D&D 5E Advanced D&D or "what to minimally fix in 5E?"

[der_kluge]

TotV might have game mechanics that aren't present in the 5e books that could prove to be useful in a 5e campaign. Have you come across anything in TotV that you wish was in 5e?

I haven't seen the rules. When I played the game, we ended up just playing a game that was 100% exactly like any 5e game I've ever played. So, in the end, it felt completely unchanged.

 

[Nebulous]

I'd rework how the Concentration subsystem is applied. It cut out too many buffs, when a short duration would probably be all that they need. Then how it was applied to the spells was another issue - in practice, it often end-up being an "This is an out-of-combat spell" indicator. Moreover, because of it's often short-term expectations, if you could work a duration longer than a round or two out of a concentration spell that was intended for in-combat, that spell often went from "worth-it" to pretty near "absolute best in slot". Often to the point that there was no reason to have more than one combat concentration spell in a spell level, as only the one would ever get chosen.

I will add, the Concentration mechanic for bad guys is so terrible, they get about a round of spells before it's cancelled. I honestly miss the 3rd edition Skill where you can get better at focusing through pain and distraction. In fact, I think the entire skill system in 5e needs an overhaul. But that's a different topic.

 

[Maxperson]

You miss my point.

I don't want a new game. I want to play 5E with added options.

All those publishers that create new books that replace the 5E PHB/DMG/MM miss this point too.

It seems like drastic game altering thing you like = 5e with options, and drastic game altering things you don't like = new game. That's not how it works.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

The problem is that if anyone, another RPG company or a homebrewer, tries to fix those egregious bugbears for everyone, you then declare that their work isn't 5th edition. Kobold Press came out with Tales of the Valiant, a 5e adjacent RPG and you immediately declare without really looking at it that it isn't 5th edition.

Isn't this "problem" much broader. In this thread, there are proposals that radically change the game, and still call it "5e." Are those proposals running afoul of the same thing? Is there a real difference between saying "Tales of the Valiant isn't 5e," and saying "something that has granular bonuses akin to 3e is?"

Isn't this just projection in both cases? Both camps want their vision of a "good system" to be popular? And since 5e is, indisputably, popular, both camps want their vision to be "5e?" Isn't that why so many propose changing 5e instead of adopting a new system? A thought such as, "If only the community tried the system I want, they'd see the light," comes to mind.

Seems like it to an observer. Seems to me, that a lot of this is about the validation of liking a popular system. The poster you quoted likes 5e as is, with minor fixes. Others want 3e or 4e under a different name. It's all the same. Why is the former a problem, and the latter not? Does a thread about "fixing" a system forbid any opinion that isn't a radical change to the foundation of that system?

In my mind, the poster you quoted is closer to the premise of "fixing" when compared to many others who just want another system under the 5e name.

 

[Shardstone]

The implication is, technically, correct. The definition of "good," according to Oxford, is "to be desired or approved of." Popularity is a direct measurement of this in relation to the population as a whole. In essence, there is no other measurement of good, in game design, than the popularity. This is especially true in a commercial setting.

So I don't see an alternative to "popular = good design."

An alternative is to create actual criterion using expert opinion and academic rigor.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, are all of those other DMs and those 5e adjacent RPGs doing it wrong in your opinion?

No, they're just striking out on their own, while I want to keep playing 5E.

I'm not interested ≠ their effort is bad.

One aspect of those efforts can be considered bad or misguided, however. That is if they started out with aims similar to mine - to "fix 5E". Then it represents losing their way if they end up with something new, something other than 5E.

You don't fix 5E by trying to compete with it, is what this boils down to. Most likely, competing with D&D is a fool's errand, as evidenced by the long long trail of the forgotten carcasses of failed D&D heart-breaker games. In the happy case they achieve some modicum of success, it still means that they have split off a fraction of the user base that no longer plays 5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

It seems like drastic game altering thing you like = 5e with options, and drastic game altering things you don't like = new game. That's not how it works.

No, a new game is (drum roll please) a game that is self-contained: you only need that book or those books to play.

But that branches off from 5E. That's an attempt to start something new. Away from 5E. Something that isn't 5E.

I want to keep playing 5E. I want to play 5E, but better. And so I want an add-on to 5E that doesn't replace the 5E core books. Unless, of course, it is WotC that does the publishing. Best of course would be if the items listed in the first post were incorporated by the official 2024 D&D update!

 

[DinoInDisguise]

An alternative is to create actual criterion using expert opinion and academic rigor.

When someone, smarter than I am, comes up with an objective and measurable criterion using expert and academic rigor, let me know. Until then, I support using the only objective metric we have.

I find the continued fight to explain why 5e is both bad and overwhelmingly popular to be mind numbing. The premise that 90% of the community plays a bad game is ripe with issues. But people keep trying excuses, such as 5e players being ignorant of other systems. All in an attempt to explain why it remains to so popular while being so bad.

The newest thing is that popularity means nothing. 5e is popular due to voodoo witchcraft, because it's an awful system. Let's dismiss this popularity, tainted by evil magics, and come up with a new metric - one that shows how bad this system really is.

This all feels like an round-about way to tell 5e players that they are wrong for liking the system. A ham-fisted attempt to "teach those 5e noobs" how a "good" system plays. After all, there is no chance that they actually like a bad system like 5e. It can't be that 5e is actually good. We know it's bad, why can't 5e players see this.

People are free to like, and dislike, what they wish, but this continued disdain towards 5e has led to a mind-numbing barrage of reality twisting theories. All of which wish to explain why a good game is bad, and why that game's popularity means nothing.

It's tiring.

 

[Corinnguard]

No, a new game is (drum roll please) a game that is self-contained: you only need that book or those books to play.

Except that 5e is not self-contained because WoTC has allowed third-party publishing companies to create their own 5e material through several licensing agreements. 5e is a Ship of Thesus.

I want to keep playing 5E. I want to play 5E, but better.

No one is trying to stop you from playing 5e or trying to convince you to try out a 5e-adjacent RPG.

And so I want an add-on to 5E that doesn't replace the 5E core books.

5e has been around since 2014 and has gathered a huge following. I don't see the 5e core books being replaced any time soon. Not even with the upcoming debut of 2024D&D or by any of the 5e adjacent RPGs.

 

[Blue]

Well, why do we have more than one kind of any given thing then? Commercially speaking, shouldn't every company just make the most popular thing?

There's a really cool TED talk about this, back from when there was still some prestige to them. It had to do with there are multiple local maxima of what people like, which is why there are multiple types of tomato sauce. There are those that like chunky, those that like garlicky, etc.


Oh wow, it's was posted 17 years ago. Now I feel old.