D&D 5e has failed

[Chamomile]

Between 4e and 5e which one is easier to house rule into a better game.

5e has a drastically lower number of bad rules that need to be patched or replaced. Now, that's only because it has a drastically lower number of rules, period, but still. 5e is way easier.

[Mechalich]

The groups I know all have extensive collections of worlds from previous editions and are good at writing their own material. They don't care for endless char op and endless options. As stated earlier - the lack of piles of supplements IS a feature. They tried out princes of the apocalypse, but were never much for adventure paths or printed adventures.

I get why WotC wouldn't necessarily want to publish a ton of charop material for 5e, but what surprises me is that they aren't publishing setting material. FR, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, even Eberron, Ravenloft, and Planescape - they still control the IP to all that and they could certainly put out reams of fluff-focused material.

Heck they don't even have to do most of the work themselves, they could easily hold another setting contest if they wanted and produce a whole new setting based primarily around freely solicited contributions.

i mean, Paizo produces setting fluff-centric books for Golarion - WotC is siting on at least three viable settings and isn't producing squat.

[Whiysper]

Between 4e and 5e which one is easier to house rule into a better game.

Uh.... You basically have to write your own game from scratch in either case. Since 3e exists, and 5e is just 3e + bounded accuracy + we deleted half the rules, it's probably easier to copy paste 3e into all the holes in 5e (which is probably what all the people who like it are doing) and then adding back in accuracy bonuses than to fix 4e, but in either case, you are basically writing the game yourself.

Speaking as someone who unwisely pre-ordered and ran 5e for a group of friends - yeah, this. If you know 3.5, it's very hard not to just use it directly where 5e says 'something like this' - most of the gaps are the bits that were clunky in 3.5, so the phrase 'we deleted this bit and didn't know how to replace it' springs VERY readily to mind.

Fucking 5e. Looked fun, and it's salvageable if you put time into it (which once the campaign was in-flight I sort of had to!), but it's only a basic framework with some moderately fun class packages - which I'm aware are a ripoff of fucking Pathfinder, of all things!

The single best thing about 5e was using it as a series of anti-patterns to avoid when working on future heartbreaker content/house-rules.

[Orca]

I get why WotC wouldn't necessarily want to publish a ton of charop material for 5e, but what surprises me is that they aren't publishing setting material. FR, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, even Eberron, Ravenloft, and Planescape - they still control the IP to all that and they could certainly put out reams of fluff-focused material.

Heck they don't even have to do most of the work themselves, they could easily hold another setting contest if they wanted and produce a whole new setting based primarily around freely solicited contributions.

i mean, Paizo produces setting fluff-centric books for Golarion - WotC is siting on at least three viable settings and isn't producing squat.

Books made mostly of fluff in late 3e sold poorly as I understand it, and that probably informs WotC's decisions. Sure those were bad but they just might not produce fluff books that sold as well as Paizo's equivalents. The last attempt to redo FR (the Sword Coast thing) didn't create positive headlines, nor did 4e's attempt.

[mlangsdorf]

What I'm actually surprised at is the LACK of content. Why the lack there of? Why doesn't it bother players?

My group plays for 4-5 hours a session, every other week or so. Between Lost Mines of Phandelvor and Princes of the Apocalypse, we've played for 6-8 months.

We haven't really needed any more content than what they've come out with. You barely get any feats in 5e, so the lack of them hasn't been a problem (I know my character has two, and one is Sentinel which is awesome and the other... oh, it's Inspiring Leader which is decent but forgetable). We all found starting archetypes that we liked. Adding more stuff isn't necessary for my group at this point.

[Daniel]

D&D 5th is both relatively rules light and a relatively generic fantasy take on D&D.
If D&D 3 is AD&D 1 with coherent rules, D&D 5 is a love letter to AD&D 2. If I wake up tomorrow as the ceo of Hasbro, I'll make them bring back some of the truly freaky stuff (Spelljammer, Al-Qadim) and call it a day.

[Covent]

One of my friends received the 5ed books as a Birthday Gift and came to me super excited to share his new and fun hobby...

I tried to be kind but this is not a new RPG player, and since he is trying to work on game design as a skill, I went over the books with him trying not to let my preconceptions color it.

He was so pissed.

Not at me but at the fact that he was sold an "Unfinished" game.

I hated to see the look of anger and disgust he had, so I broke it to him that IMO 5h is very much like a WW game. In that you can have a fun game with friends in spite of the system, with lots of rulings/house rules, rather than because of it.

Now I admit I prefer games with spelled out rules that do not deliberately encourage MC fuckery, but I did feel bad for his reaction despite my own feelings about 5th.

He was slightly mollified but now his 5th books sit on a shelf.

[Mord]

Not at me but at the fact that he was sold an "Unfinished" game.

Just out of morbid curiosity, was there a specific moment where the pin dropped for him? Was that moment associated with any particular subsystem/lack thereof?

[Covent]

When I asked him to explain stealth to me.

[Dogbert]

Funny how there are people for whom a game being Abandonware is considered "a feature."

[Mechalich]

Funny how there are people for whom a game being Abandonware is considered "a feature."

I don't really think so. Power-creep options books can be greater destabilizing to a game, and force GMs in particular to remain on a system mastery treadmill, which can be very frustrating. If you don't use published adventurers ever and you only utilize a homebrew setting then a functional core system may actually be much easier to manage (and is certainly easier on the pocketbook) than one that constantly tosses out new stuff.

Now, I don't think D&D is well suited to be such a system - new power-creep options, funky new monsters, and other quirky optional rules supplements are the bread and butter of the system and have been since at least 2e if not before - but there are games that are likely well served by stability and a lack of adjustment.

[Mord]

Now, I don't think D&D is well suited to be such a system - new power-creep options, funky new monsters, and other quirky optional rules supplements are the bread and butter of the system and have been since at least 2e if not before - but there are games that are likely well served by stability and a lack of adjustment.

I think D&D in particular is most characterized by the concept of "ascending power." It makes perfect sense in light of that for there to be oodles of power creep material, whereas that same material is frustratingly out of place in Vampire.

I think the best compromise is to set the content available to levels 1-5 or so in stone in the corebooks while giving free rein to new power creep material as long as it kicks in past level 5. That way you have a solid core experience that can stand on its own for casuals and people who prefer the shallow end of the power pool (E6 I'm looking at you) without completely sacrificing splatbook revenue.

[mlangsdorf]

Funny how there are people for whom a game being Abandonware is considered "a feature."

I don't consider it a feature. It is something of a problem. It's just not a problem that's effectively damaging the table I play at, and hence, I'm not complaining about it.

5e has real problems, like the lack of a well-defined Stealth system and the way that a single bad combat either TPKs your party at low levels or requires that everyone take a long rest at the upper levels. The lack of new content is much less of an issue.

[tussock]

It's sad that the odd numbered editions are no longer the good ones.

For various values of filling in the gaps in 1st edition with B/X and bullshit.
And various values of no caster splats ever in 3rd edition and free artifact swords.

But still better than 2nd edition and 4th edition. A claim of which I don't see that 5th edition can make, no matter how much 3rd edition you slap on it.

0e: lol, readable after you know the rules.
1e characters in a B/X game: what most people played, good stuff.
2e: lol. At least they printed a bunch of reading material.
3e: does what it says on the tin, as long as you can cast spells at higher levels.
4e: lol. I hear some people liked the roleplaying.
5e: lol. You can sort of see what they were going for, but there's so much 2e in it.

The pattern is broken.

[Prak]

I guess a friend from out of town got tapped to write a 5e adventure, so he wants to playtest it when he comes through this weekend.

I have to say, I like the structure of classes and archetypes and backgrounds and all that.

Now, it's a shame the rules are so terribly simplistic, but the idea of archetypes and themes and all of that is cool.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Well...

Backgrounds do literally nothing

Themes are ripped off pathfinder.

Classes are a mix of the worst of 3e/PF (spellcasters>fighters, 95% is shit, known bad classes are STILL not fixed!) and 4e (bullshit use limitations, no good abilities).

[Prak]

Well, I can't remember who observed it, but people seem to prefer lots of tiny bonuses, rather than a few big things like Tome feats. Backgrounds do that- you pick a background, it helps you with the narrative part of your character, and it gives you a few extra class skills (essentially) and some fluffy gear. You could literally tack them onto a better game and then proceed to not give any shits, because they won't matter, but players will feel like they do.

I'm not saying themes are innovative, just that I like them.

[Omegonthesane]

Aren't Backgrounds literally the mechanic from Tome where you get a bullshit bonus for having a backstory? That Frank & K came up with years before 5e was a gleam in Mike Mearls' eye?

[Korwin]

Aren't Backgrounds literally the mechanic from Tome where you get a bullshit bonus for having a backstory? That Frank & K came up with years before 5e was a gleam in Mike Mearls' eye?

If by bullshit you mean bullshit reason, yes.
If by bullshit you mean bullshit bonus (=useless), no.

[Grek]

5e backgrounds give you 4 skills and a special ability of some sort. They're less important than class, archtype or race, but more important than equipment or feat picks.

[Prak]

5e backgrounds give you more individual, but less meaningful things. Most seem to give a couple skill proficiencies (class skills) and a couple tool proficiencies. Some give a language or other small meaningless thing, and there's some meaningless gear. They also have personality trait tables. They're useful. But, yes, they're something tome had years before 5e.

[Roog]

I'm trying to work out what to make of this:

http://cubicle7.co.uk/dd-comes-to-middle-earth/

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... 5971&pid=1

[Prak]

I've been looking through 5e prepping for the game.

Is it just me, or is this really only infuriating because it's fucking DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS 5TH EDITION!? (and accordingly costs $50)

Like, if this were just some light weight, $10 thin paperback rpg, that someone wrote as their first game, it would be a good first game. Sure it's simple, but it has it's bright spots (even if other people did them first and better), and there is demand for a beer and pretzels, "published adventures and quick chargen" game, and for that, it'd be fine.

But this is a fucking travesty for a 42 year old game that is in it's 11th or 12th iteration. That's what's galling to me. And the fact that this shit costs $50.

[Gnorman]

Does Middle Earth really have any traction as a setting in modern day roleplaying?

I mean, 90% of it is just lines of succession and English peasant cuisine. It's not a lot of legs on which to build a game.

[maglag]

Does Middle Earth really have any traction as a setting in modern day roleplaying?

I mean, 90% of it is just lines of succession and English peasant cuisine. It's not a lot of legs on which to build a game.

Dungeons? Check.

Dragons? Check.

Murder a variety of monsters and and find fantastic bling? Check.

Mix of traps and fantastic neutral/friendly NPCs to interact with? Check.

Of course, I've seen several people claim that modern RPGs should be about neo-pacifists exploring the land and focus should be on economic development and socio-politic discussions.

But I would say that there's still room in the market for good old dungeon delving, save the dragon from the angry princess and carry the treasure back to town to sell in order to get fancy gear.