D&D (2024) It goes to show you can't please everbody!

[Thomas Shey]

"I'd like to do more with this aspect of the existing system" is what most third party products are about. Not that the existing system is busted and non-functional without houserules or a third party product, but that it expands on existing good functional stuff in a different direction. I don't see anyone pretending there is no room for improvement in 5e. But I do see a lot of comments like yours - acting like any improvement that can be made is proof the existing product was non-functional and busted. The darn game has run successfully for a decade and an awful lot of the people playing it use essentially no houserules or third party products and still report the system is working just fine for them. You liking some other stuff that isn't currently in the system is fine - but the claims it's a broken non-functional system and anyone who disagrees is pretending is a bridge too far.

Heck, I'm not a fan of D&D-sphere games in general or 5e in particular, but I'd never claim it was dysfunctional. That would require a conspiracy-theory level explanation for its success (even though I think a lot of that comes from non-system based reasons, you've got to have at least a basically functional system for that to work).

 

[Neonchameleon]

What's a problem for you, however, is just peachy for someone else, and vice versa. Which this thread highlights; WotC literally cannot please everyone on every point.

But has WotC produced "a good, functional, complete game" which "works at a basic level"? Millions of D&D players seem to think so.

What WotC have produced is the least bad version of D&D. They've knocked off all the edges that people have an aversion to and produced something that is good enough that no one truly dislikes it and especially no one truly dislikes it on first glance. On the other hand in order to do this it isn't that great for any table. B/X, 1e, 4e, and even 3.X are all great at what they do - but if you want to do something vastly different then the system will fight you and the same sharp edges that make those games cut the right things will cut you. 5e on the other hand only has as an absolute strength how easy it is for beginners to make interesting and evocative characters.

Is it a functional system that does what it set out to? Yes. Is it ever my first choice to run? Possibly when gathering a new group together as a meeting in the middle point.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system.

Except that if WotC were to put you in charge, and you could change D&D to be exactly what you wanted, the system would then be broken (sorry, cannot bring myself to say "busted") for a whole lot of other people. What would your advice, as lead designer, be for them? Suck it up? Play a different system? Or go 3PP?

 

[Olrox17]

I do agree that 5e has some broken/busted parts, places where the game's math is just flawed and tends to break.
The worst offender I can think of is how the saving throw system fails the scale at higher levels, but there are plenty of smaller issues littering the game (lame rangers/sorcerers, barely functional subclasses, OP game elements, etc).
If WotC fails to address those glaring issues in their "5.5" update, I would be extremely disappointed with them.

Extra content is another story. If I feel like, for example, 5e's armor selection is too simplistic, or there aren't enough battlemaster's maneuvers, or (god forbid) enough spells, I'm totally ok with 3PP filling those blanks. Or official supplements, even with 5e's slower release schedule.

WotC should fix their game, it indeed has some mechanical problems that we should stop pretending it doesn't have, but that doesn't mean 3PP aren't great to have around.

 

[Morrus]

I agree with GM. I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system.

It's not. It's a way to expand on and support an existing system. No 3PP sees themselves as being in business of 'fixing a busted system'.

And if you're tired of hearing about it, I guess adopt a game system with a model which doesn't - by design - not only allow third parties to do that, but actively encourages and supports it through the provision of licenses and platforms. Like it or not, that's D&D, and 3PPs being deliberately part of the ecosystem are here to stay.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not. It's a way to expand on and support an existing system. No 3PP sees themselves as being in business of 'fixing a busted system'.

To be fair, sometimes its a way to replace an existing system. Even if it can be used with it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, sometimes its a way to replace an existing system. Even if it can be used with it.

Though often that's less "the extent system doesn't work" than "the extent system works in a way some people don't find appealing". Various alternate magic systems for D&D or Pathfinder over the years land in this category.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Though often that's less "the extent system doesn't work" than "the extent system works in a way some people don't find appealing". Various alternate magic systems for D&D or Pathfinder over the years land in this category.

I'm actually talking about wholesale replacement games using similar rules, like Level Up or Pathfinder. Neither was primarily designed as a supplement, even if it was designed to be used that way if desired.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm actually talking about wholesale replacement games using similar rules, like Level Up or Pathfinder. Neither was primarily designed as a supplement, even if it was designed to be used that way if desired.

Though with PF1e, using it as a supplement would have been largely pointless; most of the changes were widely integrated, and by the time you'd have pulled them out and integrated them into D&D 3.5--you'd have had PF1e for the most part.

 

[Clint_L]

What I am learning on this forum is that there is no point, however obvious, that folks won't debate. I like debate; it's why I'm here. But the pedantry can get exhausting.