Rabulias
the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Yeah... I was thinking we were getting a 2024 DMG preview of new boons.Booms??? Or books...?
I started to think there was some new thing called "booms" going on.
Yeah... I was thinking we were getting a 2024 DMG preview of new boons.Booms??? Or books...?
I started to think there was some new thing called "booms" going on.
I'm of the opinion that a lot of the changes WotC put forth in the original playtest packets for One D&D weren't actually all that much better than the stuff we already had, but some folks really latched onto them because they were new and different ideas. And for some players, anything new would be a welcomed sight. But just because something is new doesn't mean it's actually more worthwhile to have in the game, and it seems apparently that a lot of the playerbase felt that way.
This may have been a good idea (or not), but it was not fully implemented, and it was easy to see initial holes:The spell source groupings are just one example: is assigning spells to groups of classes actually appreciably "better" that assigning spells to individual classes? Doesn't seem that way based on opinions and poll results. That change looks like it did not set off any "Eureka!" moment that exploded the game open and made everyone go "Why didn't we think of this before!?! We need this!" Which is not surprising... most ideas in all ways of life end up being met with just shrugs from a lot of people and very few ever are worth a 'Eureka!' reaction.
The process did not allow for this sort of nuanced interpretation.Now, was the change interesting? I'm sure to a lot of players it was, oftentimes just as a curiosity factor for delving into something new and seeing how things could be... but I suspect (based on the poll results) that not a lot of people thought it was a changed that HAD to be made to the game to make it appreciably better.
Backwards compatibility was a sacred cow, but cries for its importance, at least on these boards, have diminished significantly over the past 18 months. But yes, this was another icon that was held up with no clear shared understanding of what it impled.It'd make spellcasting in 5E24 slightly different, sure, but different for difference sake does not make it worth doing per se. And if compatibility and accessibility were important for this new game update,
it looks like WotC felt there was no reason to swap out things that worked fine for most people and wouldn't be markedly improved by the new idea. Which is also not surprising-- if most players actually like most of the 5E14 D&D game... there's no reason to change things for the sake of changing them-- spell groupings, the Warlock chassis, wildshape templates etc.
There were other factors, too: serial corporate shenanigans and missteps coloured the whole process, and part of the process was designed to create conversations and engage the fanbase: even if nothing was changed in the rules, that angle succeeded. In terms of promotion, the playtest was successful. I just don't think we can conclude that these were changes for change's sake, rightly shot down. We just don't have the dat that support that conclusion.And while some people might have thought any of those ideas were the greatest ideas... if not enough people agreed then there was no reason for a switch to be made.
Can you expand on what you find objectionable about this? Because it's one of the few thinks Perkins has ever said that I agree with!I felt like it might be a bit mean but then I read the article properly, and it's obvious Chris Perkins is operating on "average forum poster" levels of game design ideas, not like "game designer" levels of game design, like for example, Chris Perkins says:
Welcome to ill-considered ideas island - it's got a vast population of total randos talking about stuff they don't understand! I'm often one of them too! Also good thing that's a personal opinion buddy because I'm very sure Mearls didn't share it and pretty sure Crawford doesn't.
I'm not sure why they're even talking to Perkins, honestly, about this. It's rather odd.
Is that you, Bakunin?
This is easily the most extreme nihilist take I've ever read re: selling a game!
They can absolutely do more than "hope they don't upset the apple cart" or "poke around a bit"! They could do significantly more in-depth research, they could gather different kinds of data from what they do, they could have considered bigger or even small changes than they actually presented, and they could very certainly take a better approach than "0.01% of audience has a 70% approval with zero nuance of this thing" (it wasn't 0.01% but it's down there). They don't want to because they're risk-averse and also don't seem to have a high opinion of their own talent. That's not necessarily a totally bad thing, but it is a specific thing, and it's not the only way it could be.
I say "they" but I'm not convinced Perkins or Crawford actually could. I mean, god love 'em, but I think they're pretty much the definition of "milquetoast" when it comes to game design. It's like, they're the Coldplay of game designers. Coldplay sold a lot of records! They're boring, safe, unimaginative, and their biggest hits aren't really that great. But they fill stadiums and they sell records, what more do you want, you unreasonable Ruin Explorer?
You see that here even - Perkins says not "trying to prove himself as a game designer", and it's like, well good thing because you're basically just coasting on the design Mearls, Crawford, Thompson and Lee did back in 2014! Why would we think you, a man who is primarily an editor, is trying to prove themselves as a game designer?
Chris Perkins didn't use the word tank, that's what the journalist uses in their own words. A games journalist at that, so yes, I feel pretty comfortable in saying people use the term pretty loosely for "tough frontline type".This is flatly untrue.
Most people discussing D&D and other games use "tank" far more precisely now than they did say, 10 or 15 years ago.
This is Chris Perkins using it imprecisely and inaccurately, not "people". Whilst a Monk can be played as a tank, it's unconventional, and unless the changes in 2024 for Monks are bigger than we thought, not something you could easily do.
I mean, the initial D&D Next design was 4 base Classes, with larger Subclasses. The player surveys shot that down. Perkins is just revealing that he was part of Team Class Minimalism when asked why they didn't add more newbase Classes this go around: because if he was in charge and not beholden to fan surveys, he would reduce the Core Classes to 4. Which is viable.Welcome to ill-considered ideas island - it's got a vast population of total randos talking about stuff they don't understand! I'm often one of them too! Also good thing that's a personal opinion buddy because I'm very sure Mearls didn't share it and pretty sure Crawford doesn't.
He is talking about game design and reducing a large number of choices down to a series of small choices. This reduces the amount of information players need to start playing.I felt like it might be a bit mean but then I read the article properly, and it's obvious Chris Perkins is operating on "average forum poster" levels of game design ideas, not like "game designer" levels of game design, like for example, Chris Perkins says:
Welcome to ill-considered ideas island - it's got a vast population of total randos talking about stuff they don't understand! I'm often one of them too! Also good thing that's a personal opinion buddy because I'm very sure Mearls didn't share it and pretty sure Crawford doesn't.
I'm not sure why they're even talking to Perkins, honestly, about this. It's rather odd.
I think the 12 options (13 at this point, eventually maybe as much as 14 or 15!) of 5E, plus Subclasses, has been a. Good balance overall...but it is notable that so many new and fresh games tend towards the minimalism that Perkins describes.He is talking about game design and reducing a large number of choices down to a series of small choices. This reduces the amount of information players need to start playing.
I.e.
Instead of having to read and choose between 12 options, reading 12 pages..
You instead choose between 4, and next level you read and choose between 3.
So now a player only needs to read 4+3 =7 pages.
But the game still has 4*3 = 12 options.
The same reason why computers are divided up into folders. Or why you have a closet for towels and a closet for clothes.
Now there is certainly lots of room for debate over how to organize all that. But there is good reason to do so.
I.e.
Fighter 1: choose between knight, brute, or archery.
The level 2, Knight divided to Paladin, Armoror, and Shield Master
Had it's benefits.
That's not what it looks like he's saying. You seem to be reading a lot into that. He looks like he's just saying "average forum poster" stuff where he's just come up with the "genius" idea that that Fighters and Barbarians cover some of the same ground. He doesn't even mention the approach you're discussing.I mean, the initial D&D Next design was 4 base Classes, with larger Subclasses. The surveys shot thst down. Perkins is just revealing that he was part of Team Class Minimalism when asked why they didn't add more newbase Classes this go around: because if he was in charge and not beholden to fan surveys, he would reduce the Core Classes to 4. Which is viable.
He's not engaging in humility, quite the contrary, he's engaging in hubris. He's not a game designer. He's an editor and adventure writer. So... unless we're talking about different things...But heaven forbid anyone show any kind of humility and openly admit they could improve! Obviously that have no concept of greatness!
And even on that basis, which is a fine basis, I don't think they've remotely done everything they could.The goal of the game is to sell to the most people it can. It's not to design the "perfect" game. It's not even about designing a "better" game because based on previous discussions I can pretty much guarantee your "better" game would likely be a game I wouldn't want to play. D&D is not a boutique game, it's goal is to appeal to the broadest audience possible. I'm perfectly okay with that because I happen to like the game. For me, it's the best version of D&D ever published even if there are things I dislike. As a developer I've always had the motto of don't let perfection get in the way of good enough. For millions of people good enough works.
They did fix it in an early draft, that's the funny thing.In my experience, new players constantly stumble on the wizard/sorcerer distinction in particular -- it's the kind of thing a competent designer would have fixed in an early draft.
Which ones? Because I've seen games attempt to minimalize classes for decades - since the 1990s - and it rarely proves popular or successful. In fact it seems to be a pretty great way to ensure your game never becomes terribly popular. Even classless games tend to do a lot better than games which have 3-4 broad classes. Don't get me started on the Cypher system lol.but it is notable that so many new and fresh games tend towards the minimalism that Perkins describes.