D&D (2024) A simpler game is a better game...for us

[mamba]

....those were very clearly two distinct thoughts. Misquoting me by mashing together two separate parts of my post as though they were one single thought is clearly not discussing in good faith.

were they? you did tie them together by writing

And "One D&D" appears to be going even further, doing things like eliminating individual differences in class spell lists for...no reason I can determine

what do you think the ‘And’ here calls back to? No need discussing ‘doing things like’ either, that clearly also refers back. The part in between that I omitted isn’t a different topic but more of the same.
So if this were meant to be two separate topics, you sure did not make it easy to recognize that

At most I misunderstood you (and I’d argue I did not), no need to accuse me of misquoting

 

[EzekielRaiden]

were they? you did tie them together by writing

what do you think the ‘And’ here calls back to? No need discussing ‘doing things like’ either, that clearly also refers back. The part in between that I omitted isn’t a different topic but more of the same.
So if this were meant to be two separate topics, you sure did not make it easy to recognize that

At most I misunderstood you (and I’d argue I did not), no need to accuse me of misquoting

You literally did quote two separate parts. You cut out the stuff between, in order to tie two distinct points as though they were one. That is literally misquotation. The only way it could have been moreso is if you'd actually added words I didn't say. You can still misquote someone by cutting out things, not just by inserting fake things.

What do you think the phrase "going even further" means? That this is literally 100% exactly the same thing with no differences, or that it is a different effect, going beyond merely choosing not to actually do the job of design, which happens to produce similar results (removing useful variation for unclear, possibly even unproductive reasons)? Like, why on earth would anyone ever use the phrase "going even further" if they just meant "more of the same"?

I have been extremely frustrated with your dismissive, flippant responses and unfair double standards. I have little reason to continue this talk unless I see that change.

 

[mamba]

You literally did quote two separate parts. You cut out the stuff between, in order to tie two distinct points as though they were one. That is literally misquotation.

the stuff in between was more of the same, so I cut it for being redundant.

Here is the full text. Show me where one topic ends and the next begins, to me this is all the same topic

No, we are not. 5e has a number of mechanics that the designers effectively threw up their hands and said, "Eh, you figure it out." Which, to be clear, that strategy is not always inappropriate. There are times when it is wise to say, "You know better than we do what is needed here." 5e is over-reliant on it.

Is it every single thing of the entire game? No. But it comes up. Quite a bit. And "One D&D" appears to be going even further, doing things like eliminating individual differences in class spell lists for...no reason I can determine

You can still misquote someone by cutting out things, not just by inserting fake things

Yes, if you change the meaning, I just cut redundancy to make it shorter.

What do you think the phrase "going even further" means? That this is literally 100% exactly the same thing with no differences, or that it is a different effect

doing more of the same obviously, not doing something different. That is not ‘going further’…

Like, why on earth would anyone ever use the phrase "going even further" if they just meant "more of the same"?

that is literally what it means…. google the definition sometime, the first one that came up for me was ‘To continue something, or to continue to do something’

According to your logic languages would not have synonyms, because why have more than one word to say something. Clearly that is not true…

So I understood what you wrote just fine, but apparently it is not what you meant to write…

 

[Shardstone]

1D&D in no way is too simple to be an interesting game or an interesting foundation. I'm so tired of the hyperbole people use in these discussions. It isn't that serious. Like, it isn't like 1D&D is some unplayable abomination of rules that could never produce a fun time just because its simpler now.

Can't wait for the day people online stop breaking everything into meaningless binaries like "Ultra Simple Trash" and "Highly Complex Perfected Art."

 

[Emberashh]

Can't wait for the day people online stop breaking everything into meaningless binaries like "Ultra Simple Trash" and "Highly Complex Perfected Art."

That'll be the same day people stop assuming you're just bad at Pathfinder if you don't like it lol.

However, it should be said that simplification can detract from the fun if not executed well. Surprise in 5e is technically simplified from what it was in the past, but that doesn't automatically make for a good or fun mechanic.

And the same goes in the other direction. Making something more complex doesn't automatically make for a good or fun mechanic either.

Good and fun game mechanics are precisely as simple or complex as they need to be.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Goodbye racial level limits, gold for xp, commoner class, and marking. I appreciate what you tried to do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

1D&D in no way is too simple to be an interesting game or an interesting foundation. I'm so tired of the hyperbole people use in these discussions. It isn't that serious. Like, it isn't like 1D&D is some unplayable abomination of rules that could never produce a fun time just because its simpler now.

Can't wait for the day people online stop breaking everything into meaningless binaries like "Ultra Simple Trash" and "Highly Complex Perfected Art."

You might have to wait a while...

 

[Vaalingrade]

1D&D in no way is too simple to be an interesting game or an interesting foundation.

I mean, 5e already is and 1 is already promising to take away different spellcasting styles, leaving only the worst one, so...

 

[jasper]

To me they are not making more steamlined or easier. Well easier to program . I twitch occasionally reading some the changes. Having only 3 spell lists means you don't have to create another spell table/database with each new class.
New class spell casting arcane table.

 

[Corinnguard]

To me they are not making more steamlined or easier. Well easier to program . I twitch occasionally reading some the changes. Having only 3 spell lists means you don't have to create another spell table/database with each new class.
New class spell casting arcane table.

I think WoTC is borrowing an idea from Pathfinder 2nd edition. The latter lists magic into four magical traditions- Arcane, Divine, Primal and Occult.