D&D (2024) A simpler game is a better game...for us

Here's what I mean--

The core, mainline 1st edition game should be streamlined and simplified, as is happening in 1D&D. By making things easier to understand, a little bit more fluid, and a little bit more organized, they encourage both third party developers, their own freelancers, and homebrewing DMs to build on top of their game easier. A lower level of power, as seen in a lot of the nerfs, alongside bite-sized class features means you can bolt on your own subsystems with less worry. Ad hoc balancing will be easier and, most importantly, feature overload won't overwhelm new players who use the 1D&D skeleton.

I think this is the absolute best move WotC could make. They update their game so it can streamline easier, be easier on digital services, and also be more customizable for people who were going to hack it anyway. There are misses here and there, but I think many people are saying that rules are changing just to change. I don't see that. I see rules getting easier to both use and manipulate, which has been my biggest gripe with 5E -- how hard it is to manipulate without deep study.

I guess most people disagree online, given the huge atmosphere of displeasure I run into everywhere, but I find it really hard to understand that displeasure. 1D&D to me looks like an ease of access upgrade in every possible way. At a certain point, if what they're forecasting continues, using 1D&D to fork games ala the OSR will be way easier than it was with 5E (which many people did successfully regardless). In other words, this promotes diversity and blanches the rules so that you can have even more "out there" forks and more easily create your own classes for your games.

What are others seeing that I'm not?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

GreyLord

Legend
If I understand you, you are saying that 1D&D is going to be simpler and more streamlined. This is something you like.

I was a little confused at your opening. What do you mean by the "core, mainline 1st edition game" you stated at the start?

Are you referring to AD&D 1e? From the context of the rest of your post I think you are referring to 5e as it is now?

Sorry for the confusion.
 

Simple can be a valuable thing to have, but not at the expense of fun, and OneDND as its been presented thus far has violated that simple tenet more than once.

For instance, I myself have been harping on for years that magic in 5e is the crux of nearly every single one of its problems. It does too much, its too widely available, and is way too cheap to use. It 100% needs to be nerfed into the ground.

However, this doesn't mean magic cannot still also be wildly fun and cool despite being nerfed, and Magic actually has it easy in this regard, because its magic. You don't have to try very hard to make a spell thats feels fun and cool to use, and you definitely don't have to make it overpowered either.
 

For now the playtest show a game more simple.
The prepared spells system
The new wild shape is in concept more simple, but still need tuning….
All classes i have seen for now are much easier to play.
 

If I understand you, you are saying that 1D&D is going to be simpler and more streamlined. This is something you like.

I was a little confused at your opening. What do you mean by the "core, mainline 1st edition game" you stated at the start?

Are you referring to AD&D 1e? From the context of the rest of your post I think you are referring to 5e as it is now?

Sorry for the confusion.
change first edition to first party hahaha whoops
 


I think a simplified game is good for some groups and yet I think it is a net negative to d&d as a whole.

i disagree with the almost obsessive focus on new players for the simple reason that new players are only new players for a short time. After that they are some level of experienced player. Having a variety of classes and archetypes with a range of complexities is good for keeping experienced players.

I don't dislike classes friendly to new players any more than I dislike classes for that one player who has played all the RPGs, ever, and needs something complex to interest them. They are on a spectrum.

If 1DD doesn't have the spectrum, it will lose players to other games, particularly experienced players. And it should.
 


JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
Here's what I mean--

The core, mainline 1st edition game should be streamlined and simplified, as is happening in 1D&D. By making things easier to understand, a little bit more fluid, and a little bit more organized, they encourage both third party developers, their own freelancers, and homebrewing DMs to build on top of their game easier. A lower level of power, as seen in a lot of the nerfs, alongside bite-sized class features means you can bolt on your own subsystems with less worry. Ad hoc balancing will be easier and, most importantly, feature overload won't overwhelm new players who use the 1D&D skeleton.

I think this is the absolute best move WotC could make. They update their game so it can streamline easier, be easier on digital services, and also be more customizable for people who were going to hack it anyway. There are misses here and there, but I think many people are saying that rules are changing just to change. I don't see that. I see rules getting easier to both use and manipulate, which has been my biggest gripe with 5E -- how hard it is to manipulate without deep study.

I guess most people disagree online, given the huge atmosphere of displeasure I run into everywhere, but I find it really hard to understand that displeasure. 1D&D to me looks like an ease of access upgrade in every possible way. At a certain point, if what they're forecasting continues, using 1D&D to fork games ala the OSR will be way easier than it was with 5E (which many people did successfully regardless). In other words, this promotes diversity and blanches the rules so that you can have even more "out there" forks and more easily create your own classes for your games.

What are others seeing that I'm not?
That's what the starter set is for.
 


Remove ads

Top