So I figured, hey.  Since we have a deeply biased worrymongering poll aimed at people who hate change and hate One, why not have a deeply biased hypemongering poll aimed at people who're still excited about the whole idea?  I can't be the only person on the forum waiting for the One playtest cycle to get back on course.

Personally, my favorite points from the new system so far are the improved Origin rules and the promise of expanded digital toolsets and support.  I don't get to play "in person" D&D, ever; remote-play D&D is the only D&D I get.  I know lots of folk like to scoff at virtual players, tell us we aren't real D&D fans, but I legitimately think the virtual sphere is super important.  That's where the Increased Monetization Wizbro wants will come from - not nickel-and-diming us with crappy gacha MTX junk, but in expanding the game out of greybeards' basements and into the homes of entirely new people who never suspected they could play D&D too.  Everybody deserves a seat at the table, even if it's a virtual seat at a virtual table.

Also I just really enjoy writing up backgrounds under the new Origin rules.  I already redid four of my (then) active characters using the new rules and had a ton of fun doing it.  Even without the One books, I've been using the same chargen rules for any prospective new characters I make.  The new system is kinna everything my table wanted to do with chargen in the first place, it's like Wizards lifted their new rules straight from our games.  If you haven't experimented with doing characters in the new Origin system, give it a shot.  You'd be surprised how much time you can while away getting your start just right.

What about you guys?  What'd I forget to add?  Let's try and have fun on the forum again with some chatter about the cool new thing coming up, ne?

EDIT: Durned editor cut off one of the voting questions without telling me.  Bleh.  It's supposed to be "Better lore distribution - no more "default" worlds, rules books packed with useful tools while leaving the fluff to setting books".  Typical, shoulda known better.  Ah well.

That it also achieves some of the seeming strengths of Pathfinder 2e.  That's my rudimentary understanding looking at the two contents.

As is all too typical of you Yurei, you cast "none" as "I hate change, I hate One, and I'm gonna make it everybody else's problem" not that I'm simply not "jazzed".  As usual, you go for the personal attack".

I am super hopeful that they move away from the "Adventuring Day" balance they currently use and with a lot of things moving to LR recovery, that seems to be the case. 

I'm excited for a number of things about 1DD. Here Are the Things I'm Looking Forward to:

• I'm excited to see what cool new options and rules the devs will be able to design for the new edition. Admittedly, some things won't be perfect, but D&D has evolved and gotten better over the years and I'm excited to see what 1DD will add to the game that will stay a part of D&D for many years to come.
• I am looking forward to seeing poorly written or weak rules get updated. For instance, chases in 5e are terribly designed and need to really be expanded on and changed.
• Weak classes, or classes that don't do what they're designed to do, should be modified and improved. I'm looking forward to seeing classes like Monk and Ranger be a lot awesomer (is that a word?) in 1DD.
• The Build-Your-Own-Background System is great and allows for lots more customization and versatility for your characters. I am happy to see it in the core rules as an option that everyone can take.
• There have been a lot of discussions about complexity VS. simplicity in 1DD, and I hope that the new ruleset is able to provide options for players who enjoy both of those things, without taking away any preexisting simple or complex classes, backgrounds, etc. So far, 1DD is doing a good job at giving all types of players options they can enjoy, by using optional complexity and simplicity. This allows for the game to be more accessible and enjoyable for everyone.
• The fact that we the fans get to provide feedback in the form of playtest surveys is awesome, because it allows us to influence how the game will work in future.

Though I do like a lot of what 1DD is doing, I would also like to see more classes and species in the next iteration of the game. If you don't like a class or species, you don't have to play with it in your game. But people who enjoy that class or species can, and it will be more fun for them, and it won't hurt you. So that's why I think there should be more classes and other cool options in the next edition of the game.

As a side note, the lack of a set of "default worlds" isn't a positive change for me. If I want play in the Forgotten Realms or Exandria, it would really be neat if the core rules supported those settings, so I don't have to buy other products and wait several years for more information on how that stuff works in 1DD. Having more lore available is awesome, because having a standard that I can modify or change of how something might work in a given setting is better than having to create something new every time I homebrew a world.

There. Now have I bored you to death with my droning and poorly punctuated commentary?

Quote from Golaryn >>

I am super hopeful that they move away from the "Adventuring Day" balance they currently use and with a lot of things moving to LR recovery, that seems to be the case. 

 Yes, please. 
I think they may be heading toward realizing people don’t come anywhere near 6-8 encounters/LR. So it’s going to feel like a big power nerf, when it’s more just adjusting to the 1-3 encounters that people actually use. 

I like a lot of the things on the poll, but mostly I’m just excited for a new edition. I’m pretty much always excited for a new edition, I have been every time. There’s just something special about reading the PHB for the first time, and I only get to do that once in 7-10 years when a new edition comes around. That first time reading the new descriptions and seeing the new art, and having half a dozen character ideas pop into my head. It’s just magic. 

I'm mostly hopeful for fixes in glaring problems and buffs to underperforming classes. Origins look very cool indeed though I am sad to see the background features go (they almost never get used, but they're cool in principle). But basically it comes down to "The idea of doubling down on what makes 5e good while abandoning what makes 5e suck". And I think they are on a very good path so far. I just really hope they don't ditch the whole thing as some are worried they will do.

Frankly been disappointed with the presentation of One D&D so far.  What could have been more readily a popularly a "consolidated" edition has apparently lost out to a superficial refresh.  Drop in some well known house rules as proposed RAW, shift the class level banners a little bit to make backwards compatibility just wee annoying enough that some folks will just buy into the new edition to avoid tedium moments, telegraphing that final product, at least in print form will likely come in a PHB, DMG, MM, with "meatier" XGtE and Tasha's and Van Richten's etc. in some brand cycle "coming soon" stage.  Think this was a blown opportunity, and with the most recent loss of WotC's community capital, I don't have my hopes up.  Which is fine in my world, because I very much like my 5e game and at this time I don't see much reason to buy a new set of core rules.

I do like the stronger distinction between search and study, that was cool to have that laid out, I don't think it acknowledges some wobbliness in domains of knowledge but it's a marked improvement for folks who wanted less ambiguity in skills.  So with that I checked the first box. 

5e relies too heavily on DM fiat. I'm most looking forward to there being improved clarity or at least guidance for mechanics that don't even get covered in the current PHB or DMG. Prior to the playtest material, I was really looking forward to them fixing underperforming classes. What they released left me rather disappointed, so I'm not holding my breath.

There are things in the playtest that I absolutely love, but there are also things I absolutely hate. I'm going to reserve judgment until I see the finished product. 

Two weapon fighting getting a buff and a monk revision are the two things I'm most excited about!

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Frankly been disappointed with the presentation of One D&D so far.  What could have been more readily a popularly a "consolidated" edition has apparently lost out to a superficial refresh.  Drop in some well known house rules as proposed RAW, shift the class level banners a little bit to make backwards compatibility just wee annoying enough that some folks will just buy into the new edition to avoid tedium moments, telegraphing that final product, at least in print form will likely come in a PHB, DMG, MM, with "meatier" XGtE and Tasha's and Van Richten's etc. in some brand cycle "coming soon" stage.  Think this was a blown opportunity, and with the most recent loss of WotC's community capital, I don't have my hopes up.  Which is fine in my world, because I very much like my 5e game and at this time I don't see much reason to buy a new set of core rules.

  The new rules feel boring. The removal of species-specific traits is one that I disagree with pretty heavily. I like making a decision and sticking with it, despite either positive or negative outcomes. Because without the potential for a negative outcome, the positive outcomes are less enthralling and more expected. A reduction in choice makes for a more pleasurable experience, hence the Paradox of Choice.

I voted none or no because I am inherently chaotic evil and hate everyone or anything good. Or so the poll assumes. 

In reality, all possible/suggested changes listed within poll can be done by players. This is the whole reason I like d&d in general. I dont need the next edition to change the game. 

I am still open to trying new renditions, however. Im looking for better modules & stories really. 

I will play!

adaptation is the key aspect of long term survival in any iterative change system, and I have learned to be rather flexible. It was D&D that led to me spending way too much time in college, so I am always excited to see new things. What doesn’t get me is more stuff in a very limited fashion.

although polls here often indicate about a third of players use FR, as a large scale issue that is a deceptive basis as the far more common habitus is for home brews based on some beloved fictional work. So I do like the setting neutral basis a lot. I do think they need to already be preparing to support it by having effective setting Lore Books ready out the gate for the default settings — aside from the need to make money, it is obvious to me that what people other than myself very much want is a kind of reboot to several current and former settings.

I have been playtesting everything as it comes out. Even canceled an ongoing session to readjust so we could have a monthly among my player groups. Player driven, but I am just as excited. And then, because the setting I am developing has to be able to work both with the custom rules set up and at least be usable under the published rules, it gives me awareness of what is coming and has even caused me to completely re-jigger at least two major systems so that they are more in line.

Recent drama has enabled me to do add more c/p to the rule set stuff (and that, in turn, shortens my development period) and so the whole thing gave me another year of time to work on my setting, which means it should be pretty close to 6e or One or whatever we are calling it ready from the start.

I have already noticed a bit more crunch being added in — just not the kind that means meticulous paperwork or extra die rolls, and really builds on the base in much the same way that 1, 2, and 3 did. That is, the right kind of crunchy.

I am also hoping they embrace some of the optional rules more wholly, and that they unite many of the different bits and pieces from some settings to give home brewers more effective access to often cool ideas.

I and my players do have a major issue with one change, because it slaps us across the face, but we already have a solve for it we use.

lastly, I am excited because it means I have firm deadlines now, and have to fix my supporting website from the earliest effort. 

They should remove more rules so that the players and DM can improvise more without resorting to wargame-style arguments over the wording of rules.

I really liked what I saw with the Cleric and the expansion of options within the base class, and I hope that's applied to all other classes in future UA's.

Quote from theologyofbagels >>

5e relies too heavily on DM fiat. I'm most looking forward to there being improved clarity or at least guidance for mechanics that don't even get covered in the current PHB or DMG.

 I have to disagree here. In 3e they tried to make a rule for everything and cover every edge case, and it didn’t really make it more fun. That was a design philosophy based on the idea that bad DMs were making the game bad and causing people to leave. Instead it led to lots of rules-lawyering that bogged everything down. I prefer the current version, which really gets back to the roots of the game. Trust your DMs to make good choices and get out of the way. 

Quote from Farling >>

They should remove more rules so that the players and DM can improvise more without resorting to wargame-style arguments over the wording of rules.

I prefer the approach that they provide a set of guidelines for the DM to run a particular mechanic... the "Influence Action" is an example of that. I like the way they presented that, but I'll be using my own DCs and modifiers when running it. I think most rules in general should be presented with a "Here's our RAW take on this mechanic" and then a "Here's some optional variants or ideas for how to adapt the rules" . They did some of that in the DMG, and I think it's great, so people can use the rules style that makes them happier.

Some people hate this kind of "DM Fiat" -  "Well AKT-U-ALLY... the RULEZ SAYS..."   and those people are welcome to go back to 3.5e or 4e or pathfinder. I've always been more a Rules as Intended DM and I adapt the rules as necessary to make the game ... SURPRISE ... more fun for my players.

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from theologyofbagels >>

5e relies too heavily on DM fiat. I'm most looking forward to there being improved clarity or at least guidance for mechanics that don't even get covered in the current PHB or DMG.

 I have to disagree here. In 3e they tried to make a rule for everything and cover every edge case, and it didn’t really make it more fun. That was a design philosophy based on the idea that bad DMs were making the game bad and causing people to leave. Instead it led to lots of rules-lawyering that bogged everything down. I prefer the current version, which really gets back to the roots of the game. Trust your DMs to make good choices and get out of the way. 

I'm not looking for crunch, I'm looking for clarity. There are so many things (namely spells, but also some mechanics) that are vague or glossed over and don't need to be. When you're a new DM and you have to figure out how downtime activities work, what to price magic items and when one might start distributing them (even though 5e isn't balanced at all around magic items despite being loaded with them), etc., the PHB and DMG are underwhelming at best. Xanathar's rounded some things out, but it still left some annoying ambiguity. Again, I don't want more rules, I just want a better description of the extant suggestions. 

Did they set a hard limit to counter spelling?  I figure the reaction action economy should lead a reasonable person to see its limitations, but I've seen that infinite argument.

Quote from theologyofbagels >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from theologyofbagels >>

5e relies too heavily on DM fiat. I'm most looking forward to there being improved clarity or at least guidance for mechanics that don't even get covered in the current PHB or DMG.

 I have to disagree here. In 3e they tried to make a rule for everything and cover every edge case, and it didn’t really make it more fun. That was a design philosophy based on the idea that bad DMs were making the game bad and causing people to leave. Instead it led to lots of rules-lawyering that bogged everything down. I prefer the current version, which really gets back to the roots of the game. Trust your DMs to make good choices and get out of the way. 

I'm not looking for crunch, I'm looking for clarity. There are so many things (namely spells, but also some mechanics) that are vague or glossed over and don't need to be. When you're a new DM and you have to figure out how downtime activities work, what to price magic items and when one might start distributing them (even though 5e isn't balanced at all around magic items despite being loaded with them), etc., the PHB and DMG are underwhelming at best. Xanathar's rounded some things out, but it still left some annoying ambiguity. Again, I don't want more rules, I just want a better description of the extant suggestions. 

 Oh, I misunderstood. 
Yeah, there’s absolutely some things that need clarity. To your list, I’d add clearing up the deal with glass giving total cover and still seeing a target, there should not be a difference between a melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon. And spell components and focuses and free hands how sometimes you can cast vsm, but not vm. That just needs some cleaning up.