Community

My current non-buy-for-this-reason list is as follows (in random order):

• lack of story-based reward for players; in other words, they are not being given XP, Action Point, Fairy Dust, etc. for playing out the story of their PCs' belief, dreams, goals, motivations, alignment, instincts, etc.
• lack of campaign-altering authority for players; more specifically, a creation guide in the image of Dresden Files' A City Full of Problems subsection of City Creation chapter. Really, the whole chapter. (recognition is currently being afforded to D&D Next that this is not currently on the agenda while classes, races, monsters, and spells are more important issues.)
• over-abundance of combat-related class features, combat-centric adventure-day designs (such as HD per day), and monster interaction mantra
• feeble representation of three pillars in equal balance; by this I infer that exploration and interaction are not provided as much support as combat (if you subscribe to the three-pillars model described). As a point, there is not sufficient mechanical weight to the appropriate skills for exploration or interaction which a player or DM can rely upon to create reliable results and solid rulings. Furthermore, there is not sufficient mechanical reward to pursuing threads in exploration and interaction which a player or DM can use to deepen or enliven an adventure. Lastly, there is not sufficient mechanical benefit to pursuing threads in exploration and interaction which a player or DM can use to fulfill adventure objectives.
• class system relying on mechanical representation of story elements, rather than class system providing role elements without story ties. This is possibly not an item which can be discussed, but I would prefer to see a class system which offers far less fluff and far more mechanical packaging that can be applied to player-built fluff. (e.g. Defender class is provided +n to defensive stats and given class-bound defensive features; player tells whether this is knight, paladin, cavalier, swashbuckler, warden, barbarian, etc. by way of personification, background, choice of weapons and armor, culture, equipment, religion, etc.) One might say I prefer fewer classes and hope those classes are not terms which may be applied by NPCs or PCs to describe themselves in-game.
• over-reliance on existing canon; lack of innovative change-of-scenery with respect to time period analog, technology era analog, and more. I really want to play a fantasy world experiencing a different time in their history; currently, the mechanics rely upon narrative description within a similar time frame as has always been presented in D&D.
• pandering to other playstyles; rude, but true. I feel the discussion from R&D via weekly articles does not open the discussion for changes I want to discuss. It doesn't present an open forum for presenting the sort of game I'd like D&D to evolve towards. As such, I feel R&D is pandering to another playstyle which excludes my interests. So, as I said, rude. I ought o have a more open mind, but I'm selfishly looking at this game lacking really interesting elements for me.