D&D 5E Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?

[Parmandur]

On this forum there is a lot of:

"I want this."

"No, WotC knows better than you and you should not get it."

It is devastating for a positive forum debate climate.

What's the point of asking or needing or wanting anything if apologists that doesn't like it are free to shoot it all down using this argument.

There's no need to discuss ANYTHING in that case. Since WotC are successful and their bottom line defines what's right and wrong, we should apparently just wait obediently for whatever morsels they deign to let us pay money for, and we should be thankful.

It's absurd. It's useless. It's clogging up thread after thread with just waste.

TLDR If you disagree have the guts to say so, instead of hiding behind "It's not good for WotC's coffers" as if that was our concern.

I disagree with what you want, and don't want to see it happen: there is a zero-sum game at work here. Happily enough, your suggestions won't happen for a number of reasons elucidated earlier in the thread, but it boils down to "it wouldn't make good business sense to pursue that angle." We know this because WotC has said as much, and are in the position to know and have every motivation to be honest.

 

[Retreater]

You need more of these sitting outside the wine cellar in the abandoned giants' walking house. When the dragonborn started running his hands over one chair, the snakewomen came to life and detached themselves from the wood.

View attachment 100451

I'm finding ways to make it interesting, but only by working outside the RAW. Whenever I run monsters as written, they are just bags of hit points that are dreadfully boring.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sigh. If this were the case, you could not strawnan group ideas or popular ideas unless you specifically say Bob said it. The common case, where the strawman is employed against a specific speaker, is not the only case.

Further, in a own goal moment, your above argument makes the case that quoting is attribution, which is what you where denying originally. So, if I'm right, you strawmanned. If you're right, you strawmanned. It's a fun morning!

I'd even go so far as to say that most strawmen aren't directed directly at what someone has said, but a generic argument that no one actually made. For example, let's say you and I are having an argument about gun control. (Not getting political, just using for illustrative purposes because it's a super common example), and I bring up measures that politicians have tried to bring forward like background checks. And you reply directly to me (because I'm the one you're talking to) and say you're against gun control because gun control advocates want to take away everyone's guns. You're not directly responding to me because you're talking about GC advocates in general, but it's still a strawman because GC advocates have not made that argument (talking in general, not the one off outlier that occasionally might pop up) and no GC politician has proposed legislation that would do that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

On this forum there is a lot of:

"I want this."

"No, WotC knows better than you and you should not get it."

It is devastating for a positive forum debate climate.

What's devastating for a positive forum debate climate is what is actually happening, and not your misrepresentation of it. What's really happening is people like you say:

"D&D needs to have this, the developers are lazy and catering to the lowest denominator, everything about this game from classes to races to magic to monsters is broken, anyone who doesn't see how this is a huge problem is an apologist, and if they don't do what I want, they're gonna go down in flames."


Let's be honest here. LOTS of people (almost all of us) say how we want things. Not a single person has ever told me that WoTC knows better than me so I should just be quiet. It's when people say things like you've repeatedly said when people will respond because you've not just said what you want, you've constantly attacked people and the company for not giving it to you. There's a difference.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

It is painful when the gamers that were the focus for so many years find that they have been kicked to the curb and aren't the ones being catered to anymore.

Its like tabletop mini gaming, it keeps getting simpler/streamlined, and those who want thick books of rules and options to build tactics around suddenly find themselves abandoned by the games they have loved for so long. then they wail on DakkaDakka about how the game is going downhill while sales soar. Thankfully there is usually someone there to put out a rule-set for that market, but they want their 40k/WH/BA/WM the way it was in some prior edition with all those fiddly bits.

I admit I did drop running 5e but not for PC options issues.

 

[GlassJaw]

The reality is that there is no point in discussing WotC's release schedule on here. We might as well discuss the optimum frequently of full moons for all the impact we'd have.

They're a business acting in a business-like manner. So I'd recommend keeping your relationship on exactly the same level. Keep emotion out of it - if they produce something you like, buy; if they produce something you don't like, skip it; and if they don't produce, go elsewhere.

I don't agree. If anything, WotC's business model for 5E has been to ask for feedback every step of the way. They did an open playtest, they are releasing free content (UA), they take polls after each UA article, heck, they are even now offering "beta" content on DMS Guild (the new Eberron Guide) to see how it is received and make updates based on the feedback.

So to say we shouldn't discuss WotC's release schedule is ludicrous.

If enough people speak up on social media, in the polls, etc. and say that 5E is lacking in crunch/customization options, you bet WotC will listen. I'd argue they already have in some respect with the release of Xanathar's Guide.

I'm definitely in the camp where I would love to see some deeper customization options. 5E is my favorite edition by far (and I've played them ALL) but that doesn't mean there isn't anything else I want.

What really frustrated me is the recent Twitter response about the Revised Ranger. I'd be ok if WotC's explanation was something like "we evaluated the feedback and felt that while some players have concerns with the Ranger, there wasn't enough to warrant a lot of our bandwidth at this time to continue the Revised Ranger project." But instead it was a slap in the face and completely contrary to WotC's stance on soliciting feedback up to this point. It was essentially saying "if you think the Ranger needs to be revised, you are wrong. Too bad grognards."

 

[jgsugden]

I think if the people complaining spent a bit more time focusing on the RP and less on the G, they might be more interested and satisfied. I've played in long running simplistic RPGs with pretty much no advancement for the PCs - and I had a blast. A satisfying mechanical build behind your game can be a nice accent, but the core of any good RPG campaign is the RP.

 

[Oofta]

I don't agree. If anything, WotC's business model for 5E has been to ask for feedback every step of the way. They did an open playtest, they are releasing free content (UA), they take polls after each UA article, heck, they are even now offering "beta" content on DMS Guild (the new Eberron Guide) to see how it is received and make updates based on the feedback.

So to say we shouldn't discuss WotC's release schedule is ludicrous.

If enough people speak up on social media, in the polls, etc. and say that 5E is lacking in crunch/customization options, you bet WotC will listen. I'd argue they already have in some respect with the release of Xanathar's Guide.

I'm definitely in the camp where I would love to see some deeper customization options. 5E is my favorite edition by far (and I've played them ALL) but that doesn't mean there isn't anything else I want.

What really frustrated me is the recent Twitter response about the Revised Ranger. I'd be ok if WotC's explanation was something like "we evaluated the feedback and felt that while some players have concerns with the Ranger, there wasn't enough to warrant a lot of our bandwidth at this time to continue the Revised Ranger project." But instead it was a slap in the face and completely contrary to WotC's stance on soliciting feedback up to this point. It was essentially saying "if you think the Ranger needs to be revised, you are wrong. Too bad grognards."

Based on this poll, only about 13% of the people on this thread agree with you that it's a problem. WOTC isn't going to change their business model for that percentage of players when a significant percentage of those people won't ever be satisfied.

Feel free to complain all you want, but most people think this version is good or at least good enough. There is no such thing as a perfect game.

 

[5ekyu]

On this forum there is a lot of:

"I want this."

"No, WotC knows better than you and you should not get it."

It is devastating for a positive forum debate climate.

What's the point of asking or needing or wanting anything if apologists that doesn't like it are free to shoot it all down using this argument.

There's no need to discuss ANYTHING in that case. Since WotC are successful and their bottom line defines what's right and wrong, we should apparently just wait obediently for whatever morsels they deign to let us pay money for, and we should be thankful.

It's absurd. It's useless. It's clogging up thread after thread with just waste.

TLDR If you disagree have the guts to say so, instead of hiding behind "It's not good for WotC's coffers" as if that was our concern.

I cant think that i see the boldedc type comments paired together a lot on these forums.

What i tend to see more of the kind of linkage close to that is when:

"i want this" is expressed as " i want wotc to change what they are doing and do this for me" or something like "i want this and its just better than what wotc currently does."

Both of those are frequently met with "the observation of how successful wotc current plan is.

But hey, maybe you are reading different threads than i am.

But at its core - the answer to " i want this" is obviously "then do it for your games" unless the statement is really not just something you want but something you want someone else to do for you... as noted above.

If you really meant it as "i want them to do this for me" but limited it to "i want this" cuz that makes you point seem more reasonable... then you get what you sow.

 

[GlassJaw]

I think if the people complaining spent a bit more time focusing on the RP and less on the G, they might be more interested and satisfied. I've played in long running simplistic RPGs with pretty much no advancement for the PCs - and I had a blast. A satisfying mechanical build behind your game can be a nice accent, but the core of any good RPG campaign is the RP.

I like both. I'll play my way, you can play yours. Thanks.