D&D 5e is being billed as the Rosetta Stone for the different versions of Dungeons & Dragons. Is that what we need from it?
Yesterday's post asking readers (both on the blog and Google+) what they wanted and did not want in 5e generated some heated responses, especially on the G+ thread (250 comments - holy carp!).
It obvious that we know what we want, and what we dont want, in an RPG. Can a single game offer everyone in the hobby an experience that suits their tastes? Should one even try to bridge those gaps?
Monte's article on what each edition boiled down to was, in my humble opinion, a load of horse crap written by a marketing guy. Each edition has it's own feel, it's own personality that goes beyond mere rules. To think that you can capture such from each edition and combine it into a working whole, let alone a working whole that the majority of D&D players from all editions will flock to is a fools errand.
I think Monte, in his heart, knows that. He can either embrace the rules from 0e through 3e, or build them with 3.5e and 4e. He may be giving lip service to being all inclusive, but I suspect "certain restrictions will apply."
We don't need a new edition of D&D that tries to be everything and pleases no one. We need a game that respects the history of the brand.
None of us, from the Grognards through the fans of 4e NEED a new system. No one is obligated to play it, let alone but it.
If they want us, any of us, they need to decide which segment of their historical base they are looking to please, to bring back to the fold.
Judging from the success of Pathfinder, I think they've identified their target. Lets see how accurate they are in pulling it off.
Rural Ruminations - Maps form such a fundamental part of our gaming experience. We explore them. We journey across them. We delve into them. We defend them. We attack them. ...
1 hour ago