What I hope they do for 6e DnD

[Ignimortis]

So your problem isn't lack of options. You just don't like the choices. So less a problem of design and more a matter of preference

The way I see it, it is the lack of options in a way, if I don't like the choices which supposedly cover the entire design space of the game. Sure, if we go by total percentage, then 5e has a higher percent of "this class is interesting to me and also playable" than 3.5, merely by the dint of there being 12 classes out of which I like two and almost like two more, so a solid 33%. 3.PF has hundreds of classes and I listed about 15, that's less than 10%.

But in terms of absolute amount of classes I like and can play? Not by a long shot. In 5e, I've played Sorc 1-13, Warlock and Fighter 4-9, Ranger 1-8, Monk 8-11 (the most enjoyable experience by far, tbh), and Paladin 7 in a one-shot. And most of these weren't even that much fun because the Fighter, Warlock, Ranger and Paladin were just "hey so I do tons of damage, that's fun right". If I ever want to play a fun martial who can do interesting things in 5e, I would have to go Monk again, maybe with a different subclass.

Meanwhile, 3.PF has bad classes, lots of them. I don't care. There are good classes, too, lots of them. Martial adepts already let me build almost anything I want to play, and some spellcasting classes can cover the rest without breaking the game. Those options in 5e? Gone. No trace of them.

The design space for 3.PF is incredibly larger and fits many more concepts. Most people would be able to find something that they like. Subsystems galore, unusual class mechanics all day. For a low-to-mid-op game, where people aren't out to break things, but know what they want and are ready to find things that let them do those things, the 3.PF model is superior. 5e is better for absolutely new people who are content with the archetypes presented in the PHB or people who would try and break the game, because it doesn't let them do it as easily.

[Rhedyn]

I like playing 3.X or Pathfinder, but man those systems are a joke. Imagine if an indie developer launched that or Monte Cook Kickstarted Numenera with 3.5 complexity? It be a laughing stock of bad design and expecting way more crunch digestion than what you get out of it.

For example, GURPS 4e is a way easier system even if you play with all of the rules. If it seems harder to you that's because you didn't join a table of people willing to teach it to you.

What also bugs me about 3.X is that what people like about it (customization) is better done in basically any classless system. Sure it gets to be the most flexible D&D, but it's two editions buried by now and even Paizo gave up on it. Surely if 3.5 is on the table of consideration, you could look at other not-D&D games like GURPS, HERO, Mutants and Masterminds, The Dark Eye, Ars Magica, EABA, and even something mid-crunch like Savage Worlds?

[Ignimortis]

I like playing 3.X or Pathfinder, but man those systems are a joke. Imagine if an indie developer launched that or Monte Cook Kickstarted Numenera with 3.5 complexity? It be a laughing stock of bad design and expecting way more crunch digestion than what you get out of it.

For example, GURPS 4e is a way easier system even if you play with all of the rules. If it seems harder to you that's because you didn't join a table of people willing to teach it to you.

What also bugs me about 3.X is that what people like about it (customization) is better done in basically any classless system. Sure it gets to be the most flexible D&D, but it's two editions buried by now and even Paizo gave up on it. Surely if 3.5 is on the table of consideration, you could look at other not-D&D games like GURPS, HERO, Mutants and Masterminds, The Dark Eye, Ars Magica, EABA, and even something mid-crunch like Savage Worlds?

In many ways, 3.PF is still the high point of D&D design-wise. Does it have some weird clunk like grappling rules and so on? Sure. Does it have unplayable classes? Also true. However, most underlying systems are more solid than its' successors.

Skill ranks and skill usage and skill points? It's a good idea and a good implementation of said idea for levels 1-6. Extend the skill uses to what level 20 actually entails, and it's almost golden. Meanwhile 4e has the weird skill challenges and 5e is "does your DM think this is easy or hard".

Feats? Good idea, subpar implementation, 5e feats are better by actual feat design but simultaneously worse by their place in the system because you don't get them by default and they are presented as an alternative to the almighty "get better at your main thing" instead of being something that you ALSO get.

Classes? 5e is basically 3.5 PHB with the warlock stapled on, and by that I mean "all classes are either impossibly boring mechanically, spellcasters, or Monk", which is not a far step from 3.5's "all classes are either impossibly boring mechanically or spellcasters". Only 3.5 remedied that through supplements introducing new subsystems and classes based on those subsystems, and 5e did nothing.

Etc, etc. If you streamline 3.5/PF 1e in some places, it's very good. Complexity isn't bad as long as it actually contributes something meaningful to gameplay, and when streamlining removes many options to simplify things, it's not as good as many people think.

[Morty]

3.5's variety is a matter of volume more than anything else. Yes, you can create a lot... if you have a big pile of material and the time and energy to go sifting through it. If you want to create certain concepts with just the core rules... good luck. 5E might be less varied overall, but it has a greater variety that's available easily. You can create an archer or dual-wielder without really wishing you hadn't, for instance.

I'm far from praising 5E, but it does play to its strengths better. 3.5/PF try to be customizable - or at least their players treat them this way - despite having a baseline system that curtails variety at every step. 5E tries to deliver a familiar, consistent and accessible D&D experience, which classes and levels actually do help with.

[Pleh]

3.5's variety is a matter of volume more than anything else. Yes, you can create a lot... if you have a big pile of material and the time and energy to go sifting through it. If you want to create certain concepts with just the core rules... good luck. 5E might be less varied overall, but it has a greater variety that's available easily. You can create an archer or dual-wielder without really wishing you hadn't, for instance.

I'm far from praising 5E, but it does play to its strengths better. 3.5/PF try to be customizable - or at least their players treat them this way - despite having a baseline system that curtails variety at every step. 5E tries to deliver a familiar, consistent and accessible D&D experience, which classes and levels actually do help with.

Very much this. 3.5 is not helped by the enormous glut that makes running it a chore.

[HeraldOfExius]

As much as I enjoy 3.PF, I will agree that it's a mess from a design perspective. That being said, 3e's design failures include things such as giving you almost no reason to stick with most classes for more than a few levels. This created the trend of dipping for highly front-loaded class features, which makes it closer to a classless system than most games that use classes. This does, however, involve ignoring things like the XP penalty for multiclassing, and it's easy to mess up your bills unless you have sufficient system mastery.

If there was a system that was deliberately designed around multiclassing from the start instead of ending up that way by accident, I think it could be considered more "skill based" while still having classes. You would still take levels in classes, but you aren't completely defined by what you want to be able to at level 1.

[Willie the Duck]

A system that relies heavily on GM rulings is fine, but D&D 5e is weird. It clearly defines combat (barring edge cases), goes into minute detail about magic, and then just throws up It's hands and...<etc.>

5e often does do what I will call 'Stopping in a weird place along the continuum.' Illumination is a decent example. Mind you, 5e D&D is hardly the first system to mess up illumination, and it is unsurprising given the actual page space dedicated to it. However, there was no specific reason to stop at that level -- people probably would have been fine with either an extra couple pages dedicated to such an important subject -- or people would have been fine with a more vague 'illumination works exactly as you think it does' level. Why they chose to stop exactly where they did is something of a mystery to me.

What also bugs me about 3.X is that what people like about it (customization) is better done in basically any classless system. Sure it gets to be the most flexible D&D, but it's two editions buried by now and even Paizo gave up on it. Surely if 3.5 is on the table of consideration, you could look at other not-D&D games like GURPS, HERO, Mutants and Masterminds, The Dark Eye, Ars Magica, EABA, and even something mid-crunch like Savage Worlds?

This being another good example of a strange spot to stop. Mind you, I get the appeal of the character creation/customization qualities of 3e. However, where they landed seems to have opened up all the potential problems with such a model (long creation times, DM/GM prep time, challenges in balance, etc.), yet doesn't do what something like GURPS or HERO do towards allowing you to really make whatever you want (especially if some baseline level of effectiveness is expected).

In many ways, 3.PF is still the high point of D&D design-wise. Does it have some weird clunk like grappling rules and so on? Sure. Does it have unplayable classes? Also true. However, most underlying systems are more solid than its' successors.
...
Etc, etc. If you streamline 3.5/PF 1e in some places, it's very good. Complexity isn't bad as long as it actually contributes something meaningful to gameplay, and when streamlining removes many options to simplify things, it's not as good as many people think.

I will agree that there is a theoretical version of the basic D20 model that has some very strong appeal. I get why people want developers to take another crack. However, there are also some inherent hurdles that it has that other games (and other D&Ds, since you framed the comparison as being with 3e's successors) do not have or deal with better. Honestly, there's an improved (towards my personal preferences) version of each version of D&D (and most other games) which I'd love to play, but I don't see 3e standing out in that pack specifically.

[Ignimortis]

I will agree that there is a theoretical version of the basic D20 model that has some very strong appeal. I get why people want developers to take another crack. However, there are also some inherent hurdles that it has that other games (and other D&Ds, since you framed the comparison as being with 3e's successors) do not have or deal with better. Honestly, there's an improved (towards my personal preferences) version of each version of D&D (and most other games) which I'd love to play, but I don't see 3e standing out in that pack specifically.

I'd say that 3.PF came closest to what a generic heroic fantasy game should do. It's not perfect by any margin, but, IMO, it's better than both what came before and what came after.

Of course, if I were to design a generic heroic fantasy game, I wouldn't even use d20 or classes. Levels are a strong "maybe". But D&D is ever the strongest word on the market, and so me saying "I wish D&D 6 was X", which X is incidentally closer to 3e than 5e might be in a way equated with "I wish the mainstream was closer to X instead of 5e".

[Rhedyn]

Etc, etc. If you streamline 3.5/PF 1e in some places, it's very good. Complexity isn't bad as long as it actually contributes something meaningful to gameplay, and when streamlining removes many options to simplify things, it's not as good as many people think.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...econd-Printing

https://openlegendrpg.com/core-rules/00-introduction

If you need something like dozens of books to buy, then give Savage Worlds a try, though its splatbooks don't stack.

What I am curious about is why WotC and D&D need to fill this niche of game design?

[Ignimortis]

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...econd-Printing

https://openlegendrpg.com/core-rules/00-introduction

If you need something like dozens of books to buy, then give Savage Worlds a try, though its splatbooks don't stack.

What I am curious about is why WotC and D&D need to fill this niche of game design?

I think I tried Savage Worlds back in 2012, when I didn't really know much about either tabletop design or game design in general. IIRC, it lacks a zero-to-hero-to-superhero dynamic, and that's one of the most important things about D&D to me.

[Willie the Duck]

I'd say that 3.PF came closest to what a generic heroic fantasy game should do. It's not perfect by any margin, but, IMO, it's better than both what came before and what came after.

Of course, if I were to design a generic heroic fantasy game, I wouldn't even use d20 or classes. Levels are a strong "maybe". But D&D is ever the strongest word on the market, and so me saying "I wish D&D 6 was X", which X is incidentally closer to 3e than 5e might be in a way equated with "I wish the mainstream was closer to X instead of 5e".

That is a great way of saying it and I wish more people would frame things that way. I disagree (personally I would prefer another stab at cutting the cruft out of a TSR-era D&D than any of 3, 4, and 5), but my own perspective is the same model, just with that where you state 3e.

[Rhedyn]

I think I tried Savage Worlds back in 2012, when I didn't really know much about either tabletop design or game design in general. IIRC, it lacks a zero-to-hero-to-superhero dynamic, and that's one of the most important things about D&D to me.

There is a new backwards compatibly edition out, but yeah Savage Worlds starts at "action-heroes" and ends at "experienced action-heroes". There just are not many games out there with dozens of books of support.

I personally was rather bored at low level 3.X, so it was no loss for me.

That is a great way of saying it and I wish more people would frame things that way. I disagree (personally I would prefer another stab at cutting the cruft out of a TSR-era D&D than any of 3, 4, and 5), but my own perspective is the same model, just with that where you state 3e.

Idk, rolld20's "uncategorized" games was up to 14%-ish last survey I saw. There is a good chance that OSR is getting more popular.

It would be really funny if Kevin Crawford's "Worlds Without Number" next year ended up being as relatively-for-the-genre popular as his Stars Without Number sci-fi rpg. Then you would basically get your wish.

[Anonymouswizard]

So I've heard, yes. It does sound like a streamlined version of the frequently byzantine old career system. I think I still prefer the Dark Heresy 2E approach, though it also has a number of flaws - it's fairly easy to end up paying a lot of XP for things your character should be good at.

And if we have to restrictions at all I prefer the WFRP4E way. But that's fine, no game has to cater to every taste.

That's why I like GURPS, because at the end of the day the most fair way to build characters is to give everybody equal access and charge everybody the same amount. Does this mean that it takes a lot of work to create a balanced group of characters? Yes, but I've found that at the table strict balance is less important than everybody having their thing which comes up regularly. It doesn't matter if the Alchemist has an 18 in Chemistry and you only have a 12 in History, they can both be your character's thing if you're the best in the group and it's important every other session.

Which is where 3.X failed. If you were a Fighter your thing was combat, unless there was a Cleric or Druid in the party (then it was the animal companion's thing), a Rogue's was locating traps unless somebody was preparing the low level trap finding spells. 5e isn't as balanced* as it seems, but that doesn't matter because it's very rare that somebody does your thing better.

* It's balanced compared to 3.X, but not 4e.

[Knaight]

I could get behind the idea in the OP - it worked beautifully for Spectaculars, which is a class based RPG which escalates in power, where you substitute in high power classes for low power classes - it's just a superhero game, where you go from street level to cosmic. A similar thing could work in D&D, and could also really help some of the conceptual issues around, say, high level fighters.

For other things I'd rather D&D emphasize what it does best, instead of doing what other RPGs do but poorly. Jettison multiclassing, stop including text about covering all of fantasy, and instead present the specific iconic archetypes, the specific iconic setting elements for the implicit setting of D&D*, and general dungeon crawl support.

*Yes, there's nominally different settings. When these nominally different settings keep using the same planar system, the same set of creatures, and the same technological trappings I'm sticking with the singular term.

[Psyren]

Translation--

"I want D&D 6e to be nothing like D&D and instead be a GURPS-clone." Class/level system, d20s, and increasing HP are some of the hallmarks of the mechanics of D&D.

This topic makes me sad. What I see is a bunch of people, many of whom self-admittedly don't like D&D saying that D&D should stop being D&D and be more like <favored game>. Which is fine, but it's neither useful nor plausible. Even 4e, which got hammered for "not feeling like D&D" didn't do anything nearly that radical.

And there are plenty of other systems you can use if that's what you want. But some people (myself included) like the core of D&D and don't want it ruined by making it just another skill/point-buy system.
----------------
For me, personally, I hope that if 6e is ever released, it's a long time from now. Barring tinkering around the edges, 5e does everything I want from a D&D system. And a slow release pace (for player options) is a plus for me, not a minus. Reasons:
* It helps keep quality higher. TSR (and lots of 3e) showed that a fast pace means massive quality control problems.
* It lets them focus on things they do well, namely adventures.
* It doesn't fragment the landscape or force people to buy dozens of books for that one EPIC COMBO.
* It helps keep power creep somewhat under control while not flooding the market with trap options.
* It leaves a larger landscape for 3pp and private homebrew work.

And it's hard to argue that the slow pace is a bad business decision, considering that the (very much smaller) 5e team is selling more books than ever before, with more active players than ever before.

There is a lot of ground, but
* changing to a skill/point-buy (rather than class/level) system
* removing the increasing HP
* changing away from a D20
(which were all proposed) isn't in that ground IMO.

There are changes you can make that are much less sweeping than those.

This thread moved along a ways since I last posted in it, but these sum up my stance pretty well.

And if any company can afford a slow release schedule it's WotC.

For the love of all that is good and right, PLEASE ditch Vancian magic once and for all. (And no, I don't consider it core to D&D.) So much of what's hard about balance and magic in D&D could be solved by burying that fossil in the dirt where it belongs.

Agreed, would much rather have cooldown-based or points-based spellcasting.

On Classes, lean towards toolkit instead of archetype, and clearly do so. If the best mechanics to represent a character shouldn't be walled off behind a bunch of assumptions and tropes. Being a highly skilled character shouldn't be fixed into being the sneak-thief or the entertainer/scoundrel. Being the character with inherent non-spell magical powers shouldn't be fixed into having "sold your soul" (or whatever pact).

Well, the good news is that it isn't this way in D&D/PF either. The bad news is you have to go outside core, i.e. you buy the books containing the new classes/subclasses/archetypes that do those things. So if you want to be a skillful fighter or stealthy cleric, you buy the "scoundrel book" that includes those approaches for them.

It's perhaps not the nicest way WotC/Paizo could go about this sort of thing, but the economics are sound.

[Mordaedil]

So your problem isn't lack of options. You just don't like the choices. So less a problem of design and more a matter of preference

As someone who is enjoying both 5e and 3.5 right now, I feel like 5e does offer options, but for some reason, all of the options are pretty front heavy, even if they give rewards later, which is a thing 3.5 does poorly.

Compare subclasses in 5e to a paladin's progression in 3.5. You could easily see that both give a boat load of options early on, but 5e actually rewards the player depending on an early choice all the way down to the later levels, while the 3.5 paladin can only really look forward to more smites and remove diseases. But in 3.5 you do have prestige classes you can go into to expand said options and you are given a truckload of them and multiclassing is relatively a painless ordeal.

Now, I don't think the answer is really to go back to the prestige class ordeal. Instead I'd look at what 4e did with paragon and epic destiny features. We should have had those pop up at level 10 and 15, and a final thing at 20. Not necessarily to break the game, but to give players extra options to customize their classes. Heck, could tie it into subclass features instead and offer choices, like how the warlock earns invocations in 5e.

That's the kind of customization I think is missing from 5e that it could benefit from.

[Rhedyn]

That's the kind of customization I think is missing from 5e that it could benefit from.

Shadow of the Demon Lord

I'm beginning to suspect that the D&D 6e everyone wants to play already exists, the issue is that they are different games for each and don't have "D&D" on the front.

Many of you don't want to hunt for the system you like and GM it. You instead want to be able to play your ideal system and you are only going to do that if it is the current D&D edition, or you trained up a group of people for years on another system and sometime else wants to GM.

To that sentiment, well too bad. In all likelihood D&D 5e will be around for 10 more years (if not longer) so if you want something else you'll have to play something else.

I know this thread is about what you want 6e to be, but whenever that is "I want the D&D logo on this other game" maybe you should play that game rather than wait on WotC.

[Max_Killjoy]

Shadow of the Demon Lord

I'm beginning to suspect that the D&D 6e everyone wants to play already exists, the issue is that they are different games for each and don't have "D&D" on the front.

Many of you don't want to hunt for the system you like and GM it. You instead want to be able to play your ideal system and you are only going to do that if it is the current D&D edition, or you trained up a group of people for years on another system and sometime else wants to GM.

To that sentiment, well too bad. In all likelihood D&D 5e will be around for 10 more years (if not longer) so if you want something else you'll have to play something else.

I know this thread is about what you want 6e to be, but whenever that is "I want the D&D logo on this other game" maybe you should play that game rather than wait on WotC.

That's why my comments on this thread have not been "get rid of levels, classes, and scaling HP".

But it's frustrating as hell trying to find a system that actually does what I want it to, every one of them seems to have some fatal flaw... or a dozen fatal flaws.

[Willie the Duck]

That's why my comments on this thread have not been "get rid of levels, classes, and scaling HP".

But it's frustrating as hell trying to find a system that actually does what I want it to, every one of them seems to have some fatal flaw... or a dozen fatal flaws.

Given the size of the hobby, it is possible that there are some weird little conflations where all games that A (that you want) also have B (which you can take or leave) and C (a fatal flaw, in your book), simply because all/enough of the other people who want A consider them to go hand in hand with B and C. You've mentioned WEG Star Wars and Hero System, what were their FFs?

[Rhedyn]

But it's frustrating as hell trying to find a system that actually does what I want it to, every one of them seems to have some fatal flaw... or a dozen fatal flaws.

My fatal flaw for most systems is "isn't this more interesting/better in Savage Worlds?". That has filtered out most crunchier systems and I've only considered running lighter crunch OSR games like Stars Without Number (or anything Kevin Crawford makes) or The Black Hack 2e. Like as cool as DCCRPG is, I might only play that at con games.

Other systems kill systems for me. Like I was way more content with D&D 5e before discovering Savage Worlds, and I liked Maze Rats before deciding I liked The Black Hack 2e better.

[Anonymouswizard]

Shadow of the Demon Lord

I'm beginning to suspect that the D&D 6e everyone wants to play already exists, the issue is that they are different games for each and don't have "D&D" on the front.

This. In general I've noticed a massive difference in what people want from D&D edition+1 based on if they own any other games (that aren't directly based on D&D). As a rough rule if you own other games you don't want D&D to change much, because either you like it as it is or you own a game that does what you want D&D to do well enough.

I want a classless and levelless D&D, but I already own good enough games. Both The Dark Eye and GURPS can do what I want in a heroic fantasy game to a good enough degree that it would be really hard for D&D to do that better, I wouldn't mind seeing the D&D core rulebook(s) going back to a more classic BD&D style where there's only 4 races/classes in the book and things like the Paladin are in supplements, but that's arguably about a change in presentation over content*.

* It's also mainly to make it more clear to people that restricting the game to make things easier is fine. I've seen new groups run into problems due to having setups like 'a halfing barbarian, elf druid, tiefling warlock, dwarf monk, and gnome ranger/sorcerer' forcing the GM to learn five or six of the nonstandard classes at the same time as the system, four races/classes with three or four subraces/subclasses should be fine.

Many of you don't want to hunt for the system you like and GM it. You instead want to be able to play your ideal system and you are only going to do that if it is the current D&D edition, or you trained up a group of people for years on another system and sometime else wants to GM.

This reminds me, I need to see if I can organise a game of Cyberpunk. Really want to play that system, so I'd better work out a run to send some PCs on.

EDIT: I should point out that my 'to run' list covers everything from classic games like Cyberpunk to modern games like Eclipse Phase: Transhumanity's Fate and goes all over the weight spectrum. I can just have a lot of trouble finding groups willing to chance something that isn't D&D.

To that sentiment, well too bad. In all likelihood D&D 5e will be around for 10 more years (if not longer) so if you want something else you'll have to play something else.

I know this thread is about what you want 6e to be, but whenever that is "I want the D&D logo on this other game" maybe you should play that game rather than wait on WotC.

Honestly, I expect WotC hopes they won't have to release another edition ever. Which is cool, the 'new core rulebooks every three to five' years arrangement was weird and not very customer friendly, but I wouldn't be shocked if they released an updated 'Player's Handbook 5.1' or something which updated things and maybe shuffled some races, feats, and subclasses into or out of core (while making the Adventurer's League ruling something like 'you can use the PhB5e or PhB5.1, but not both).

But yeah, 5e was pretty much intended to stick around for over a decade, it was explicit back during the D&D Next days (when they were insisting it wouldn't be called Fifth Edition). And 5e is pretty clearly making enough money for Hasbro not to can it, so we can also expect book releases to be about what they currently are for the next few years.

Really the only problem I have with 5e is the lack of legally available pdfs. Everything else boils down to '5e isn't to my tastes'. As it is i'm stick to BD&D when I run the 'iconic roleplaying game', I have the pdf of the Rules Cyclopedia and most people can wrap their heads around archetype-based classes.

[Max_Killjoy]

Given the size of the hobby, it is possible that there are some weird little conflations where all games that A (that you want) also have B (which you can take or leave) and C (a fatal flaw, in your book), simply because all/enough of the other people who want A consider them to go hand in hand with B and C. You've mentioned WEG Star Wars and Hero System, what were their FFs?

WEG d6 -- As much fun as I had playing it at the time, I've come to dislike dice pools, especially that add involve adding up raw numbers. The results are just too swingy and broad. And often the difficulty numbers given don't scale with the average die results -- such as scaling by 5 when using d6, which average 3.5 per die.

HERO -- the segment/phase/SPEED action system isn't fluid or adaptable, and results in some odd instances of characters not able to defend themselves for no reason other than a quirk in how their sequence interacts with another sequence. I'd love to find a way to replace it with an "action point pool" of some kind. Lesser issue, because it covers such a wide range of "power levels", the "not superheroic" scale is compressed.

My fatal flaw for most systems is "isn't this more interesting/better in Savage Worlds?". That has filtered out most crunchier systems and I've only considered running lighter crunch OSR games like Stars Without Number (or anything Kevin Crawford makes) or The Black Hack 2e. Like as cool as DCCRPG is, I might only play that at con games.

Other systems kill systems for me. Like I was way more content with D&D 5e before discovering Savage Worlds, and I liked Maze Rats before deciding I liked The Black Hack 2e better.

My history goes back to the early 80s... I've seen a LOT of systems. WEG d6, HERO, and even WOD "ruined" anything d20/levels/classes for me by way of saying "all these things are absolutely unnecessary and maybe even counter-productive".

[Rhedyn]

My history goes back to the early 80s... I've seen a LOT of systems. WEG d6, HERO, and even WOD "ruined" anything d20/levels/classes for me by way of saying "all these things are absolutely unnecessary and maybe even counter-productive".

Oh I agree that the "d20/levels/classes/HP" may just be inefficient starting points.

The only author that has really challenged that assumption is Kevin Crawford. Stars Without Number manages to have all these things and still be very light and comprehensive. I'm looking forward to Wolves of God and Worlds Without Number. (Idk if his Godbound game has classes).

[Psyren]

This. In general I've noticed a massive difference in what people want from D&D edition+1 based on if they own any other games (that aren't directly based on D&D). As a rough rule if you own other games you don't want D&D to change much, because either you like it as it is or you own a game that does what you want D&D to do well enough.

Point of order: I own very few other games and I'm perfectly happy with D&D as-is. Even as sour as I initially was on 5e, I've come around to realizing it's likely the best version of D&D ever made, in terms of knowing exactly what it wants to be and then executing on that in an accessible way. It straddles the line quite well between too much crunch and not enough, and still feels like D&D. It's not flawless by any stretch (I still hate bounded accuracy and mother-may-I mechanics, even as I acknowledge their importance to the system's design), but it's revitalized interest not just in its own brand, but in the hobby as a whole.

For Pathfinder meanwhile, there are definitely aspects of 2e that I find interesting, but almost nothing that I don't feel P1 is doing better.

[Rhedyn]

...Even as sour as I initially was on 5e, I've come around to realizing it's likely the best version of D&D ever made, in terms of knowing exactly what it wants to be and then executing on that in an accessible way...

Bah, and here I find D&D 5e to be the least tolerable of any edition from 4e to Basic D&D (I don't know much about the 70s version).

I like mid-crunch games, just not the way 5e does it.

I could run it like an OSR game with demigod PCs, but F trying to make balanced encounters. "Ah well just have 6 encounters a day with two short rest and the last fight will feel challenging" Zzzzzzzz

I really don't like the skill system. You could remove it entirely and I think the game would be better for it. Replace it with a roll under attribute system and just say people have advantage on checks they get class features for and I have a much more workable system (stolen from The Black Hack 2e). "Oh but my character wants to be good at alchemy." "Ok there is a teacher in the next city willing to take on a student who gets him X rare material from the Fel Gnoll Mines, in exchange he will teach you how to make..?" "Alchemist fire!" "Yeah sure alchemist fire, you'll be able to make it at half the price and get a free one once per session as the result of your alchemical pursuits."

[Willie the Duck]

HERO -- the segment/phase/SPEED action system isn't fluid or adaptable, and results in some odd instances of characters not able to defend themselves for no reason other than a quirk in how their sequence interacts with another sequence. I'd love to find a way to replace it with an "action point pool" of some kind.

Hmm. Hadn't thought about it, but agreed. Once you move away from rather abstract systems for such things, you really have to do it well or else it ends up worse than the abstract system. The 'abort to ____' system is one of those rudimentary systems for acting off-turn that doesn't work as well as a straight up RQ-like action point system.

I really don't like the skill system. You could remove it entirely and I think the game would be better for it. Replace it with a roll under attribute system and just say people have advantage on checks they get class features for and I have a much more workable system (stolen from The Black Hack 2e). "Oh but my character wants to be good at alchemy." "Ok there is a teacher in the next city willing to take on a student who gets him X rare material from the Fel Gnoll Mines, in exchange he will teach you how to make..?" "Alchemist fire!" "Yeah sure alchemist fire, you'll be able to make it at half the price and get a free one once per session as the result of your alchemical pursuits."

The skill system definitely seems like a bit of an overcompensation for complaints with 3e and 4e. It seems almost vestigial in nature. Frankly, pertinent to the OT, honestly I think by the time 6E rolls around there might be enough distance from those that they might revisit the skill concept and decide exactly what they are trying to do with them.

[Anonymouswizard]

Point of order: I own very few other games and I'm perfectly happy with D&D as-is....

Sorry, I should have written that the other way around. 'There is a trend that those who wish to make massive changes to D&D tend not to own any other systems.' I wasn't trying to imply that there weren't people happy with D&D who own few other systems, but generally that people with other systems who don't like what D&D is like just tend to play other systems.

I really don't like the skill system. You could remove it entirely and I think the game would be better for it. Replace it with a roll under attribute system and just say people have advantage on checks they get class features for and I have a much more workable system (stolen from The Black Hack 2e). "Oh but my character wants to be good at alchemy." "Ok there is a teacher in the next city willing to take on a student who gets him X rare material from the Fel Gnoll Mines, in exchange he will teach you how to make..?" "Alchemist fire!" "Yeah sure alchemist fire, you'll be able to make it at half the price and get a free one once per session as the result of your alchemical pursuits."

The skill system is just terrible when compared to the rest of the game and what the game claims to be. A game like BD&D where skills were an optional extra and most noncombat things that mattered in dungeon crawling got specific rules for them is much better, especially in a game about dungeon crawling.

In fact, I have made a hack that fixed everything I had an issue with in 5e, and it's essentially a different game. Four stats (Physique, Dexterity, Intelligence, Presence), no classes, magic drains resources far faster, and so on, and I'm torn between Proficiency just giving straight advantage on a check or letting players spend points from a Proficiency Pool to get advantage on the check, having cut the Proficiency Bonus entirely. I'm actually leaning much towards the latter at the moment, combining it with Inspiration to encourage Character Traits to come up often.

But D&D 6e shouldn't be that. It's barely recognisable as D&D, only really taking the d20 roll, the Advantage mechanic, and some abilities that really aren't an inherently D&D thing.

[Bjarkmundur]

The only problem with new systems is that it cuts off support for older systems :(

[Mordaedil]

Shadow of the Demon Lord

I'm beginning to suspect that the D&D 6e everyone wants to play already exists, the issue is that they are different games for each and don't have "D&D" on the front.

Many of you don't want to hunt for the system you like and GM it. You instead want to be able to play your ideal system and you are only going to do that if it is the current D&D edition, or you trained up a group of people for years on another system and sometime else wants to GM.

To that sentiment, well too bad. In all likelihood D&D 5e will be around for 10 more years (if not longer) so if you want something else you'll have to play something else.

I know this thread is about what you want 6e to be, but whenever that is "I want the D&D logo on this other game" maybe you should play that game rather than wait on WotC.

It's easier to get people to play D&D than to play any other game system. I've tried for years to even get a Call of Cthulhu and Shadowrun game going, but everybody just wants to play D&D.

[Composer99]

I learned to play on Basic D&D and cut my teeth running games (and playing without adult guidance) on 2nd edition AD&D. Played a fair bit of 3.5 and 3.5-Star Wars. Never got into 4th, although that's probably because its release kind of fell into a hiatus in playing table-top RPGs. Played some PF1.

I have to say that 5e is my favourite edition, and in my estimation is the best edition of the game. I love tweaking it and messing around with the system, and I find it's easier to brew for 5e than for any other edition.

I don't see the need for a 6e any time soon - better to have something like the old AD&D Player's Option series with more developed variants or revamped subsystems.

If there were to be a 6e in the near future, what I would look to see there would be better fleshed-out subsystems for non-combat activities - exploration, social interaction, and downtime - and making sure character build options that interact with those subsystems aren't directly competing with combat-oriented character build options.