D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books

[Oofta]

You're god dang right we will. They'll hit 100 pages too.

Maybe we should start a betting pool. Which class will be the new "This class is terribly designed because it's performance is below average"?

 

[TheSword]

I think there is another point from the interview that resonated. Not feeling the need to prove himself as a designer or publish a vanity project. How many changes in earlier edition shifts came about because new designers tried to be radical, because there were major systemic issues, and because sales weren’t where they were expected leading to demands for a revolution. For all the rejection of 5e’s popularity as validation, it’s popularity has removed the designers from the need to sell, sell, sell arguably letting them focus on fine tuning rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is something unusual with 5e in that I bought as many books last year (and will this year) as I did the first and second year the game came out. That definitely wasn’t the case in any other edition of any game I’ve played. That isn’t a question of popularity. It’s a case of WotC still publishing things which I really want to buy and use. That’s pretty darn impressive. I can compare that to the dying days of pathfinder 1 and 3e and it’s is dramatically different. Even though I played both systems almost to the very end of their life.

 

[Shardstone]

Maybe we should start a betting pool. Which class will be the new "This class is terribly designed because it's performance is below average"?

My bet is on Fighter (and I believe it can be designed better then the latest OD&D version too!). People not gonna be happy when the Fighter releases with the same jank system for choosing weapon masteries as it did in the last playtest; this isn't because the masteries are bad, but because how the fighter goes about getting more really makes like no sense.

 

[Hussar]

I can are play experience over theorycrafting, and my experiences are reflected in wotcs choices. So lets stop assuming everyone complaining is all theorycrafting, and that the complaints have no basis in reality.

Sorry, not quite understanding that first sentence.

But, at no point did I say that everyone complaining is all theory crafting and their complaints have no basis in reality. I said that people who rely on theory crafting for criticising the system generally are doing so to bolster their own biases without any actual substance to their criticisms. Again, theory crafting is great for identifying potential problems. But, it's only half the job. You still need to actually TEST those theories. And that's where play experience comes in.

 

[Shardstone]

Sorry, not quite understanding that first sentence.

But, at no point did I say that everyone complaining is all theory crafting and their complaints have no basis in reality. I said that people who rely on theory crafting for criticising the system generally are doing so to bolster their own biases without any actual substance to their criticisms. Again, theory crafting is great for identifying potential problems. But, it's only half the job. You still need to actually TEST those theories. And that's where play experience comes in.

Hahahaha talk about a typo. I meant to type: "I can point to my play experiences over theorycrafting..."

 

[Micah Sweet]

It was a failure for me. I tried to make it work for me and my group. And it was a failure for many other people. So much that WotC decided that continuing that game would not make sense for them.

In the end it was a runaway success in the sense that people around me ran away from it.

So I was really happy when D&D next started. And I am still happy.

And I see you are still sad that 4e and don't accept that fact that you were a minority at that time.
That still does not mean that popular = good. It is all about different prefetences. Sometimes you happen to like what many people like. Sometimes it is just the opposite.

Calling that "appeal to popularity" shows that you try to undermine some else's preference.

To be fair, if it really is just about preference, why does 5e's popularity keep being brought up by its proponents? It does seem to be considered a reason why some consider it a great game.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Maybe we should start a betting pool. Which class will be the new "This class is terribly designed because it's performance is below average"?

Ranger. It's always ranger.

 

[gorice]

To change the subject slightly. My big takeaway from this interview is how 5e truly has broken the boom-and-bust mold from earlier editions. Or at least stretched the lifespan out significantly.

The bloat followed by a clean slate and an entire new product range along (with everything that comes with that) seems to be over. That is a pretty incredible thing.

That's not a question of design, though, it's a business decision. WotC are selling the idea that there is only one RPG, and it's D&D, and there's only one D&D, and it's this one. With the direction they've been taking recently, it seems pretty clear to me that WotC are going for the TTRPG equivalent of a live-sevice model.

So, they've kind of painted themselves into a corner, in which they have promised all things to all people (because there is only one game in town), and they cannot innovate (because changing anything would upset a segment of their customer base). I'd call it 'stagnation' rather than 'stability', though I guess it's the same thing.

 

[Oofta]

That's not a question of design, though, it's a business decision. WotC are selling the idea that there is only one RPG, and it's D&D, and there's only one D&D, and it's this one. With the direction they've been taking recently, it seems pretty clear to me that WotC are going for the TTRPG equivalent of a live-sevice model.

So, they've kind of painted themselves into a corner, in which they have promised all things to all people (because there is only one game in town), and they cannot innovate (because changing anything would upset a segment of their customer base). I'd call it 'stagnation' rather than 'stability', though I guess it's the same thing.

The people working on 5E said it was the last edition because they thought D&D was dying and they were just keeping the IP alive. Now? It's still selling well, far better than anyone ever expected. So of course they aren't going to make major changes, why would they? Doesn't mean it can't use a tune up.

 

[gorice]

The people working on 5E said it was the last edition because they thought D&D was dying and they were just keeping the IP alive. Now? It's still selling well, far better than anyone ever expected. So of course they aren't going to make major changes, why would they? Doesn't mean it can't use a tune up.

So that's the thing, right? 5e was a rushed edition, made on a shoestring, with a bunch of unpopular last-minute changes between playtest and publication, aiming to convince the widest number of people that it was 'real' D&D this time -- whatever that means.

Having achieved financial success and exploded the brand's visibility, the obvious step would be to rework the game's design in a way that mirrors its success and its new, larger player-base. Except that they can't do that, for the reasons I mentioned above. D&D is a brand, made of more-or-less arbitrary components, and changing any of these is going to upset someone.