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

[UngeheuerLich]

The actual gameplay is not like older editions, though. I think it feels that way because (1) it's full of nostalgia bait, and (2) you haven't actually changed the way you play very much, at least at a higher level. I don't think you like 5e; you like the game you were always playing, and 5e made you feel validated. The reason people were upset about 4e is that it had functional rules that were meant to be used, and they didn't want to be told how to play.


Those were just examples. Giving a full list would take me a long time. The short version is: 5e doesn't just work, but it's vague enough that people have convinced themselves it does.

Do you also believe in flat earth?
Because your argumentation sounds familiar...

Also, I want to reiterate, I never said anything about the ranger or druid being underpowered. I'm saying that they don't make sense as fantasies, unless the fantasy is 'D&D ranger and druid'. It's all self-referential.

 

[Hussar]

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

All your base are belong to us?

 

[Azzy]

The actual gameplay is not like older editions, though. I think it feels that way because (1) it's full of nostalgia bait, and (2) you haven't actually changed the way you play very much, at least at a higher level. I don't think you like 5e; you like the game you were always playing, and 5e made you feel validated. The reason people were upset about 4e is that it had functional rules that were meant to be used, and they didn't want to be told how to play.

The hubris here is simply astounding.

 

[gorice]

Fighters attack creatures with sharp pointy things and can do it all day long. Wizards cast a limited list of spells, clerics heal, rogues rogue. We have ability scores, saving throws, roll a D20 against an AC. Most of the gameplay outside of combat is pretty free-form (I know there were alternatives here and there, we never used them). You're less likely to die because of a single bad roll, but we house-ruled or ignored most of those.

I gotta say "I don't think you like 5e" is one of the weirdest most overblown statement I've ever seen on this forum. I can't even say I'm offended because it's just ... a bizarre statement to make. You don't get to tell me or the people I play with what we think, what we like or why.

Sorry if I insulted you. It was certainly a provocative comment, but the point was to provoke consideration. Like, what is it about 5e, specifically, that you like? Because flighty fighters, wizards with limited spells, d20s, saving throws, armour class, etc. are just tropes. These elements signify the brand of D&D, but the way the game is designed from edition to edition has changed drastically. When I say D&D the brand has overtaken D&D the game, that's what I mean.

If you didn't use reaction tables, encounter distance tables, morale rules, predeclared actions in combat rounds, or random encounters in the editions that had them, which game were you actually playing? If you did, what game are you playing now? 1e and 5e are simply not the same game, not even close. This is what I mean by the power of nostalgia and branding: WotC are in the business of making us feel like it's all the same thing.

Both statements are pretty condescending to be honest. I have trouble with any argument that proceeds under the assumption that the public are deluded or don’t know their own minds. You know the truth though right? If we only listened to you we’d all be better of yeah? Do we also need to hand you our worldly goods and commit to the new way with an open heart?

Occam’s Razor. Which is simpler - millions of people are suffering from a mass hallucination that D&D is a great game or that you are wrong?

I have no problem with self reference. 50 years on I think there is plenty of space for a bit of self-reference.

Whenever someone criticises the idea that popular = good, accusations of elitism follow. I don't buy it. Firstly, because marketing works. No-one wants to admit that they can be manipulated, everyone imagines themselves a cool cynic, but the reality is that we are all deeply fallible, and truly enormous sums of money are spent every year to exploit that.

Secondly, because 'lowest common denominator' isn't a criticism of the people being denominated. If person A likes spicy food, and person B does not, the dish I make to please them both will have a slight enough dusting of spice that both with find it tolerable. I end up cooking a mediocre dish in order to pander to the greatest number of people.

As for self-reference of the class design: people who are comfortable with the tropes don't have a problem with it. They're also the target audience for nostalgia bait. Without that 50-year context (and even with it, frankly), the ranger and druid are bizarre and idiosyncratic.

 

[Scribe]

And you'll notice that pretty much all the hue and cry over "this is bad" is almost never backed up by actual play experience.

Because its very easy for us nerds to do the math and go LOOK AT THAT, when the reality of it coming up in play is actually quite low.

For every "LOOK AT THAT IF I DIDNT MAX MY PRIMARY I WOULD HAVE MISSED BY 1!!" there are likely dozen if not hundreds of times a player beats or misses a roll by 3 or more.

But that time you snuck through that last attack, or god help you missed by 1? Thats what people remember, and so "I NEED FLOATING ASI!!!"

 

[Scribe]

The actual gameplay is not like older editions, though. I think it feels that way because (1) it's full of nostalgia bait, and (2) you haven't actually changed the way you play very much, at least at a higher level. I don't think you like 5e; you like the game you were always playing, and 5e made you feel validated. The reason people were upset about 4e is that it had functional rules that were meant to be used, and they didn't want to be told how to play.

oh is that what this thread turned into? Yet another one?

Moving on then.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Frontline combatant doesn’t necessarily equate to tank though. Monks are lightly armored, highly mobile single-target damage dealers - what you might call “strikers,” “skirmishers,” “DPS,” or something along those lines. A “tank” is typically a heavily-armored, limited-mobility, space-controlling unit.

Classes don't define combat roles super tightly in 5e. Monks can get a high AC (they don't need heavy armor), and their mobility is part of how they control space. Paladins can become huge sources of damage via smites. Or they can spend those same slots on healing and buffing.

It's honestly one of my favorite parts of the edition, since it allows me to express myself via the options I take within a class, instead of just having all members of the class fill a specific niche.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

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.

Who said this and where did they say it? I know posters here have made this claim recently but I have never seen any quote or attribution.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem is that 'feeling like D&D' isn't a thing. D&D is many, many editions of a game, all of which do different things and are at odds with each other, plus peoples' myriad perceptions of those things. So, what you get is a cargo cult based on arbitrary components. That's my whole point: D&D isn't just a game, it's a brand. The game has become subservient to the needs of the brand.

You're almost there. Just a little further. Here's a little light to the next step:

All design has goals. One of 5e's apparent goals is "to feel like D&D" (whatever the heck that means). This was a reasonable goal to have for many reasons, among them the hope of a smoother onboarding experience and an appeal to the audience lost in 4e's divisive reign. They were, by many accounts, reasonably successful at this goal. So, the design of the game was successful - it accomplished its goals.

It may be a cargo cult based on arbitrary components, but that only makes it the same as capitalism, or gender, or law, or borders.

There is no "pure game." Games are always subservient to their design goals. It's fine to dislike the goals, and to not like a game even if it achieves those goals (sometimes because it achieves those goals), but that's not really a critique of the game as much as it is a reflection on how you value those goals. Saying 5e was built to fit the needs of the brand isn't a novel criticism. It's just...true, basically. And so what? All games have design goals. If you don't want to play a game that feels like D&D...I guess play something that's not D&D?

 

[Scribe]

Who said this and where did they say it? I know posters here have made this claim recently but I have never seen any quote or attribution.

It was reiterated semi-recently (Q1 2024 is already over folks, FYI) in the back end of last year I think, on a podcast? One of the designers assumed the pink slips were coming.

I'd have to look, but it was linked on this forum.