Mike Mearls will likely have serious input. Why not? 5E made money, and has put a positive spin on D&D for 6 years now. It will be all hands on deck, for "The Best D&D Ever" all over again.
They have plenty of time, plenty of money, and will definitely want to cash in on the whole "50 Years of D&D" thing. WOTC and Hasbro will definitely do it.
Quote from: Razor 007;1132433Mike Mearls will likely have serious input. Why not? 5E made money, and has put a positive spin on D&D for 6 years now. It will be all hands on deck, for "The Best D&D Ever" all over again.
They have plenty of time, plenty of money, and will definitely want to cash in on the whole "50 Years of D&D" thing. WOTC and Hasbro will definitely do it.
I don't doubt that. I admit to some curiosity about 'what will it look like?' I expect a mix of further Seattle progressivism and an attempt to try and recapture the 'edgy' and 'daring' nature of the days of the Satanic Panic, with minimal mechanical changes, but that could be just my fears/morbid wishes. WotC has made it quite clear that they don't think I belong in the New Order, so I'll be looking elsewhere. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1132434I don't doubt that. I admit to some curiosity about 'what will it look like?' I expect a mix of further Seattle progressivism and an attempt to try and recapture the 'edgy' and 'daring' nature of the days of the Satanic Panic, with minimal mechanical changes, but that could be just my fears/morbid wishes. WotC has made it quite clear that they don't think I belong in the New Order, so I'll be looking elsewhere. :)
I've reached the point where I very rarely buy anything at launch. So a year or two after 6E comes out, if they haven't gone further progressive nuts, and the game has been getting good feedback, I might take a gander. I doubt it, but I might. More likely, when my 5E campaigns wind down, I'll probably run something else. My own system is starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel in the rough play test phase, such that I could be ready soon to run a real campaign in it. That will keep me fairly busy. I've also got an itch to run DCC and ACKS. Either way, 6E could be old hat by the time I get around to prioritizing a WotC game again.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1132434I don't doubt that. I admit to some curiosity about 'what will it look like?' I expect a mix of further Seattle progressivism and an attempt to try and recapture the 'edgy' and 'daring' nature of the days of the Satanic Panic, with minimal mechanical changes, but that could be just my fears/morbid wishes. WotC has made it quite clear that they don't think I belong in the New Order, so I'll be looking elsewhere. :)
Hey; I'm an old white balding greybearded heterosexual fellow, who has a positive impression of the creative works of Gygax and Arneson. I am likely outside of their target demographic, myself. But, I'm sure they'd still gladly take my hard earned money.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1132435I've reached the point where I very rarely buy anything at launch. So a year or two after 6E comes out, if they haven't gone further progressive nuts, and the game has been getting good feedback, I might take a gander. I doubt it, but I might. More likely, when my 5E campaigns wind down, I'll probably run something else. My own system is starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel in the rough play test phase, such that I could be ready soon to run a real campaign in it. That will keep me fairly busy. I've also got an itch to run DCC and ACKS. Either way, 6E could be old hat by the time I get around to prioritizing a WotC game again.
I'm kitbashing 1e (OSRIC specifically, because 1e is OOP again) and ACKS. There's a lot I like in 5e-as-a-toolkit, but I like other toolkits better.
If it's good I'm enough of a sucker that I'll buy it. If not I still have 2e, 5e, and Pathfinder 1e for all my D&D like needs. That's on top of D&D 4e and all other non-D&D games. Good old vote with the wallet.
IDK, I keep seeing this prediction in threads about D&D editions, but what would 6e even be about? 3e happened IMO, cuz 2e had already ran its course, had a ton of rules supplements with options and enough players had gotten used to choices baseline D&D didn't have. So they made having a ton of options standard, and streamlined the system's core mechanics, which work great at the time.
With 4e I guess WotC got greedy, but while the system failed it had distinct features that tried to make all classes similar with "Powers" and stuff, and they further streamlined some of the core mechanics by giving characters a fixed modifier to rolls based on their level and a flat extra modifier if they were actually "skilled".
5e obviously happened cuz 4e failed spectacularly, so they desperately needed a new edition that fixed what 4e did. And 5e has been wildly successful, with even more streamlined core mechanics. Now everything is essentially a skill (or "Proficiency")--as all RPGs should be IMHO--no more separate Combat Modifier, and Saving Throws, and Skill ranks treated under completely different metrics. Instead ALL rolls are handled through a relevant Ability Score modifier, plus Proficiency modifier, and combat skills and saving throws are just proficiencies. Though, all characters get exactly the same "Proficiency" bonus based on their level, and you're either proficient or you're not.
Where else can they go from here? Get rid of character classes and go full skill-based? Bring back variable skill levels? What?
Quote from: Razor 007;1132433Mike Mearls will likely have serious input. Why not? 5E made money, and has put a positive spin on D&D for 6 years now. It will be all hands on deck, for "The Best D&D Ever" all over again.
They have plenty of time, plenty of money, and will definitely want to cash in on the whole "50 Years of D&D" thing. WOTC and Hasbro will definitely do it.
Not going to happen my man. Dream on.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132468Where else can they go from here? Get rid of character classes and go full skill-based? Bring back variable skill levels? What?
One of three choices:
A. Radical changes, similar to those you suggested.
B. The "5.5" route, where they tinker with peripheral stuff, don't change any of the underlying system, but it becomes death of a thousand minor changes.
C. The "1E to 2E" plan--system all stays largely the same, but with more options and maybe some better organization, cleanup of wording, etc.
If they've completely lost their minds, it will be A. If they let bad business leadership and greed get in the way of their common sense, it will be B. If they've got half a clue, it will be C. There are definitely some additions that weren't in the PHB, MM, and DMG that could be well-placed in a revised 5E, with the mere benefit of hindsight. All they need is some leadership to block any central rules changes and limit sharply the peripheral changes.
Of course, there are better things that could theoretically be done than any of those, but I think that's about the limit that WotC has demonstrated thus far they are capable of managing.
Quote from: RandyB;1132438I'm kitbashing 1e (OSRIC specifically, because 1e is OOP again) and ACKS. There's a lot I like in 5e-as-a-toolkit, but I like other toolkits better.
https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?filters=0_0_0_0_0_45346_45546_0
POD is still available, so I guess 1st is technically in print.
Anyway, I get the whole edition treadmill, i.e., way to make money, but Monopoly has been sold pretty much unchanged since 1935, and is one of the most successful games of all time. Why can't Hasbro just keep every edition in print and say "we have multiple versions for every style of play, pick one" and leave it at that?
D&D boxed set
Holmes
B/X
BECMI
RC
AD&D
AD&D 2nd
3rd
3.5
4th
5th
So you keep ALL of those in print, that covers 99% of the entire RPG market. License videogames, movies, and bedsheets if you want more money. It worked in the 80s for TSR, why can't it work now?
Quote from: Brad;1132490https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?filters=0_0_0_0_0_45346_45546_0
POD is still available, so I guess 1st is technically in print.
Anyway, I get the whole edition treadmill, i.e., way to make money, but Monopoly has been sold pretty much unchanged since 1935, and is one of the most successful games of all time. Why can't Hasbro just keep every edition in print and say "we have multiple versions for every style of play, pick one" and leave it at that?
D&D boxed set
Holmes
B/X
BECMI
RC
AD&D
AD&D 2nd
3rd
3.5
4th
5th
So you keep ALL of those in print, that covers 99% of the entire RPG market. License videogames, movies, and bedsheets if you want more money. It worked in the 80s for TSR, why can't it work now?
No POD option for the 1e DMG that I see. But I couldn't find the PDF before, so thanks for the assist!
Edit: the POD for the DMG has been pulled for quality control updates. I'll keep an eye out for the return of POD.
Definitely major thanks!
I'm interested in learning new RPGs like I am interested in picking up STD, so count my interest in any D&D 6e in the negative values. :(
With my old TSR stuff, and 5e Basic .pdf as the compromise edition, I have little reason to feign interest in more WotC publishing treadmill. A 6e product and its hype would fall on my deaf ears. :) They would be better served trying to sell me a retro D&D woodburning kit. Better yet, a festive collector label version of Mt. Dew & Cheetos celebrating D&D 50 year anniversary! :cool: Then it can be placed in my gamebooks burial pyramid for when I need snacks in the afterlife.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1132489One of three choices:
A. Radical changes, similar to those you suggested.
B. The "5.5" route, where they tinker with peripheral stuff, don't change any of the underlying system, but it becomes death of a thousand minor changes.
C. The "1E to 2E" plan--system all stays largely the same, but with more options and maybe some better organization, cleanup of wording, etc.
If they've completely lost their minds, it will be A. If they let bad business leadership and greed get in the way of their common sense, it will be B. If they've got half a clue, it will be C. There are definitely some additions that weren't in the PHB, MM, and DMG that could be well-placed in a revised 5E, with the mere benefit of hindsight. All they need is some leadership to block any central rules changes and limit sharply the peripheral changes.
Of course, there are better things that could theoretically be done than any of those, but I think that's about the limit that WotC has demonstrated thus far they are capable of managing.
Option A would probably be preference, TBH--at least for the specific examples I gave. Though, I understand that would be catastrophic from a business POV, and it wouldn't even be D&D at that point. Plus plenty of systems already do that.
I agree that option C would be the best choice for the game from a business and player base POV. Keep the system as it is and simply refine what's already there, clean things up and add more options. The last three editions have been radical departures from what came before (especially 4e) that have rendered ALL prior supplements unusable, and I suspect people are sick of that at this point.
That may have worked with 3e cuz it was arguably an improvement (at least in terms of core mechanics and basic options, but classes became a cumbersome bloat from that point on). But every edition essentially becoming a new game sharing only ability score names, class-based progression (with completely different class abilities) and a d20+Mod mechanic (with different ways to determine how that Mod gets calculated) is absurd.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132549That may have worked with 3e cuz it was arguably an improvement (at least in terms of core mechanics and basic options, but classes became a cumbersome bloat from that point on). But every edition essentially becoming a new game sharing only ability score names, class-based progression (with completely different class abilities) and a d20+Mod mechanic (with different ways to determine how that Mod gets calculated) is absurd.
Yeah. They essentially got a free pass on the radical changes in 3E because it had been so long since a new edition, TSR going under, worry that D&D was "dead" however misplaced, etc. As long as 3E was a reasonably playable game (and it was out of the gate, especially at low levels), then they could get away with a lot. That bridge has long been crossed for WotC.
Now if they ever gave up on it--either selling it (unlikely) or totally framing out the game design part to a third-party while keeping all the brand stuff (possible), especially if it had been dormant for a few years first--then I can see that new custodian of the game getting similar leeway to monkey with it. And honestly, I think someone like Kobold Press would do a better job with it than they would.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1132553Yeah. They essentially got a free pass on the radical changes in 3E because it had been so long since a new edition, TSR going under, worry that D&D was "dead" however misplaced, etc. As long as 3E was a reasonably playable game (and it was out of the gate, especially at low levels), then they could get away with a lot. That bridge has long been crossed for WotC.
Yep. While I appreciate a lot of what 4E did, there's no denying that they gravely misread the market--there's a statement somewhere where they said 'if we'd known how positively people would respond to 3E's changes, we'd have gone even farther' without recognizing how things had changed. They further hurt themselves by a) not even offering the figleaf of a conversion document and b) having done 3.5 only 5 years earlier.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132549But every edition essentially becoming a new game sharing only ability score names, class-based progression (with completely different class abilities) and a d20+Mod mechanic (with different ways to determine how that Mod gets calculated) is absurd.
To be fair to WotC, every one of their editions calculated the mods the same way; (Ability Score - 10) / 2 (round down).
Task resolution has consistently been 1d20+Mod vs. DC. The mod for the roll is almost always Ability Score + some type of proficiency for that specific task. If the DC related to a specific creature it is almost always 10 + Ability Modifier + some type of proficiency.
Ascending AC and Hit Points have been consistently used throughout even if the values have changed slightly. Similarly, while 4E changed who rolled and 5E calls them Dex, Con and Wis saves... the basic structure of Fort, Reflex and Will saves for non-weapon attacks has been consistent across editions.
All have also used a Standard + Swift/Minor/Bonus + Movement action economy with cyclical initiative, six-second rounds and 5 foot squares for grid-based movement.
Honestly, in a general play sense 3e, 4E and 5e have a lot more in common than they do differences. Meaning, that if you're familiar with a 3e Rogue and sat down at a table and were given a 5e Rogue, you might not know how the numbers on the page were determined, and might need to be told that a bonus action is like a 3e swift action, there's nothing inherent to the 5e Rogue that 3e player wouldn't be able to figure out just by familiarizing themselves with their character sheet.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1132489B. The "5.5" route, where they tinker with peripheral stuff, don't change any of the underlying system, but it becomes death of a thousand minor changes.
C. The "1E to 2E" plan--system all stays largely the same, but with more options and maybe some better organization, cleanup of wording, etc.
Previews of this are available in Unearthed Arcana. In particular check out the Variant Class file. Basically they revamp how a bunch of the core features work for classes. I found the Martial stuff particularly interesting as fighting-men can basically change their style from day to day. They use it for rapid testing for upcoming products basically.
They could always cash in with a "super special edition" print run of 5e, similar to the Gygax Memorial Fund editions of 1e. There's definitely a market of nerds buying supar speshul limuted edition (I throw this stone from my glass house with a bookcase full of leather bound Kickstarter-exclusive special editions, as well as my own Gygax 1e copies). It'd require relatively little up-front investment, they could make insane margins on it, and they can slap some pittance to charity on there too and score corporate virtue points. Or do that and also add in a few light changes in there and call it 5.5e as discussed.
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1132566They could always cash in with a "super special edition" print run of 5e, similar to the Gygax Memorial Fund editions of 1e. There's definitely a market of nerds buying supar speshul limuted edition (I throw this stone from my glass house with a bookcase full of leather bound Kickstarter-exclusive special editions, as well as my own Gygax 1e copies). It'd require relatively little up-front investment, they could make insane margins on it, and they can slap some pittance to charity on there too and score corporate virtue points. Or do that and also add in a few light changes in there and call it 5.5e as discussed.
I think that is much more likely, or an update to 5e, than a 6e at that time.
Quote from: Chris24601;1132560To be fair to WotC, every one of their editions calculated the mods the same way; (Ability Score - 10) / 2 (round down).
Task resolution has consistently been 1d20+Mod vs. DC. The mod for the roll is almost always Ability Score + some type of proficiency for that specific task. If the DC related to a specific creature it is almost always 10 + Ability Modifier + some type of proficiency.
Ascending AC and Hit Points have been consistently used throughout even if the values have changed slightly. Similarly, while 4E changed who rolled and 5E calls them Dex, Con and Wis saves... the basic structure of Fort, Reflex and Will saves for non-weapon attacks has been consistent across editions.
All have also used a Standard + Swift/Minor/Bonus + Movement action economy with cyclical initiative, six-second rounds and 5 foot squares for grid-based movement.
Honestly, in a general play sense 3e, 4E and 5e have a lot more in common than they do differences. Meaning, that if you're familiar with a 3e Rogue and sat down at a table and were given a 5e Rogue, you might not know how the numbers on the page were determined, and might need to be told that a bonus action is like a 3e swift action, there's nothing inherent to the 5e Rogue that 3e player wouldn't be able to figure out just by familiarizing themselves with their character sheet.
The way that ability score modifiers are calculated has remained the same way, but the "some type of proficiency" portion of the equation has changed significantly throughout editions. And for each edition the "proficiency-type" modifier has a completely different "feel".
The way that 3e handled the modifier it felt like a restructuring of the way that older editions handled THAC0 and Saving Throws, while maintaining their essence. Those game stats used modifiers in 3e to reflect the standardized d20+Mod mechanic introduced in the edition, but they still felt like those old stats (except that saves were reduced to the more efficient Fort, Ref & Will), only updated to use the new core mechanics. Characters still had different combat abilities based on their class, which was always a key feature of D&D, and some classes were more resistant against certain types of effects than others.
Then 4e changed all that. Now class became completely irrelevant to your success rate in combat and the only difference in base combat abilities and saving throws between characters of the same level was their relevant ability score and a minor bonus to saves based on class. The only real difference between classes was their powers and their HP, and characters slowly became better at absolutely everything (by the exact same amount) as they gained levels.
Then 5e flipped the switch again (somewhat). Class is still irrelevant to your success rate in combat, but now instead of a minor save bonus you get "Proficiency" in two saving throws instead. And the clear cut and efficient "Fort, Ref & Will" saves were eliminated in favor of the nebulous "every ability score is its own arbitrary save"--which I can agree Strength should make you more resistant against knock-type effects, but the rest is mostly bullshit. Now EVERYTHING is a "Proficiency", which could be good (in fact better than ever before), except that everyone has the exact same bonus for everything and you either have proficiency or you don't. There is no "I'm kinda good at this, but I'm better at that". You're either a pleb or a fucking rockstar, and nobody's really a rockstar unless they have super high ability scores cuz the Proficiency modifiers by themselves SUCK.
And all the flavor of D&D is gone. The only distinction between classes is their bloat of obligatory features per level, which are necessary now to justify a 20 level progression, cuz there are no levels were you steadily get a combat or save bonus, or an extra feat anymore. So you HAVE to get extra class features every single level for levels to mean anything (Yay! More bookkeeping!).
Every time I look at 5e I just wanna get rid of classes and levels and just make the whole thing a straight skill-based game with actual skill progression, and maybe turn classes into something similar to races. Only instead of giving you ability score bonuses your "class" could give you a flat one-time skill bonus to give you an edge, plus maybe a few minor features for flavor. But actual progression would be handled by skills and feat selections, and all former class abilities that aren't just fluff to justify plowing through 20 levels would just be feats. Granted, this would no longer truly be "D&D", but then again neither is 5e, except only in name. 5e is basically a stripped down skill-based system with classes and levels forced on top of it to make it look like D&D.
6e will definitely happen.
I'm seriously doubtful they'll pull any money out of me. But good luck to them.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132568Every time I look at 5e I just wanna get rid of classes and levels and just make the whole thing a straight skill-based game with actual skill progression, and maybe turn classes into something similar to races. Only instead of giving you ability score bonuses your "class" could give you a flat one-time skill bonus to give you an edge, plus maybe a few minor features for flavor. But actual progression would be handled by skills and feat selections, and all former class abilities that aren't just fluff to justify plowing through 20 levels would just be feats. Granted, this would no longer truly be "D&D", but then again neither is 5e, except only in name. 5e is basically a stripped down skill-based system with classes and levels forced on top of it to make it look like D&D.
Stars Without Number Revised effectively?
But yeah I don't like 5e either. Any issues previous editions had, 5e solved by simply not having the framework for the issue to exist. All issues were solved by amputation. And I find 5e, while more playable then 4e, the least ambitious edition of them all.
It was half-finished and rushed to market, but the stars aligned and it sounded enough like D&D to get people to play it.
But 6e will most certainly come. I hazard it will have even less direction and be even simpler.
Quote from: RandyB;1132493...Edit: the POD for the DMG has been pulled for quality control updates. I'll keep an eye out for the return of POD...
Yea, pretty pissed about that.
After stupidly giving away all my 1e originals to a friend decades ago when I thought I was done with RPG's (cringe every time I think of it), I saw the MM was finally in POD Premium and then the DMG goes out of print. How hard is it to have all the 1e core books in Premium POD availability at one time?
As for 6e, I'll try to decide if it worth my time or not when it emerges with hopefully an impartial view. I would love to see new things to break the mold but likely they would not risk making the huge amount of 5e stuff obsolete overnight. WOTC and Hasbro did a great job marketing 5e and honestly, I kind of hate the fact they did so well at it. Feels like they just overwhelmed what used to be much smaller, yet somehow quieter & happy hobby with their hype train and all the baggage that goes along with it.
Maybe the best thing about 6e if the rules suck, it will still inevitably move the hype train along with it and I won't feel like I'm missing out on a good system.
Edit: Well maybe not a truly 'happy' hobby with all the divisiveness with 4e but at least it was people serious about their systems and more immersed in them. The blight of the 'casual player' fed on Critical Role vids, expecting the DM's role as circus monkey had not yet emerged.
Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies;1132576Yea, pretty pissed about that.
After stupidly giving away all my 1e originals to a friend decades ago when I thought I was done with RPG's (cringe every time I think of it), I saw the MM was finally in POD Premium and then the DMG goes out of print. How hard is it to have all the 1e core books in Premium POD availability at one time?
As for 6e, I'll try to decide if it worth my time or not when it emerges with hopefully an impartial view. I would love to see new things to break the mold but likely they would not risk making the huge amount of 5e stuff obsolete overnight. WOTC and Hasbro did a great job marketing 5e and honestly, I kind of hate the fact they did so well at it. Feels like they just overwhelmed what used to be much smaller, yet somehow quieter & happy hobby with their hype train and all the baggage that goes along with it.
Maybe the best thing about 6e if the rules suck, it will still inevitably move the hype train along with it and I won't feel like I'm missing out on a good system.
Edit: Well maybe not a truly 'happy' hobby with all the divisiveness with 4e but at least it was people serious about their systems and more immersed in them. The blight of the 'casual player' fed on Critical Role vids, expecting the DM's role as circus monkey had not yet emerged.
Perhaps whenever you pitch a game, looking for players; just say flat out, "This will not be like Critical Role. I am running a game; not entertaining an online audience."
Quote from: Razor 007;1132577Perhaps whenever you pitch a game, looking for players; just say flat out, "This will not be like Critical Role. I am running a game; not entertaining an online audience."
I believe I could run a 1E game without the DMG, as long as the players would roll with me generating target numbers out of thin air. I would need the PHB and MM, though.
Indeed. My regular group broke up a while ago and with Covid, I thought I'd try to land a decent game on roll20 or something. I'll keep trying as I know, while very rare, there are good players out there...somewhere.
Quote from: Razor 007;1132578I believe I could run a 1E game without the DMG, as long as the players would roll with me generating target numbers out of thin air. I would need the PHB and MM, though.
Totally agree. At the time, the DMG came out 2 years after the MM and one year after the PHB. By the time the DMG finally came out, sure we adopted it, but the fact is, we had already been playing a couple years just fine without it.
Yea with PDF's and things like OSRIC it's definitely feasible.
More for a physical legacy for my kids to read when they grow up and realise why their Dad spent all his time yelling at a book saying "Weapon Speeds do what? Spells and Initiative What Now? Gygax!" Heh
Quote from: Razor 007;1132578I believe I could run a 1E game without the DMG, as long as the players would roll with me generating target numbers out of thin air. I would need the PHB and MM, though.
On the other hand, try
learning the game from a 1E PHB and 2E DMG and MC. It's a wonder we stuck with it long enough to get a 2E PHB.
Nothing against either 1E or 2E, but of the four combinations of core books to start with, 1E PHB/2E DMG is probably the one that loses the most.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1132583On the other hand, try learning the game from a 1E PHB and 2E DMG and MC. It's a wonder we stuck with it long enough to get a 2E PHB.
Nothing against either 1E or 2E, but of the four combinations of core books to start with, 1E PHB/2E DMG is probably the one that loses the most.
I don't know from 2e, but I think I can imagine what you were facing. As I said, even the 1e rollout took so long that you had to cobble something together from OD&D, supplements, the AD&D MM, eventually the PHB, and even more eventually the DMG. Never mind
learning the game, you basically had to invent it. At that time, D&D seemed to be more a concept than a system.
Which I don't think was a bad thing, if you don't mind tinkering. Fundamentally, the ttrpg was a revolutionary but basically simple concept after all, and everything erected on top of that is just somebody's tinkering.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1132583On the other hand, try learning the game from a 1E PHB and 2E DMG and MC. It's a wonder we stuck with it long enough to get a 2E PHB.
Nothing against either 1E or 2E, but of the four combinations of core books to start with, 1E PHB/2E DMG is probably the one that loses the most.
I learned from a 1e PHB. What's the problem? (Note that I own almost 0 2e, except for some rando splatbooks I picked up suuuuuuper cheap used when I first started playing.)
Guess it depends it one ever planned on running it or remaining a player. Running with that combo would have been sub-optimal as rules would have been mashed together.
Sounds like a bunch of young players pooling together their resources at the time thinking: We've got the PHB and DMG of D&D so we're good yay! Good luck to them.
I remember confusing my parents with specifics on which version of what Santa MUST get for Christmas. Honestly, my young brain could not make sense of the Gygaxian 1e rule conflicts at the time (still doesn't) and we just used B/X rules mashed in like most players we know did. Looking back on it now I'm sure the gaping holes in logic were cavernous.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1132572Stars Without Number Revised effectively?
IDK, from what I've seen SWN seems to be a mishmash of old D&D saving throws, super low ability score modifiers with 2d6 for skill rolls and semi-flexible classes.
TL;DR: I would stick with D&D ability scores & core task resolution mechanics, rather than do something like SWN.
Long & Rambling:
If I was gonna rebuild D&D as a skill-based game I'd stick with the current ability score scheme and use 1d20+Mod vs DC for everything, then establish a maximum skill level (maybe 10) and cost for improving ability scores and skills, and purchasing feats.
I'm not sure I'd use character levels, but if I did, you'd just get X amount of build points per level to spend however you want, but max skill would be tied to level to certain extent (maybe 4 +1/2nd level, to a max of 10) and some feats may have minimum level requirements. Ability costs would vary depending on how powerful feats are, but might be something like: Ability Scores (3 per +1), Skill (1 per Level) and Feats (3 each). Build Points per level would vary depending on how general skills are and how many; maybe 5 per level or something like that. Starting skills and feats might be based on Class and Background selections as starting ability packages for flavor, but have absolutely zero impact on progression.
I'm not sure I'd use Hit Dice, cuz I absolutely abhor everything about them. I hate random HP and blame ever increasing HD for power creep and everything that's wrong with D&D and video game RPGs, which almost invariably copy the ever increasing HP formula till characters become ridiculous bags of HP. BUT I may need them if I want to port 5e's damage ranges for spells and such, otherwise I'd have to build my own from scratch and the game won't be compatible with existing D&D.
If I did use HD, I'd probably stick to 1d6, maybe 1d8 as a universal HD for everyone (including monsters), assuming I'm keeping 5e ranges for damage. And I would include a feat that adds bonus HP per HD. Alternatively I could use fixed HP, giving characters a significant amount of starting HP, plus a meager amount per level to avoid power creep (but that may mess with me porting 5e's damage ranges, since 5e spells do ridiculous amounts at high levels).
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1132572But yeah I don't like 5e either. Any issues previous editions had, 5e solved by simply not having the framework for the issue to exist. All issues were solved by amputation. And I find 5e, while more playable then 4e, the least ambitious edition of them all.
It was half-finished and rushed to market, but the stars aligned and it sounded enough like D&D to get people to play it.
I pretty much agree with all of this and loved the "solved by amputation" analogy :D
Though, I think that part of what helped 5e is that it's simple enough to get the noobs started easily and task resolution is so centralized (with everything, including attacks, saves and skills, being a Proficiency) anyone can get it. Which IMO is a testament to the superiority of skill-based mechanics. :cool:
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1132583On the other hand, try learning the game from a 1E PHB and 2E DMG and MC. It's a wonder we stuck with it long enough to get a 2E PHB.
Nothing against either 1E or 2E, but of the four combinations of core books to start with, 1E PHB/2E DMG is probably the one that loses the most.
Yeah. You need the 1e DMG. Everyone needs the 1e DMG. It is the Tome of All RPG.
I suspect the "50th Anniversary Edition" will be a 5.5e, not a true 6e...and it will be slathered in a shitfest of woke nonsense.
I doubt WotC will risk losing the 5e audience by trying anything fresh and new.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1132625I suspect the "50th Anniversary Edition" will be a 5.5e, not a true 6e...and it will be slathered in a shitfest of woke nonsense.
I doubt WotC will risk losing the 5e audience by trying anything fresh and new.
The illustrations for each of the playable character "Races", could be interesting...... Will they still show Males and Females?
Quote from: Razor 007;1132631The illustrations for each of the playable character "Races", could be interesting...... Will they still show Males and Females?
Probably, but judging by Paizo et al it'll be Ancestry or Heritage not Race.
Quote from: S'mon;1132637Probably, but judging by Paizo et al it'll be Ancestry or Heritage not Race.
"A rose by any other name..."
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132666"A rose by any other name..."
...is a
Species! :p
Seriously, though, SJWisms aside, I sometimes wonder about the accuracy of the term "race" when when talking about things that might not even be biological, depending on what types of "races" might be available in a game or setting, like Warforged, which are constructs and therefore not a "race", or a Species or Ancestry for that matter. I've been using "class" (short for "classification") for my own universal system, as in "what type of being are you
classified as?" Which I think covers constructs, undead, mutants, etc., in addition to "races" or species.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132667...is a Species! :p
Seriously, though, SJWisms aside, I sometimes wonder about the accuracy of the term "race" when when talking about things that might not even be biological, depending on what types of "races" might be available in a game or setting, like Warforged, which are constructs and therefore not a "race", or a Species or Ancestry for that matter. I've been using "class" (short for "classification") for my own universal system, as in "what type of being are you classified as?" Which I think covers constructs, undead, mutants, etc., in addition to "races" or species.
I prefer Species, but you're correct, it doesn't cover constructs, but then again I don't allow Special Snowflake PCs. It might present a problem for Sci-Fi IF the game allows for Androids or Robots as PCs.
But who says you have to have only one class of beings? Species for the biological ones and Constructs, for the non-biological ones. This only presents a problem if you think about Elementals...
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132668I prefer Species, but you're correct, it doesn't cover constructs, but then again I don't allow Special Snowflake PCs. It might present a problem for Sci-Fi IF the game allows for Androids or Robots as PCs.
But who says you have to have only one class of beings? Species for the biological ones and Constructs, for the non-biological ones. This only presents a problem if you think about Elementals...
I like snowflake PCs (sometimes), but it depends on the type of setting and what the campaign is about. Sometimes it might not even make sense to reference it at all. If all characters must be human, for example, like in the case of Cyberpunk 2020, then "race" becomes irrelevant. But if you're playing a sci-fi game that includes androids as PCs, like you point out, then neither Species nor Race works as a term to refer to that aspect of your character that define "what" they are.
And classes of being can be pretty extensive, including biological species/races, magical constructs (golems), mechanical constructs (robots), elementals, undead, spirits, or what they call "Outsiders" in D&D (angels, demons, etc.). But none of these categories really work as a label to include in your character sheet to refer to "what" your character is. I even wonder if traditional D&D "races" really qualify as races or species. Though, I suppose some connotations or uses of the word "race" could technically apply to any generic group of people.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132686I like snowflake PCs (sometimes), but it depends on the type of setting and what the campaign is about. Sometimes it might not even make sense to reference it at all. If all characters must be human, for example, like in the case of Cyberpunk 2020, then "race" becomes irrelevant. But if you're playing a sci-fi game that includes androids as PCs, like you point out, then neither Species nor Race works as a term to refer to that aspect of your character that define "what" they are.
And classes of being can be pretty extensive, including biological species/races, magical constructs (golems), mechanical constructs (robots), elementals, undead, spirits, or what they call "Outsiders" in D&D (angels, demons, etc.). But none of these categories really work as a label to include in your character sheet to refer to "what" your character is. I even wonder if traditional D&D "races" really qualify as races or species. Though, I suppose some connotations or uses of the word "race" could technically apply to any generic group of people.
Then make it Beings?
If it's not human it's not people per the definition.
Alignment will be replaced with "orientation," which will be simply a keyword to be triggered through roleplay to award inspiration. Lawful, chaotic, trustworthy, pansexual, nihilist, ticklish, whatever the player wants.
Not gonna lie, chaotic ticklish sounds like an awesome alignment to explore. :cool:
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132693Then make it Beings?
"Being" doesn't really work as a label for that space in your character sheet where you write what your character is the way that "Race:__________", "Species:__________" or "Class:__________" do.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132693If it's not human it's not people per the definition.
It depends on the sense you're using for the definition of the word "person", which has multiple meanings. In philosophy, a "person" is a self-conscious rational being, which could hypothetically include self-aware non-humans capable of some degree of rational thought. An elf or a true AI is technically a "person". Therefore they are people. Which makes me wonder if "race" could accurately apply to stuff like vampires or robots, since one meaning of the word race includes "any group, class or kind, especially of persons". At least according to Dictionary.com.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132737"Being" doesn't really work as a label for that space in your character sheet where you write what your character is the way that "Race:__________", "Species:__________" or "Class:__________" do.
It depends on the sense you're using for the definition of the word "person", which has multiple meanings. In philosophy, a "person" is a self-conscious rational being, which could hypothetically include self-aware non-humans capable of some degree of rational thought. An elf or a true AI is technically a "person". Therefore they are people. Which makes me wonder if "race" could accurately apply to stuff like vampires or robots, since one meaning of the word race includes "any group, class or kind, especially of persons". At least according to Dictionary.com.
Which is why philosophy is shit. You can justify anything.
Quote from: Opaopajr;1132735Not gonna lie, chaotic ticklish sounds like an awesome alignment to explore. :cool:
That reminds me I actually saw some Tumblrite on Twitter once post some cutesy alternatives to alignment and I could've sworn "chaotic ticklish" was an option. I'm almost certain the word "ticklish" was there.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132738Which is why philosophy is shit. You can justify anything.
So if an alien species or dimensional being from another world capable of self-awareness and rational thought arrived and made contact with us they wouldn't be people cuz of they don't fit some arbitrary definition of a word we made up all for our lonesome?
Also, philosophy is the root of science and ethnics, which is the root of law. Philosophy is the root of civilization.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132741So if an alien species or dimensional being from another world capable of self-awareness and rational thought arrived and made contact with us they wouldn't be people cuz of they don't fit some arbitrary definition of a word we made up all for our lonesome?
Also, philosophy is the root of science and ethnics, which is the root of law. Philosophy is the root of civilization.
Yep, invent a new word or change the definition.
Philosophy WAS the root of all human knowledge, that stooped being true when the postmodernists and ludites took over the field, now it's the root of all evil.
Talking about a 'race of robots' is fine by me, and would be my preference for a sci-fantasy or planetary romance type settings.
Talking about a 'species of robot' sounds more pseudo-scientific and would fit most space opera settings.
Making up a new word would just be annoying.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132737Which makes me wonder if "race" could accurately apply to stuff like vampires or robots, since one meaning of the word race includes "any group, class or kind, especially of persons". At least according to Dictionary.com.
This (group or class of persons) is an older use of race; up until the 19th century it was the most common use, though it normally included an implication of common descent - the Scots race, the English race, the German race, the Arab race, the Chinese race. It covers nationality and ethnicity. More common in Europe than in the USA I'd say, especially once Proposition Nation/Melting Pot ideology got going. It wouldn't be used to cover a group like vampires infected by a disease - no one said "the leper race" - or with a common ideology, no "the Christian race". But vampires do trace a sort of lineage/descent of infection in some settings like WoD so I can see it being expanded to cover them. Or robots with a common origin of manufacture.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132742Yep, invent a new word or change the definition.
There's already a word for humans, it's called humans. The only reason words like "person" and "people", and the notion of "personhood" exist as separate terms is to describe the abstract philosophical idea of a rational being capable of self-awareness. And the only reason why "person/people" are synonimous with "humans" is because our species is the only species in the planet advanced enough for those terms to arguably apply to, since most other animals lack the level of self-awareness and rationality necessary to qualify for the terms. If other intelligence species capable of creating technology existed in this planet "person" would have applied to them too.
There have even been debates about extending "personhood" to apply to animals like dolphins and whales (which have officially being recognized as persons in India) cuz those animals are intelligent enough to possess self-awareness and display a degree of rationality. They just lack the opposable thumbs to be able to do anything useful with that intelligence.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132742Philosophy WAS the root of all human knowledge, that stooped being true when the postmodernists and ludites took over the field, now it's the root of all evil.
Yeah, and science can be used to level an entire city and turn it into a radioactive wasteland, or to bio-engineer a virus, let it loose in China and start a pandemic. But that doesn't make science responsible for the moronic shit that people do with it. Besides, postmodernists took over the social sciences, not philosophy. So if anything, by your logic it's the social sciences that have to go (...and nothing of value would be lost).
IMO, most of the major problems in this world can be traced to the lack of philosophy as a course in school, particularly in the US, where "SJW" ideology originated from. Since we now have an entire population of idiots with no concept of logic, WTF fallacies are, or the ability to engage in proper argumentation. They just feel entitled with their uninformed "opinion", and if their opinions don't match reality, then its reality that has to change rather than their out of touch opinions. Which IMO, is by design, cuz the people in power want an easily controlled population, and rational people that can see through their BS don't make good subjects.
Quote from: S'mon;1132748Talking about a 'race of robots' is fine by me, and would be my preference for a sci-fantasy or planetary romance type settings.
Talking about a 'species of robot' sounds more pseudo-scientific and would fit most space opera settings.
Making up a new word would just be annoying.
Quote from: S'mon;1132749This (group or class of persons) is an older use of race; up until the 19th century it was the most common use, though it normally included an implication of common descent - the Scots race, the English race, the German race, the Arab race, the Chinese race. It covers nationality and ethnicity. More common in Europe than in the USA I'd say, especially once Proposition Nation/Melting Pot ideology got going. It wouldn't be used to cover a group like vampires infected by a disease - no one said "the leper race" - or with a common ideology, no "the Christian race". But vampires do trace a sort of lineage/descent of infection in some settings like WoD so I can see it being expanded to cover them. Or robots with a common origin of manufacture.
I'm still thinking it over, but I might reconsider my use of "class" to refer to what type of being a character is in my system and use "race" instead. Since "class" has become too associated with "profession" in RPGs, and "race" has developed widespread use to mean "class of beings" thanks to D&D.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132738Which is why philosophy is shit. You can justify anything.
"Philosophy is shit, and science rulez" is a philosophy. And an anti-scientific one. You can't be unphilosophical without truly being a borderline braindead ultra consumer.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1132800IMO, most of the major problems in this world can be traced to the lack of philosophy as a course in school, particularly in the US, where "SJW" ideology originated from.
It's not that philosophy isn't taught in school. They just say it isn't. You can be taught about logical fallacies and whatever else and just never apply them to yourselves or just reject them.
When I was in high school I laughed at the slippery slope stuff conservatives where saying. I ain't laughing now, and having studied history: I don't think I should have ever been laughing.
My view of the global crisis is that WWI and WWII fucked up the general go-to strategy of Civilizations (Conquer, Expand, implode, repeat), and so with nothing left to do we are all in a panic that social justice promises the solution too.
QuoteI'm still thinking it over, but I might reconsider my use of "class" to refer to what type of being a character is in my system and use "race" instead.
Words adapt over time. Geek means something else than in 1930. It shouldn't be an issue except to pissbabies that we use race to refer to other creature type things.