Search results

not what I said, as I pointed out they discarded some things that the polls actually approved and did decide some things without ever polling them. So they are making their own decisions, whether they poll at all or not. So they get the blame for the result. They also get the blame for how...

sure, and yet they decided to not just go with what the UA polls said despite that. Also, I sure wish they had better polls if they actually want to figure out what preople want and act on it. Their current approach is pretty useless, except for identifying total duds

I blame WotC more, for one they are supposed to be designers, not just pollsters. For another they did shut down changes that made it past the threshold because they got cold feet and feared they might not be compatible enough (they did not mention which ones) It’s also not like they asked for...

tighter math still lets you manipulate the situation, and you still can fudge die rolls too. You might actually have to do that less because you could better predict the outcome. If you vibe your encounters instead of giving them some thought, you might have to do it as much as before however...

yeah, that part is definitely true decided not to wait that long ;)

I doubt that, the first half of the playtest showed that they were more willing to experiment than they would have been if the 10 years of conservative feedback were a factor / existed. What killed it was somewhere between them getting cold feet and feedback to the UA. More the former though...

yeah, their level of adherence to backwards compatibility basically killed 5.5 for me, along with me not actually liking the general direction

I don't know, to me looser math just means it is harder to predict the outcome, that to me is the opposite of a DM being able to control things. That is a choice, no one is forcing the DM to go for a dangerous to deadly encounter every time. It just means when they do it, the encounter actually...

I would have to check how often there actually are that many encounters in a day, my gut says it is frequently less. Even if they always put 8 encounters in a location, they have no idea whether a party will tackle them all during one rest or not however. eh, not very tight does not help keep...

I don’t think that guidance is 1) all that realistic with its 6-8 fights and assumptions of no long rests between any of them, and 2) still not very tight, even if you were to follow it If your guidance requires player buy in and players not using easily available abilities (rope trick / tiny...

you can always go lower than what the encounter building rules tell you. People apparently do that today and are happy with it. The difference with tighter math is that you have a better idea of when an encounter is easy and when it is too hard. No one is forcing ‘you’ to always tightly create...

so you think that the casual gamer will bounce off a game with tighter math? If a tightly-designed D&D could capture the same audience, WotC could sustain it after all

but no one really knows where that line is. Is any game with elves, dwarves, dragonborn, barbarians, and sorcerers D&D? Clearly not, see 4e, but it still is a pretty wide spectrum, see 1e/2e, 3e, and 5e I refuse to believe that having a good game design means a game cannot be D&D at the same...

definitely true, but they do not have a big supplement ready, so…

art, larger font, Greyhawk, bastions

I don’t think 5e is unintentional either, and they all at least try for broad appeal. I eg do not see Daggerheart as aiming for a more narrow appeal than D&D. It might have a more narrow appeal, but I don’t think that was the intention. They all aim for ‘not quite 5e’ because going head on with...

guess we will see, an evergreen strategy only is evergreen until it isn’t. It’s not like TSR / WotC knew that what they were doing would jeopardize future sales. I am not even sure that it would have made much of a difference if they had used a different strategy. TSR failed for a lot more...

that was true throughout the past 50 years too and yet 1e to 4e invariably declined

day vs 3 encounters is just a matter of how many encounters per day there should be. I agree that the 6-8 from 5e are too many 1 encounter per day is no attrition however, either you survive or you don’t, that is it

yes, I understood that. I am saying they do those with Monopoly etc. because it keeps selling. They will do the same as long as 5e keeps selling. Once it does not however, I expect a bigger overhaul, see (2e to) 3e to 4e to 5e, and I for one do not think 5e will keep selling indefinitely