This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Author Topic: "If" you don't adopt D&D 6E when it comes along, what game do you see as your future?  (Read 12389 times)

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 1490
    • View Profile
I've been developing my own system for a few years now and just about have it done. I've been using the playtest version for all my games ever since it reached a playable state so I don't see why that would change. WotC has long since said they don't want me as a customer and I'm happy to oblige their wish.

SHARK

  • Great White Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2646
    • View Profile
Quote from: KingCheops;1117651
It's not the SJW stuff that bugs me (although it does).  I can always scrub out the idiotic purse puppies that litter their writing.  Its the fundamental lack of understanding what's fun and how to judge "their" own rule system.


Greetings!

*Laughing* "Purse Puppies!":D Interesting, my friend. I like 5E, but there are certain subsystems that I have mixed feelings on for sure. Can uou elaborate on how they lack understanding of what's fun and how to judge their own rule system? I wanna hear this, KingCheops!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the fa├žade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
"Let Death and Fire Be Their Portion!"
"Delenda Est Parthia!"

Doc Sammy

  • All Antifa Are Bastards
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2670
  • Mordred Did Nothing Wrong
    • View Profile
Honestly, I'd say Big Eyes Small Mouth for gaming in general (looking forward to trying out BESM 4E) and for D&D specifically, I'd turn to the OSR and Pathfinder 1E.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

Sunsword

  • Newbie
  • *
  • S
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
I run and play 5E, but I could easily run Shadow of the Demon Lord for the rest of my life and not worry about any other game. Rob is writing a more general fantasy game, Shadow of the Mad Wizard, which I'm certain I'll buy when it comes out. I could also keep playing 5E or any OSR game.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 3038
    • View Profile
Quote from: Sunsword;1117748
I run and play 5E, but I could easily run Shadow of the Demon Lord for the rest of my life and not worry about any other game. Rob is writing a more general fantasy game, Shadow of the Mad Wizard, which I'm certain I'll buy when it comes out. I could also keep playing 5E or any OSR game.

Weird. I never found Shadow of the Demon Lord to be anything but a slightly darker take on generic fantasy. Sure, it has some different flavor here and there (e.g., elves are actual fey), but nothing too radical and it still fits firmly into generic fantasy as far as I see it.

KingCheops

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Quote from: SHARK;1117740
Greetings!

*Laughing* "Purse Puppies!":D Interesting, my friend. I like 5E, but there are certain subsystems that I have mixed feelings on for sure. Can uou elaborate on how they lack understanding of what's fun and how to judge their own rule system? I wanna hear this, KingCheops!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well the straw that broke my back was their rulings on Beholder eye rays.  We ran the beholder fight in Tomb of Annihilation (which I badly messed up but that's a different story) and one of my players asked if they could dispel an eye effect because the barbarian had been charmed for several rounds.  As a group we quickly settled on "determine an equivalent spell and dispel as that."  So we said it was dominate monster and he went ahead and rolled.  I reserved the right to change the house rule pending further rules research later.

Well Crawford says they are neither spells nor spell-like effects therefore you cannot dispel the effects (lol wut?).  Mearls said you can but you use the monster's CR as the spell level (lol wut?).  Neither of these are fun because a) they shut down player options, or b) they make it prohibitively hard.  Also neither ruling seems to take a consistent approach to all the subsystems (which are admittedly not always coherent or the best) already existing in the game.

Crawford has contradicted himself several times in his sage advice (especially in regards to using shields) and has shown he doesn't really know what's in the rule book.  I don't think Mearls was ever really involved given he brought in consultants and doesn't seem to have touched the rules since.

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
    • View Profile
I don't know what "D&D" even means anymore. If we're talking about "system" - I'm open to checking out any system in play. If we're talking about settings, "D&D Settings" from WotC have completely skyrocket-jumped every shark imaginable.

IF I were to GM a D&D d20ish system, anything 3e, 4e, or 5e is a non-starter. If 6e comes out... I'll do my due-diligence and evaluate it, but I have little faith that 6e, when it arrives will be anything that interests me. If I were going to GM D&D - it would be 1e/2e and I'd seriously consider doing OSR.

In the meantime - I've got PUH-LENTY to run for the next decade: Talislanta, Deadlands, FFG Star Wars, MSH, Savage , but I'm eyeballing Mythras/RQ6e, Warhammer (and if they drop the Original World it's a SHOE-IN, otherwise WHFRP 2e), Cyberpunk Red.

I mean... realistically? "D&D" has become almost provincial in it's mainstream iteration. OSR is more innovative and useful than 5e imo mechanically by dint of flexibility. And while I'm a system's wonk, I love good settings. I'm happy to convert what I want to other systems, if it suits me. Right now - WotC gives me nothing that I want that I don't already have. Sad to say. But it's true.

Skarg

  • Venerable Gamer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
    • View Profile
As with all editions of D&D, I'll have mild interest to hear about what it's like, and I'm sure I'll continue playing GURPS and TFT.

Slambo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • S
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
I still have Dungeon Crawl Classics, My own homebrew, ACKS. Godbound, and my unholy DCC/Godbound/ 5e abomination to run.

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
    • View Profile
Quote from: Slambo;1117794
my unholy DCC/Godbound/ 5e abomination to run.

... Now that is a 50/50 intriguing/terrifying. HAHAHAHA

I'm going to create a thread - I'd like to know what you're doing with these disparate systems!

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1105
    • View Profile
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1117633
1e AD&D, always.

I don't understand why people think they "Have to" play the new edition if they're happy with the old.  As far as I'm concerned, 2e didn't "fix" anything I hadn't already "fixed" with 1e, and so on.


I don't get it either.  It's pure consumerism and herdism.  "I have this thing that works perfectly for me, but my corporate overlords have declared a new tax - what will I do if I don't want to pay it?"  

Just keep playing what you know and love.  If you have to run a new edition to get players, then what's happening between the four corners of the table isn't most important to anyone involved in the activity.
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

Simon Fiasco

  • The Jovial GM
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
I've never felt the need to upgrade to a new system just because it came out. I played AD&D back in the day, but moved on to other RPGs for a while (and took a short break from gaming, too) and pretty much missed out on 2nd Ed. 3E came out and rekindled my interest, so I played it, and enjoyed it, but I skipped 4E altogether after reading through the PHB. It took nearly four years for friends to convince me to play 5E, but I have, and I think it's the best system yet. I'll check 6E out, when it's released in five years or so. Maybe.

Mostly, though, my go-to system is Genesys, and there hasn't been anything I couldn't do with it yet.

Philotomy Jurament

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1805
    • View Profile
    • http://www.philotomy.com
Quote from: Razor 007;1117558
I have a strong hunch that I won't buy into D&D 6E.  I'm definitely not buying into Pathfinder 2E.  So, the question is; what is the plan?

My plan is the same as it's been for years, now: run and play the games I like. I'm way off the edition carousel (and very happy to be off it). The last edition I bought because it was latest thing was 3.0. After I decided that wasn't for me, I made my way back to editions I like the best, and have stayed with those. It's worked well for me.

That's not to say I won't check out new editions or new games. I looked at 3.5, 4e, 5e, et cetera. I just didn't see anything there that made me want to "buy in" or change what I'm doing. So I'm sure I'll take a look at 6e, whenever it appears. But I have no reason to think it will hold great appeal to me. Never say never, but I'd be really surprised if it did.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2019, 04:41:45 pm by Philotomy Jurament »
That rug really tied the room together, man.

Tait Ransom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • T
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
I haven't played any edition of D&D past 3.5, so I'm not likely to pick up 6e.  I'm pretty much playing Cypher System exclusively these days, and that's okay by me.

That said, if it's a choice between a new system and not gaming, I'll learn a new system.

Scrivener of Doom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Quote from: KingCheops;1117787
Well the straw that broke my back was their rulings on Beholder eye rays.  We ran the beholder fight in Tomb of Annihilation (which I badly messed up but that's a different story) and one of my players asked if they could dispel an eye effect because the barbarian had been charmed for several rounds.  As a group we quickly settled on "determine an equivalent spell and dispel as that."  So we said it was dominate monster and he went ahead and rolled.  I reserved the right to change the house rule pending further rules research later.

Well Crawford says they are neither spells nor spell-like effects therefore you cannot dispel the effects (lol wut?).  Mearls said you can but you use the monster's CR as the spell level (lol wut?).  Neither of these are fun because a) they shut down player options, or b) they make it prohibitively hard.  Also neither ruling seems to take a consistent approach to all the subsystems (which are admittedly not always coherent or the best) already existing in the game.

Crawford has contradicted himself several times in his sage advice (especially in regards to using shields) and has shown he doesn't really know what's in the rule book.  I don't think Mearls was ever really involved given he brought in consultants and doesn't seem to have touched the rules since.


Mearls has never been competent with the rules of any edition with which he was involved.

In his days as a freelancing OGL spambot, he displayed very little grasp of the 3.xE rules (much like the WotC designers and developers, to be frank). He didn't grok his own incompetent ruleset, Iron Heroes. His 4E products were the worst and he was the only 4E designer who didn't improve over the course of the edition. And the 5E playtesting process revealed he should be ignored until WotC rolled out Rodney Thompson and then the Rainbow Connection to more accurately state what needed to be said.

MM is the mad scientist who clearly comes up with ideas but struggles with implementing them, especially in the context of existing systems. As such, no doubt he's reasonably creative (creative enough to have previously built a living as an OGL spambot) but he's not the guy whose opinion should be sought out or valued. As for the Rainbow Connection getting things wrong, it's 5E and so we are back to the days of AD&D where you really just need to make your own rulings.
Cheers
Scrivener of Doom