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

[Segev]

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

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

Fair; my own experience with it is that it's a LOT harder to find any games doing that than still running 3.PF. It's a lot easier to find 3.PF games than OSR or 4e ones, and finding 3.PF games is not much harder than finding 5e ones. Again, in my personal experience. I have no real means of running a proper statistical analysis.

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.

Snipped for space, but those are all good points. The thing is... no group I played 1e or 2e with treated it that way. I don't know how typical my experience was, but it seemed like most games of D&D ran a lot more like what 3e was designed for even before 3e came out, and I strongly suspect that's what drove part of the 3e paradigm in its inception.

[EggKookoo]

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.

Funny thing is, I have never played any TTPRG using that method. I've been doing this since well before 2e, and across multiple different game systems and play groups (often unconnected socially), and we always played the "WotC D&D" resolve-each-turn way. It just felt more intuitively correct to us.

[Keltest]

Funny thing is, I have never played any TTPRG using that method. I've been doing this since well before 2e, and across multiple different game systems and play groups (often unconnected socially), and we always played the "WotC D&D" resolve-each-turn way. It just felt more intuitively correct to us.

Ditto. I have never heard of anybody who ran it any other way even.

[Tanarii]

Snipped for space, but those are all good points. The thing is... no group I played 1e or 2e with treated it that way. I don't know how typical my experience was, but it seemed like most games of D&D ran a lot more like what 3e was designed for even before 3e came out, and I strongly suspect that's what drove part of the 3e paradigm in its inception.

Funny thing is, I have never played any TTPRG using that method. I've been doing this since well before 2e, and across multiple different game systems and play groups (often unconnected socially), and we always played the "WotC D&D" resolve-each-turn way. It just felt more intuitively correct to us.

I've always gotten the impression (from reading on it and personal experience) that by 1985, few folks played D&D the way it was envisioned as a Dungeon Heist. Hardly surprising, by then TSR wasn't selling it that way. The campaign settings and modules and books they were selling were all at odds with the way the game was supposely designed. It wasn't really until OSR that it went back to The Right Way To Play was dungeon heist.

I'm not 100%, but it's also possible 2e was when they dropped XP for GP as the standard rule. Or I may just be getting confused by Rogues getting bonus XP for stolen gp.

Otoh individual initiative instead of side initiative I never really saw at tables until 2e optional rules for it. Then it started showing up. But as I said, BECMI (and maybe 0e B and B/X) it's not clear the order is declare then initiative, just aide initiative. AD&D had it though.

[EggKookoo]

Otoh individual initiative instead of side initiative I never really saw at tables until 2e optional rules for it. Then it started showing up. But as I said, BECMI (and maybe 0e B and B/X) it's not clear the order is declare then initiative, just aide initiative. AD&D had it though.

I was playing Call of Cthulhu and DC Heroes by 1986 and we definitely did individual initiative (per-round) and immediate turn-resolve. No idea if that was codified in the rules or just part of TTPRG culture by then.

I think DC Heroes had a suggestion in the rules that actions should be declared in descending initiative order (so slower people declare first) and resolved in ascending order, so the faster characters could make more informed decisions almost as though they were reading the battlefield. No one I know played it like that and I could even be completely misremembering.

[Amechra]

Snipped for space, but those are all good points. The thing is... no group I played 1e or 2e with treated it that way. I don't know how typical my experience was, but it seemed like most games of D&D ran a lot more like what 3e was designed for even before 3e came out, and I strongly suspect that's what drove part of the 3e paradigm in its inception.

Oh, yeah, no, there's a reason that 3e ended up the way that it did.

...

You could honestly write a book about how people play D&D "wrong" instead of trying to find a game that does what they actually want, and why that happens (and how there were a few points in the history of the hobby where D&D's dominant position could've been overturned... which, funnily enough, were roughly in the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s).

[TheBrassDuke]

Unfortunately I’ve been so busy I have to use Beyond and mainly play via discord (with an AirPod) while at work…and if our group switches right away, and there’s no Beyond support for 6th, I’ll be stuck for a bit.

[Tanarii]

Honestly though, since 2024 is going to be 5.5e, it's probably too far out to predict how we'll feel about gaming another 10 years from now.

[diplomancer]

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.

I'm sure the new Bugbears are the personal bugbears of people who dislike power creep.

Sorry, couldn't resist it; I actually love the new Bugbears.

[Amechra]

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.

Kamigawa is something I'd be very down for, but I'm not sure that D&D would be a good fit for it mechanically or thematically.

(I'd love to see someone go back and fix the "Asian-inspired setting written in the early 2000s" flaws in OG Kamigawa, because *man* was the high concept strong.)

...

My big complaint about the MTG settings as RPG settings is that they're very focused on the specific cast of characters — what they really need to do is take the high concept for each set and extrapolate from there.

Like, it says quite a bit that you pointed directly at the settings with strong high concepts that the players are likely to interact with.

[Tawmis]

I realize this is a stretch because not all the facts are available but how do you think you and your gaming group will handle a full-on new edition? Assuming we get one. Are you a "5E for life" kind of D&Der? Do you think 5E will have as much inertia as 3E did? I still know tables that have no intention of moving beyond 3E as a forgone conclusion.
Just curious of your general thoughts here...

As others said; it all depends.
D&D is not flawless.
I loved D&D, AD&D, 3 and 3.x - but 4e?
Absolutely hated.
Absolutely. Effing. Hated.
Played it several times, never even bothered to purchase any of the books.
First time, since 1980 that I didn't pick up at least ONE of the books.
5e has been amazing. My players make me feel blessed.
If 6e looks like it has the same ease as 5e, a low learning curve for me and my players, I will probably try it.
If it gives me 4e vibes, then it's 5e for me.

[Telok]

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.

Understand you're misrepresenting. I would like replacing disassociated random encounter charts and lists of stuff with actual best practices advice for to teach new DMs on their first DMG how to truely effectively run a game. Your response has been that those things shouldn't be in the DMG because they can hit up Youtubes & Angry GM type blogs to learn that better than WotC can ever do. What I see is new DMs coming up with the same "encounters per rest", "magic negates travel", and those sorts of things that were solved problems with decent advice even before 5e hit the shelves. You keep saying its impossible to solve, or the the DMG doesn't need it, or its more rules that are a bad thing because rules are always bad without exception.out of time hotta go

[Psyren]

Understand you're misrepresenting. I would like replacing disassociated random encounter charts and lists of stuff with actual best practices advice for to teach new DMs on their first DMG how to truely effectively run a game. Your response has been that those things shouldn't be in the DMG because they can hit up Youtubes & Angry GM type blogs to learn that better than WotC can ever do. What I see is new DMs coming up with the same "encounters per rest", "magic negates travel", and those sorts of things that were solved problems with decent advice even before 5e hit the shelves. You keep saying its impossible to solve, or the the DMG doesn't need it, or its more rules that are a bad thing because rules are always bad without exception.out of time hotta go

I'm fine with more "advice." Advice could be things like "X might be considered a Medium task until the end of Tier 1" or "consider not allowing Y with a skill check until Tier 3."

But defined DC tables are not "advice," rather they're handcuffs. "X skill use is DC 20" means that both disallowing X, and saying X should be easier or even automatic later, are likely to cause problems at tables (or have foregoing a check not occur to them at all) when skill use should rightly be the province of the DM. Skill rules, like all other open-ended rules, should teach DMs how to think, not tell them what to think.

[HPisBS]

The other guy who DMs our group figures class abilities on a LR and subclass on a SR would be good design.

That'd probably be the best change. Best chance to satisfy the most people and keep things as balanced as possible.
Most elegant, too.

Makes me wonder what that'd make Monks look like, though....



- That, and I'd want more support for the non-combat "pillars," of course.

It especially bugs me that I have to invent every piece of what goes into the creation of any given Magic Item myself. Nevermind fixing the MacGuffin, how do you even craft a +1 sword, what components do you need to gather?... ****, I don't know!

[Segev]

I'm fine with more "advice." Advice could be things like "X might be considered a Medium task until the end of Tier 1" or "consider not allowing Y with a skill check until Tier 3."

But defined DC tables are not "advice," rather they're handcuffs. "X skill use is DC 20" means that both disallowing X, and saying X should be easier or even automatic later, are likely to cause problems at tables (or have foregoing a check not occur to them at all) when skill use should rightly be the province of the DM. Skill rules, like all other open-ended rules, should teach DMs how to think, not tell them what to think.

Please note that I, at least, would consider "X might be considered a medium task" to be all I need as examples to close that loop on ability check DCs that I have been complaining is not adequately completed for so long. I don't need hard DC charts and tables. I need some guidelines of what is an "Easy," "Medium," or "Hard" task, from which I can extrapolate other tasks or make determinations about whether circumstances make THIS one easier or harder than the guideline examples.

[EggKookoo]

Please note that I, at least, would consider "X might be considered a medium task" to be all I need as examples to close that loop on ability check DCs that I have been complaining is not adequately completed for so long. I don't need hard DC charts and tables. I need some guidelines of what is an "Easy," "Medium," or "Hard" task, from which I can extrapolate other tasks or make determinations about whether circumstances make THIS one easier or harder than the guideline examples.

My impression is that 5e expects each DM to come up with these as feels appropriate for a campaign or table. "DC Wars" (which isn't a new Warner Bros crossover superhero movie) are among the major sources of player-DM conflict.

I think the rules were designed with the idea of social media and forums like this place in mind. DMs can cross-pollinate and come up with what works best. At the same time, I have no idea how AL handles these things, but frankly I don't care.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My impression is that 5e expects each DM to come up with these as feels appropriate for a campaign or table. "DC Wars" (which isn't a new Warner Bros crossover superhero movie) are among the major sources of player-DM conflict.

I think the rules were designed with the idea of social media and forums like this place in mind. DMs can cross-pollinate and come up with what works best. At the same time, I have no idea how AL handles these things, but frankly I don't care.

AL says "just use the module." Going outside that is discouraged.

[Segev]

My impression is that 5e expects each DM to come up with these as feels appropriate for a campaign or table. "DC Wars" (which isn't a new Warner Bros crossover superhero movie) are among the major sources of player-DM conflict.

I think the rules were designed with the idea of social media and forums like this place in mind. DMs can cross-pollinate and come up with what works best. At the same time, I have no idea how AL handles these things, but frankly I don't care.

Guidelines let DMs move them around. Lack of guidelines means DMs are left fumbling in the dark.

[Psyren]

Guidelines let DMs move them around. Lack of guidelines means DMs are left fumbling in the dark.

Not sure what you mean by "move them around."

My impression is that 5e expects each DM to come up with these as feels appropriate for a campaign or table. "DC Wars" (which isn't a new Warner Bros crossover superhero movie) are among the major sources of player-DM conflict.

Agreed. Whatever guidance they add, should avoid these arguments as much as possible.

[False God]

I used to think 5e was the best thing that happened to D&D. Then it hit me: The oversimplicity effectivelly meant that I can create a limited amount of characters before I've played everything. And since I have specific concepts that I like, it effectivelly means I have even less options.

So, by now, yeah, I'm eager for a 5.5e or an 6e, whichever comes.

That depends entirely on if 6E provides more "open ended" creation.

I think the main point of difference between 5E and it's primary predecessor 3.5 is that while 5E provides a lot of options, those options can only be combined in a certain arrangement and are all of roughly equitable power levels. Both of which were a very big elements of 4E and only being able to connect certain dots in certain order goes a LONG way towards balancing out the game.

I often go back and forth between 5E and 3.5/Pathfinder. The former I run for lower-level games (1-10) and the latter for high-level games (15+). 3.5/PF has a lot of open-ended creativity. You can combine almost anything to make nearly everything. But these options are FAR from equitable and it is up to the DM to filter the content and guide the players to ensure that they have a strong enough understanding of what is available and what isn't, to produce a character appropriate for the content(theme, power level, etc...).
5E on the other hand has a wide number of equitable options, but a much more limited ability to combine them. The DM needs to go through far less work and filter far less content to ensure the players are producing characters appropriate to the content. In addition, players are generally able to combine any of the appropriate elements regardless of their system mastery or access to playable materials to produce viable characters for nearly any sort of content.
4E similarly limited character combinations (race, class, background, abilities, etc...) and the game overall required far less management from the DM to produce viable characters. Players were also to create viable characters given nearly any materials put in front of them.

While I agree that I would like to see 6E be more "open-ended", I DONT want to go back to the days of having options that look strong, fun, interesting and enjoyable; only to turn out that they are absolutely horrid options in play.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I switched to 5e immediately after reading and running Mines of Phandelver. It was the reception of that module that led to my table's adoption of the system. I hope that regardless of what they do with 6e, they make a similar beginning module that properly shows off what makes it cool. I don't want to surf an entire rulebook to figure out why I shouldn't just run another system I know better.

[EggKookoo]

Guidelines let DMs move them around. Lack of guidelines means DMs are left fumbling in the dark.

I know we've had these discussions repeatedly over the past few years, in one form or another. The main criticism I've seen is that a given DM might not know how to set a realistic DC for a given task. To me, that's okay. You don't need to be realistic, you just need to be consistent.

I've also heard the position that no one complains that the game tells us the DC for hitting a CR 1 orc, so why would people complain that it gives us set DCs for various tasks? I guess if I had to reconcile that, I'd say none of us here have much experience fighting orcs, and even those with practical martial weapon experience probably wouldn't agree on a number. But many of us can and have climbed trees, juggle, perform, pick locks, craft things, and so on. Plus, it feels intuitively right to say combat needs to be more precisely balanced than most skill checks. It's safe to leave the latter up to a DM, but it's better to encode the former into the rules a bit more tightly.

In the end, I think that the response to "why don't we have a list of DCs?" is for people to then get into arguments about what those DCs should be is a clear sign that the 5e devs made the right choice.

[Segev]

Not sure what you mean by "move them around."



Agreed. Whatever guidance they add, should avoid these arguments as much as possible.

If the DM truly feels that a guideline is out of whack, he likely didn't need it and can set the DC where he feels it should be. I don't meme well, but picture Captain Barbosa commenting on "The Pirate's Code."

If, however, a DM has no clue how hard it should be to keep your balance while walking on a rolling runaway waterwheel and fencing with another pirate who is doing the same right next to you, it might be nice to have some guidelines about how hard, at least, it is to keep your balance in a situation or two. And again the DM who has a firm idea how hard that is and thinks the guidelines aRe bunk can ignore them or use whatever complicating factors he wants to set his own DCs.

I know we've had these discussions repeatedly over the past few years, in one form or another. The main criticism I've seen is that a given DM might not know how to set a realistic DC for a given task. To me, that's okay. You don't need to be realistic, you just need to be consistent.

I've also heard the position that no one complains that the game tells us the DC for hitting a CR 1 orc, so why would people complain that it gives us set DCs for various tasks? I guess if I had to reconcile that, I'd say none of us here have much experience fighting orcs, and even those with practical martial weapon experience probably wouldn't agree on a number. But many of us can and have climbed trees, juggle, perform, pick locks, craft things, and so on. Plus, it feels intuitively right to say combat needs to be more precisely balanced than most skill checks. It's safe to leave the latter up to a DM, but it's better to encode the former into the rules a bit more tightly.

In the end, I think that the response to "why don't we have a list of DCs?" is for people to then get into arguments about what those DCs should be is a clear sign that the 5e devs made the right choice.

As Psyren put it, I would be fine with a few example guidelines. I don't need a table of official firm DCs.

I assure you, most of us don't have experience picking locks or translating ancient texts or playing mumblety-peg without losing a finger. That's certainly no more likely we know how to do than to hit an orc with a halberd!

[Tanarii]

If, however, a DM has no clue how hard it should be to keep your balance while walking on a rolling runaway waterwheel and fencing with another pirate who is doing the same right next to you, it might be nice to have some guidelines about how hard, at least, it is to keep your balance in a situation or two. And again the DM who has a firm idea how hard that is and thinks the guidelines aRe bunk can ignore them or use whatever complicating factors he wants to set his own DCs.

Even though I generally come down on the side of against DC charts 3e style, if they were done well with accompanying text and were in the DMG, a la the Social Interactions section, they could work.

Although I do think that in that case they'd want to to follow a series of examples like yours (call it: Acrobatics DC 10 every round to avoid slipping, Athletics DC 10 to grab hold and avoid falling) with a general note "for Wushu games subtract 5 from all physical DCs, for heroic swashbuckling use as is, and for Guy at the Gym add 5".

[Raven777]

I'm the only one who DMs, and considering I'm a conservative dinosaur with an aversion to change a mile wide, we're gonna keep wobbling between 5e (which I find better for roleplay heavy) and PF1 (which I find better for crunch) for a good, long while.

That is, unless WotC's 6e attempt veers back into being more like 3.PF in regards to spellcasting power, magic items, crafting, minions, feats and templates. Basically, be the 3.875 or PF1.5 revision I wished for from Paizo, but never got. That I could see myself embracing. But I doubt that's the direction the wind will ever blow again.

[Goobahfish]

I think the only things that need some... let's say 'heavy guidelines' in 5e exploration are tasks which are more than a 'roll and forget'.

So, you want to leap across that chasm (save or suck), yeah... roll a DC X check. That stuff isn't too difficult to get right after a few games. Especially once the DM realises that 'no check required' is usually the best option in more than 50% of situations.

The big problem I see is for things like Stealth, where a newby DM will go. "And make another stealth check" or "make another disguise kit check", or "make another deception check". OR a player goes "I also make an Arcana check..."

These situations are slightly problematic only because of the maths involved. 5 stealth checks where each is 'save or suck' is a death sentence. 5 deception checks where each is 'save or suck' is a death sentence. Having 5 players roll an Arcana check with no obvious downside if lots of them failing is just bad design.

Other than that... 5 = easy, 10 = moderate, 15 = hard, 20 = dangerously difficult etc is about as much guidance as you need in general.

[Telok]

Other than that... 5 = easy, 10 = moderate, 15 = hard, 20 = dangerously difficult etc is about as much guidance as you need in general.

Counter: I've had a DM literally say they thought three 30% chances of success were equal to a 90% chance. The people on this board are not your average DMs, they're the superusers who know that a fighter str:athletic +11 vs dc 15 still results in 1 in 6 action-hero-better-than-olympic-athletes falling into the lava. The math on a +0 int save character vs a mind flayer stun is really terrible, but many DMs not on boards like this just don't know that.

People who don't grok the probabilities need significantly more guidance or need a bulletproof stat/skill/save system they don't accidentally screw up by trusting it's numbers.

[Psyren]

If, however, a DM has no clue how hard it should be to keep your balance while walking on a rolling runaway waterwheel and fencing with another pirate who is doing the same right next to you, it might be nice to have some guidelines about how hard, at least, it is to keep your balance in a situation or two.

Eh... what other pirate? How fast? Are we rolling on a level plane, uphill, or down?

I think I'd rather just eyeball it, and the fewer examples there are of DCs for "balance on a tree branch," "walk the plank" or "ride a unicycle on a tightrope," to memorize, the more likely it is that other DMs will feel empowered to do the same.

For me, acceptable guidelines would be more tied to tier than situation.

[Segev]

Eh... what other pirate? How fast? Are we rolling on a level plane, uphill, or down?

I think I'd rather just eyeball it, and the fewer examples there are of DCs for "balance on a tree branch," "walk the plank" or "ride a unicycle on a tightrope," to memorize, the more likely it is that other DMs will feel empowered to do the same.

For me, acceptable guidelines would be more tied to tier than situation.

I find the opposite: with no guidelines, I have no idea where to start setting DCs. With guidelines, I can interpolate or extrapolate. I can modify based on conditions. But with no baseline guidance, I have no idea what the intended competency of an average character in D&D is. I have no point of reference that isn't worse than the worst "guy at the gym" estimates. Because I don't go to the gym.

This doesn't make me feel "empowered." It makes me feel as helpless as receiving instructions for how to build my very first kit plane that simply read, "This is an easy one! Step 1: read these instructions! Step 2: Build the plane!"

[Goobahfish]

Counter: I've had a DM literally say they thought three 30% chances of success were equal to a 90% chance.

o_O

Right... well yes. I think there should be something in the DM's guide that says, if there is a check, where the consequence is DEATH and it happens more than once in a campaign* then you should rethink having a check at all. Either make it multiple fails == death (with some capacity to abandon the need for a check) OR make it crystal clear that death is a likely outcome.

* it is fine to have DEATH happen due to some kind of big world-ending event, but not... because you fell down a well and died because you failed a balance check to peek over the edge.

I find the opposite: with no guidelines, I have no idea where to start setting DCs.

I think the correct compromise is to point out 'suggested DCs' but also have some text somewhere that says... "these suggestions aren't rules GTFO of the DMG you munchkin."