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

[UngainlyTitan]

Welcome to EnWorld! You must be new. Let me show you around.

You see, we're sort of like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, only entirely different.

Over here is the Room of Pedantry. Wonder at this display of dictionaries! And over here will see the Hallway of Dogmatism. That door at the end leads to the Room of Purism, just beside the Pit of Literalism. Please do not confuse any of these rooms with each other, for if you do, you will find yourself strangely back in the Room of Pedantry.

If you feel the need, the Bathroom of Precision can be found over here, and there is also a Bathroom of Exactness beside it, and you must choose which to use. Behind us is the Foyer of Perfectionism.

And that completes this area of EnWorld. Now if you'd like to move on to the Atrium of Verisimilitude, well that will be complicated depending on which laws of physics and magic you've chosen to mix in your drink of rules balance, which can be obtained in the Bar of Crunch and Fluff.

I think I would buy this boardgame

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes it was an anecdote that I admitted up front was one, and I intended it purely to support what I mean about having no conviction.

Not a fair way to argue to dismiss a post like that when one isn't hiding anything about how they're arguing the point.

Being open does not change the facts.

WotC has always been open about their goals. You are also not satisfied.

To your point: maybe having no conviction is their strength. They are willing to listen and evaluate instead of pushing their agenda...

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe, just maybe, their data is bad because its from a self selecting hyper online hyper addicted 'D&D is my identity' fraction of the actual player base.

No.
Their data was bad because the 2013 surveys included people who ultimately would not play 5e.
WOTC let vegans in a poll about steak temperature.

 

[Nikosandros]

To your point: maybe having no conviction is their strength. They are willing to listen and evaluate instead of pushing their agenda...

I'm not fond of many design decisions by WotC, but being a generalist game is in the nature of D&D. There are plenty of games designed with a tight focus and with strong authorial voice available.

 

[Scribe]

No.
Their data was bad because the 2013 surveys included people who ultimately would not play 5e.
WOTC let vegans in a poll about steak temperature.

I dont think that data can even be remotely worthwhile at this point though, just look at the chasm between the playerbase at that point, and today.

Now that I think about it, its probably utterly worthless.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

During the OGL debacle, Nerd Immersion proved himself to be not particularly trustworthy as a source, so you'll forgive me if I assumed it was clickbait nonsense.

I think that the biggest issue With Nerd Immersion is that he is uncritical on his sources.

 

[Minigiant]

I dont think that data can even be remotely worthwhile at this point though, just look at the chasm between the playerbase at that point, and today.

Now that I think about it, its probably utterly worthless.

That's the point.
2014 was designed for a different demo than who actually plays.
Because WOTC thought they could get everyone to convert to 5e and forgot the D&D community was diverse in playstyle and would only get more divergent with time..

 

[tetrasodium]

Maybe, but you dig pretty deep. You're so far down that someone like me probably looks super-positive to you, when what I am is neutral.


Not that I think WotC designers are incapable of making mistakes (even vast ones) but I think that if they are showing their plan on a slide-show, it probably will work the way they expect it to. Or in other words, they will have time to show us what they want to show us, and collect feedback on that. Would we LIKE them to show us more? Will there be something in the DMG that doesn't work the way it should? Probably. (Of course, that will happen whether we playtest it or not!)


They're clear every time that they test IDEAS, not BALANCE. I'm pretty sure that even if everyone LOVES the new Rogue abilities (and I expect that they do!) It'll almost certainly get nerfed before publication.


I'm not following this last paragraph, but I find that I often can't quite grok what you're getting at. Personally, I love (and employ) snark, so that's not quite the problem. I think it's that you flit from one negative comment to another like a hummingbird, without always giving us context for us to follow you with.

I mean, how is the DM an "enemy to be defeated"? Are you speaking of 5e specifically? Because for all its faults, I don't see 5e as promoting DM-player adversarialness. Certainly not MORE than earlier editions.

Go ahead, search for flying creatures that also have the hover trait other than beholders and incorporeal undead. A low level rogue can drop any flying creature without both at the cost of a d6 sneak damage that they get back (and often multiply it) from fall damage every round at range. This is not a design where there is an assumption that the GM will provide a challenge for the players & be equipped to carry that out, it's a design that assumes the GM is adversarial and players should be equipped with tools to challenge the GM.

It doesn't matter if you me or anyone else is pretty sure that the rogue abilities or the short rest nova monk will "get nerfed before publication" because they have created a scenario where people are encouraged to vote in favor of anything they are not extremely repelled by and are not bothering to consider questions like "huh we just got rid of short rest nova warlocks & have been moving away from short rest nova design since tashas, should there really be an exception for monk" or "how many monsters does this at will ability completely cripple? What does that group of monsters look like?" I expect that kind of oversight from a well meaning but inexperienced GM or player asking to PEACH their homebrew, not from a multimillion dollar company's playtest when the test has been designed to skew positive.


Even if you exclude flying monsters with a "wow I never thought of that second step rules interaction combo" fig leaf you still have a spiked chain trip build with an 80ft range that could alternately choose to make a target drop an item that someone thought was a reasonable idea for a level 3&5 base class ability

 

[Emberashh]

Being open does not change the facts.

WotC has always been open about tgeir goals. You are also not satisfied.

To your point: maybe having no conviction is their strength. They are willing to listen and evaluate instead of pushing their agenda...

This implies that not having strong convictions in game design can be a strength because it allows for openness to listening, evaluating, and avoiding pushing a personal agenda. However, this reasoning overlooks the importance of a clear vision and creative direction in game design. A lack of conviction might lead to inconsistency, confusion, and a diluted player experience.

Successful games often result from a well-defined creative vision and the ability to iterate while staying true to that vision. While being open to feedback is important, a balance between flexibility and a strong creative direction is crucial for creating a compelling and coherent game.

 

[Kobold Stew]

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

But really, how hard is it to get a CR 1/4 monster right?