D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Staffan]

My thought woukd be similar to 2014 basic.

But the moving parts bits are baked in. Eg say ones a great weapon user. They have tgat style, the feat and graze preselect. Starter might be 5 levels.

Only choice you make is what precon to use.

2 distinct lines probably a bad idea.

I mean, there is a starter set coming later this year (Heroes of the Borderlands). Unless tariffs mess things up (because that's exactly the kind of thing they'd make in China).

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, there is a starter set coming later this year (Heroes of the Borderlands). Unless tariffs mess things up (because that's exactly the kind of thing they'd make in China).

Aware. I woukd expect that to be very toned down newbie friendly and that's fine.

 

[Hussar]

This strikes me as uncharitable, especially the statement "don't deserve". A game not being right for someone is not a value judgement.

People have different tolerances for how much math they like and how rapidly they can do it. There are different desires for how much crunch they want in a game. Some great games require players to have read a lot of lore beforehand, or to have digested a large rulebook, or to deal with a lot of math. Those games aren't for every group, and that's ok.

But, deliberately designing a game to exclude people based on their vocabulary or math abilities is very much a value judgement. When you can explain something using easier language without losing meaning or nuance, deliberately choosing more complicated language is a value judgement. Or, to put is another way, "Employing unnecessarily intricate and abstruse linguistic constructs when a more pellucid and readily comprehensible articulation, devoid of semantic attrition or subtle contextual distortion, is readily available constitutes a volitional determination predicated upon a system of values."

 

[Hussar]

The primary hot-bed of the 1e craze was colleges and universities. Seems like an ongoing error not to continue to focus on that age group as the editions go by.

Now, @Umbran, we have a claim of fact here. This is not an opinion being put forward, but, a fact that 1e was primarily being bought by colleges and university aged players. Am I still being needlessly narrow to challenge that claim? See, to me, this is the kind of statements that get tossed out very regularly that should be challenged. After all, this is full on false. We know it's false. Every single piece of evidence from the time says that this is false. We have numerous historical accounts, from people like Jon Peterson and Benn Riggs who have thoroughly debunked this claim.

Am I being needlessly antagonistic to point out that this is flat out untrue? Or, should we just have an "interesting, enlightening conversation" knowing that this statement is straight up wrong? What value is there in not challenging things we know are false? How is it better that we let statements of fact, like this, that we have definitive proof that are false, pass, just because they happen to be someone's opinion?

Or, conversely, is @mamba being needlessly antagonistic showing proof that @kayakingpoodle's opinion was wrong? Again, he has brought the receipts to the conversation and straight up proven that @kayakingpoodle is mistaken. Apparently, that's too antagonistic and narrow for the conversation? We should allow @kayakingpoodle's claims to carry equal value since that is their opinion and we must treat all opinions as equal and valid?

Apparently, though, I'm being too narrow.

 

[mamba]

So basically should 5.5 have been 5e advanced instead of the lumpy undercooked scoop of mashed potatoes many see it as?

my take on 5.5 is similar to yours. You describe one as 'I am thinking more rules light, and rule of cool over RAW', whichever that one is, I would tend towards, not sure if you consider that the basic or the advanced version, probably basic I guess (rules light)

I would not call 2014 rules light, but I am not interested in heavier rules than that

 

[kayakingpoodle]

5e tried a Basic D&D. Four races, four classes with one subclass. No feats, no multiclassing. Limited spells and magic items. It was on par with what BX offered. Obviously, it was treated as a sampler and not a complete game.

The thing is, I don't know how you simplify 5e further without forking development. Likewise, you can add all sorts of advanced options to use, but if no additional supplements use them, they don't gain enough traction. You can put three different rule books with simple, advanced, middle versions of the rules, but the real version is the one compatible with the supplements and modules.

To me, 5e would be the basic, and 5.5e could have been the advanced. They didn't go down that path and now we have some half finished construct that is basically a mishmash of some house rules made official and a very confusing movement of problems from one aspect of the game to a different place while aside from moving them nothing has been solved. Even if a few(very few) things are better 5.5 is just an onside kick that went bad. It simply doesn't really fix anything a few house rules didn't. Like throwing everything in the closet instead of actually cleaning your room.

I'm not saying 5.5e is bad, it just isn't better enough to justify the buy-in over 5e. It would have been far better to do a full edition change than to ride the coat tails of 5e like they did. 5.5 just isn't worth the grind. If it was players would be able to toggle it off in the DDB tools.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As I recall, one of the points repeatedly made against 4e was that its books read like tax forms or instruction manuals. That's why they went toward "natural language" in 5e, for both better and worse at the same time from what I can gather.

One can have all three of technical language, complex concepts, and straightforward text at the same time. 3e kinda got there; 1e could have had Gygax not written in circles.

It's not a question of ancient Greek stop signs, it's a question of whether - as an example - the game design limits its arithmetic to addition only or allows itself to include subtraction, multiplication, and division. My take is that it should do the latter, which is a long way from saying it should include calculus and other higher-math; those are words-concepts others seem to want to put in my mouth-head.

The issue isn’t the nature of the maths, it’s the number of operations required to resolve an action. Every operation takes time, and therefore slows down the game. This issue was at its worst in 3e, with half a dozen additions and subtractions on every attack roll.

Personally, I’m better at calculus than I am at mental arithmetic in any case.

 

[Remathilis]

To me, 5e would be the basic, and 5.5e could have been the advanced. They didn't go down that path and now we have some half finished construct that is basically a mishmash of some house rules made official and a very confusing movement of problems from one aspect of the game to a different place while aside from moving them nothing has been solved. Even if a few(very few) things are better 5.5 is just an onside kick that went bad. It simply doesn't really fix anything a few house rules didn't. Like throwing everything in the closet instead of actually cleaning your room.

I'm not saying 5.5e is bad, it just isn't better enough to justify the buy-in over 5e. It would have been far better to do a full edition change than to ride the coat tails of 5e like they did. 5.5 just isn't worth the grind. If it was players would be able to toggle it off in the DDB tools.

Not sure how you made the jump from "making a simpler/more advanced 5e would splinter the game and recreate the two-lines problem" to "5.5 sucks" but go off.

 

[The Firebird]

But, deliberately designing a game to exclude people based on their vocabulary or math abilities is very much a value judgement. When you can explain something using easier language without losing meaning or nuance, deliberately choosing more complicated language is a value judgement.

I agree, if one is deliberately designing a game to exclude people. But I don't think that's why people like Thaco.

People who like Thaco genuinely like it. Maybe they find it easier--I don't get that, but if they say it perhaps it is true for them. Maybe they are more familiar with it. Maybe they have an emotional attachment to it. It reminds them of playing d&d as a kid, which ascending AC can never do.

There's any number of legitimate reasons to prefer Thaco that have nothing to do with the desire to exclude.

And reading in a desire to exclude when people are just choosing the mechanic they like best is uncharitable, and starts putting preferences into a moral hierarchy. It takes us from statements like "I don't understand your preferences" to "your preferences are morally suspect". Which is a lot to ascribe to an order of operations.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There's any number of legitimate reasons to prefer Thaco that have nothing to do with the desire to exclude.

There very few people who deliberately desire to exclude. There are a lot more people who who inadvertently create barriers, buy insisting on clinging on to things that don't wash with incoming players. But the joke was not aimed at people who like THAC0, the joke was aimed at gatekeepers (intentional or not).