D&D (2024) D&D species article

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't really like the spells for species too. But it is not lazy design. It is a design choice.
That is my gripe with people throwing around buzzwords.

You will note that I did not use the word "lazy." I referred to it as bad design, because that's exactly what it is, and I explained why it is bad, without simply declaring it so.

Game design is a technology and a technique. As a result, wholly apart from the aesthetic interests, it can be evaluated on at least two different measures:
(a) Does the design achieve the play-goals for which it was designed? AKA: Does the system do the thing it tells you it's supposed to do?
(b) Does the design make thrifty and/or wise use of the tools it employs? AKA: Are the parts executed well, regardless of whether they do what they're supposed to do?

Shoehorning the vast, vast majority of supernatural things into spells--for God's sake, they tried to make WARLOCK PACTS into spells!!!--fails on both of these measures. In blindly shoving everything into a single box allegedly with the goal of making the system easier to approach, it actually makes the system harder to approach, because now, new players need to have reasonably deep knowledge of the spells system in order to make effective characters in the VAST majority of situations. Stuffing so many things into one ill-fitting basket does not make them easier to learn, particularly given how ludicrously diverse "spells" are as a category.

And as for "thrift," the only thrift is in slimming down every chapter that isn't the spells chapter...which, by the way, the chapters dedicated to spells (how they work, and then the list thereof) are the lion's share of the PHB. It's neither thrifty nor wise, doubly so when (at least prior to the last couple years) they didn't even print creatures with the text of the spells they know, just the names. Cue continuous book-flipping, or digital lookup (or, I guess, pre-printed text the DM had to prepare for herself), just to run a single combat.

As both an exercise in the technology of designing games, and as a demonstration of game design technique, the absolute kindest thing you can say about 5e is that it is a hot mess, and the fact that they try to shove nearly everything into "spells" is one of the greater errors the design team has committed to.

 

[Aldarc]

Not every game should take every taste into account. Isn't it better if different games are designed to the liking of their core audience?

IME, that generally requires that the game have a "voice." Much as @EzekielRaiden said earlier, D&D 5e has always struck me as a game that was afraid to have one. I don't think that has always been the case with D&D either. There are versions of the game with IMHO clear voices: e.g., 1e D&D, B/X, 4e D&D, etc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So...too many people accept the way things are for a contrary opinion to matter?

That's how democracy works.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IME, that generally requires that the game have a "voice." Much as @EzekielRaiden said earlier, D&D 5e has always struck me as a game that was afraid to have one. I don't think that has always been the case with D&D either. There are versions of the game with IMHO clear voices: e.g., 1e D&D, B/X, 4e D&D, etc.

Absolutely. There were periods where the D&D Next playtest tried to have some kind of voice, but these were almost always dashed for one of three reasons:

1. Approximately 1/3 to 2/5 of people who responded to D&D Next (a population that massively over-represented "old school" fans relative to other preferences) absolutely hated some actually cool/clever idea because it was new, so it never got more than a single attempt and then nothing. (The "30% can veto any change" standard has ruined numerous great ideas, sadly.)
2. They wasted too much time during the playtest, and as a result had to rush through significant parts, leaving them half-baked and underdeveloped. Ranger, Sorcerer, and Warlock all suffered from these problems, and there's a reason all three of them have gotten significant focus in 5.5e. Champion and Berserker subclasses were in a similar boat.
3. They over-committed to a specific idea that ended up not working, and thus had no choice but to abandon something they genuinely meant to do but couldn't. This is how "martial healing" died; the designers went all-in for "Specialties," the frankly foolish "pick a pack of feats to get over X levels" concept that never worked no matter how hard they tried. By the time Specialties were abandoned, they'd decided to make the "Warlord Fighter" be carried by the healing-related Specialty, so...with no Specialties, no Warlord Fighter, and they just quietly stopped talking about it.

5e's "vision" has begun and ended at "apology edition" for the entirety of its existence. They tried to do other things, and either screwed it up, followed a ridiculously foolish standard of whether to give things a second try (one they happily ignored for pet projects--like Specialties!), or over-committed to something that wasn't working and had to be abandoned.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

[ignore, accidental double post]

 

[Micah Sweet]

More that WOTC is banking on the fact that 50% of the 5e community is new to D&D and under 45 that they can outlast mechanical criticism that isn't overtly dramatic.

What a pleasant and virtuous business tactic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really like the spells for species too. But it is not lazy design. It is a design choice.
That is my gripe with people throwing around buzzwords.

They chose a simpler, easier to design path. I think it's fair to see that as lazy subjectively.

 

[Micah Sweet]

More people seem to LIKE things as they are. So a contrary opinion does indeed not matter AS A DESIGN GOAL.

That does not invalidate the other opinion. But probably there are different games that are more to that players liking.
You have found your game in LevelUP. Others like Vampire. Others like PbtA. Others like 4e or Pathfinder 1 or 2.

Not every game should take every taste into account. Isn't it better if different games are designed to the liking of their core audience?

Of course it is. But if you are changing your design philosophy, as thus your game, while continuing to present it as the same game (which WotC has done to one degree or another for its entire tenure, let alone 5e's lifespan) that is a problem. My issue with WotC isn't the choices they make (though I disagree with most of those personally), it's their refusal to be straightforward about those changes and their reasons for them.

 

[DarkCrisis]

What a pleasant and virtuous business tactic.

Keep in mind these "newer players" are still in the honeymoon phase and typically buy every book that comes out.

The amount of money I spent on official and unofficial 3E stuff was DUMB.

I can't blame WotC for being a corp and doing corp things. You cater to those who spend the most $. And those of us who have been in this game awhile aren't it.

I only own the Core 3 5E and the Dragonlance book and the Planescape book. I'll likey just buy the Core 3 5.5 books and be even more picky over what adventure books I buy. Frankly, the adventure quality output has been poor so.... But that's been discussed over and over in other threads.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Of course it is. But if you are changing your design philosophy, as thus your game, while continuing to present it as the same game (which WotC has done to one degree or another for its entire tenure, let alone 5e's lifespan) that is a problem. My issue with WotC isn't the choices they make (though I disagree with most of those personally), it's their refusal to be straightforward about those changes and their reasons for them.

I think they are quite straight forward.