Search results

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

5e seems to do that for them… if you can be number one, why settle for 3rd place Pretty sure that most of the commercial TTRPGs (Pathfinder, Cosmere, Daggerheart, Draw Steel,…) as opposed to the one person heartbreakers want to also be as successful as they can be and that influences their...

because it keeps making money… When 3e stopped doing that we got 4e, when that stopped we got 5e. In neither case did we get a minimal update the way Monopoly does. They will not continue to churn out 5e stuff when its sales drop to 10-20% of whatever they are now (and 2024 falls into the ‘5e...

rules changes did prove fruitful, after the prior edition had fizzled out they reliably resulted in large sales until they too invariably declined and fizzled out. The only difference is that 5e has not fizzled out (yet?), once it does I expect drastic changes, until then they would be stupid...

while it is true that I doubt they will make big changes again because of their 4e experience (at least not until 5e well and truly fizzles), I don’t think that this is the right takeaway 5e was a departure from what came before, it can only be seen as a return when you look at 4e only. They...

then dunk it? Why would you release it if you know it will fail? Also, you can come up with a chassis for this without much playtesting, that part is about statistics and design, you do not randomly tweak things in hopes of getting there. Playtesting comes after that

I still think DS! basically is the answer to this. incentivize not resting and get attrition from HP & HP recovery

but none of them are by D&D / WotC standards… It’s great that they are successful by their own standards, but that qualifier also explains why WotC is not following their path