The way D&D was does not need to be the way D&D is. Yes, certain changes would break the game's spine and render it 'Not D&D', but nobody agrees on what those changes would be. The OSR folks say that this has already happened - D&D 5e is Not D&D, the game's spine broke in the transition and it's not true D&D anymore. For other folks, "D&D" could survive alterations far more drastic than even 4e. As one example (that's sure to get me hissed at), I have no attachment to D&D 5e's class system. I would be perfectly content for the game to eliminate rigid and unbending classes altogether and instead create a massive pool of layered feats from which you build your character piecemeal, assembling exactly what you want to play. Not necessarily point buy, and there would have to be Traditions/Paths that basically hold someone's hand through the process of using the new system to recreate the old rigid, unbending, utterly inflexible classes...but I would still be perfectly willing to call that game "D&D" where many, even likely most, people would not.
As an easier example: for many people, bounded accuracy and the changes to skill and proficiency progression broke the spine of D&D and made the game into something new and abhorrent instead of their beloved fantasy game. For others, they can't imagine what D&D would be like without it.
...
Hello Yurei1453,
A friend of mine loves exploring alternative TTRPG systems and he once mentioned something called GURPS. Are you familiar? I only know of it from a brief description, but would you say that your above suggestion draws inspiration from this system? If so, would you recommend someone (me) look into GURPS if they are interested?
I would be perfectly content for the game to eliminate rigid and unbending classes altogether and instead create a massive pool of layered feats from which you build your character piecemeal, assembling exactly what you want to play. Not necessarily point buy, and there would have to be Traditions/Paths that basically hold someone's hand through the process of using the new system to recreate the old rigid, unbending, utterly inflexible classes...but I would still be perfectly willing to call that game "D&D" where many, even likely most, people would not.
While I'm sure there are a LOT of logistical challenges in this approach, it's something I find interesting and intriguing. And it's sort of how I feel looking at the many overlapping/parallel subclasses (that I mentioned in my previous post).
Let me also say: y'all helped me understand the appeal of a celestial warlock, or divine soul sorcerer. So great job sharing - I get it!
HOWEVER...
...your answers actually helped me hone and refine my deeper criticism: I guess I'd like for the subclasses to be more unique, to offer something really different, for flavor and capabilities. It just feels creatively lazy, TBH, to offer X amount of variants of a healer rather than digging deep and offering a really unique warlock subclass, something that stands out and inspires great role- and roll-play.
I would be perfectly content for the game to eliminate rigid and unbending classes altogether and instead create a massive pool of layered feats from which you build your character piecemeal, assembling exactly what you want to play. Not necessarily point buy, and there would have to be Traditions/Paths that basically hold someone's hand through the process of using the new system to recreate the old rigid, unbending, utterly inflexible classes...but I would still be perfectly willing to call that game "D&D" where many, even likely most, people would not.
While I'm sure there are a LOT of logistical challenges in this approach, it's something I find interesting and intriguing. And it's sort of how I feel looking at the many overlapping/parallel subclasses (that I mentioned in my previous post).
Let me also say: y'all helped me understand the appeal of a celestial warlock, or divine soul sorcerer. So great job sharing - I get it!
HOWEVER...
...your answers actually helped me hone and refine my deeper criticism: I guess I'd like for the subclasses to be more unique, to offer something really different, for flavor and capabilities. It just feels creatively lazy, TBH, to offer X amount of variants of a healer rather than digging deep and offering a really unique warlock subclass, something that stands out and inspires great role- and roll-play.
I'd say that they do, especially on the role end. The way you RP a cleric and the way you RP someone who is a warlock to a celestial can be widely different. A cleric for example implies a deep religious devotion to a deity. A celestial warlock could have any number of reasons for their arrangement. They also have different class and subclass mechanics from cleric. So just as it's good to have more than one way to build a character who's good at archery, or hitting things with a big sword, or blowing things up with offensive spells, I think it's good to offer variety on the healing front too.
And they certainly provide variety within the class. A celestial warlock will play a lot differently for a Fiend or Hexblade warlock. They're distinct enough from cleric both mechanically and in terms of role play, and very distinct from OTHER options within their core classes. In the same way that oath of the ancients and archfey subclasses for paladin/warlock touch upon naturey abilities but are still distinct from druid.
The way D&D was does not need to be the way D&D is. Yes, certain changes would break the game's spine and render it 'Not D&D', but nobody agrees on what those changes would be. The OSR folks say that this has already happened - D&D 5e is Not D&D, the game's spine broke in the transition and it's not true D&D anymore. For other folks, "D&D" could survive alterations far more drastic than even 4e. As one example (that's sure to get me hissed at), I have no attachment to D&D 5e's class system. I would be perfectly content for the game to eliminate rigid and unbending classes altogether and instead create a massive pool of layered feats from which you build your character piecemeal, assembling exactly what you want to play. Not necessarily point buy, and there would have to be Traditions/Paths that basically hold someone's hand through the process of using the new system to recreate the old rigid, unbending, utterly inflexible classes...but I would still be perfectly willing to call that game "D&D" where many, even likely most, people would not.
As an easier example: for many people, bounded accuracy and the changes to skill and proficiency progression broke the spine of D&D and made the game into something new and abhorrent instead of their beloved fantasy game. For others, they can't imagine what D&D would be like without it.
...
Hello Yurei1453,
A friend of mine loves exploring alternative TTRPG systems and he once mentioned something called GURPS. Are you familiar? I only know of it from a brief description, but would you say that your above suggestion draws inspiration from this system? If so, would you recommend someone (me) look into GURPS if they are interested?
I am actually familiar with GURPS, though not deeply. I've toyed with the system and built a few characters but I've never gotten a chance to play more than a few short scenes. I like it quite a bit, actually, though it's one of those systems you have to trim and futz with as a GM. Playing absolutely every rule down to the letter would not only bog down your game in infinite minutiae, it's actually specifically not intended by the developers. They actively tell you to use only what you need/want/like at your table and discard any specific component of the rules that doesn't work for your game.
GURPS is highly, highly modular and allows for incredible freedom of character creation, and despite its intimidating up-front bulk once you get past the Chargen Math it's surprisingly simple to run in the moment I would say that running GURPS isn't really any more complicated than running 5e, they deliberately tried to ensure all the math and mechanical crunchy bits happened between/before sessions away from the table. During play it's supposed to be more about simply describing actions and then rolling relevant tests, same as a 5e game.
I generally recommend that everybody should look into as many rulesets as they comfortably can :P The wider your experience and knowledge base, the better your play becomes as both player and GM. But in this case, yes. If you like the idea of assembling a character from a diverse pool of options with no restrictions based on class, GURPS is a great system to experiment with. Savage Worlds is similar, and sortakinna functions as a 'GURPS Lite' (even beyond actual GURPS Lite, which is a thing that exists) with less emphasis on math and sheer head-crunching diversity of options and more emphasis on fast and engaging play. Both are essentially setting-agnostic point builder games however, and both are a lot of fun to tinker with. GURPS is for the character technicians and the folks who enjoy maximum resolution and granularity in creation, while SW is more mainstream-y and focuses on getting close to a core character archetype or ideal without sweating the minutiae.
A friend of mine loves exploring alternative TTRPG systems and he once mentioned something called GURPS. Are you familiar? I only know of it from a brief description, but would you say that your above suggestion draws inspiration from this system? If so, would you recommend someone (me) look into GURPS if they are interested?
I am actually familiar with GURPS, though not deeply. I've toyed with the system and built a few characters but I've never gotten a chance to play more than a few short scenes. I like it quite a bit, actually, though it's one of those systems you have to trim and futz with as a GM. Playing absolutely every rule down to the letter would not only bog down your game in infinite minutiae, it's actually specifically not intended by the developers. They actively tell you to use only what you need/want/like at your table and discard any specific component of the rules that doesn't work for your game.
GURPS is highly, highly modular and allows for incredible freedom of character creation, and despite its intimidating up-front bulk once you get past the Chargen Math it's surprisingly simple to run in the moment I would say that running GURPS isn't really any more complicated than running 5e, they deliberately tried to ensure all the math and mechanical crunchy bits happened between/before sessions away from the table. During play it's supposed to be more about simply describing actions and then rolling relevant tests, same as a 5e game.
(Just adding a bit to this. That said, we obviously shouldn't derail a D&D discussion on the D&D Beyond "General Discussion" board with too much talk of other RPGs.)
GURPS is actually my favorite/preferred tabletop system. Its default is a classless point-buy system, it's based around a 3d6 roll (and only d6s for things like damage), and the core books are more like a toolkit than free-standing game. Its current edition has been going since 2004, and though they're not really doing a lot of hardback business, they still regularly publish supplements. Bias caveat: about 10 years ago I was an active playtester for them, was once a lead playtester for a supplement, and have published some stuff for their (currently partially defunct) 'magazine.'
Most of the complication of running a game is figuring out the scope --- what supplements to use, what optional rules and systems to use, what sets of traits to allow/disallow, etc. And, of course, they don't really have pre-written "campaigns" like 5e is publishing. But GURPS books are well-known for being well-researched and good at being "universal" (it's right there in the name), so they can be adapted to all sorts of other systems.
In play, it's one of the cleanest systems out there. Its core assumptions try to be realistic-but-not-a-simulation.
In character creation, it's very crunchy, and you can get in trouble if your GM just plops some books in front of you without guidance (which is how you get some of the really wild stereotypes of GURPS characters). It's more complicated than, say, building a 1st level starter character in 5e, but much less messy than building a high-level multiclass with feats and whatnot... Given the lack of a "GURPS Beyond" type service, it's obviously harder to get started, but not compared to ~every other tabletop pen-and-paper game out there.
As for "why do young people always try and rewrite the history of D&D?", BigLizard? We don't. Or at least I don't. I don't have any hands-on experience with The History of D&D, save for the last few years.
For the record, I neither said or suggested that "young people re-write D&D history", this is something you inferred, arguably an example of a re-write in progress, one of the symptoms of the general problem between old school and new school gamers, namely the uncanny ability of both sides to make assumptions about each others intentions and meaning and then base rather hostile arguments on those assumption. Its a game that was played long before you ever heard of D&D and its a game people still play today. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here that it was unintentional, but it does illustrate the kind of hostility that is generated when people don't listen with the intent to understand and rather listen with the intent to reply. You and I are not in a melee, we are not having a conversation combat, I'm not angry with you nor do I have any hostility towards you whatsoever, I honestly don't understand why you twist every word of every post I make and try to make it appear as if I'm personally attacking you.
I find this...odd, your complete dismissal of the game's history. Because it may not directly influence your playstyle or the game at your table, but I assure you: D&D's past still impacts your game.
Not that I'm making an argument of who is right or wrong in the seemingly endless fight to control D&D, but if you had to choose a side, who would you really pick honestly. The guy who has been playing D&D for all of five minutes or the guy who has spent the last 5 decades dedicated to the game.
All I'm trying to illustrate is that anyone who ignores D&D's legacy and history, the countless lessons of experience that come from its veteran community is at the absolute least naive and at their worse is just willfully ignorant. I understand that the modern community has their own thing going, which I personally support and participate in full force and without restriction, I mean, I love D&D and I love to watch new gamers love D&D, but if you are not paying attention to old school gamers with decades of experience, well, lets just say that its not their relevance that is in question, its yours.
Mike Mearls who I consider the god father of everything that has made modern D&D successful understood this, its why more than half the consultants on the 5e development team where card carrying members of the OSR. Its an objective unqevical fact that 5e's success is attributed to its history and to its legacy, modern gaming was but a whisper in its development and success, but that whisper was extremely important, it was its lifeline which was the secret to the whole thing. Mike understood that while the legacy has to be preserved, their is no future without the youngbloods like Yuri who come along and help to redesign the face of the game. I know that Yuri thinks I'm an old school jerk, he has made that known on this and many other posts, but I don't think he realizes how much I respect and appreciate his opinion despite the fact that its often in direct contrast to mine. Young, new players are the future of the D&D, a future I helped build in the past. I only wish I could convey the importance of legacy, of history and tradition in games like D&D to modern gamers to ensure that the next generation of designers produces a Mike Mearls. The future is critical to the game, but their is no future without its past and its legacy, 4e should have taught us that You don't need to read past the heartfelt comment of shoak111 to get a glimpse of how much old school gamers love this game, I can't imagine how anyone can read what he wrote about how much he loves D&D and how much in means to him and still see him as a villain from some past we should all forget.
To the "unequivacal fact that 5es success is due to (D&Ds) history and legacy"
Yes and no.
I'll analogize with a fandom that I'm more experienced in.
Every form of Superhero media owes itself to Superman. Even Batman was, literally, only created due to the success of Superman and (the company that would become) DC asking for more heroes like Superman.
If you like any form of superhero media, it traces its roots back to Superman.
Does that mean Superman is the reason the MCU is successful? Well, yes and no. Yes in the way the thing itself would not exist if not for the existence of Superman But also no in that the vast majority of people who love the MCU don't exactly give a crap about Superman, and that the MCUs modern success does not, in any way, shape, or form, need to look back and try to emulate what worked for Superman stories in the past.
I say that, I'll note, as a guy currently wearing a Superman T-shirt. A Superman T-shirt that I literally bought as a replacement for the Superman shirt I wore so often for so many years it literally became unwearable and un-repairable. and that's not even counting the 3 other Superman shirts I own.
You can love something that was the cornerstone and genesis of an entire freaking GENRE was built upon, you can wear that pride and love for that thing greatly... without thinking that the modern things somehow need to copy that thing.
Ending the metaphor thing.
I did once try getting into D&D because of it's history and legacy, it was around 3 or 3.5 edition. I read the rulebook, it sparked no joy, some of the rules things ticked me off (yes some of the unfortunate implications with "races" and negative ability scores and such) and I dropped it almost as quickly as I'd picked it up.
I got into 5e not because of it's legacy or history, but because I saw a youtube gaming channel doing their D&D playing looking fun. And their having a half-orc Bard which meant that maybe that whole negative ability score nonsense was gone.
The "legacy" of D&D didn't draw me to D&D, at least not in a way I stuck around. What made me stick around was it evolving and dropping some of that legacy.
As to listening to older fans, I think that is hit and miss too.
Look, I always LOVED the struggle of superheroes to have to deal with their normal human identity and their superhero identity. It's a struggle that is damn near entirely missing in the current era of Superhero stuff, not just movies. But ya know what, holding onto that would be a bad move, in the day of everyone having a camera in their pocket and social media pages, it's a LOT harder to believe no one notices how similar Clark and Superman look.
Hell, over in the land of Sci-Fi fandoms, there's a TON of people who claim to be old-school Star Trek fans, who complain about the modern Star Trek being too damn socially concious. Which, I, as an old school Star Trek fan, find, well, fascinating. Considering I'd argue the current shows are WAY less in your face with their politics than TOS, TNG or DS9 were.
Sometimes, what the old fans think is true of the old thing isn't. Sometimes what the old fans see as flaws in the new thing are strengths. Sometimes old fans just want to be fed more of the old thing, even as the world has moved past that.
Listening to old fans is, on the whole, no better an idea that listening to anybody else. In fact, many times, it is probably a worse idea, because we all inherently fear things we love changing at all.
Eh, I'm longwinded so I'll try to stop here, but the truth of the matter is the history and legacy? Yeah, it exists, and folks can research it, and hopefully they'll find new stuff they love. But I think all fans should keep in mind sometimes the stuff you loved is, well, brightly colored underwear on the outside.
It may have drawn your eye, but it probably ain't what's making new folks pick it up now.
Worth noting: it's actually extremely difficult to research "the legacy and history of D&D". Any of the usual Wikia websites for it are nothing but infinite pits of other people's shitty, thoroughly unofficial homebrew, there's no good and reliable source for any real information about the history of the lore. And the history of the game's publication and business track record isn't really something anybody covers. If you didn't live through it and aren't spoon-fed it by an older player trying to inculcate you in 'Proper D&D', it's the next best thing to impossible to get a proper grip on The Lore And History of D&D without actual, trained research chops.
As for "why do young people always try and rewrite the history of D&D?", BigLizard? We don't. Or at least I don't. I don't have any hands-on experience with The History of D&D, save for the last few years.
For the record, I neither said or suggested that "young people re-write D&D history", this is something you inferred, arguably an example of a re-write in progress, one of the symptoms of the general problem between old school and new school gamers, namely the uncanny ability of both sides to make assumptions about each others intentions and meaning and then base rather hostile arguments on those assumption. Its a game that was played long before you ever heard of D&D and its a game people still play today. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here that it was unintentional, but it does illustrate the kind of hostility that is generated when people don't listen with the intent to understand and rather listen with the intent to reply. You and I are not in a melee, we are not having a conversation combat, I'm not angry with you nor do I have any hostility towards you whatsoever, I honestly don't understand why you twist every word of every post I make and try to make it appear as if I'm personally attacking you.
I find this...odd, your complete dismissal of the game's history. Because it may not directly influence your playstyle or the game at your table, but I assure you: D&D's past still impacts your game.
Not that I'm making an argument of who is right or wrong in the seemingly endless fight to control D&D, but if you had to choose a side, who would you really pick honestly. The guy who has been playing D&D for all of five minutes or the guy who has spent the last 5 decades dedicated to the game.
All I'm trying to illustrate is that anyone who ignores D&D's legacy and history, the countless lessons of experience that come from its veteran community is at the absolute least naive and at their worse is just willfully ignorant. I understand that the modern community has their own thing going, which I personally support and participate in full force and without restriction, I mean, I love D&D and I love to watch new gamers love D&D, but if you are not paying attention to old school gamers with decades of experience, well, lets just say that its not their relevance that is in question, its yours.
Mike Mearls who I consider the god father of everything that has made modern D&D successful understood this, its why more than half the consultants on the 5e development team where card carrying members of the OSR. Its an objective unqevical fact that 5e's success is attributed to its history and to its legacy, modern gaming was but a whisper in its development and success, but that whisper was extremely important, it was its lifeline which was the secret to the whole thing. Mike understood that while the legacy has to be preserved, their is no future without the youngbloods like Yuri who come along and help to redesign the face of the game. I know that Yuri thinks I'm an old school jerk, he has made that known on this and many other posts, but I don't think he realizes how much I respect and appreciate his opinion despite the fact that its often in direct contrast to mine. Young, new players are the future of the D&D, a future I helped build in the past. I only wish I could convey the importance of legacy, of history and tradition in games like D&D to modern gamers to ensure that the next generation of designers produces a Mike Mearls. The future is critical to the game, but their is no future without its past and its legacy, 4e should have taught us that You don't need to read past the heartfelt comment of shoak111 to get a glimpse of how much old school gamers love this game, I can't imagine how anyone can read what he wrote about how much he loves D&D and how much in means to him and still see him as a villain from some past we should all forget.
You're forgetting a little thing called "Critical Role", which has brought millions of new players to the game and is one of the main reasons why D&D 5e is so successful. Yes, 5e started out being successful because it did its best to appease to the older fans of the game that were turned off by D&D 4e, but Critical Role quickly put D&D 5e into the mainstream and is one of the major reasons why D&D 5e is so popular and profitable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Worth noting: it's actually extremely difficult to research "the legacy and history of D&D". Any of the usual Wikia websites for it are nothing but infinite pits of other people's shitty, thoroughly unofficial homebrew, there's no good and reliable source for any real information about the history of the lore. And the history of the game's publication and business track record isn't really something anybody covers. If you didn't live through it and aren't spoon-fed it by an older player trying to inculcate you in 'Proper D&D', it's the next best thing to impossible to get a proper grip on The Lore And History of D&D without actual, trained research chops.
Which, needless to say...nobody has.
Might I recommend the works of Shannon Appelcline? I found their Dungeons & Designers book series to be very informative and they also do many of the write-ups for historical products you see on DMs Guild.
Game Wizards is also an upcoming book about the history of early D&D by Jon Peterson.
I'd maybe be careful with throwing around generational tags willy-nilly like that, Gamma. Some folks instantly enter their barbaric Rage when they see that junk, and frankly it isn't always a great measure of someone's attitude.
Ugh. I don't mind older, but Millenial? You wound me, good sir... :p
Sorry if my guess is off. I think most active forum members here are older than me (at least in the forum's general section), and you seem more experienced with D&D than I am and have a stronger attachment to what constitutes D&D's identity.
Ugh. I don't mind older, but Millenial? You wound me, good sir... :p
Sorry if my guess is off. I think most active forum members here are older than me (at least in the forum's general section), and you seem more experienced with D&D than I am and have a stronger attachment to what constitutes D&D's identity.
I precede millenials by almost a decade. D&D's identity isn't wrapped up in the common practices of the early editions though, not for me at any rate. If it's class-based, fantasy and has dwarves, halflings and elves as well as humans that covers most of my requirements. The rest of what I identify D&D with is the experiences, the jokes, the emotions and the camaraderie, not anything to do with mechanics, design or systems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You're forgetting a little thing called "Critical Role", which has brought millions of new players to the game and is one of the main reasons why D&D 5e is so successful. Yes, 5e started out being successful because it did its best to appease to the older fans of the game that were turned off by D&D 4e, but Critical Role quickly put D&D 5e into the mainstream and is one of the major reasons why D&D 5e is so popular and profitable.
Do we know how much of the player base joined because of Critical Role? People make it seem like a big deal, which I guess it is, but did they really bring that many people into D&D?
I figure if you are not into D&D, you might not know what Critical Role is, because I have never heard or seen anything about Critical Role until after I got into the hobby. Internet ads did not show me stuff about D&D, Beyond, Miniature Market, etc. until well after I got into the hobby. Even after I got into the hobby to this day, YouTube still have not recommended any Critical Role videos for me to watch, although they have recommended Taking20, Dungeon Craft, Matt Colville, Nerdarchy, and so on. Since D&D and TTRPGs in general are so niche, I am just a little skeptical and curious on how Critical Role can reach people who are not into the hobby.
I got into D&D sort of by word of mouth, as I overheard a former coworker mentioned that she plays D&D, but she is from the LGBT community and she does not look like the type of person who plays D&D, so that kind of surprised me and I got curious. I read a little bit about D&D and bought the Starter Set to see what is so special about it.
My entire gaming group started playing because of Critical Role. Our original DM found it, was enchanted by it, and pulled together the foundations of what would become our table. One of the players we introduced to the game went on to start a D&D Discord with close to two hundred members...then had a falling out and started another D&D Discord that also grew to roughly two hundred members.
You're forgetting a little thing called "Critical Role", which has brought millions of new players to the game and is one of the main reasons why D&D 5e is so successful. Yes, 5e started out being successful because it did its best to appease to the older fans of the game that were turned off by D&D 4e, but Critical Role quickly put D&D 5e into the mainstream and is one of the major reasons why D&D 5e is so popular and profitable.
Do we know how much of the player base joined because of Critical Role? People make it seem like a big deal, which I guess it is, but did they really bring that many people into D&D?
I figure if you are not into D&D, you might not know what Critical Role is, because I have never heard or seen anything about Critical Role until after I got into the hobby. Internet ads did not show me stuff about D&D, Beyond, Miniature Market, etc. until well after I got into the hobby. Even after I got into the hobby to this day, YouTube still have not recommended any Critical Role videos for me to watch, although they have recommended Taking20, Dungeon Craft, Matt Colville, Nerdarchy, and so on. Since D&D and TTRPGs in general are so niche, I am just a little skeptical and curious on how Critical Role can reach people who are not into the hobby.
I got into D&D sort of by word of mouth, as I overheard a former coworker mentioned that she plays D&D, but she is from the LGBT community and she does not look like the type of person who plays D&D, so that kind of surprised me and I got curious. I read a little bit about D&D and bought the Starter Set to see what is so special about it.
I'm not certain if there is a study on how popular D&D 5e was before and after Critical Role gained popularity, but it's widely accepted that their influence is one of the major reasons why D&D 5e is as successful as it is. (Just look up how quickly their kickstarters have reached $1,000,000, how many viewers they have, and how successful their books, official or not, have been. Episode 1 of their Second Season has over 13 million views. I know that "views" and "people brought into D&D by them" are not necessarily the same thing, but there are a ton of people who have been introduced into the hobby by CR, which their numbers show.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
My entire gaming group started playing because of Critical Role. Our original DM found it, was enchanted by it, and pulled together the foundations of what would become our table. One of the players we introduced to the game went on to start a D&D Discord with close to two hundred members...then had a falling out and started another D&D Discord that also grew to roughly two hundred members.
It's a big deal, yeah.
While I didn't start because of Critical Role directly, I am willing to bet it's popularity is what lead to the youtube D&D playing series I mentioned that got me into it. (Critical Role started in 2015 given my googling, OXventure which pulled me in, started in 2017)
So it's at least at the point "The people it inspired to get into D&D has inspired others to get into D&D." pop culture levels.
I honestly don't watch it, but even before I got into D&D I had heard of it.
I really should give one of the more recent shows a try, I was hesitant in the past because it had so many back-episodes it seemed a massive commitment to catch up.
CR's starting their next brand new campaign on October 21st. They're gonna put out a lore/history catch-up video before then, but even without that there's no more perfect a time to get in. Watch the new one, see if it vibes with you. If it does? You can watch the older stuff when you're able.
I'd also recommend cherry-picking older episodes. For the first campaign, I went through and listened to the episodes with epic combats (dragons, liches).
For Campaign 2, I started with the beginning but frankly got bored. I jumped back in to listen when a certain character died, then noped out again after a bit...and did this a couple more times. I listened to the final arc all the way through.
I strongly preferred Campaign 1 to 2. Mercer's an amazing DM, no qualification. I get frustrated with the players because they still don't seem to grasp how their characters work too often, even after hundreds of hours of game time. And the show, IMNSHO, too often takes a pseudo-therapeutic approach to role-playing which I find very eyeroll worthy. I get it: they're actors, and for them the real fun is...well, acting. And up to a point, I love the role-playing....until it gets into super touchy feely territory and then it just feels like actor **** to me.
And - again with the caveat that these are professional actors and adults doing what they want - I find the role-playing of romance between characters whose players who are involved with OTHER players to be pretty weird.
Hasbro attributes D&D's last five years of success (as of 2019) to the launch of 5e, with its much more new-player friendly system, along with Critical Role. I myself gave D&D a shot again after a college friend encouraged me to give the show a try. I fell in love twice; first with the show and then with the game while huddled around a tiny kitchen island with some friends and some beers (we have a proper table now).
The term probably has a negative connotation for many of us, but we are living in the influencer era. That's not just CR for D&D (though they're undoubtedly the most visible), there are lots of celebrity D&D players who just don't always put D&D in the picture the way streamers do but don't make a secret of this hobby either. That said, the CritRole crew was playing Pathfinder until Felicia Day convinced them it would be a good idea to stream their games via Geek & Sundry - Matt decided to switch to D&D because he thought (probably rightfully so) that 5E would be easier to follow for people without prior knowledge of TTRPGs other what they might have caught through pop culture (brand recognition might have played a very small part too: "what's this Pathfinder thing?" - "you know, it's Dungeons & Dragons" conversations get old fast). That's because of 5E's design principles, so WotC can take some credit for that at least even if "let's make it more appealing to influencers" more than likely wasn't the reason for those principles. That aside it's hard to tell who came to D&D because of CritRole, who came to CritRole because of D&D, and who came across either through some other introduction: the Community AD&D episode for instance might have portrayed D&D as overly nerdy for comedic effect but it was seen by a whole lot of people, and Stranger Things certainly gave a massive audience a glimpse of a game they might have wanted to google just to see what it was about. Playing to geek audiences is also nothing new for WotC, their Penny Arcade collaboration started maybe ten years ago, certainly close to that, certainly before 5E was even in playtest.
You're forgetting a little thing called "Critical Role", which has brought millions of new players to the game and is one of the main reasons why D&D 5e is so successful. Yes, 5e started out being successful because it did its best to appease to the older fans of the game that were turned off by D&D 4e, but Critical Role quickly put D&D 5e into the mainstream and is one of the major reasons why D&D 5e is so popular and profitable.
If it wasn't for old school gamers and old school designers who righted D&D after the fiasco that was 4th edition D&D a game that very intentionally rejected its past there would have been no Critical Role or Matt Mercer fame.
Critical Role exists because the foundation of D&D, it's legacy and its history smacked Wizards of the Coast across the face with the 4th edition rulebooks and said enough of your bullshit. Old school thinking, old school gamers, old school designers (AKA ITS LEGACY) fixed D&D and when it was released, the fan base noticed, realized that D&D was back and took to the internet, Matt Mercer included.
So yeah, 5e's growing fan base is certainly much bigger thanks to the internet shows, they help it grow, but none of that would exist if old school gamers and designers didn't step up and save D&D first. If Critical Role tried running their show in the 4e days it would not have suddenly turned 4e into a wildly successful system, 5e was an already moving freight train, CR just jumped on board and leveraged that success to create some of their own and their success furthered 5e's success and vice versus.
Worth noting: it's actually extremely difficult to research "the legacy and history of D&D". Any of the usual Wikia websites for it are nothing but infinite pits of other people's shitty, thoroughly unofficial homebrew, there's no good and reliable source for any real information about the history of the lore. And the history of the game's publication and business track record isn't really something anybody covers. If you didn't live through it and aren't spoon-fed it by an older player trying to inculcate you in 'Proper D&D', it's the next best thing to impossible to get a proper grip on The Lore And History of D&D without actual, trained research chops.
Which, needless to say...nobody has.
That is the interesting thing about D&D's history and legacy and really the definition of what "D&D is". It's difficult to describe, hard to prove and impossible for anyone to agree on yet everyone knows when you have it and when you don't. I understand that the how and why of it is a rather strangely mysterious concept and I agree that even I struggle to define what D&D legacy is and isn't and I was there for the ride, I'm a bloody witness to it. Whatever it is, we know what happens when D&D ignores it (4th edition) and we know what happens when D&D leans on it (5th edition). We can quibble about the definition and meaning, but you can't argue the results.
I mean thats why they started with pathfinder, mercer knew how bad 4th ed was.
I find it amusing that a small number of people sit and say 5th ed is rubbish and needs a complete rewrite, and i mean you look at this thread and find only a few profiles say that. Personally I think a refresh of the PHB on the back of years of play testing is about right. Large scale root and branch re development is not needed, the game works, yes there are small niggles that some have but you can resolve them easily with a few homebrew rules and people seem to forget the rules are here as a guide, you can choose to ignore as many or as few as you want. I know one table who don't roll for initiative they just go in seating order round the table. As with all these things a vocal small minority thinks they speak for a community that has grown massive. In some ways far too big, there are other roleplay systems out there, many of them better then DnD go and try them if you don't like DnD.
Personally DnD is not my first go to system in terms of favorite mechanically, personally I think the D20 system is the most flawed of all TTRPG mechanically, I much prefer the roll and keep system of games like 7th sea, or the D10 system of White Wolf systems. But as a fantasy game with magic and rogues and all the typical architypes it works for me as a storytelling system so I put up with mechanics I don't like, tweak some of them, in terms of class and subclass alot of the options suggested to "fix" a problem that really isn't there would make DnD similar to other systems. The main issue as stated really only impacts min maxers and powergamers, players who want to get every last % out of every dice roll or look at DnD as a game to be won somehow. As they stand there are some irritations about some of the classes, but as a DM there is yet to be a subclass appear i can't provide challenging situations to in the game, I am able to make players get tense and concerned and feel a sense of achievement if they make it through and I can make every player feel they are contributing to the game and not feel left out.
Now back to the post I hope the settings books being released cover more of the planes (elemental, astral etc) or actually cover the feywild as a setting vs just a campaign set there. I hope that the focus is on background and setting as opposed to additional rules, DnD has been very good so far at not bloating the rules, especially compared to other systems. I am intrigued as to how they will tweak the rules, the idea of simpler rules for monsters I hope doesn't make them more homogenous and remove the feel of different types of creatures. I have played systems where the monster rules effectively simply skin an image to identical stat blocks and rules. I hope they keep the current class system, it works, it allows flexibility and it allows players to take on differing roles in the party. If you make the rules to flexible then generally you are more and more likely to find multiple players taking the same build because it is the optimum.
Hello Yurei1453,
A friend of mine loves exploring alternative TTRPG systems and he once mentioned something called GURPS. Are you familiar? I only know of it from a brief description, but would you say that your above suggestion draws inspiration from this system? If so, would you recommend someone (me) look into GURPS if they are interested?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
While I'm sure there are a LOT of logistical challenges in this approach, it's something I find interesting and intriguing. And it's sort of how I feel looking at the many overlapping/parallel subclasses (that I mentioned in my previous post).
Let me also say: y'all helped me understand the appeal of a celestial warlock, or divine soul sorcerer. So great job sharing - I get it!
HOWEVER...
...your answers actually helped me hone and refine my deeper criticism: I guess I'd like for the subclasses to be more unique, to offer something really different, for flavor and capabilities. It just feels creatively lazy, TBH, to offer X amount of variants of a healer rather than digging deep and offering a really unique warlock subclass, something that stands out and inspires great role- and roll-play.
I'd say that they do, especially on the role end. The way you RP a cleric and the way you RP someone who is a warlock to a celestial can be widely different. A cleric for example implies a deep religious devotion to a deity. A celestial warlock could have any number of reasons for their arrangement. They also have different class and subclass mechanics from cleric. So just as it's good to have more than one way to build a character who's good at archery, or hitting things with a big sword, or blowing things up with offensive spells, I think it's good to offer variety on the healing front too.
And they certainly provide variety within the class. A celestial warlock will play a lot differently for a Fiend or Hexblade warlock. They're distinct enough from cleric both mechanically and in terms of role play, and very distinct from OTHER options within their core classes. In the same way that oath of the ancients and archfey subclasses for paladin/warlock touch upon naturey abilities but are still distinct from druid.
I am actually familiar with GURPS, though not deeply. I've toyed with the system and built a few characters but I've never gotten a chance to play more than a few short scenes. I like it quite a bit, actually, though it's one of those systems you have to trim and futz with as a GM. Playing absolutely every rule down to the letter would not only bog down your game in infinite minutiae, it's actually specifically not intended by the developers. They actively tell you to use only what you need/want/like at your table and discard any specific component of the rules that doesn't work for your game.
GURPS is highly, highly modular and allows for incredible freedom of character creation, and despite its intimidating up-front bulk once you get past the Chargen Math it's surprisingly simple to run in the moment I would say that running GURPS isn't really any more complicated than running 5e, they deliberately tried to ensure all the math and mechanical crunchy bits happened between/before sessions away from the table. During play it's supposed to be more about simply describing actions and then rolling relevant tests, same as a 5e game.
I generally recommend that everybody should look into as many rulesets as they comfortably can :P The wider your experience and knowledge base, the better your play becomes as both player and GM. But in this case, yes. If you like the idea of assembling a character from a diverse pool of options with no restrictions based on class, GURPS is a great system to experiment with. Savage Worlds is similar, and sortakinna functions as a 'GURPS Lite' (even beyond actual GURPS Lite, which is a thing that exists) with less emphasis on math and sheer head-crunching diversity of options and more emphasis on fast and engaging play. Both are essentially setting-agnostic point builder games however, and both are a lot of fun to tinker with. GURPS is for the character technicians and the folks who enjoy maximum resolution and granularity in creation, while SW is more mainstream-y and focuses on getting close to a core character archetype or ideal without sweating the minutiae.
Please do not contact or message me.
(Just adding a bit to this. That said, we obviously shouldn't derail a D&D discussion on the D&D Beyond "General Discussion" board with too much talk of other RPGs.)
GURPS is actually my favorite/preferred tabletop system. Its default is a classless point-buy system, it's based around a 3d6 roll (and only d6s for things like damage), and the core books are more like a toolkit than free-standing game. Its current edition has been going since 2004, and though they're not really doing a lot of hardback business, they still regularly publish supplements. Bias caveat: about 10 years ago I was an active playtester for them, was once a lead playtester for a supplement, and have published some stuff for their (currently partially defunct) 'magazine.'
To the "unequivacal fact that 5es success is due to (D&Ds) history and legacy"
Yes and no.
I'll analogize with a fandom that I'm more experienced in.
Every form of Superhero media owes itself to Superman.
Even Batman was, literally, only created due to the success of Superman and (the company that would become) DC asking for more heroes like Superman.
If you like any form of superhero media, it traces its roots back to Superman.
Does that mean Superman is the reason the MCU is successful? Well, yes and no.
Yes in the way the thing itself would not exist if not for the existence of Superman
But also no in that the vast majority of people who love the MCU don't exactly give a crap about Superman, and that the MCUs modern success does not, in any way, shape, or form, need to look back and try to emulate what worked for Superman stories in the past.
I say that, I'll note, as a guy currently wearing a Superman T-shirt.
A Superman T-shirt that I literally bought as a replacement for the Superman shirt I wore so often for so many years it literally became unwearable and un-repairable.
and that's not even counting the 3 other Superman shirts I own.
You can love something that was the cornerstone and genesis of an entire freaking GENRE was built upon, you can wear that pride and love for that thing greatly... without thinking that the modern things somehow need to copy that thing.
Ending the metaphor thing.
I did once try getting into D&D because of it's history and legacy, it was around 3 or 3.5 edition.
I read the rulebook, it sparked no joy, some of the rules things ticked me off (yes some of the unfortunate implications with "races" and negative ability scores and such) and I dropped it almost as quickly as I'd picked it up.
I got into 5e not because of it's legacy or history, but because I saw a youtube gaming channel doing their D&D playing looking fun. And their having a half-orc Bard which meant that maybe that whole negative ability score nonsense was gone.
The "legacy" of D&D didn't draw me to D&D, at least not in a way I stuck around.
What made me stick around was it evolving and dropping some of that legacy.
As to listening to older fans, I think that is hit and miss too.
Look, I always LOVED the struggle of superheroes to have to deal with their normal human identity and their superhero identity. It's a struggle that is damn near entirely missing in the current era of Superhero stuff, not just movies.
But ya know what, holding onto that would be a bad move, in the day of everyone having a camera in their pocket and social media pages, it's a LOT harder to believe no one notices how similar Clark and Superman look.
Hell, over in the land of Sci-Fi fandoms, there's a TON of people who claim to be old-school Star Trek fans, who complain about the modern Star Trek being too damn socially concious.
Which, I, as an old school Star Trek fan, find, well, fascinating. Considering I'd argue the current shows are WAY less in your face with their politics than TOS, TNG or DS9 were.
Sometimes, what the old fans think is true of the old thing isn't.
Sometimes what the old fans see as flaws in the new thing are strengths.
Sometimes old fans just want to be fed more of the old thing, even as the world has moved past that.
Listening to old fans is, on the whole, no better an idea that listening to anybody else. In fact, many times, it is probably a worse idea, because we all inherently fear things we love changing at all.
Eh, I'm longwinded so I'll try to stop here, but the truth of the matter is the history and legacy? Yeah, it exists, and folks can research it, and hopefully they'll find new stuff they love.
But I think all fans should keep in mind sometimes the stuff you loved is, well, brightly colored underwear on the outside.
It may have drawn your eye, but it probably ain't what's making new folks pick it up now.
Worth noting: it's actually extremely difficult to research "the legacy and history of D&D". Any of the usual Wikia websites for it are nothing but infinite pits of other people's shitty, thoroughly unofficial homebrew, there's no good and reliable source for any real information about the history of the lore. And the history of the game's publication and business track record isn't really something anybody covers. If you didn't live through it and aren't spoon-fed it by an older player trying to inculcate you in 'Proper D&D', it's the next best thing to impossible to get a proper grip on The Lore And History of D&D without actual, trained research chops.
Which, needless to say...nobody has.
Please do not contact or message me.
You're forgetting a little thing called "Critical Role", which has brought millions of new players to the game and is one of the main reasons why D&D 5e is so successful. Yes, 5e started out being successful because it did its best to appease to the older fans of the game that were turned off by D&D 4e, but Critical Role quickly put D&D 5e into the mainstream and is one of the major reasons why D&D 5e is so popular and profitable.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Might I recommend the works of Shannon Appelcline? I found their Dungeons & Designers book series to be very informative and they also do many of the write-ups for historical products you see on DMs Guild.
Game Wizards is also an upcoming book about the history of early D&D by Jon Peterson.
I see. I will keep that in mind.
Sorry if my guess is off. I think most active forum members here are older than me (at least in the forum's general section), and you seem more experienced with D&D than I am and have a stronger attachment to what constitutes D&D's identity.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I precede millenials by almost a decade. D&D's identity isn't wrapped up in the common practices of the early editions though, not for me at any rate. If it's class-based, fantasy and has dwarves, halflings and elves as well as humans that covers most of my requirements. The rest of what I identify D&D with is the experiences, the jokes, the emotions and the camaraderie, not anything to do with mechanics, design or systems.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Do we know how much of the player base joined because of Critical Role? People make it seem like a big deal, which I guess it is, but did they really bring that many people into D&D?
I figure if you are not into D&D, you might not know what Critical Role is, because I have never heard or seen anything about Critical Role until after I got into the hobby. Internet ads did not show me stuff about D&D, Beyond, Miniature Market, etc. until well after I got into the hobby. Even after I got into the hobby to this day, YouTube still have not recommended any Critical Role videos for me to watch, although they have recommended Taking20, Dungeon Craft, Matt Colville, Nerdarchy, and so on. Since D&D and TTRPGs in general are so niche, I am just a little skeptical and curious on how Critical Role can reach people who are not into the hobby.
I got into D&D sort of by word of mouth, as I overheard a former coworker mentioned that she plays D&D, but she is from the LGBT community and she does not look like the type of person who plays D&D, so that kind of surprised me and I got curious. I read a little bit about D&D and bought the Starter Set to see what is so special about it.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
My entire gaming group started playing because of Critical Role. Our original DM found it, was enchanted by it, and pulled together the foundations of what would become our table. One of the players we introduced to the game went on to start a D&D Discord with close to two hundred members...then had a falling out and started another D&D Discord that also grew to roughly two hundred members.
It's a big deal, yeah.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm not certain if there is a study on how popular D&D 5e was before and after Critical Role gained popularity, but it's widely accepted that their influence is one of the major reasons why D&D 5e is as successful as it is. (Just look up how quickly their kickstarters have reached $1,000,000, how many viewers they have, and how successful their books, official or not, have been. Episode 1 of their Second Season has over 13 million views. I know that "views" and "people brought into D&D by them" are not necessarily the same thing, but there are a ton of people who have been introduced into the hobby by CR, which their numbers show.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
While I didn't start because of Critical Role directly, I am willing to bet it's popularity is what lead to the youtube D&D playing series I mentioned that got me into it. (Critical Role started in 2015 given my googling, OXventure which pulled me in, started in 2017)
So it's at least at the point "The people it inspired to get into D&D has inspired others to get into D&D." pop culture levels.
I honestly don't watch it, but even before I got into D&D I had heard of it.
I really should give one of the more recent shows a try, I was hesitant in the past because it had so many back-episodes it seemed a massive commitment to catch up.
CR's starting their next brand new campaign on October 21st. They're gonna put out a lore/history catch-up video before then, but even without that there's no more perfect a time to get in. Watch the new one, see if it vibes with you. If it does? You can watch the older stuff when you're able.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd also recommend cherry-picking older episodes. For the first campaign, I went through and listened to the episodes with epic combats (dragons, liches).
For Campaign 2, I started with the beginning but frankly got bored. I jumped back in to listen when a certain character died, then noped out again after a bit...and did this a couple more times. I listened to the final arc all the way through.
I strongly preferred Campaign 1 to 2. Mercer's an amazing DM, no qualification. I get frustrated with the players because they still don't seem to grasp how their characters work too often, even after hundreds of hours of game time. And the show, IMNSHO, too often takes a pseudo-therapeutic approach to role-playing which I find very eyeroll worthy. I get it: they're actors, and for them the real fun is...well, acting. And up to a point, I love the role-playing....until it gets into super touchy feely territory and then it just feels like actor **** to me.
And - again with the caveat that these are professional actors and adults doing what they want - I find the role-playing of romance between characters whose players who are involved with OTHER players to be pretty weird.
Hello XXXGammaRay,
Hasbro attributes D&D's last five years of success (as of 2019) to the launch of 5e, with its much more new-player friendly system, along with Critical Role. I myself gave D&D a shot again after a college friend encouraged me to give the show a try. I fell in love twice; first with the show and then with the game while huddled around a tiny kitchen island with some friends and some beers (we have a proper table now).
Source.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
The term probably has a negative connotation for many of us, but we are living in the influencer era. That's not just CR for D&D (though they're undoubtedly the most visible), there are lots of celebrity D&D players who just don't always put D&D in the picture the way streamers do but don't make a secret of this hobby either. That said, the CritRole crew was playing Pathfinder until Felicia Day convinced them it would be a good idea to stream their games via Geek & Sundry - Matt decided to switch to D&D because he thought (probably rightfully so) that 5E would be easier to follow for people without prior knowledge of TTRPGs other what they might have caught through pop culture (brand recognition might have played a very small part too: "what's this Pathfinder thing?" - "you know, it's Dungeons & Dragons" conversations get old fast). That's because of 5E's design principles, so WotC can take some credit for that at least even if "let's make it more appealing to influencers" more than likely wasn't the reason for those principles. That aside it's hard to tell who came to D&D because of CritRole, who came to CritRole because of D&D, and who came across either through some other introduction: the Community AD&D episode for instance might have portrayed D&D as overly nerdy for comedic effect but it was seen by a whole lot of people, and Stranger Things certainly gave a massive audience a glimpse of a game they might have wanted to google just to see what it was about. Playing to geek audiences is also nothing new for WotC, their Penny Arcade collaboration started maybe ten years ago, certainly close to that, certainly before 5E was even in playtest.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mean thats why they started with pathfinder, mercer knew how bad 4th ed was.
I find it amusing that a small number of people sit and say 5th ed is rubbish and needs a complete rewrite, and i mean you look at this thread and find only a few profiles say that. Personally I think a refresh of the PHB on the back of years of play testing is about right. Large scale root and branch re development is not needed, the game works, yes there are small niggles that some have but you can resolve them easily with a few homebrew rules and people seem to forget the rules are here as a guide, you can choose to ignore as many or as few as you want. I know one table who don't roll for initiative they just go in seating order round the table. As with all these things a vocal small minority thinks they speak for a community that has grown massive. In some ways far too big, there are other roleplay systems out there, many of them better then DnD go and try them if you don't like DnD.
Personally DnD is not my first go to system in terms of favorite mechanically, personally I think the D20 system is the most flawed of all TTRPG mechanically, I much prefer the roll and keep system of games like 7th sea, or the D10 system of White Wolf systems. But as a fantasy game with magic and rogues and all the typical architypes it works for me as a storytelling system so I put up with mechanics I don't like, tweak some of them, in terms of class and subclass alot of the options suggested to "fix" a problem that really isn't there would make DnD similar to other systems. The main issue as stated really only impacts min maxers and powergamers, players who want to get every last % out of every dice roll or look at DnD as a game to be won somehow. As they stand there are some irritations about some of the classes, but as a DM there is yet to be a subclass appear i can't provide challenging situations to in the game, I am able to make players get tense and concerned and feel a sense of achievement if they make it through and I can make every player feel they are contributing to the game and not feel left out.
Now back to the post I hope the settings books being released cover more of the planes (elemental, astral etc) or actually cover the feywild as a setting vs just a campaign set there. I hope that the focus is on background and setting as opposed to additional rules, DnD has been very good so far at not bloating the rules, especially compared to other systems. I am intrigued as to how they will tweak the rules, the idea of simpler rules for monsters I hope doesn't make them more homogenous and remove the feel of different types of creatures. I have played systems where the monster rules effectively simply skin an image to identical stat blocks and rules. I hope they keep the current class system, it works, it allows flexibility and it allows players to take on differing roles in the party. If you make the rules to flexible then generally you are more and more likely to find multiple players taking the same build because it is the optimum.