get them the audience and volume they're seeking, although if there's too much effort spent on diversifying the system this way it risks giving the new edition an even muddier identity.

[sparkletwist]

By incentivizing roleplaying with mechanical rewards it implies that without such incentives, players won't roleplay, or won't roleplay as well as they would otherwise.

Well, your groups and experiences may vary, but I can tell you that I have found this statement to be pretty much true. I've noticed players (and groups, as a whole) far more willing to play and explore character quirks and flaws in an environment where there are clear system incentives for doing so.

But Hero Points are a perfect example, a mechanic that forces the player from the 'in character/in setting' position and back into the 'player changing the game from the outside' position.

Well, in absolute terms, you're not wrong, but every game is going to have mechanics that do this, and my experience in playing games that use such mechanics has been that the use of meta points can usually be integrated pretty seamlessly, without much of a detrimental effect on the ability to roleplay. In this specific case, rolling the dice is already going to be breaking away from in-character thoughts to do crunch stuff, so taking the extra couple seconds to decide to spend the meta point at that point isn't actually harming anything.

To the best of my knowledge, you haven't ever actually played a game based around meta points and that whole approach to doing things, have you? I think it's the kind of thing that would be much easier to gain insights about with some firsthand experience, at least in terms of seeing what will work and what won't regarding roleplay. FATE Accelerated is pretty simple to learn... feel like a game sometime?

[Steerpike]

Well, your groups and experiences may vary, but I can tell you that I have found this statement to be pretty much true. I've noticed players (and groups, as a whole) far more willing to play and explore character quirks and flaws in an environment where there are clear system incentives for doing so.

It can totally work, but I do find myself resenting this strategy a bit.

This is why despite Alignment bugging me philosophically I think it's a useful roleplaying tool - it codifies an element of a character's personality and helps a player to think about their character's stance on things, but without recourse to an external reward for roleplaying.

Personally I've never had much trouble getting people to roleplay while I was DMing, though I've been a player in games that were rather short on roleplaying.

[SA]

This is why despite Alignment bugging me philosophically I think it's a useful roleplaying tool

For me it's the reverse. I much prefer alignment as cosmological allegiance rather than personality description. The fact that the metaphysical underpinnings of the D&D universe are so inconsistent with mortal morality and ethics is half the reason I still GM on the Great Wheel.

[Steerpike]

Basically I just find it useful for new players who might not be comfortable roleplaying right away but who can ignore Alignment later on.  It's less useful for veteran players.

I do enjoy various weird ways of refashioning/recasting Alignment the Wheel employs (hence my love of Planescape).

[Xeviat]

I especially like Inspiration-like mechanics for rewarding a player for giving into their character's flaws. They're useful for cinematic games too, where you want players to be able to back up their wild, crazy ideas with a bit of mechanical oomph.

They're not for everyone.

[Elemental_Elf]

A lot of things. I shall be brief as I am posting on my phone.

1. Inspiration is a great idea. We - the people that come to this forum - do not need a reward system for keeping in character. However, having played in a lot of public games (and now a new homegame group that is full of new players), I can tell you that something like this is desperately needed to help guide players into the realm of making fully fleshed out characters that have more motivation that murder hobo. With my own group, it can be like pulling teeth to get them to describe pretty much anything, yet the minute you dangle a carrot in their face, they suddenly care. Inspiration is a tool DMs can use to foster good roleplaying and ensure it is not "glossed over" as an necessary add on to a miniatures war game. this is doubly true for flaws, which are the aspect of roleplaying I have observed to be the least utilized by newer (and even experienced) gamers.

1a) Alignment feeds into this as well. It IS a flawed system but it helps players think about how their character looks at the world and how they would react to events and happenings. Additionally, alignment will not normally be a straight jacket like it was in the past (certain classes excepted), so I do not see the raging debates sparking up again (outside of the fringe "does slaughtering ever orc child in an orphanage count as evil?" debates).

2. The game is meant to feel more like AD&D - no maps, all description. The PHB, and especially the variant rule-laden DMG, will include the tactical aspects of the game. Remember Basic D&D will not be fully complete until January of next year. Every month, new rules will be added to it.

3. From what I have seen, many Char-Opers actually say it is not worth it to take the ability score increase at every level. Feats are just better most of the time.

4. Pathfinder definitely represents WotC's biggest competitor but they are small potatoes compared to D&D (the whole of Paizo only made $12 million in 2012).

5. The aim of this edition was not only to draw older/lapsed players back in by appealing to their nostalgia but to also present a simple game that new people can play. The Starter Set is going to be sold at Wal*Mart and target, last I heard.

6. We most assuredly needed a new version of D&D. 4th Edition was not successful nor popular enough for Hasbro. They want D&D to make a 100 million dollars a year. 4E just could not accomplish that goal. A simpler game whose entire goal is to be modular and tailor-able to the kind of game a DM wants has a much higher potential for success. People often talk about other games but they are may as well not even exist. They do not matter to the general public. They are niche games that will never be as popular or well known as D&D. D&D is King. D&D is the gateway drug that you use to bring people into the hobby and THEN get them hooked on a niche game. If D&D is successful, then the whole industry benefits.

7. levels 1 and 2 are D&D on training wheels. Most "advanced" games will start at level 3.

8. Every creature in the Monster Manual will remain relevant throughtout the entire 1-20 experience. The difference is that a single goblin will not pose a threat to a 20th level Fighter but a hundred will. The new D&D does away with the idea that players escalate in power from dirt farmers to gods in 20 levels.

9. WotC has said that they want this game to last 10 years (at least) and they they are not looking to spam rules. Rather, they want to produce products that "actually get people excited" like adventures and campaign setting books.  This is a complete 180 from the year 2000 when it was believed settings and adventures were stuff "other companies" should produce, while WotC rolls in all the money that rules supplements bring in. I think this speaks to how different the audience as a whole has become, and more specifically, the audience WotC is targeting.

10. The Monster Manuals will all include very large ecology sections for each and every monster.

10a) We are all grognards here. We own all of the old books. New players do not. It is unfair to ask them to buy a supplement for a game that they are not playing simply to have the fluff they desire to read (doubly so for used print copies).

[LordVreeg]

just so everyone is actually aware of the stakes for WotC...
http://greyhawkgrognard.blogspot.com/2013/03/d-sales-now-third-behind-pathfinder-and.html
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/7580/is-pathfinder-selling-better-than-dd

I am posting this due to comments like the one above from elf about Pathfinder being small potatoes.  Whether Pathfinder is actually ahead in sales is immaterial.  What is true and relevant is that D&D's position as being flagship of the industry was and is totally in jeopardy after the poor showing and migration over top 4E and Paizo's realization that 3.5 had a lot of fans that had been left in the dark.

And I have advocated, loudly, for a simple game with 'bolt on', modular advanced rules as the best solution for a long term game edition since 5e was announced.

And getting away from the old power curve is a tremendous step forward.

[Elemental_Elf]

just so everyone is actually aware of the stakes for WotC...
http://greyhawkgrognard.blogspot.com/2013/03/d-sales-now-third-behind-pathfinder-and.html
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/7580/is-pathfinder-selling-better-than-dd

I am posting this due to comments like the one above from elf about Pathfinder being small potatoes.  Whether Pathfinder is actually ahead in sales is immaterial.  What is true and relevant is that D&D's position as being flagship of the industry was and is totally in jeopardy after the poor showing and migration over top 4E and Paizo's realization that 3.5 had a lot of fans that had been left in the dark.

And I have advocated, loudly, for a simple game with 'bolt on', modular advanced rules as the best solution for a long term game edition since 5e was announced.

And getting away from the old power curve is a tremendous step forward.

The numbers are deceptive as WotC has not put out a non-adventure, non-reprint product in almost 2 years (and even those adventures were few and far between). Paizo has really tapped into a very profitable market in terms of writing adventures. You cannot beat Paizo right now for the sheer amount of adventure based content they are producing.

If you look at 4E, WotC published a handful of adventures, most of which were (from what I hear) pretty bad. They were still stuck in the "rules = money" mindset.

Beyond that, the D&D Insider, honestly, hurt their print sales. I know many who were die hard "buy every rules supplement" kind of people who, after the D&D Insider became established, basically stopped buying 4E books all together.  In a lot of ways they cannibalized the market they were catering to and had nothing to offer people in print that would drive up sales by any reasonable margin.

WotC flubbed 4E in many ways, almost all of which was due to Hasbro setting arbitrary revenue goals that, realistically, any RPG would struggle to meet.

I think competition is good for the industry as a whole but the industry really lacks a good gateway drug without D&D (especially since the Pathfinder Society has been marred by so many ronin who remain group-less because they have absolutely zero social skills).

[sparkletwist]

From what I have seen, many Char-Opers actually say it is not worth it to take the ability score increase at every level. Feats are just better most of the time.

There are no examples of feats in the basic rules so I don't know what they're going for. Do you have some examples?

And I have advocated, loudly, for a simple game with 'bolt on', modular advanced rules as the best solution for a long term game edition since 5e was announced.

I think the best solution for a long term game edition is actually one set of core rules that are actually sensible and functional. If they had the math nailed down to the degree that they could clearly explain their rationale for making the numbers the way they did, then some kind of "hacking guide" with various advanced concepts would make a pretty neat splatbook. However, I think that 4th edition and what we've seen of 5th edition so far prove that just doing that is something they can't particularly manage, never mind trying to incorporate a bunch of optional "official house rules" that may or may not break the game because they have no consistent idea about what the game is supposed to be balanced around.

Every creature in the Monster Manual will remain relevant throughtout the entire 1-20 experience. The difference is that a single goblin will not pose a threat to a 20th level Fighter but a hundred will. The new D&D does away with the idea that players escalate in power from dirt farmers to gods in 20 levels.

And getting away from the old power curve is a tremendous step forward.

I don't consider this a good idea either. The big thing with D&D 5th edition was that it was supposed to "feel like D&D." This was obviously a big deal to them, as it seemed like the playtest surveys were always much very concerned with "feel." So, with that in mind, games can work with a flat power curve but that creates an entirely different feeling because there just isn't a lot of advancement. It removes the possibility of epic zero-to-hero tales or fearsome monsters that can only be taken on by mighty adventurers... and doing that doesn't "feel" much like D&D.