D&D 5E UA and depth of complexity

[Corpsetaker]

I don't think you know what "proven" means. A is completely subjective, and I'd be very interested in seeing your "proof" over and over again about that. And while B is true for a lot of DMs, I don't think it has been proven that MOST won't. MOST DMs I've talked to and played with will allow DMs Guild stuff after being able to review it and having the option of tweaking it to fit their games. That's not a flat out refusal. So either provide your proof, or stop making up red herring arguments because you all you want to do is complain.

Like I said before. Come to the real world for a moment.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because it's been proven time and time and time again that:

A: Most of the stuff on DMGuild is broken or just plain bad.

B: Most DM's will not allow it at their tables.

I think some of you forget that fanmade stuff isn't anything new. Wizard's may have changed the way it is presented but hasn't changed people's attitude about it or the quality of stuff.

This is ironic. Pretty much from the day you hopped on the forums you've been griping about how bad 5e is. And denigrating anybody who disagrees with you.

Look, neither side has moral authority here. You (and others) are saying, "Don't use new rules if you don't like them...stop trying to spoil my fun." And the other side is saying, "Homebrew them if you want them...stop trying to spoil my fun."

So some DM's won't allow homebrew, huh? Well some DM's won't disallow "official". So I may get stuck at a table that uses it.

"So find a DM that plays the way you like." No, U.

See what I did there?

Plus there's the irrefutable point that WotC has limited staff, and a commitment to a steady release cycle, so yes any time/effort they spend on supplements I don't want means fewer supplements I *do* want.

(Oh, and the last two editions catered to the power-gamers and supplement junkies. It's our turn.)

Again, neither side has the moral upper hand. You want one thing, others want the opposite. Debates here won't affect WotC's calculus at all; they are going to make a business decision. And from all appearances they already have.

EDIT:

Actually, I'll back off that claim, at least a little bit: the "burden of proof" falls on those wishing for change.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, they have a release schedule of three books a year, based on public demand; and each of those books had an expectation of selling 100,000 copies, per the WotC. Since they are maintaining this strategy after nearly three years, we can conclude the books they have been releasing are meeting expectations (viz. selling 100,000+ copies each).

Ergo, any new products they plan would need to have that level of appeal, minimum.

What could they release with that level of appeal, is the question.

 

[Darkness]

To be honest I ignore most of your comments because it's really just a waste of time with you.

Seriously not cool. Please keep it civil.

To be frank, you should probably block users whose posting tends to annoy you. If you don't do that, then it's your responsibility to make sure you still manage to interact, or not interact, with them civilly. Telling someone you "ignore most of [their] comments because it's really just a waste of time with you" is just rude.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Well, they have a release schedule of three books a year, based on public demand.

Citation?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Sorry but that is a cop out answer. I'm not a game designer and I don't have a lot of time to create my own stuff. How about give an actual legitimate reason why you can't stick with the options you want and let me have more options that I can choose from. So because you don't like a certain flavour that means I can't have it?

Ok, Feats and Multiclassing are allowed in AL. *THATS WHY*

***SNIP MYSELF AGAIN... ouch! ***

I don't want to get banned, so I'll just sum up: Bullpuckies. "No crunch, do it yourself" is a cop out, but "More crunch, don't have time myself" isn't? I repeat: Bullpuckies.

You *are* a game designer by virtue of being an RPG'er. And you *do* have time...but you spend it doing other things (reading books, watching movies, playing video games, jogging, playing tennis, etc). Don't think that others owe you new crunchy rules just because you'd rather do something else than write up a new spell, arch-type, or race for you home game. I repeat: Bullpuckies.

If you've been roleplaying more than 15 or so years, you're every bit as qualified as pretty much everyone at Wizards working on D&D. Your stuff would likely be better..."perfect"...for you and your group because it's exactly what you want. If you haven't been at this for more than a decade, there are plenty of folks on these very boards who have; you'd be wise to take their advice and use it to make your own stuff/decisions for your game.

If WotC puts out more crunch, this crunch, however optional, will eventually become "standard". The complaints, bitching, whining and all that about "this feat is OP", or "the build is too weak", or "monsters die to quickly"...all not because the game is 'broken'. It's because people are using OPTIONAL crunch and then completely ignoring those of us who try and point out that if they weren't using those OPTIONAL rules, they wouldn't have this problem. And that if they want this fixed, they have to do it themselves, because the game isn't designed with those options in mind. Period. End of Line.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sacrosanct]

Like I said before. Come to the real world for a moment.

The more you say this, more silly such a position becomes, because of the two of us, I'm the one giving you real world examples and telling you the process businesses use....in the real world.

Did Spongebob show up and it's opposite day or something and no one told me?

 

[Parmandur]

Citation?

[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has stated that their market research showed that, and they seem extremely happy with the results. The burden of proof that they are wrong, to the tune of 100,000 buyers per book, is on you.

 

[CapnZapp]

Invalid comparison. You could easily drop high tech ideas into the 5e framework. That would be increased Breadth of Complexity, and not Depth of Complexity (to use the OP's terms). The new technology subsystem would not necessarily provide options for existing characters, and GMs/tables could take it or leave it. It's setting information, and as setting information it's DM focused options.

On the other hand, new character build options have a tendency to creep into every game because they are player focused options that players will actively advocate for and expect as build options because they are player focused and official. This is easily observed from the history of 3e and in fact was actively pursued as a product management strategy by the 3e team. That is to say, very clearly, the 3e marketing team felt that having player focused options available in all splat books, encouraged more sales of the book than making splat books purely DM focused options, for the obvious reason that there are more players than DMs. And inevitably, this means that you have players showing up with a new splat book and begging the DM to be allowed to take the new race/class/feat/spell.



I don't think that they have. Now, if you mean that they've made clear that they won't make the same mistake as the 3e team of trying to use Depth of Complexity to market the system with the ultimate result of killing the goose that laid the golden egg, then I agree. I don't expect to see a greater density of character build options in the game than already exists. But that's a totally different issue than whether you could have lasers in 5e.



Considering most of the mod slaps I've ever earned have been for some sort of 'thread crapping', I suspect you're quite wrong about this as well.

If I could give you multiple XP for this post, I would

 

[CapnZapp]

I would like a warlock redesigned as a kind of prestige class.
Available only after level 5, because patron don't care about low level character.
The class will be ability less, and thus available to all classes or mc mix

I like the premise where You put away your initial class in hope for stronger power.
Unfortunately it is the the case due to game balance. But it has a lot of role play possibilities.

But you can just play another class to level 5 and then multi-class, and roleplay it how you want.

Maybe that's not exactly what you want, but if WotC catered to everybody's exact demands the game would be a mess.

I can't imagine why you would equate the two.

To me it's clear Krachek wants a "prestige warlock" to instantly unlock level three spells at fifth level, for instance. The point is not to begin from the bottom, like with existing MC options.