Opinion: will you be reluctant or eager to switch from 5E to 6E?

[Segev]

IMO, ultimately the primary difference for the existing player base was there wasn't a Pathfinder (2e style) as an alternative after 3e came out. They were just left with games with no more support. Otoh many of them were fine with that, there was a ton of TSR content, especially for 2e. Pretty sure I owned most of it too

There was, though. Several, though the one I can think of off the top of my head is Palladium.

[Goobahfish]

I disagree with the concept that 5e D&D is balanced around 6 encounters. Or 1 encounter. Or any specific number of encounters. That's not a reasonable reading of the text, in context. For one BIG thing, it leaves out the scale of the encounters (6 Medium =/= 6 Hard, etc). For another, it treats the post hoc "in playtesting, we found that our parties generally needed about 6-8 Medium encounters and 2 short rests before they needed to take a long rest" statement (which is what we have) with a "we designed it so that if you're not having 6 Medium encounters and two long rests per long rest it's out of balance."

This is all true. I have enough experience being a DM to know that balance is... a really nebulous DM/game dependent phenomenon. I suppose the point that I am making is that having classes whose 'core mechanics' really drive by the long rest create distortive incentive structures to minimize the number of encounters per day in a way that say a fighter (battlemaster probably), doesn't. Clearly fighters are a bit more boring than other classes and making all classes homogenous (4e) is also a bad idea. The rules for each class need to be 'different enough' to make playing one feel very different from another.

An example of what I find very weird from a design perspective is the Sorcerer/Warlock divide (which is probably why the Sorcerer often sits 1" from the dustbin in many conversations). At their core, the difference is really... how you get your spells back (obviously metamagic and invocations etc are small differences). They both have a limited spell list and seem to have a roughly similar aesthetic (but different fluff around that aesthetic - patrons vs blood - 'loner caster').

Now, 'how you get your spells back' basically means that they have diametrically opposed preferences for encounter styles. Sorcerers clearly would prefer short-day hard encounters, whereas the warlock prefers a series of small->medium encounters with periodic rests.

This is interesting, but again creates distortive tensions in the game. Especially if a party is dominated by one 'style' of class over the other (i.e. 3 Sorcerers and a Warlock). Having short rests as a sort of 'per encounter' given except in 'chain encounters' (which happen seldomly) tends to create a healthier playstyle. Obviously abilities then need to be balanced to account for it, but having 'mostly short rest' parties I have found leads to 'decent adventuring days' being a norm rather than an exception.

[Psyren]

I mean, you can choose to disregard the guidance they give on rests just like any other guidance in the DMG, but doing that and then complaining there's no guidance seems pretty counterproductive.

[Tanarii]

There was, though. Several, though the one I can think of off the top of my head is Palladium.

Palladium was NOT effectively "3rd party AD&D". Which is what would be a like for like situation.

[Segev]

Palladium was NOT effectively "3rd party AD&D". Which is what would be a like for like situation.

I suppose. It is remarkably close, in that you can clearly see where it branched off from AD&D and started bolting on its own ideas. But I agree that it's more dissimilar to AD&D than PF1 is to 3.5. Even with PF1's lengthy years of advancements and additions.

The main thing, though, is that I just don't see AD&D lingering the way 3.5 did. 3.5 is still played, with an active community. Sure, it's often 3.PF, but I also think PF2 is probably less successful than Paizo wanted it to be based on how much 3.PF still sticks around. 5e pulled more people away from 3.PF than 4e did from 3e, and PF2 has not pulled as many away from PF1 and 3.PF as 5e did. I see more people still playing 5e and 3.PF than I do (still) playing 4e or even switching to PF2, though I am sure there are PF1 players who play PF2 as well.

There's always been resistance to any edition change, but 3e seemed to pretty much win people over, as far as I can tell, in general/majority-enough sense that 4e never did. I think 5e has won over both 3e and 4e players, as I don't see 4e lingering the way 3e still does, and I know most 3.PF players I know have no problem with 5e and will play it as readily as they will 3.PF. (The reverse is not true: I know a number of 5e players who are very hesitant to try out 3.PF.)

[Tanarii]

The main thing, though, is that I just don't see AD&D lingering the way 3.5 did.

It did linger, and it still does. But the AD&D player base at the time (which split) was much smaller than the explosive growth of new players coming in for the first time during 3e.

With 3e->4e there was a much larger player base to split and a larger number to stay on with 3e and then PF. But no explosive growth of new 4e players to make up the difference.

Point being the radical changes of 3e were contentious and split the existing player base. It just didn't have the same impact on the success of the new edition.

[Psyren]

It did linger, and it still does. But the AD&D player base at the time (which split) was much smaller than the explosive growth of new players coming in for the first time during 3e.

With 3e->4e there was a much larger player base to split and a larger number to stay on with 3e and then PF. But no explosive growth of new 4e players to make up the difference.

Point being the radical changes of 3e were contentious and split the existing player base. It just didn't have the same impact on the success of the new edition.

I think this is an important point. Every edition change breaks its base to some degree. The key is to offset the players who won't switch (or even just delay switching) with new ones.

Can a hypothetical 6e do this? Given 5e's current size and notoriety, I think we'd need a big paradigm shift or killer app for that. Integrated VTT or AI or VR for example. If it's just the same model of dead tree PHB+DMG+MM with all-new rules to learn and then we'll maybe do some online stuff later, it will likely not succeed.

[KorvinStarmast]

Can a hypothetical 6e do this? Given 5e's current size and notoriety, I think we'd need a big paradigm shift or killer app for that. Integrated VTT or AI or VR for example.
If it's just the same model of dead tree PHB+DMG+MM with all-new rules to learn and then we'll maybe do some online stuff later, it will likely not succeed.

Very much concur.

[Segev]

Can a hypothetical 6e do this? Given 5e's current size and notoriety, I think we'd need a big paradigm shift or killer app for that. Integrated VTT or AI or VR for example. If it's just the same model of dead tree PHB+DMG+MM with all-new rules to learn and then we'll maybe do some online stuff later, it will likely not succeed.

I sincerely doubt that integrated VTT, AI, VR, or anything electronic that actually raises the barrier to entry and requires making things work across multiple interfaces will facilitate D&D. Frankly, D&D as a computer game has been done over and over and over again, and arguably most video games today are the evolution of that into something that actually works on a video game model. There's no way to "integrate" VTTs into D&D without breaking D&D as an accessible platform, and VTTs that "do D&D" already exist, some better and some worse. I think that will always be a parallel innovation, rather than anything that integration would make one or the other more palatable.

4e wasn't only a response to 3.5 running out of creativity. There were systemic flaws with the game balance that were perceived as needing fixing. I don't agree with how they fixed them (or even that they were the massive flaws the designers of 4e thought they were), but that was the impetus, and that's what led to a new edition being its own thing while still (allegedly) being D&D.

5e was, similarly, a response to the way 4e was not crushing Pathfinder the way WotC probably desired, and an attempt to make D&D more accessible to new players while drawing the 3e fanbase back to the fold. I think it largely succeeded, there.

Unless 6e has a sort of "big idea" about how it wants to reshape the game to present itself to the new and existing audience as D&D, but better-for-this-kind-of-gaming, I don't think it'll do very well. People will resist moving over, and resent having to just to get new content. Especially if all the "new" content is merely rehashing old content because the designers ran out of creativity for 5e and want to get paid for retreading old ground.

A third party effort seems to have rebuilt 5e with more of a 3e granularity, calling themselves "Level up D&D" or something like that. The biggest thing they've done that I think is a clever move is try to re-integrate exploration as a pillar with solid mechanics that make finding shelter and civilization a reward in and of itself. Not sure what I think of it as a whole, and it is closer to a 5.5 or 5.75 than a 6.0, being built recognizably on 5e's chassis, but "re-integrate exploration pillar" might be one Big Idea that could help sell a 6e.

[Warder]

A third party effort seems to have rebuilt 5e with more of a 3e granularity, calling themselves "Level up D&D" or something like that. The biggest thing they've done that I think is a clever move is try to re-integrate exploration as a pillar with solid mechanics that make finding shelter and civilization a reward in and of itself. Not sure what I think of it as a whole, and it is closer to a 5.5 or 5.75 than a 6.0, being built recognizably on 5e's chassis, but "re-integrate exploration pillar" might be one Big Idea that could help sell a 6e.

Everything I've seen of Level Up (which admittedly is pretty limited, since I don't own it) has looked really good. I suspect if I return to D&D in my local game, it'll be in the shape of Level Up rather than whatever WotC will release next. But yes, I completely agree - giving more weight to the exploration (and social, for that matter) pillar would be a worthy improvement for a potential new edition, but I would be very surprised if that's what we're getting. Current D&D operates very much according to the MCU formula - cool moments, flashy powers, dipping deep into that power fantasy - but don't worry so much about the moments in between.

I think the first time I realized that was when Healing Spirit had just been released and people rightly pointed out that it broke healing between fights, and both JC and Mike Mearls said who cares, that's not important - fights are meant to be started at max HP anyway. Mind. Blown.

[Psyren]

I sincerely doubt that integrated VTT, AI, VR, or anything electronic that actually raises the barrier to entry and requires making things work across multiple interfaces will facilitate D&D.

I agree those things constitute a barrier to entry today, because technology isn't quite there yet (aside from the VTT, and even then they can be a bit clunky for a newcomer to set up.) But we're not talking about today - we're talking about some hypothetical future when an entirely new edition of the game would be seen as warranted.

There was a time when expecting people to have an internet connection would have been considered a barrier to entry for D&D. Now it's actually a growth factor for the hobby (hi there global pandemic) rather than an obstacle.

A third party effort seems to have rebuilt 5e with more of a 3e granularity, calling themselves "Level up D&D" or something like that. The biggest thing they've done that I think is a clever move is try to re-integrate exploration as a pillar with solid mechanics that make finding shelter and civilization a reward in and of itself. Not sure what I think of it as a whole, and it is closer to a 5.5 or 5.75 than a 6.0, being built recognizably on 5e's chassis, but "re-integrate exploration pillar" might be one Big Idea that could help sell a 6e.

"5e but a bunch more rules" doesn't sound like a good idea for 6e to me. Pivoting the whole game in that direction would likely lead to the fail state I mentioned.

Unless 6e has a sort of "big idea" about how it wants to reshape the game to present itself to the new and existing audience as D&D, but better-for-this-kind-of-gaming, I don't think it'll do very well. People will resist moving over, and resent having to just to get new content. Especially if all the "new" content is merely rehashing old content because the designers ran out of creativity for 5e and want to get paid for retreading old ground.

We agree on this much if nothing else.

[Telok]

I
"5e but a bunch more rules" doesn't sound like a good idea for 6e to me. Pivoting the whole game in that direction would likely lead to the fail state I mentioned.

Sounds like a good idea to me... if... they cleaned up some of the stupid confusing **** rules that currently exist first and wrote decent simple straight rules for stuff that keeps stumping people. I've certainly seen a few DMs stumped for making exploration & travel be more than a series of random encounter rolls.

Example, all the reactions I know of are written in the method of "if X happens then you can do Y as a reaction". This makes reactions an exclusionary exception set of rules. You can never, by the rules, just generally use a reaction to react to anything like ducking when you hear a trap trigger. It always has to be one exact predefined trigger for one exact predefined reaction. You could instead write an ability like "In Harms Way: As a reaction you move up to 5' to throw yourself between an ally and danger, taking the full effect of that danger on yourself." Simple, if a bit vague (for real publication I'd add a short one sentence example), and inclusive of the players doing lots of defferent interesting fun stuff.

Pictures & examples. The books could do with some useful pictures & examples. Like what not to have to roll perception for, or what they intend for the stupid lighting levels to look like. Damn stupid rules are still causing "yeah its dark but they didn't hide so i know exactly where they all moved to" kinds of crap since 4e came out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree those things constitute a barrier to entry today, because technology isn't quite there yet (aside from the VTT, and even then they can be a bit clunky for a newcomer to set up.) But we're not talking about today - we're talking about some hypothetical future when an entirely new edition of the game would be seen as warranted.

There was a time when expecting people to have an internet connection would have been considered a barrier to entry for D&D. Now it's actually a growth factor for the hobby (hi there global pandemic) rather than an obstacle.

I run an online game. Having an integrated VTT (which implies a mandatory VTT) or other digital component would be an instant "do not buy, do not play" for me. Especially since that would make them free (and feel more comfortable) with more complex mechanics (leaning on the VTT to handle the load). See below for my thoughts on that.

VTTs are ok...as stopgaps when you can't actually all get together, put away the devices, and just play. They're always an impedence mismatch for play. They always slow things down and complicate life and put pressures on the gameplay (having fancy maps means smaller maps and less spontaneity, for one thing). Playing online is roughly double the prep work, and it's the annoying prep work--finding maps, wiring up the walls, making sure I have tokens and character sheets written for all the custom stuff, etc. And they're janky at best, even when they work perfectly.

Having the system assume a particular VTT/other solution means that homebrew is locked into the walls of what the electronic solution is programmed for. Much less ability to do wild and funky things without fighting the system. And not only that--it would increase the incentive to be locked into adventure paths/purchased modules, because it solves that setup problem. And I hate those.

"5e but a bunch more rules" doesn't sound like a good idea for 6e to me. Pivoting the whole game in that direction would likely lead to the fail state I mentioned.

Exactly. More rules, more complexity is, to me, a downside. Something that pushes me away. Not something that attracts me.

[Psyren]

I run an online game. Having an integrated VTT (which implies a mandatory VTT) or other digital component would be an instant "do not buy, do not play" for me.

I covered the folks who would react this way (see "offset" above.) And I truly believe it would offset, because there's huge growth potential - I can't imagine the number of people who want to DM who don't have a physical group, and who don't want to wrestle with Roll20 or Foundry (much less spring for the paid versions) to set up their game.

If nothing else, WotC can certainly afford to host any number of games either without charging a subscription or including the cost in the sub fee people are already paying for Beyond.

Sounds like a good idea to me... if... they cleaned up some of the stupid confusing **** rules that currently exist first and wrote decent simple straight rules for stuff that keeps stumping people. I've certainly seen a few DMs stumped for making exploration & travel be more than a series of random encounter rolls.

To be blunt, those DMs are just not trying. There's so much guidance for fleshing out exploration and travel online, and if they don't want to bone up on that it can just be skipped.

You can never, by the rules, just generally use a reaction to react to anything like ducking when you hear a trap trigger.

This kind of thing is already baked into your reflex save and AC; your character is not a mannequin in between actions.

Pictures & examples. The books could do with some useful pictures & examples. Like what not to have to roll perception for, or what they intend for the stupid lighting levels to look like. Damn stupid rules are still causing "yeah its dark but they didn't hide so i know exactly where they all moved to" kinds of crap since 4e came out.

Why wouldn't you know where they are, or at least what square to target, if they're making no attempt to hide? Your disadvantage to hit does enough to cover the chance of being wrong.

[Tanarii]

Having an integrated VTT doesn't necessarily imply required. But it probably does mean the rules would have to be written to be more in line with battlemat play.

I know it won't happen, largely because D&D has it roots in war gaming, but it'd be interesting to see D&D move away from any grid, even 1ft increments. Typically RPGs move to a close(melee)/near/far/distant system, or zone based, or some combination thereof. Not only that, but in theory zone based could work absolutely fine with a VTT, and it would eliminate the need for them to be precision/gridded maps. (I don't know if any existing VTTs currently handle this.) of course, id expect a large number of players would probably prefer a VTT act as a battlemat with precision maps, even if that means more overhead for the DM.

[Psyren]

Having an integrated VTT doesn't necessarily imply required. But it probably does mean the rules would have to be written to be more in line with battlemat play.

I know it won't happen, largely because D&D has it roots in war gaming, but it'd be interesting to see D&D move away from any grid, even 1ft increments. Typically RPGs move to a close(melee)/near/far/distant system, or zone based, or some combination thereof. Not only that, but in theory zone based could work absolutely fine with a VTT, and it would eliminate the need for them to be precision/gridded maps. (I don't know if any existing VTTs currently handle this.) of course, id expect a large number of players would probably prefer a VTT act as a battlemat with precision maps, even if that means more overhead for the DM.

I think the closest we'll get to moving away from a grid is what they did - guidance on adjudicating theater of the mind like we have in the DMG.

[Segev]

An innovation I think would be interesting would be a combat system - and a system as a whole, but especially combat - designed to run in play by post. IT would require minimal back-and-forth for each major decision. Rounds that require just the DM to lay out the start of round situation, the players to give input exactly once for what they do, and then the DM can resolve the round, and lay out the next round. This would mean redesigning everything so that it doesn't require lots of choices about how defenses are applied to each attack. No reactions.

[Tanarii]

That's how AD&D ran. Everyone declares actions, then initiative is determined based on those declared actions. It's a fundamental difference from WotC D&D.

BECMI doesn't have rules stating when you declare what you will do, but it uses side initiative and the order of acting is movement, Missile, Magic, hand to hand within a side. Some of the text in the RC kind of implies you should declare at least when your side gets to act, but it's not concrete. You may get to declare when the appropriate phase comes up.

[Telok]

To be blunt, those DMs are just not trying. There's so much guidance for fleshing out exploration and travel online, and if they don't want to bone up on that it can just be skipped.

And there's the problem. You have to go online looking to find 3rd party and homebrew rules & advice to fix what could be covered in maybe 5 pages in the DMG. You or I might do that, but either zero of the DMs I've ever played 4e or 5e under could do it. Or maybe they did & couldn't figure it out, or maybe they don't trust "broken op homebrew" from the internet. I've heard both reasons at the table for not using anything not directly from WotC.

The rest of your stuff is just excuses. Yes your character is sitting there trapped like a mime in a 5' box when its not your turn unless you have explicit rules. Your character can't shout a warning, catch a falling person, move from your mime box, or take any actions without without explicit permission (almost always from a spell too) You the player are a passive lump when its not your turn. I track time, I spend nearly 90% of combat time being a passive lump. People go to the bathroom and come back to some saves and damage because they have no rules permitted reactions beyond a weak opportunity attack. Stealth is just as bad with everyone having echo-location unless you both spend your turn doing nothing but trying to be silent and rolling high enough to beat passives. Its a like a pure video game set up with glowing outlines of creatures in pitch black rooms. You don't even know where the walls are but you know exactly where the people walk around them even if they're on the other side.

You're happy with few or no rules and lots of hand waving. That's fine, I can run my preferred systems that way (Paranoia has significantly fewer & lighter rules and that's a really fun flexible system). But I've seen multiple new DMs bounce hard off D&D because they can't make up everything on the fly or trawl blogs for fixes. I keep seeing people show up on boards having the same DMing problems & questions for fifteen years now that you say aren't issues.

I'd like to see a 6e with real modular rules. An official working exploration module that DMs can use or ignore as they like. A working mass combat module to let fighters lead armies & not auto dump stat charisma. Just actual rules that work when new DMs use them, even if they ask for too many rolls because they don't want to keep fiating the PCs failing or succeeding most of the time. I can deal with a section that says "these are the optional <foo> rules and here's a five sentences TLDR of best advice if you don't want to use them" by keeping or dropping it as I like. But if never exists in the official books I'll almost certainly never see it when anyone but me is the DM and I'll keep meeting people having the same damn problems with D&D all over again, that could habe been fixed with 5 pages of decent optional rules in some official books.

[LudicSavant]

And there's the problem. You have to go online looking to find 3rd party and homebrew rules & advice to fix what could be covered in maybe 5 pages in the DMG.

Well now I just wanna know what cool online sources you're using.

[Psyren]

And there's the problem. You have to go online looking to find 3rd party and homebrew rules & advice to fix what could be covered in maybe 5 pages in the DMG. You or I might do that, but either zero of the DMs I've ever played 4e or 5e under could do it. Or maybe they did & couldn't figure it out, or maybe they don't trust "broken op homebrew" from the internet. I've heard both reasons at the table for not using anything not directly from WotC.

I'm not talking about "homebrew," I'm talking about advice blogs and youtube guides like AngryGM, Matt Colville, Ginny Di, MonarchsFactory etc etc. Not to mention, you know, forums like this one. The answer to "how do I make {pillar} interesting" isn't cramming in dozens more rules, it's learning from other DMs.

And thinking any game with any semblance of depth these days gets away without that stuff is just a grognard mindset. Kids playing Minecraft and Roblox are trained to look this stuff up online, your DM can too. You just have to give them the honest feedback that you find exploration challenges at your tables boring.

The rest of your stuff is just excuses.

You don't need a reaction or explicit movement to dodge a trap. What did you think the reflex save meant, your character phasing out of reality? You should feel free to narrate that stuff as e.g. ducking if you want to.

And I'm sorry your DMs don't let you catch falling allies or even speak out of turn. To be frank, that sounds like a very unappealing table to be at.

I keep seeing people show up on boards having the same DMing problems & questions for fifteen years now that you say aren't issues.

If we added 1000 more pages to the DMG you'd still see that. Or rather, you wouldn't because every new DM would run screaming for the hills and the game would die out. Mission accomplished I guess.

[Segev]

It isn't "thousands of pages" that are needed. It is merely some structure. Something to hang more of a game around than a random encounter once every few days, and some very crude ration tracking. Something to make the resource attrition math 5e relies on for challenge and decision-making complexity work at exploration scale as well as dungeon-crawling scale.

My own very basic suggestion for this is to have normal resting work only if you are in a "settlement." In one, you long rest normally, and for 24 hours after a long rest, short rests take an hour. After that, they take eight hours, as if in "gritty realism" rules. This makes finding villages, inns, tribes, goblin encampments, etc. valuable rewards while exploring. If you like, have rules for establishing a "settlement" (a "base camp," perhaps) that takes a week of setup and then requires a hireling or few to maintain. This lets you use the "gritty realism" long rest duration when you are desperate in the wilderness. And then your base camp can be right outside the dungeon, giving you dungeon-crawling rest timing while you explore it!

I don't think that is "Thousands of pages of rules," but it makes exploration have the right attrition rate, gives it more rewards for finding things while exploring, and lets you use the existing gameplay loop for dungeon crawling with exploration if you want.

[Corsair14]

Most groups will happily or reluctantly switch over. In-store groups generally wont have a choice except in stores where the owner isnt pushing currently sold games. Home groups will run the range of cheerfully going over to saying, "nope, I own too many 5e books to switch." My group alternates games systems every 3-8 months, so with the next game being run being 4e Warhammer Fantasy and that likely being a long running campaign and I refusing to run 5e(I'll play it if someone else is running) and most of my group being either retired or in school, I doubt we would upgrade to 6 anytime near the release date. More likely it would be after someone lets curiosity get the best of them and they pick up a book and decide to want to run it.

[Mud Puppy]

Response 204 on this thread.... so if you've read down this far I'll throw in my two cents....

As a newer player who discovered this game in 2018 and has only ever played 5e, I didn't understand how several years into a "new" edition there were still a bunch of people playing 3.5e let alone the version to remain name/numberless in between 3.5 and 5. "Why wouldn't you jump up to the new version and keep up with the new stuff?" I thought to myself. Suffice to say I understand it now. My play groups haven't had time to get through all of the 5e content in the few years we've been playing. The idea of not ever getting to play CoS, for example(its up next when we finish SKT!), after hearing so many good reports about it leaves me almost as disappointed as when Disney bought Star Wars and declared all of the old EU books I grew up reading were no longer canon.

I will very likely make the jump to the new version when it comes out, but maybe not right away, and then I reserve the right to bitch about the new version the way all the old timers have complained about 5e.

[Amechra]

[QUOTE=Segev;25538901]The main thing, though, is that I just don't see AD&D lingering the way 3.5 did./QUOTE]

Legitimate question: have you ever heard of the OSR? Because TSR-era D&D has been "lingering" for 40+ years.

...

For anyone who doesn't get why 3e was such a massive departure from 2e, it has a lot to do with what the rules are focused on.

Early D&D was a game about pulling off heists while juggling limited resources. Combat was something to be avoided (which is why you could have the Fighter as a class that was better at fighting than everyone else), your character's mechanical identity was almost entirely tied up in their class, player-driven character customization was pretty sparse on the ground, and the game generally embraced randomly determining very important things about your characters. Now, 2e did start to move away from this — you had some customization in the form of Non-Weapon Proficiencies and modules moved away from being pure dungeon-crawls — but WotC looked at that trend and ran with it.

Like, for one thing? 3e completely changed how leveling up and multiclassing worked. In TSR D&D, different classes leveled at different rates, and the two forms of multiclassing were "you have two classes — split your XP between them" (for non-humans) and "you can swap classes, but you aren't allowed to use your original class's stuff until your level in your new class meets or beats your level in your old one" (for humans). 3e went "nah — all levels are created equal, and you can snap them together like lego", and then poured on a massive number of little dials you could tweak to get your character just right.

On top of that, the way you level up is different. In TSR D&D, you got XP for bringing home loot. Oh, sure, you could get XP by killing monsters, but that was chump change compared to the XP you'd get for looting their stuff. And the game reflected that — encumbrance was important, modules focused on what fabulous riches were in the place you were ransacking, and combat wasn't terribly balanced (because it wasn't a core activity, and as such didn't need to be). Flash-forward to 3e, and your primary source of XP was killing monsters — as such, the entire game was refocused around combat. Encumbrance was suddenly kinda pointless (because "how much loot can I carry?" was a less important question) and there was a definite focus on combat being "fun" and "engaging" (classes developed more combat-related features, monster entries became more focused on what that monster did in a fight, and we saw the introduction of the CR system).

Ironically, I'm pretty sure that that's the reason why 3.5 ended up with a reputation for turning players into magical Christmas trees — players had to get loot as part of the basic genre assumptions of D&D, but magic items were the only loot that was actually mechanically valuable. And, since combat was now supposed to be "balanced", the designers balanced it with the assumption that players would have cool magic items... which made having those magic items more-or-less mandatory.

The reason why people don't remember this being a problem in the same way that the transition from 3e to 4e was a problem (and, again, 4e was arguably more similar to 3e than 3e was to 2e)... 3e came out in 2000 and got a lot of new players (for a bunch of complicated reasons that I won't get into). As a result, most of the NERD FIGHTS over the new edition were restricted to a handful of older forums, which got drowned out by the people who started in 3e and never had any interest in AD&D in the first place. It turns out that releasing a new edition of D&D at a time when there's a broad cultural interest in "geek stuff" is a good idea that gets people to try out the game — who knew?

I'd argue that 3e's success has more to do with WotC's good management (because good lord did TSR mismanage D&D) and the fact that the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Star Wars prequels came out around the same time than it does with 3e necessarily being a good game, kinda like how I'd attribute 5e's success to the resurgence of nostalgia for the 80s/90s and the popularity of podcasts/streaming first and to the mechanics second.

tl;dr: I'd pretty sure that 6e is going to bomb hard unless WotC can catch lightning in a bottle twice.

[Tanarii]

tl;dr: I'd pretty sure that 6e is going to bomb hard unless WotC can catch lightning in a bottle twice.

Three times. They already caught it twice with 3e and 5e.

But it's worth noting that "grand dungeon heist followed by wilderness exploration followed by ruling and mass combat" fell by the wayside early on as a common way to play*. My personal experience that most people tended to play either something close to "series of combat encounters", or something like "cooperative storytelling time maybe with one big fight". And TSR juggled trying to accommodate those two types of players with a originally game designed for neither.

But you'll note that's still the two way split that WotC struggles to find a way to accommodate, with a nod to dungeon/wilderness exploration with some no-structures vestigial rules. They do it by having a tactical (but less tactical than 4e) game, lots of rhetoric about how the game is about story, personality suggestions for players, and one (also vestigial) narrative rule.

*IMO OSR kinda tried to rewrite the narrative by claiming that many folks actually played dungeon heist etc. But that it wasn't really accurate. It's just how it was intended to be played, and how it works best.

[KorvinStarmast]

But yes, I completely agree - giving more weight to the exploration (and social, for that matter) pillar would be a worthy improvement for a potential new edition, but I would be very surprised if that's what we're getting.

Instead of the long lists of names in Xanathar's, five pages to add a bit more meat for the exploration pillar might have been more value added.

I think the first time I realized that was when Healing Spirit had just been released and people rightly pointed out that it broke healing between fights, and both JC and Mike Mearls said who cares, that's not important - fights are meant to be started at max HP anyway. Mind. Blown.

Yeah, that contradicts 'six to eight medium encounters before you run out of resources' as a design concept.

There was a time when expecting people to have an internet connection would have been considered a barrier to entry for D&D. Now it's actually a growth factor for the hobby (hi there global pandemic) rather than an obstacle.

Without youtube, I don't get told 'that not how it works in D&D (per Matt Mercer)' when running an encounter, to which I countered "Then go play at his table."

"5e but a bunch more rules" doesn't sound like a good idea for 6e to me. Pivoting the whole game in that direction would likely lead to the fail state I mentioned.

5e is already bloating. More rules it doesn't need.

{VTT} They always slow things down and complicate life

yes, yes, and more yes. In compensation, it lets me play with people all over the country.

Exactly. More rules, more complexity is, to me, a downside.

Yes.

If nothing else, WotC can certainly afford to host any number of games either without charging a subscription or including the cost in the sub fee people are already paying for Beyond.

And then there's the problem of waiting in line if the servers are/server is, full. Just like when WoW was released.

This kind of thing is already baked into your reflex save and AC; your character is not a mannequin in between actions.

Indeed, and as a DM I do not generally prevent brief comments by other players during another's turn, but it better be quick since a round is only six seconds long of "in world" time.

Why wouldn't you know where they are, or at least what square to target, if they're making no attempt to hide? Your disadvantage to hit does enough to cover the chance of being wrong.

A lot of people seem to not know how to use disadvantage.

Having an integrated VTT doesn't necessarily imply required. But it probably does mean the rules would have to be written to be more in line with battlemat play.

Hey, sounds like 4e.
Typically RPGs move to a close(melee)/near/far/distant system, or zone based, or some combination thereof. [/quote] of course, id expect a large number of players would probably prefer a VTT act as a battlemat with precision maps, even if that means more overhead for the DM.[/QUOTE] A generation of CRPGs will inform the desires of the fan base, and I think that a lot will prefer that.

Rounds that require just the DM to lay out the start of round situation, the players to give input exactly once for what they do, and then the DM can resolve the round, and lay out the next round. This would mean redesigning everything so that it doesn't require lots of choices about how defenses are applied to each attack. No reactions.

Max Wilson does something like this called "we go" and it's good enough for a play by post game. I had some trouble with it due to also running and playing straight 5e tow or three other times in the same week.

I've heard both reasons at the table for not using anything not directly from WotC.

I prefer that and I'm not a noob. I have a limit to how much bloat I need to deal with as a DM. And some of what comes from WoTC I'll not use anyway.

The rest of your stuff is just excuses. Yes your character is sitting there trapped like a mime in a 5' box when its not your turn unless you have explicit rules.

Your character can't shout a warning, catch a falling person, move from your mime box, or take any actions without without explicit permission (almost always from a spell too) You the player are a passive lump when its not your turn.

Are you aware that this is a turn based game? It's not an RTS. It's not an MMORPG.

I'd like to see a 6e with real modular rules.
An official working exploration module that DMs can use or ignore as they like.
A working mass combat module to let fighters lead armies & not auto dump stat charisma.

I'd not mind that for 5e.

The answer to "how do I make {pillar} interesting" isn't cramming in dozens more rules, it's learning from other DMs.

This, so much this. That's how a lot of us grew as DMs; we learn from other DMs. We play, we learn, we DM, rinse and repeat.

You don't need a reaction or explicit movement to dodge a trap. What did you think the reflex save meant, your character phasing out of reality?

{snip nice post} I will very likely make the jump to the new version when it comes out, but maybe not right away, and then I reserve the right to bitch about the new version the way all the old timers have complained about 5e.

One of the best posts in this thread. Welcome, glad you are enjoying your games.

On top of that, the way you level up is different. In TSR D&D, you got XP for bringing home loot. Oh, sure, you could get XP by killing monsters, but that was chump change compared to the XP you'd get for looting their stuff. And the game reflected that — encumbrance was important, modules focused on what fabulous riches were in the place you were ransacking, and combat wasn't terribly balanced

Yeah, it was swingy.

tl;dr: I'd pretty sure that 6e is going to bomb hard unless WotC can catch lightning in a bottle twice.

A third time. I'll argue that they captured lightning in a bottle with 3e, partly for the reasons that you mention in your very nice post. They did so again with 5e. But I don't see that happening a third time.

[Psyren]

It isn't "thousands of pages" that are needed. It is merely some structure. Something to hang more of a game around than a random encounter once every few days, and some very crude ration tracking. Something to make the resource attrition math 5e relies on for challenge and decision-making complexity work at exploration scale as well as dungeon-crawling scale.

My own very basic suggestion for this is to have normal resting work only if you are in a "settlement." In one, you long rest normally, and for 24 hours after a long rest, short rests take an hour. After that, they take eight hours, as if in "gritty realism" rules. This makes finding villages, inns, tribes, goblin encampments, etc. valuable rewards while exploring. If you like, have rules for establishing a "settlement" (a "base camp," perhaps) that takes a week of setup and then requires a hireling or few to maintain. This lets you use the "gritty realism" long rest duration when you are desperate in the wilderness. And then your base camp can be right outside the dungeon, giving you dungeon-crawling rest timing while you explore it!

I don't think that is "Thousands of pages of rules," but it makes exploration have the right attrition rate, gives it more rewards for finding things while exploring, and lets you use the existing gameplay loop for dungeon crawling with exploration if you want.

My point wasn't actually the number of pages, but that no addition by human designers can possibly eliminate "people showing up on boards with DMing problems" (Telok's words.) That is not a realistic goal for any game unless the plan is to make it as shallow as Solitaire or Tetris.

Response 204 on this thread.... so if you've read down this far I'll throw in my two cents....

As a newer player who discovered this game in 2018 and has only ever played 5e, I didn't understand how several years into a "new" edition there were still a bunch of people playing 3.5e let alone the version to remain name/numberless in between 3.5 and 5. "Why wouldn't you jump up to the new version and keep up with the new stuff?" I thought to myself. Suffice to say I understand it now. My play groups haven't had time to get through all of the 5e content in the few years we've been playing. The idea of not ever getting to play CoS, for example(its up next when we finish SKT!), after hearing so many good reports about it leaves me almost as disappointed as when Disney bought Star Wars and declared all of the old EU books I grew up reading were no longer canon.

I will very likely make the jump to the new version when it comes out, but maybe not right away, and then I reserve the right to bitch about the new version the way all the old timers have complained about 5e.

I think you're in luck and that "6e" will be a long time off.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure that that's the reason why 3.5 ended up with a reputation for turning players into magical Christmas trees — players had to get loot as part of the basic genre assumptions of D&D, but magic items were the only loot that was actually mechanically valuable. And, since combat was now supposed to be "balanced", the designers balanced it with the assumption that players would have cool magic items... which made having those magic items more-or-less mandatory.

I think there was an expectation component to this as well. 3e came out in 2000; what were the biggest non-D&D RPGs and RPG-adjacent games while it was being developed? You had Diablo, Heroes of Might & Magic 3, Elder Scrolls Daggerfall, Ultima 7-9, MMOs like Everquest/Asheron's Call/Ultima Online, and even some JRPGs like Final Fantasy 7 and 8. What did they all have in common? Your characters get absolutely decked out in magical gear as they level, often with a paper doll UI of some kind. There's zero chance the devs weren't playing multiple of those games, and that likely reinforced the "magic item body slots" mechanic and the expectation that all high level characters would eventually fill up those slots.

The reason why people don't remember this being a problem in the same way that the transition from 3e to 4e was a problem (and, again, 4e was arguably more similar to 3e than 3e was to 2e)... 3e came out in 2000 and got a lot of new players (for a bunch of complicated reasons that I won't get into). As a result, most of the NERD FIGHTS over the new edition were restricted to a handful of older forums, which got drowned out by the people who started in 3e and never had any interest in AD&D in the first place. It turns out that releasing a new edition of D&D at a time when there's a broad cultural interest in "geek stuff" is a good idea that gets people to try out the game — who knew?

There was also a change in the internet itself. The TSR-era old guard largely cornered Usenet and BBS type systems, whereas when 3e debuted we were seeing the rise of BBcode-style message boards (like ENWorld, WotC's own and... well, this one) and AOL chat rooms. Meanwhile, 5e's debut coincided with the rise of streaming services and podcasts as you mentioned. Not only did both editions experience explosive growth, that growth was compounded by the new players having safer spaces where they primarily interacted with each other rather than edition warring.

The Playground itself started roughly around.... 2004? 2005? Not long after 3.5 came out anyway. I don't know if anyone who was around back then is still posting, but maybe they saw a lot of tension between AD&D and 3e players back then. I doubt it though; I'm willing to bet the majority of people who joined communities like this one, even if they were familiar with AD&D, were at least bullish on 3e and/or 3.5.

I'd argue that 3e's success has more to do with WotC's good management (because good lord did TSR mismanage D&D) and the fact that the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Star Wars prequels came out around the same time than it does with 3e necessarily being a good game, kinda like how I'd attribute 5e's success to the resurgence of nostalgia for the 80s/90s and the popularity of podcasts/streaming first and to the mechanics second.

tl;dr: I'd pretty sure that 6e is going to bomb hard unless WotC can catch lightning in a bottle twice.

It can be both. Yes, 5e was a bit lightning in a bottle in that Stranger Things and some other stuff threw D&D back into the cultural zeitgeist shortly after it debuted, and then it got a shot in the arm years later when the pandemic forced us to find new ways to interact with one another. But none of that would have mattered if the only edition out was 4e or even 3e, people would have gotten interested in D&D again before quickly bouncing off those games' impenetrable masses.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think there was an expectation component to this as well. 3e came out in 2000; what were the biggest non-D&D RPGs and RPG-adjacent games while it was being developed? You had Diablo, Heroes of Might & Magic 3, Elder Scrolls Daggerfall, Ultima 7-9, MMOs like Everquest/Asheron's Call/Ultima Online, and even some JRPGs like Final Fantasy 7 and 8. What did they all have in common? Your characters get absolutely decked out in magical gear as they level, often with a paper doll UI of some kind. There's zero chance the devs weren't playing multiple of those games, and that likely reinforced the "magic item body slots" mechanic and the expectation that all high level characters would eventually fill up those slots.

That's the kind of 'recursion' I have often referred to, in that D&D led to / influenced a bunch of those computer games which then led to / influenced changes in D&D and so on. What has bugged me is that they keep getting M:tG flies in my D&D soup.

For Amercha: "because good lord did TSR mismanage D&D" earns you free doughnuts.

[Psyren]

That's the kind of 'recursion' I have often referred to, in that D&D led to / influenced a bunch of those computer games which then led to / influenced changes in D&D and so on.

It's recursive, yes, but also it's a bit of a steady build-up/progression. Loot was expected in 2e to drive character advancement, which often took the form of magic items, and when programmers were making other RPGs based on 2e the best way for them to incorporate magic items and balance those games was by assigning them to specific slots (e.g. only one amulet on your "neck slot", only one cloak on your "back slot" etc), which was then codified back into D&D by 3e designers and so on. Whether consciously or not, game designers tend to be influenced by the other games they play.

What has bugged me is that they keep getting M:tG flies in my D&D soup.

I'm a little torn on this. MTG content makes for an easy scapegoat for whatever one's personal bugbear is with the current design direction, whether that's power creep, updated race designs, {insert favorite older setting} being ignored etc. But on the other hand, there are some MTG settings I've wanted to play in and inhabit for years, like Ravnica/Kamigawa/Lorwyn, and 5e leaning into that in any capacity saves me a lot of work.