Fifth edition is damn near perfect for most players. It's uncomplicated, it's easy to jump into, and you can do almost anything.
Do you want a stricter ruleset? Well, they developed the fudge out of 3.5 so you can just go play that.
Are there too many flaws in 3.5 for you? Then go play pathfinder.
If they try to make a new edition that's more complex it will be less popular, if they try to make it less complex it will be too boring.
Just keep developing 5e until it stops being profitable.
I disagree. Your argument is basically if you don't like 3.5, go play some other game. I could imagine 6E clarifying some things, redoing some of the books (I am a fantastic reader and I have to say the organization of some of the sourcebooks could be better). I think the flaw in your argument is that 6E has to be more complex. What if 6E maintained the current simplicity?
I don't know what I'm being dismissive of so I don't understand what you're contending. There seems to be some counterfactual work claiming there was no influence of MMOs into 4e and it clear it was (WotC looked a lot of high engagement games, including Cataan). Acknowledging MMO lessons learned was is not a dismissal of 4e. I am aware of some of the innovations 4e attempted to employ for the edition to flourish, and I probably use a few of them myself picked up from Colville video or wherever. So I'm just going to take your dismissal as some sort of posture in the sadly antagonistic polarization this discussion seems to always take.
4e being _meant_ to be played online is probably part of the problem. The beauty of TTRPG in general is that they can be played without technological infrastructure. There are many community centers and after school programs that are on the disadvantaged side of the technological divide we don't like to talk about in the U.S., making online or computer based play integral to D&D I feel is a step in the wrong direction. Online play, as everyone who's migrated knows suffers on the interpersonal level. I think WotC is more aware of that in its efforts to make 5e a more accessible ruleset.
I don't think there are claims 4E wasn't influenced by MMOs. I do think claims that 4E was designed to be more like an MMO are overstating things, particularly in a technical sense. 4E isn't exactly Settlers-like either, after all. MMOs were based on D&D in the first place; 4E designers looked at what MMO designers had done with those TTRPG concepts to see how that might translate back, but that doesn't really make it MMO-like in my book.
As for being meant to be played online, that too seems like it should be taken with a grain of salt. Supported by digital tools, yes, absolutely - that'd have opened an extra revenue stream for Wizards, maybe-not-so-incidentally - but online is rather more than that. The D&D miniatures game carried on until the end of 2010, after all, and WotC sold physical products for 4E beyond minis and books, like power cards and dungeon tiles.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm confused. What do 4e and MMO's have to do with there being (or not) a sixth edition? I feel like I've missed something in the conversion somewhere along the way.
The links are the questions of what direction would justify a 6e while avoiding a repeat of the nigh complete rejection that came with 4e.
I mean, about 50 books were released and sold for 4E. In total quantity 5E easily outsold 4E, I presume, but Wizards didn't develop and sell 50 books for a "nigh complete rejection". There were lots of people on the 4E side in the 3rd vs 4th edition war too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm confused. What do 4e and MMO's have to do with there being (or not) a sixth edition? I feel like I've missed something in the conversion somewhere along the way.
The links are the questions of what direction would justify a 6e while avoiding a repeat of the nigh complete rejection that came with 4e.
I mean, about 50 books were released and sold for 4E. In total quantity 5E easily outsold 4E, I presume, but Wizards didn't develop and sell 50 books for a "nigh complete rejection". There were lots of people on the 4E side in the 3rd vs 4th edition war too.
The alternative would have been to either admit they were wrong and just re-release 3.5e (unlikely to happen) or to abandon the franchise entirely (also unlikely to happen).
And Pathfinder, which still is being published, is 3.5e based rather than 4e based. Why, if 4e was so much better a product? If not for 4e, Pathfinder likely would not even exist.
I didn't say 4E was a resounding success, but a nigh complete rejection would have meant most of those 50 books not selling at all. That seems unlikely. Also, Pathfinder is in its 2nd edition now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ultimately, there will be a 6E, it is just a matter of time. But I don't think that time is within the next few years. D&D is the most popular that it has ever been and that is in thanks to a lot of different factors, it is more accessible now, social media is a thing, live play podcast and YouTube videos. Right now, Hasbro is riding this wave and making a ton of money off of it. When that wave starts to die down, then they will begin the planning stages on 6E. Now, they have so many other products that they can put out.
I have played since 2E and have seen many edition changes and I think 5E will have the longest life of any edition. I can see a 20 year life on it.
- Likely going to be much closer to 5e than any other version.
- Will likely swap out the action, reaction, and bonus action system for something else. Maybe a 3 action system like pathfinder.
- Races change much less about the game as a whole. No stat changes from races. They will be pushed back to a more cosmetic status as they have less impact on mechanics.
- Likely will have an even bigger focus on the players standpoint rather than a DM. (Slightly a worry if they under preform on a DM's part)
- DM's guide might be slightly more polished up though.
- Will maintain 5e's simplicity
What I want:
- Some better DM guidelines
- A system more focused on feats. The class can function like the bones while the feats the rest of a character. Feats can maybe replace subclasses? For example, you could be a sorcerer, but you take a feat focused on draconic magic making you a draconic sorcerer. Take some lightning themed feats with it which gives lightning themed perks or buffs lightning spells and you become a blue dragon sorcerer. This adds some neat customization.
- A system very easy to homebrew (5e does this VERY well)
- I think official Psionics would be cool that's not just reflavored spells. I would like a psionic system to be simplistic however. I'd be fine with reflavored spells but it would be a bit disappointing.
-Please no spells where you can conjure up a ton of creatures (examples would be conjure animals summoning 8 creatures). If this stuff is added, then it shouldn't slow down the game or destroy action economy.
- I want the barebones rules to be simplistic but all manners of characters can get the complexity that players who are familiar with rules want. For example, you could have the simplistic martial stuff, but make it easy to add some versatility to without locking that stuff behind subclasses. I have a player who loves things very simple and would play something like a barbarian or a champion fighter and wants things simple. Although I'm more attracted to the complex stuff like casters and battle masters. I think all flavors of characters can be able to be played in an easy manner or in a complex manner.
I'm confused. What do 4e and MMO's have to do with there being (or not) a sixth edition? I feel like I've missed something in the conversion somewhere along the way.
The links are the questions of what direction would justify a 6e while avoiding a repeat of the nigh complete rejection that came with 4e.
I mean, about 50 books were released and sold for 4E. In total quantity 5E easily outsold 4E, I presume, but Wizards didn't develop and sell 50 books for a "nigh complete rejection". There were lots of people on the 4E side in the 3rd vs 4th edition war too.
The alternative would have been to either admit they were wrong and just re-release 3.5e (unlikely to happen) or to abandon the franchise entirely (also unlikely to happen).
And Pathfinder, which still is being published, is 3.5e based rather than 4e based. Why, if 4e was so much better a product? If not for 4e, Pathfinder likely would not even exist.
I didn't say 4E was a resounding success, but a nigh complete rejection would have meant most of those 50 books not selling at all. That seems unlikely. Also, Pathfinder is in its 2nd edition now.
Pang, I think you're quibbling pedantically. 50 books put out over four(?) years was old style D&D market dominance efforts, and it was a quantitative failure in terms of D&D's market share especially in comparison to Pathfinders run with 3.5. D&D never had TTRPG competition like that. Of course they sold some books, but nothing close to prior sales. "Nigh complete rejection" is of course a rhetorical overstatement. Everyone knows people played 4e and some of those folks even enjoyed that (and yes, that is one of those rhetorical ploys that's really not the crux of the argument but is inserted largely for audience amusement). But two years into 4e, comes the announcement that a new editions is coming out. And just sorta doing a look at some old hobby publications at the time, it seems like 4e stuff was being pumped out, but a significant amount of voice was being lent to DnD Next which must have been an ... odd ... time to work in brand communications back then. 50 books pumped out while gamers were being told something new was coming to replace it doesn't put a lot of confidence behind 4e. Pumping content out during one's swan song is actually very ... TSR. My guess is the product line had been robustly developed and since so much was already prepared in a diversity of products, they just kept it going toward the end being almost sort of zombie line. Note 5e takes a much more modest approach to its release schedule, because despite the fact that yes people bought 4e books, they realized it wasn't a sustainable strategy if they wanted to grow their market.
What does 2nd edition Pathfinder have to do with the claim that Pathfinder ran in the tradition of 3.5, and likely flourished because of it in the wake of 4e? Is the difference between Pathfinder 2 and original Pathfinder as distinct as that between 3/3.5 and 4? If not, why are you introducing this other than to establish some sort of alternative universe of facts to Kotath's representation of the general consensus that 4e just did not do as well commercially as any other D&D edition. I really don't see what you're trying to establish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's not entirely accurate. The timeline is as follows:
2008: D&D 4th Edition is released 2009: Pathfinder is released 2010: D&D Essentials for 4th Edition is released for newer players 2001: Pathfinder begin to outsell D&D, knocking it from the top spot it had held since 1974 2012: D&D Next is announced, with signups for early playtests in March of that year 2013: Begining with Season 12 (Against the Cult of Chaos), all new D&D Encounters have conversions for D&D Next
That's not entirely accurate. The timeline is as follows:
2008: D&D 4th Edition is released 2009: Pathfinder is released 2010: D&D Essentials for 4th Edition is released for newer players 2001: Pathfinder begin to outsell D&D, knocking it from the top spot it had held since 1974 2012: D&D Next is announced, with signups for early playtests in March of that year 2013: Begining with Season 12 (Against the Cult of Chaos), all new D&D Encounters have conversions for D&D Next
I assume this is supposed to be 2011 but none the less this is a good timeline!
5e is cool but it’s really dumbed down in comparison to the other editions, I would love some more complexity added like a better system for feats and crafting could be developed some more, maybe not enough for a whole 6e but 5.5e with that redone would be cool.
5e is cool but it’s really dumbed down in comparison to the other editions, I would love some more complexity added like a better system for feats and crafting could be developed some more, maybe not enough for a whole 6e but 5.5e with that redone would be cool.
See, the lack of complexity is one of my favorite things about 5e: since I play with friends, it’s important to me that non-nerds find the game accessible and fun. Optional rules for stuff like spellcrafting could be cool I guess, as long as they don’t feel like something you need to use to get the most out of the game.
5e is cool but it’s really dumbed down in comparison to the other editions, I would love some more complexity added like a better system for feats and crafting could be developed some more, maybe not enough for a whole 6e but 5.5e with that redone would be cool.
See, the lack of complexity is one of my favorite things about 5e: since I play with friends, it’s important to me that non-nerds find the game accessible and fun. Optional rules for stuff like spellcrafting could be cool I guess, as long as they don’t feel like something you need to use to get the most out of the game.
I love the simplistic nature of 5e. It makes it fairly easy to understand (ignoring certain rule blunders like the difference between "an attack with a melee weapon" and "a melee weapon attack". I would love for 6e to continue to be fairly simplistic and not overly complex.
However, there is such a thing as too simple. 5e is treading that line, and has crossed it in a few places (like not wanting to add in monsters/characters with two creature types because some people found it confusing). In my ideal 5.5e/6e, the base game would stay more or less the same in complexity, but there would be just a bit more crunch to make player choices and monsters more inspiring and unique. It's like what Yurei was saying above about Pathfinder 2e's character creation where no level 1 goblin ranger is the same as any other. IMO, the base classes should pretty much all have options like the Warlock does, having their Subclass and a "Pact Boon" feature. Fighting Style for Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins could be expanded to the importance of a Warlock's Pact Boons, granting more effects than just "+2 to one handed weapon damage/ranged weapon attacks/reduce damage from an attack as a reaction by 1d10+PB). Fighting Styles are cool and help make individual fighters/paladins/rangers slightly different, but they could be better and expanded to be more important. They could attach some sort of Superiority Die and Martial Maneuvers mechanics to each different fighting style, like a Disarming feature for Ranged Fighting, Sweeping Attack for Two-Handed Weapon Fighting, and a Charge feature for a Sword-and-Board Fighting Style.
It would only add slightly more complexity to individual characters while the benefit would be having each character be unique, even if you choose the same race and same class at level 1 (ideally, the different fighting styles would have options for maneuvers, too, like Archery having an option to disarm, an option to shoot two-arrows at once, and an option to use Precision Attack, or something like that).
That's what we're talking about when we say "add a bit more complexity to the game". We're not talking about adding a ton of modifier bloat like 3.5e or Pathfinder (either edition), but adding more rewarding choices to diversify characters.
5e is cool but it’s really dumbed down in comparison to the other editions, I would love some more complexity added like a better system for feats and crafting could be developed some more, maybe not enough for a whole 6e but 5.5e with that redone would be cool.
It's the easiest of the editions made by Wizards of the Coast to just pick up and play, sure. It does away with all the minute bonuses from 3.X, and it's not as tactical as 4E (playing on a grid is even an optional rule).
But it's not like AD&D 2nd edition was hard to learn. It was just annoying to deal with THAC0; counting down instead of up.
My opinions on wanting a more complex, more challenging game, are well-documented. But that is not the way to reach a larger customer base.
The players that want a complex game of D&D will remain, until some game called "D&D Heavy" shows up and reaches a critical mass. That is very unlikely to happen. And the people that want a simple game, the casual players that showed up thanks to Critical Role and Stranger Things, well, they go bye bye if the game reverts back to something more complex.
I am sure the usual suspects will be offended by this, but the fact remains that a large segment of the population of the planet are neither emotionally nor mentally equipped to play a game anymore complex than the current D&D. I am pretty sure if anything, 6e will be simpler, not more complex.
Complex and challenging don't have to go hand in hand, and wanting a roleplaying game's system to be challenging apparently just for the sake of being challenging seems silly. There's plenty of room for challenge in D&D regardless of rules or mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Complex and challenging don't have to go hand in hand, and wanting a roleplaying game's system to be challenging apparently just for the sake of being challenging seems silly. There's plenty of room for challenge in D&D regardless of rules or mechanics.
When more features and game mechanics are added to a game, it becomes more complex. More complex = less people who want to play it.
The word "challenging" can be used in 2 contexts:
1. What happens in a game is hard. You can the simplest game mechanics in the world, and if a group of low level chars encounter a Dragon, it is going to more than "challenging" for the chars.
2. The game mechanics are challenging, and mastering those mechanics in and of itself gives gratification. That appeals to a small group, which clearly has the subset of "powergamers" within it. The casual player definitely is not in this group that enjoys the challenge of mastering a complex game.
Hasbro recognizes this fact, and is not going to cater the game to the minority that want a game with more features = more complex. It is one thing to add a ton of new species. It is another to build new game mechanics. Plus, how much of the stuff in the abomination that shall not be named make the game "harder", and how many make the game "easier"?
I can't wait for 6e. There's a lot I like about 5e and I'm comfortable in saying that it's my favourite edition, by a long shot, but it still suffers from a lot of legacy issues that somehow continually infect every iteration. I'm not talking so much about sacred cows—although there are definitely issues there as well—but rather various attitudes that have become systemically entrenched toward design and which were, unfortunately, reinforced during 4e's tenure. 4e was groundbreaking in so many ways and without it, 5e wouldn't have half its mechanics despite what people seem to believe about either edition. It broke moulds and ways of thinking that were endemic to the hobby and had been creating a very staid and, quite frankly, toxic creative environment. 5e was a whiplash reaction to the reaction to 4e but without 4e, 5e wouldn't have been even half as good as it is. And in some ways, I think, it went a little too far in the rebound, recreating some of the very structures that 4e challenged.
It's hard to pin down exactly what I mean by all this because I'm talking about something that is, essentially, nebulous. It's like arguing about the differences between CISC & RISC. There are concrete differences but those differences are a result of the philosophy behind each architecture, not necessarily the end results of how those architectures are designed. And when you get into the realm of philosophical dialectics, arguing points of difference becomes the goal, not the means. But there was something lost in the reaction to 4e that is reflected in 5e's design, and I think that, fundamentally, 6e will be yet another turning point and a reflection of the more relaxed creative environment that is no longer as toxic as it was when 5e was being designed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
Complex and challenging don't have to go hand in hand, and wanting a roleplaying game's system to be challenging apparently just for the sake of being challenging seems silly. There's plenty of room for challenge in D&D regardless of rules or mechanics.
1) When more features and game mechanics are added to a game, it becomes more complex. More complex = less people who want to play it.
2) The word "challenging" can be used in 2 contexts:
1. What happens in a game is hard. You can the simplest game mechanics in the world, and if a group of low level chars encounter a Dragon, it is going to more than "challenging" for the chars.
2. The game mechanics are challenging, and mastering those mechanics in and of itself gives gratification. That appeals to a small group, which clearly has the subset of "powergamers" within it. The casual player definitely is not in this group that enjoys the challenge of mastering a complex game.
3) Hasbro recognizes this fact, and is not going to cater the game to the minority that want a game with more features = more complex. It is one thing to add a ton of new species. It is another to build new game mechanics. Plus, how much of the stuff in the abomination that shall not be named make the game "harder", and how many make the game "easier"?
1) You're confusing complex and complicated. Chess and Go are complex. Neither is complicated.
2) You're also confusing system with gameplay. It's perfectly possible to play complex and/or complicated games with groups of players of varying mastery. In fact, that applies to 90% of my experiences with 3rd edition. Or any edition, really.
3) Adding optional mechanics = more features = more complex (more complicated, but hey). I believe that's your argument from earlier?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The players that want a complex game of D&D will remain, until some game called "D&D Heavy" shows up and reaches a critical mass. That is very unlikely to happen. And the people that want a simple game, the casual players that showed up thanks to Critical Role and Stranger Things, well, they go bye bye if the game reverts back to something more complex.
“Reverts back?” The iconic Red Box D&D was basically a pamphlet: 5e is more, not less, complex than the past. And I love my casual players, because when you come down to it, I love D&D not just for the improv acting and intense combat and fantasy characters, but for my friends, and not all of them are nerds. They’re awesome, and I don’t want to alienate them because they don’t want to put more than a few hours of play a week into a game.
Because in the end, that’s what it is: a game.
(On a related note, please don’t add more complexity to martial classes. “Pick-up-and-play” fighters will always be important for new or laid-back players. Plus, I like them, I like that they’re different, and I’m a “real” nerd.)
I disagree. Your argument is basically if you don't like 3.5, go play some other game. I could imagine 6E clarifying some things, redoing some of the books (I am a fantastic reader and I have to say the organization of some of the sourcebooks could be better). I think the flaw in your argument is that 6E has to be more complex. What if 6E maintained the current simplicity?
I don't think there are claims 4E wasn't influenced by MMOs. I do think claims that 4E was designed to be more like an MMO are overstating things, particularly in a technical sense. 4E isn't exactly Settlers-like either, after all. MMOs were based on D&D in the first place; 4E designers looked at what MMO designers had done with those TTRPG concepts to see how that might translate back, but that doesn't really make it MMO-like in my book.
As for being meant to be played online, that too seems like it should be taken with a grain of salt. Supported by digital tools, yes, absolutely - that'd have opened an extra revenue stream for Wizards, maybe-not-so-incidentally - but online is rather more than that. The D&D miniatures game carried on until the end of 2010, after all, and WotC sold physical products for 4E beyond minis and books, like power cards and dungeon tiles.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mean, about 50 books were released and sold for 4E. In total quantity 5E easily outsold 4E, I presume, but Wizards didn't develop and sell 50 books for a "nigh complete rejection". There were lots of people on the 4E side in the 3rd vs 4th edition war too.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I didn't say 4E was a resounding success, but a nigh complete rejection would have meant most of those 50 books not selling at all. That seems unlikely. Also, Pathfinder is in its 2nd edition now.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ultimately, there will be a 6E, it is just a matter of time. But I don't think that time is within the next few years. D&D is the most popular that it has ever been and that is in thanks to a lot of different factors, it is more accessible now, social media is a thing, live play podcast and YouTube videos. Right now, Hasbro is riding this wave and making a ton of money off of it. When that wave starts to die down, then they will begin the planning stages on 6E. Now, they have so many other products that they can put out.
I have played since 2E and have seen many edition changes and I think 5E will have the longest life of any edition. I can see a 20 year life on it.
My opinions on what 6e will likely have:
- Likely going to be much closer to 5e than any other version.
- Will likely swap out the action, reaction, and bonus action system for something else. Maybe a 3 action system like pathfinder.
- Races change much less about the game as a whole. No stat changes from races. They will be pushed back to a more cosmetic status as they have less impact on mechanics.
- Likely will have an even bigger focus on the players standpoint rather than a DM. (Slightly a worry if they under preform on a DM's part)
- DM's guide might be slightly more polished up though.
- Will maintain 5e's simplicity
What I want:
- Some better DM guidelines
- A system more focused on feats. The class can function like the bones while the feats the rest of a character. Feats can maybe replace subclasses? For example, you could be a sorcerer, but you take a feat focused on draconic magic making you a draconic sorcerer. Take some lightning themed feats with it which gives lightning themed perks or buffs lightning spells and you become a blue dragon sorcerer. This adds some neat customization.
- A system very easy to homebrew (5e does this VERY well)
- I think official Psionics would be cool that's not just reflavored spells. I would like a psionic system to be simplistic however. I'd be fine with reflavored spells but it would be a bit disappointing.
-Please no spells where you can conjure up a ton of creatures (examples would be conjure animals summoning 8 creatures). If this stuff is added, then it shouldn't slow down the game or destroy action economy.
- I want the barebones rules to be simplistic but all manners of characters can get the complexity that players who are familiar with rules want. For example, you could have the simplistic martial stuff, but make it easy to add some versatility to without locking that stuff behind subclasses. I have a player who loves things very simple and would play something like a barbarian or a champion fighter and wants things simple. Although I'm more attracted to the complex stuff like casters and battle masters. I think all flavors of characters can be able to be played in an easy manner or in a complex manner.
Pang, I think you're quibbling pedantically. 50 books put out over four(?) years was old style D&D market dominance efforts, and it was a quantitative failure in terms of D&D's market share especially in comparison to Pathfinders run with 3.5. D&D never had TTRPG competition like that. Of course they sold some books, but nothing close to prior sales. "Nigh complete rejection" is of course a rhetorical overstatement. Everyone knows people played 4e and some of those folks even enjoyed that (and yes, that is one of those rhetorical ploys that's really not the crux of the argument but is inserted largely for audience amusement). But two years into 4e, comes the announcement that a new editions is coming out. And just sorta doing a look at some old hobby publications at the time, it seems like 4e stuff was being pumped out, but a significant amount of voice was being lent to DnD Next which must have been an ... odd ... time to work in brand communications back then. 50 books pumped out while gamers were being told something new was coming to replace it doesn't put a lot of confidence behind 4e. Pumping content out during one's swan song is actually very ... TSR. My guess is the product line had been robustly developed and since so much was already prepared in a diversity of products, they just kept it going toward the end being almost sort of zombie line. Note 5e takes a much more modest approach to its release schedule, because despite the fact that yes people bought 4e books, they realized it wasn't a sustainable strategy if they wanted to grow their market.
What does 2nd edition Pathfinder have to do with the claim that Pathfinder ran in the tradition of 3.5, and likely flourished because of it in the wake of 4e? Is the difference between Pathfinder 2 and original Pathfinder as distinct as that between 3/3.5 and 4? If not, why are you introducing this other than to establish some sort of alternative universe of facts to Kotath's representation of the general consensus that 4e just did not do as well commercially as any other D&D edition. I really don't see what you're trying to establish.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's not entirely accurate. The timeline is as follows:
2008: D&D 4th Edition is released
2009: Pathfinder is released
2010: D&D Essentials for 4th Edition is released for newer players
2001: Pathfinder begin to outsell D&D, knocking it from the top spot it had held since 1974
2012: D&D Next is announced, with signups for early playtests in March of that year
2013: Begining with Season 12 (Against the Cult of Chaos), all new D&D Encounters have conversions for D&D Next
"Rhetorical overstatement" is something of a euphemism for 'factually incorrect for subjective effect", that's all.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I assume this is supposed to be 2011 but none the less this is a good timeline!
5e is cool but it’s really dumbed down in comparison to the other editions, I would love some more complexity added like a better system for feats and crafting could be developed some more, maybe not enough for a whole 6e but 5.5e with that redone would be cool.
See, the lack of complexity is one of my favorite things about 5e: since I play with friends, it’s important to me that non-nerds find the game accessible and fun. Optional rules for stuff like spellcrafting could be cool I guess, as long as they don’t feel like something you need to use to get the most out of the game.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I love the simplistic nature of 5e. It makes it fairly easy to understand (ignoring certain rule blunders like the difference between "an attack with a melee weapon" and "a melee weapon attack". I would love for 6e to continue to be fairly simplistic and not overly complex.
However, there is such a thing as too simple. 5e is treading that line, and has crossed it in a few places (like not wanting to add in monsters/characters with two creature types because some people found it confusing). In my ideal 5.5e/6e, the base game would stay more or less the same in complexity, but there would be just a bit more crunch to make player choices and monsters more inspiring and unique. It's like what Yurei was saying above about Pathfinder 2e's character creation where no level 1 goblin ranger is the same as any other. IMO, the base classes should pretty much all have options like the Warlock does, having their Subclass and a "Pact Boon" feature. Fighting Style for Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins could be expanded to the importance of a Warlock's Pact Boons, granting more effects than just "+2 to one handed weapon damage/ranged weapon attacks/reduce damage from an attack as a reaction by 1d10+PB). Fighting Styles are cool and help make individual fighters/paladins/rangers slightly different, but they could be better and expanded to be more important. They could attach some sort of Superiority Die and Martial Maneuvers mechanics to each different fighting style, like a Disarming feature for Ranged Fighting, Sweeping Attack for Two-Handed Weapon Fighting, and a Charge feature for a Sword-and-Board Fighting Style.
It would only add slightly more complexity to individual characters while the benefit would be having each character be unique, even if you choose the same race and same class at level 1 (ideally, the different fighting styles would have options for maneuvers, too, like Archery having an option to disarm, an option to shoot two-arrows at once, and an option to use Precision Attack, or something like that).
That's what we're talking about when we say "add a bit more complexity to the game". We're not talking about adding a ton of modifier bloat like 3.5e or Pathfinder (either edition), but adding more rewarding choices to diversify characters.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's the easiest of the editions made by Wizards of the Coast to just pick up and play, sure. It does away with all the minute bonuses from 3.X, and it's not as tactical as 4E (playing on a grid is even an optional rule).
But it's not like AD&D 2nd edition was hard to learn. It was just annoying to deal with THAC0; counting down instead of up.
My opinions on wanting a more complex, more challenging game, are well-documented. But that is not the way to reach a larger customer base.
The players that want a complex game of D&D will remain, until some game called "D&D Heavy" shows up and reaches a critical mass. That is very unlikely to happen. And the people that want a simple game, the casual players that showed up thanks to Critical Role and Stranger Things, well, they go bye bye if the game reverts back to something more complex.
I am sure the usual suspects will be offended by this, but the fact remains that a large segment of the population of the planet are neither emotionally nor mentally equipped to play a game anymore complex than the current D&D. I am pretty sure if anything, 6e will be simpler, not more complex.
Complex and challenging don't have to go hand in hand, and wanting a roleplaying game's system to be challenging apparently just for the sake of being challenging seems silly. There's plenty of room for challenge in D&D regardless of rules or mechanics.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
When more features and game mechanics are added to a game, it becomes more complex. More complex = less people who want to play it.
The word "challenging" can be used in 2 contexts:
1. What happens in a game is hard. You can the simplest game mechanics in the world, and if a group of low level chars encounter a Dragon, it is going to more than "challenging" for the chars.
2. The game mechanics are challenging, and mastering those mechanics in and of itself gives gratification. That appeals to a small group, which clearly has the subset of "powergamers" within it. The casual player definitely is not in this group that enjoys the challenge of mastering a complex game.
Hasbro recognizes this fact, and is not going to cater the game to the minority that want a game with more features = more complex. It is one thing to add a ton of new species. It is another to build new game mechanics. Plus, how much of the stuff in the abomination that shall not be named make the game "harder", and how many make the game "easier"?
I can't wait for 6e. There's a lot I like about 5e and I'm comfortable in saying that it's my favourite edition, by a long shot, but it still suffers from a lot of legacy issues that somehow continually infect every iteration. I'm not talking so much about sacred cows—although there are definitely issues there as well—but rather various attitudes that have become systemically entrenched toward design and which were, unfortunately, reinforced during 4e's tenure. 4e was groundbreaking in so many ways and without it, 5e wouldn't have half its mechanics despite what people seem to believe about either edition. It broke moulds and ways of thinking that were endemic to the hobby and had been creating a very staid and, quite frankly, toxic creative environment. 5e was a whiplash reaction to the reaction to 4e but without 4e, 5e wouldn't have been even half as good as it is. And in some ways, I think, it went a little too far in the rebound, recreating some of the very structures that 4e challenged.
It's hard to pin down exactly what I mean by all this because I'm talking about something that is, essentially, nebulous. It's like arguing about the differences between CISC & RISC. There are concrete differences but those differences are a result of the philosophy behind each architecture, not necessarily the end results of how those architectures are designed. And when you get into the realm of philosophical dialectics, arguing points of difference becomes the goal, not the means. But there was something lost in the reaction to 4e that is reflected in 5e's design, and I think that, fundamentally, 6e will be yet another turning point and a reflection of the more relaxed creative environment that is no longer as toxic as it was when 5e was being designed.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
1) You're confusing complex and complicated. Chess and Go are complex. Neither is complicated.
2) You're also confusing system with gameplay. It's perfectly possible to play complex and/or complicated games with groups of players of varying mastery. In fact, that applies to 90% of my experiences with 3rd edition. Or any edition, really.
3) Adding optional mechanics = more features = more complex (more complicated, but hey). I believe that's your argument from earlier?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
“Reverts back?” The iconic Red Box D&D was basically a pamphlet: 5e is more, not less, complex than the past. And I love my casual players, because when you come down to it, I love D&D not just for the improv acting and intense combat and fantasy characters, but for my friends, and not all of them are nerds. They’re awesome, and I don’t want to alienate them because they don’t want to put more than a few hours of play a week into a game.
Because in the end, that’s what it is: a game.
(On a related note, please don’t add more complexity to martial classes. “Pick-up-and-play” fighters will always be important for new or laid-back players. Plus, I like them, I like that they’re different, and I’m a “real” nerd.)
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club