D&D (2024) GenCon 2023 - D&D Rules Revision panel

[Emberashh]

The other issue with not doing GM stuff concurrently is that if you release without a revised DMG you're going to be hardpressed to convince anybody who already refuses to run the game to run it just because theres an updated player book.

All the problems of 5e with no solutions for potentially months or may be even a year before you've got to shell out another 50 to may be have a good DMG.

Not a smart way to do things. Particularly when, again during Next, they already had the right idea and just made separate packets and dropped them at the same time.

Plus, a suspicion of mine is that the GM playtest is only going to amount to testing new stuff, not rounding out the writing so it actually works towards their goals. That also makes it likely the new DMG will crash and burn unless they manage to nail it, which isn't something I think anyone can say they will with confidence.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Negativity is warranted when something genuinely isn't good. Ive said before Im not the only one who thinks this way about how WOTC has proceeded.

You are mixing objectivity with subjectivity.

Most people think it is good. Otherwise it would not sell.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The issue isn't that WOTC's survey idea was bad.

The issue is WOTC underestimated the cohesiveness of the entire community.
There not not a couple types of D&D fans. There are like 10-12. And they are very different from each other.

So it is hard to get 80% of the Entire D&D community to agree with major design.
So WOTC when choose 70% threshold, they ended upwasting months because 30% of D&D will always hate something that isn't fundamental.

When WOTC scrapped modular 5e, they doomed huge chunks of 5e to failure. Because a lot of stuff would never make 70% satisfaction in just 2 years of open playtest.

But 30%+ hated modular design too...

 

[Minigiant]

But 30%+ hated modular design too...

Of course
~50% of D&D hardcore fans are selfish and only want D&D to be really their way.
Modular design means stuff isn't designed specifically for them.
That's why the NEXT playtest didn't fully work.
Because "I don't like it but this but someone else might"stuff was downvoted out the NEXT playtest.

You were either going to get a bunch of aspects with 40% satisfaction due to wasted time pursuing 70% satisfaction
Or
you were getting every aspects with at least 60% satisfaction with a module to boost it up to 80%.

 

[Emberashh]

You are mixing objectivity with subjectivity.

Most people think it is good. Otherwise it would not sell.

Thats a gross oversimplification of what drives 5es success. (And not to mention backwards; people don't know if its good or not until they've bought it already and played it)

And more to the point, it just continues to gloss over the point being made.

Lets put it this way: the game can only get better if they ran the playtest better. It can't get worse running the playtest in a more sensible way.

 

[Charlaquin]

that must be why half the class has to repeat it

Letter grades are just a bad evaluation system.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thats a gross oversimplification of what drives 5es success. (And not to mention backwards; people don't know if its good or not until they've bought it already and played it)

And more to the point, it just continues to gloss over the point being made.

Lets put it this way: the game can only get better if they ran the playtest better. It can't get worse running the playtest in a more sensible way.

The last point is ok. For the first, please elaborate.

 

[Charlaquin]

But 30%+ hated modular design too...

No, the promise of modular design was pretty universally praised, though a lot of people were skeptical it was possible. Turns out they were right to be, because it never actually manifested, in the playtest or the final product. Closest we got to it was a handful of optional rules in the DMG, most of which I suspect were designs that didn’t quite meet the approval threshold but Mike Mearls didn’t want to let go of.

 

[Minigiant]

You are mixing objectivity with subjectivity.

Most people think it is good. Otherwise it would not sell.

5e's skeleton is good.
REALLY GOOD!
That's why it succeeded. 5e's has the best skeleton of any Fantasy RPG.

The problem was the stuff on top. No one could agree on it and eventually it got rushed.

Imagine a grandma has a excellent cake recipe for one of her granddaughters' 1st birthday. But she doesn't know what flavor icing you put on top. So she poll the family. Everyone wants cake but chooses a different frosting. So she does test cupcakes. No one consensus could be had. The morning of the party comes. Grandma has had it. So she makes whatever she wants. But she used all the icing on the cupcakes. Except Banana Fondant.

5e is the most delicious cake with banana fondant on top.

Now it's the grandson's birthday coming up. But Grandma got into public trouble at the town pub. So she's spends time apologizing around town. Time she should be polling the family on icing to avoid banana fondant 2.0. Will she have enough time to finish the poll and buy the icing?

 

[Reynard]

I am legitimately amused by people claiming that 5E had the wrong design ethos, in the face of its ridiculous and unprecedented success.

It's not my favorite D&D either, but come on.