D&D (2024) I think we are on the cusp of a sea change.

[Minigiant]

This is what they were supposed to do when 5e was playtesting but once it came out the "crunchy" options never really developed.

If I were to name the greatest failing of 5e is that it was pretty much playtested and designed with the assumption of variant rules to modify the base experience and no only did very few of those rules come, it moved forward as if some of those variant rues were base and if future variant rules would not to be added.

Like there could and should have been official rules for Herioc, Mythical. Cinematic, Gritty, or Wuxia combat that used WOTC's resources and the large community base for playtesting.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Even if it didn't make the base book, it could have been introduced through settings, including each his own specific "knobs and dials" to meet the feel of the game. I think it's too late to embrace this approach.

 

[Staffan]

Like there could and should have been official rules for Herioc, Mythical. Cinematic, Gritty, or Wuxia combat that used WOTC's resources and the large community base for playtesting.

Even if it didn't make the base book, it could have been introduced through settings, including each his own specific "knobs and dials" to meet the feel of the game. I think it's too late to embrace this approach.

I get the feeling that there was a plan to do this originally, but they kind of pivoted away from that. I remember Mearls mentioning how they looked at additional settings not just as lore (geography, history, politics, etc.) but also as a way to tune the game differently. The example he used was how Greyhawk would be done with more old-school sensibilities and rules, like grittier healing and things like that. You can see the embryo of that in the DMG, where they discuss different "sub-genres" of fantasy and use various settings as examples.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I get the feeling that there was a plan to do this originally, but they kind of pivoted away from that. I remember Mearls mentioning how they looked at additional settings not just as lore (geography, history, politics, etc.) but also as a way to tune the game differently. The example he used was how Greyhawk would be done with more old-school sensibilities and rules, like grittier healing and things like that. You can see the embryo of that in the DMG, where they discuss different "sub-genres" of fantasy and use various settings as examples.

Its not hard to cynically see this as a bone thrown at that point to various groups the core game wasn't going to serve well to minimize outcry, then figuring out later once the game was established that said groups could, functionally, go pound sand because they weren't going to have any meaningful impact on the success of the game. I doubt it was deliberate, but I'm not sure, in practice, that wasn't how it played out.

 

[Oofta]

As far as I know, Mearls was the only one that talked about a modular game early on, and then in only one interview. Seems like people took a molehill and turned it into a mountain.

You can already change the lóok and feel of the game with a few tweaks and minor house rules. But you can only build in so much flexibility before complexity skyrockets.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

IME even when the game was saying "It's OK to kill these guys, they're Always Chaotic Evil", most players would be very reluctant to attack on sight, and are inclined to seek assurance their PC actions are morally justified.

That's been my experience too. Players are less inherently psychopathic than a lot of adventure writers seem to assume (even most quasi-murderhobos). However, adventure writers consistently underestimate just how much an NPC who is even a mild wanker towards the PCs will turn the players against that NPC, but that's a separate issue lol.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Eh, it's a perennial rumor among the fanbase, but I don't believe anyone connected with the developers has ever officially stated that they were thinking about it. And after quieting down the central war for a while, they reignited it HARD in 2018 with the next-to-latest expansion, to the point where players have been at each others' throats in a not-fun way ever since.

It's absolutely true it was a "just a rumour" for a long time (literally since Vanilla), but they've literally openly discussed it multiple times in the last 3-4 years. If I wasn't feeling so lazy and it wasn't 1am I might dig up some quotes lol. But I assure, they devs have discussed it openly ever since BfA, and particularly in the Shadowlands era. Not in a "we will do this" way, but in a "we're considering do this and looking if it's technically feasible" way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As far as I know, Mearls was the only one that talked about a modular game early on, and then in only one interview. Seems like people took a molehill and turned it into a mountain.

You can already change the lóok and feel of the game with a few tweaks and minor house rules. But you can only build in so much flexibility before complexity skyrockets.

I actually think there was an honest intention to make 5E more modular than it eventually ended up, but that the modular elements ended up being very half-baked or simply not included because of deadlines. There are several things you can "tweak" in 5E - but most of them are not very well implemented, some outright badly implemented (not really a diss on 5E, it's fine without them). In general 5E has probably the most half-baked optional rules I've seen in any edition, and given how they seem it really looks like time pressure.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As far as I know, Mearls was the only one that talked about a modular game early on, and then in only one interview. Seems like people took a molehill and turned it into a mountain.

You can already change the lóok and feel of the game with a few tweaks and minor house rules. But you can only build in so much flexibility before complexity skyrockets.

I'm going to again say a game with as much exception based design as D&D has had from day one (even the simplest versions had it in terms of spell lists) is not going to be able to say it couldn't have more flexibility if it wanted it without significantly increasing complexity, especially since the flexible components can be dutifully ignored by anyone who doesn't want to use them, and a such supply no meaningful cognitive load.

 

[Mordhau]

I'm going to again say a game with as much exception based design as D&D has had from day one (even the simplest versions had it in terms of spell lists) is not going to be able to say it couldn't have more flexibility if it wanted it without significantly increasing complexity, especially since the flexible components can be dutifully ignored by anyone who doesn't want to use them, and a such supply no meaningful cognitive load.

Just the addition of magic to the game already adds complexity to the base system.

Base system - the only pluses and minuses are advantage/disadvantage. Add in spells and we have, Guidance, Bless, Bane etc.