WotC WotC general D&D survey just went live.

[Myrdin Potter]

Really long survey. Been playing since 1981 and my first purchase was Holmes Basic boxed set.

Have not played any TSR/WoTC D&D recently. Traveller, Hyperborea and Xall of Cthulhu.

 

[Parmandur]

Why not?

For every benefit there should be a corresponding drawback.

Yeeeeaaaah, same reason they moved away from the term Race: "drawbacks" to being a hybrid won't ever happen.

 

[Arilyn]

There is a difference between these two things:

"Remove everything from the game which takes time to learn."

"Improve the game so that the things in it are easier to learn."

Unfortunately, many MANY game designers today (not just in D&D/tabletop, but in video games as well) do not act as though they understand the difference between these things. They flatten all differences and remove all potential for depth, because that's the most efficient way to make a game easy to learn: make it trivial to learn.

But when a game prioritizes simplicity over all else--when its design becomes reductionist über alles--it necessarily gives up the things that give people a reason to want to stay. Simplicity alone is not better than complexity alone. What is required is depth, which is (always!) difficult to design. Systems that are easy to learn, but difficult to master. Systems that are approachable for the apprentice and challenging for the journeyman and engaging for the master.

Exactly. There is an art to designing simple games that is way more than just removing stuff. 5e is not a light game. Removing chunks or simplifying systems will not make 5e work more elegantly, it'll just kack depth.

I find too with the current design of One DnD, that some areas are simpler, but other areas have added complexity. The goals feel like there is a lack of direction. Are we streamlining? Fixing broken systems? Adding or taking away character choices?

Shawn Merwin, of Mastering Dungeons and the Eldritch Lorecast said, "Feels like the design team are just moving furniture around." Couldn't agree more.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Shawn Merwin, of Mastering Dungeons and the Eldritch Lorecast said, "Feels like the design team are just moving furniture around." Couldn't agree more.

Pretty much the the answer I gave to the "your opinion on the development of D&D" question on the general opinion survey. I did however give them kudos for getting rid of the term race as rules jargon, and moving away from the Monster Manual being a player resource.

 

[Parmandur]

Exactly. There is an art to designing simple games that is way more than just removing stuff. 5e is not a light game. Removing chunks or simplifying systems will not make 5e work more elegantly, it'll just kack depth.

I find too with the current design of One DnD, that some areas are simpler, but other areas have added complexity. The goals feel like there is a lack of direction. Are we streamlining? Fixing broken systems? Adding or taking away character choices?

Shawn Merwin, of Mastering Dungeons and the Eldritch Lorecast said, "Feels like the design team are just moving furniture around." Couldn't agree more.

What else could it look like...? They are developing a fully backwards compatible rules revision, which can ultimately only mean moving the furniture around to see if people like omitting better (as they have with the Ranger, apparently). The end result is a redecoration, not a major construction project.

 

[Maxperson]

Hardly lazy, nor insulting: it removes the icky essential ism of the distinct "Half-Race" while opening up more possibilities easily.

More possibilities, yes. Remove, icky? There's nothing inherently icky about them AND moving it to backgrounds doesn't actually remove anything at all. It just moves it.

 

[Arilyn]

What else could it look like...? They are developing a fully backwards compatible rules revision, which can ultimately only mean moving the furniture around to see if people like omitting better (as they have with the Ranger, apparently). The end result is a redecoration, not a major construction project.

WotC wants the 2024 edition to be the final one that just gets tweaked. If so, probably needs a major overhaul. Bite the bullet and make 6e.

WotC has also stated they want the game to be more accessible and less complicated, but added feats at 1st level, increased terms and filled out classes.

WotC also claims they want to just smooth over 5e rough patches and have a compatible game. Maybe? But they've changed how spells work, and some classes are getting a fairly major overhaul.

WotC says 5e still super popular, so do we need a change? Or is it just cause 2024 and DnD Beyond?

So stuff getting moved around with some changes. Some players say it's still 5e, others 5.5 and some 6e. WotC themselves have said it's just 5e, but have also claimed its 5.5.To me it feels like there are no clear design goals and there needs to be for their own sakes, as well as the public playtesting.

 

[Parmandur]

More possibilities, yes. Remove, icky? There's nothing inherently icky about them AND moving it to backgrounds doesn't actually remove anything at all. It just moves it.

Yes, by making a Half-Goliath or Half-Gnome just as viable as anything else, the options are expanded. By removing the concept from mechanics, the ickyness is removed.

 

[Parmandur]

WotC wants the 2024 edition to be the final one that just gets tweaked. If so, probably needs a major overhaul. Bite the bullet and make 6e.

WotC has also stated they want the game to be more accessible and less complicated, but added feats at 1st level, increased terms and filled out classes.

WotC also claims they want to just smooth over 5e rough patches and have a compatible game. Maybe? But they've changed how spells work, and some classes are getting a fairly major overhaul.

WotC says 5e still super popular, so do we need a change? Or is it just cause 2024 and DnD Beyond?

So stuff getting moved around with some changes. Some players say it's still 5e, others 5.5 and some 6e. WotC themselves have said it's just 5e, but have also claimed its 5.5.To me it feels like there are no clear design goals and there needs to be for their own sakes, as well as the public playtesting.

I mean, it's pretty clear to me: how many proud nails from the 2014 rules can they hammer down without ticking people off? So far, the rules as proposed move a bunch of furniture around and fix issues like variable Subclass progression, without making any prior modern D&D book unusable. Given the time to hammer out the playtest, I'm sure they can keep that up and have a cleaned up version of modern D&D compatible with everything since 2014.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, by making a Half-Goliath or Half-Gnome just as viable as anything else, the options are expanded. By removing the concept from mechanics, the ickyness is removed.

What ickyness?