D&D 5E Am I no longer WoTC's target audience?

[Tony Vargas]

People are denying that they are technology because they aren't more-or-less function-oriented devices for achieving utilitarian ends.

To use the art analogy, mixing your own paints with linseed oil and choosing a color palate in a graphics programs are both technologies, and, if you're using them to create a painting, they're not being utilitarian.

Throwing dice is a technique or, if you like, an instance of technology. Deciding whether it is good or bad that your game should tend to generate tied results on its dice throws is not about technology.

That doesn't change that the random number generator is a technology, and that one technology delivering a distribution closer to the one desired - whatever the reason for that desire, modeling a RL distribution of some more complex system, modeling genre tropes, providing a 'challenging play experience,' etc - is a 'better' technology for that purpose.

And if rules design really was comparable to technological advance, how come it peaked, then again, perhaps, but with so many dips between and since?

Development of technologies and adoption of technologies can proceed unevenly and at very different paces from eachother. A leap forward can be made, but ignored or rejected, while proven-inferior technologies can be perpetuated for all sorts of reasons, some less sinister than others, until, later the improved technology (it's patent long expired) is dusted off and given a second chance.

Is it technological improvement, or not, to have worked out how to reliably use mechanical systems to produce shared fiction with no need for single-person authorship? And what should we make of systems which which go a lot of the way there twenty to thirty years earlier? Are they nevertheless now obsolete like Model T Fords are? In what way is 1977 Traveller an obsolete RPG system?

Prettymuch every RPG-technology that isn't D&D is irrelevant, rather than obsolete, in the realm of broader adoption w/in the hobby. Conversely, any less-primitive bits of technology to be found in D&D are figuratively bolted to a Model T Ford, and it's fans are proud of that, especially that hand-crank you need to get it started, without the hand-crank, it just wouldn't be a Model D&D Ford.

 

[Monayuris]

View attachment 117967
vs.

View attachment 117969

The 5e example is not only less than half as long (BECMI grappling continues on the next page), it includes the base rules for grappling, a feat that improves grappling, and two conditions which are universal but that are used when grappling.

Or another example...

5e: New Player, you found a magic shield! It's a simple +1 shield which means you get to add an extra 1 to your Armor Class. You used to have an 18, so when you use the +1 shield your AC is 19.

BECMI: New player, you found a magic shield! It's a simple +1 shield which means that you get to subtract an extra 1 from your Armor Class. You used to have a 2, so when you use the +1 shield you have a 1.

Or another example...

5e: New player, in order to figure out what animal left that track roll a D20 to make a Nature Check. 20! Awesome, that means you did really well and know its a bear, and that its wounded. snip time You swing at the bear with your sword, roll a D20 to hit. 20! Awesome again. Thats a critical hit and does extra damage.

BECMI: New player, in order to figure out what animal left that track roll a D20 to make a Nature Check. 20! Oh man, not good. You think its an antelope or something. You actually wanted to roll low. snip time You swing at the bear with your sword, roll a D20 to hit. Oh man, another 20, these dice are crap. No, 20 is good! That can hit anything in the book. ???

Using grapple rules to compare complexity in different editions isn't exactly a fair comparison.

The only point I’ll grant you is descending AC.

B/X is dramatically simpler than 5E.

Compare the action economy, resource management, and number of choices needed to create a character.

 

[MichaelSomething]

In regards to RPGs being tech or art may I present you this tweet...

 

[Monayuris]

In regards to RPGs being tech or art may I present you this tweet...

Lol funny.

Good thing those two concepts mentioned are not mutually exclusive.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[HarbingerX]

Regarding systems, I recommend any DM should give a try running

I'm not trying to HA-HA you and say your opinion is WRONG, but I can't agree with you on the idea that complexity progressed as editions moved forward. I would rank them as such using the following definition of Complex.

Complexity: The difficulty an average player would encounter in applying 80% or more of the intended and non-optional rules of the game. This can be influenced both by the amount of rules as well as the design and organization of those rules.

Least Complex <---5e--4e--Basic/Moldvay--3.x--2e--1e---> Most Complex

I rate 5e the least complex because it has a combination of low amounts of rules, easily understood rules, and well organized rules.

I don't see complexity as just the rules, but also all the options. I think the simplest rules were 4e; I was amazed how how great a job they did at paring down all the complex sub-systems to an easily understood and consistent set of rules. New books also didn't add to complexity as they didn't introduce new sub-systems - they just bolted more powers onto the system that was already there. Too bad I hated DMing and playing it - not because of the rules, but because the design math had serious problems that made combat either a long slog or a walk in the park, but never 'just right'.

2e is more complex than 1e because it lived the longest and had whole books with kits for a single class. Or rule books just for dungeon or outdoor adventuring rules.

3.5 is less complex mechanically than 2e/1e at the core, but over time became a similar bloated mess with many, many additional rules added from splat books. Don't you remember having to have stacks of books on hand and needing to know which particular one had that feat or rule the player mentioned? It was heaven for rules lawyers.

5e seems to be avoiding this problem so far by focusing more on setting and not adding new rules - though Saltmarsh did dip its toe into that.

As I stated, I see 5e has having gone back to the B/X model while bringing better modern techniques.

 

[HarbingerX]

The 5e example is not only less than half as long (BECMI grappling continues on the next page), it includes the base rules for grappling, a feat that improves grappling, and two conditions which are universal but that are used when grappling.

Yeah, I intentionally left out BECMI as I never played it as it was starting to bloat like 1e. B/X is far simpler.

I'll say it again, 5e is a lot like B/X, but with modern mechanical techniques. I didn't say 5e was more complex, just 1e,2e,3e. Then 4e tried to simplify and messed it up. 5e got it right.

Edit: I just checked, and B/X doesn't even have grappling rules. Just a two sentences about unarmed combat. Which is my point - who needs grappling rules that are almost never needed? How many times have your players tried to grapple? It even became a joke in 3.5e era.

 

[HarbingerX]

The only point I’ll grant you is descending AC.

Funny thing is, why did no one figure out Target20 and instead give us the monstrosity of THAC0?

Player rolls d20, add level proficiency bonus and other modifiers like normal and tells DM the value.
DM mentally adds descending AC to total and if 20 or more, it hits.

This works just as well as using ascending AC and avoids having to add large numbers to the player's rolls, so is actually mentally faster to do than ascending AC.

Once I discovered this system, I used it in all my B/X games and love it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Funny thing is, why did no one figure out Target20 and instead give us the monstrosity of THAC0?

Player rolls d20, add level proficiency bonus and other modifiers like normal and tells DM the value.
DM mentally adds descending AC to total and if 20 or more, it hits.

This works just as well as using ascending AC and avoids having to add large numbers to the player's rolls, so is actually mentally faster to do than ascending AC.

Once I discovered this system, I used it in all my B/X games and love it.

It came from naval wargaming iirc. The better ships were lower numbers.

 

[HarbingerX]

It came from naval wargaming iirc. The better ships were lower numbers.

Yes, it did. And the probability tables came from wargaming as well. But we were well past that by the 2e era. 3e did the right thing by dropping the tables, but they didn't need to drop descending AC where 0 was the best you could get without magical abilities.