D&D 5E What (if anything) do you find "wrong" with 5E?

[Shardstone]

That's not what I'm saying. If you have read my posts (or gotten past the first 1500 words in any of a number of posts that I start) you know that I am not shy about expressing my opinion. I express my opinion about things- and what I WANT TO SEE IN 5e ALL THE TIME Here, let me remind you ....

#GREYHAWKCONFIRMED

Good? Are we good on that?

So, what am I actually saying? Allow me to repeat-



So this is the specific context of people criticizing 5e. I always want people to get everything they want and desire (sometimes, as Mencken put it, they deserve to get it good and hard). But far too often, criticisms of 5e do not come with the understanding of the product qua product.

For example, I used to agitate, a lot, for more low-magic, low-powered, high-lethality options. And while I think that it is fine for 3PP (or optional rules in the DMG), I am quite cognizant that this is never going to be a part of the mainstream 5e rules, because this isn't something that is broadly appealing.

This is a game that is going to have a (fairly) low barrier to entry, and a lot of continuity with the past. And while it is great to express opinions regarding the things we want to see in the game, when we move on to critiquing the design decisions, we need to keep in mind that they are designing a product that is meant to be broadly popular, and, more importantly, is meant to be broadly popular with the youngest fans joining the game today. To the extent that we ignore that, our critiques do not take into account actual real-world practices, and is nothing more than, to use the analogy, my demanding that all new cars have a manual transmission option.

Now, if you want to just express your opinion- feel free! If you are engaged in a serious critique of the design decisions, then you have to operate under the same constraints that they do- what is popular?

In order to get to "what is popular," most people have to first present their personal ideas, and then we can discuss via deconstruction how that idea may or may not be incompatible with 5E's design paradigms. It doesn't matter if most people start from a perspective of "I would prefer this, so this should be how it is," because these people are not working for WotC, they don't have any influence on WotC, and they have usually just presented their ideas and have not interrogated them through the lens of WotC yet, and many are not capable of interrogating through that lens since it requires deconstruction of WotC's own baroque materials. So that means, instead of reminding them that their opinion might not be public taste, its usually more beneficial to both you and them to take the time to go through their critiques, and to bring in your knowledge of WotC's design paradigms and use that to discuss what may or may not be a good change. Much more, IMO, then just pretending that every critique off the bat has to meet you and WotC's standards, which is functionally impossible and an absurd claim to have.

I said this in my last post, but maybe not enough words?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In order to get to "what is popular," most people have to first present their personal ideas, and then we can discuss via deconstruction how that idea may or may not be incompatible with 5E's design paradigms. It doesn't matter if most people start from a perspective of "I would prefer this, so this should be how it is," because these people are not working for WotC, they don't have any influence on WotC, and they have usually just presented their ideas and have not interrogated them through the lens of WotC yet, and many are not capable of interrogating through that lens since it requires deconstruction of WotC's own baroque materials. So that means, instead of reminding them that their opinion might not be public taste, its usually more beneficial to both you and them to take the time to go through their critiques, and to bring in your knowledge of WotC's design paradigms and use that to discuss what may or may not be a good change. Much more, IMO, then just pretending that every critique off the bat has to meet you and WotC's standards, which is functionally impossible and an absurd claim to have.

I said this in my last post, but maybe not enough words?

If you are now using more words, I will use less.

Most people don't bother thinking about whether their ideas will be popular.
And, worse, they don't care.

If you are proposing ideas because you want to- for 3PP or homebrew, cool! If you are just complaining in general, cool too! But if you are actually trying to critique design decisions, then you have to start with the premise that the design isn't about what is "best," but has to serve a lot of different interests in order to be broadly popular.

 

[glass]

That gives it more than six years before Tasha's. "5.5e," when it appears (2024) looks to be fully compatible with 5e. So ten years in, we will be running the same system. And it will have been refreshed to continue on.

You state that a revision that has not even been entirely written yet let alone released to the public will be fully compatible with O5e, based on the developers' say so - in which I will refer you to what they were saying about O5e two years out. Interesting that despite that supposed compatibility, you still refer to it as "5.5".

I mean, I love stick shifts. I think cars should have them. I buy cars with them. I always advocate for them. But my niche desire would not be appropriate for a broadly popular car.

Except it is automatics that are the niche product in the UK. I would guess that the rest if the world's ratio is more like the UK's than the USA's, but TBF that would just be a guess.

In other words, I agree that things can be better (not right). But the majority of people I see criticizing 5e are not making the critiques from the point of view as to what would make it an even-more broadly popular product, but instead, what works for them.

Either you mind reading is truly impressive, or you do not actually know the PoV people are criticising 5e from (unless they tell you). I will tell you that I am quite capable of criticising (or praising it) from multiple points of view. It does a number of things which suit me well, and a number of things that suit me poorly. It does a number of things that I believe help its mass appeal, and a number of things that hinder it. The two axes are largely orthogonal.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You state that a revision that has not even been entirely written yet let alone released to the public will be fully compatible with O5e, based on the developers' say so - in which I will refer you to what they were saying about O5e two years out. Interesting that despite that supposed compatibility, you still refer to it as "5.5".

It's interesting that I refer to the upcoming product using the same designation that we have been using here on enworld (with a tag) for a while now?

Maybe not everything is a conspiracy?

Except it is automatics that are the niche product in the UK. I would guess that the rest if the world's ratio is more like the UK's than the USA's, but TBF that would just be a guess.

As I'm sure you know, living in the UK, automatics are now a majority of new care sales. While they are still not a majority of cars on the road (because of past sales), automatic sales are now the majority and following the US trend. (Currently under 3% of sales, with few vehicles offered).

Worldwide, manuals make up less than 37% of the market, and falling. Propped up by, inter alia, China and India. The switch to EVs is the final death knell. But you know that.

Either you mind reading is truly impressive, or you do not actually know the PoV people are criticising 5e from (unless they tell you). I will tell you that I am quite capable of criticising (or praising it) from multiple points of view. It does a number of things which suit me well, and a number of things that suit me poorly. It does a number of things that I believe help its mass appeal, and a number of things that hinder it. The two axes are largely orthogonal.

Your prior posts on the subject of 5e are here ... so I don't require any mind reading. Just reading reading.

 

[Minigiant]

n other words, I agree that things can be better (not right). But the majority of people I see criticizing 5e are not making the critiques from the point of view as to what would make it an even-more broadly popular product, but instead, what works for them.

Most of my suggestions were toward a place of broader appeal.

My main criticism for 5e is that the appeal wasn't broad as much it focused on newbies who typically don't speak up. Its core was very traditionalist and didn't have space for future input of modern design.

 

[Garthanos]

Most of my suggestions were toward a place of broader appeal.

My main criticism for 5e is that the appeal wasn't broad as much it focused on newbies who typically don't speak up.

nyeh it was focused on oldies that did...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Most of my suggestions were toward a place of broader appeal.

My main criticism for 5e is that the appeal wasn't broad as much it focused on newbies who typically don't speak up. Its core was very traditionalist and didn't have space for future input of modern design.

So ... it's not that I necessarily disagree with you. But I also think that there are a few unstated premises in your statements that I think might be helpful to understand to see if your suggestions really argue for broader appeal!


Statement 1
My main criticism for 5e is that the appeal wasn't broad as much it focused on newbies who typically don't speak up.

Unstated premise: Focusing on "newbies" is not "broad appeal."

My thought- There's a reason that most companies, in most categories, focus their efforts on young people ("newbies"). They are trying to form associations for life. Heck, most "grognards" today were introduced to the game when they were teens/tweens. So yeah, while not exactly the same as "broad appeal" I would say that the design decisions will always focus on "newbies" first.


Statement 2
Its core was very traditionalist and didn't have space for future input of modern design.

Unstated premise: modern design is necessary for broad appeal.

This is really a core issue. Some aspects of modern design are good, and some are ... less well-suited for a "traditionalist" game with broad appeal like D&D (a so-called "big tent game" with lots of different types of players). In other words, this was likely a deliberate choice- there are aspects of "modern design" that will never be a part of the game (just like there are aspects of modern design that are incorporated into the game).


It's one of those difficult things- obviously, absent a counterfactual, you can't know what "better system" would have done as well. But not everything that is "better" (in terms of quality of product for some) is necessarily "better" in terms of the product's broad appeal or use to bring in "newbies."

 

[TwoSix]

In other words, I agree that things can be better (not right). But the majority of people I see criticizing 5e are not making the critiques from the point of view as to what would make it an even-more broadly popular product, but instead, what works for them.

Sure. But the fact that many people make critiques that are ultimately self-serving (which I absolutely agree is the majority of takes about, well, pretty much everything) doesn't mean that SOME critiques aren't valid, and that those critiques might lead to constructive change in the future (and constructive change which broadens the overall play market should be the goal!)

There's a middle path between "5e is super popular, so obviously its core design is great" and "5e's popularity masks how poor its core design is", which is to accept that 5e has a core that works just fine, but can really shine with a little polish. And that it's totally OK to disagree about exactly what parts need polishing without stereotyping pushback as either "white knighting for WotC" or "you just want X edition back".

 

[glass]

As I'm sure you know, living in the UK, automatics are now a majority of new care sales

I know nothing of the sort, and a quick DDG search suggests that they are still the minority (albeit a larger minority than previously). If you have a link to something more definitive, by all means post it. EDIT: Snarf Zagyg did in fact provide such links, and it appears they were entirely correct.

Your prior posts on the subject of 5e are here ... so I don't require any mind reading. Just reading reading.

Reading the posts only gives you what is in the posts. You were claiming to know the (oft unstated) "point of view" behind them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I know nothing of the sort, and a quick DDG search suggests that they are still the minority (albeit a larger minority than previously). If you have a link to something more definitive, by all means post it.

Google is your friend, and not hard to use!

See, e.g., this source, noting that in 2021 54% of new car sales were automatics and noting the trends (up from 20% a decade ago).

Or this source for 2020.

Facts, man. Better than assertion! Remember- your knowing nothing doesn't mean that there isn't something!

Reading the posts only gives you what is in the posts. You were claiming to know the (oft unstated) "point of view" behind them.

Your posts are either res ipsa, or performance art. I don't care to speculate. Nor do I ascribe claimed mystical powers to others in order to assert they don't have them.