D&D 5E (2024) CoDzilla? Yeah Na Its CoDGFaW.

[Zardnaar]

I. Don't. Care.

The design is what the game is, and not only can but should be evaluated for all of its contents, not merely the commonly-used parts. The whole thing matters, and if there are designs in it that are ill-considered or outright deleterious, they should be addressed (fixed if fixable, cut if not.)

Whether or not it shows up at the table with meaningful frequency, as argued above, is irrelevant to whether it is good design or not. If Wizards genuinely almost never get there, then they're paying out the nose with horrendously weak early levels, to get nothing for it. If Wizards do get there, then they're altering reality, and so the power is real. Or if you don't like wish, what about time stop or various other incredibly powerful things?

Either way, there's a design problem here. We have a class built around the idea of struggling mightily for ages until you finally come into Phenomenal Cosmic Power that overwhelms basically anything else except...other people who have Phenomenal Cosmic Power. If the power never arrives...then it's a class that struggles mightily for ages for no reason. If the power does arrive...then it blows everything else out of the water. Frequency of achieving that power is irrelevant.


Frankly, I don't really care whether they're grognards or not; that's not particularly relevant to me. They're part of the D&D community, and their gameplay desires have entirely valid expression. They can and should receive well-constructed, effective support for their preferences, so that they can enjoy the game the way they like to.


But that isn't what's happening here at all. Instead, it is precisely the reverse. People--most specifically @Lanefan but to a lesser extent @Zardnaar and others--are saying that we should be doing the reverse of what you're saying. That we should be dismissing modern sensibilities and forcing anyone who plays D&D to have the old-school experience.

That's why I said what I said. You are treating my rebuttal to the claim that we should enforce the old-school style as though it were the initial argument. It was not, and is not. It was, and is, a rebuttal.

Huh? Play whatever floats your boat.

Generally don't t apply modernism pre 3E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Theres stories of DMs screwing players over equipment wise snd reverse Monty haul.

I certainly believe this, but...you were the one arguing that old-school GMs were super generous. Now you seem to be undercutting your own point. I don't understand.

Official adventures had a lot of loot and they were skewed towards fighters generally along with the magic item tables.

Yes, I'm aware. I consider this a short-term design benefit, long-term design mistake. The treasure tables were a hidden Fighter class feature, and this got lost between the end of 1e and the start of 3e. That's an extremely serious design error.

It would have been better to make the Fighter powerful enough to stand on its own, so that nothing of the design could be lost.

It was the thief that was kinda crap although one optional rule in 2E was absurd and we had one hit level 10 or so with everyone else being level 6 or 7.

Ironically made that thief a good one.

Er, what was the optional rule?

So different levels in pre 3E isnt really s problem . Basic line had better tables for xp than AD&D that could get funky eg wizards, druids and espicially 1E druids.

I mean, in context, yes, I agree.

But it wouldn't work today. Players would not respond well to such...weirdly bespoke elements. That doesn't mean we should completely eliminate weird bespoke elements--I'm actually much more neutral on bespoke things than folks seem to think--but every bespoke element needs to be thoroughly justified, because each and every one is an extra burden that can be a quit moment for players.

We should never be afraid of the risk of quit moments. That's a massive mistake. But it is no less a mistake to ignore them either. Where possible, when the cost isn't severe, we should try to at least mitigate as many such moments as we can. Doing so makes the game more accessible.

This is also part of why I so desperately desire, and advocate for, robust rules for "novice levels" (read: rules for "below level 1") and "incremental advances" (read: rules for "partial level-up" benefits). And, likewise, why I think D&D should absolutely make some "Funnel Adventures" which exploit both of these rules to furnish fans of OSR-like experiences with something...more or less like what they enjoy.

I genuinely believe in a big tent. It's a big part of why I have so much venom for 5e's claims of being one. It claimed to be a big tent. It lied.

Ironically playing the clones and 2E after 3.5/Pathfinder/4E balance was a lot better and games ran smoother. Ascending AC B/X clones are very easy on DM.

Its the poor old thief tends to get screwed (C&C ones amazing skill monkey/assassin).

It's almost like being exposed to better, more rigorous design helped you see how to make the games you already liked better-designed and more-rigorous...

Huh? Play whatever floats your boat.

Generally don't t apply modernism pre 3E.

...did you read what I wrote?

Zardnaar, people were telling me that we should be applying pre-modern things to current-day D&D. That with a rebuild of 5e, or with 6e, or whatever, that we should make people run it old-school style, deny them even the potential of a modern-style experience. Telling me "don't apply modernism to pre-3E" is exactly the inverse of what I'm doing. I'm telling people that they cannot apply classicism to post-2E D&D, because enforced classicism would kill the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

I certainly believe this, but...you were the one arguing that old-school GMs were super generous. Now you seem to be undercutting your own point. I don't understand.


Yes, I'm aware. I consider this a short-term design benefit, long-term design mistake. The treasure tables were a hidden Fighter class feature, and this got lost between the end of 1e and the start of 3e. That's an extremely serious design error.

It would have been better to make the Fighter powerful enough to stand on its own, so that nothing of the design could be lost.


Er, what was the optional rule?


I mean, in context, yes, I agree.

But it wouldn't work today. Players would not respond well to such...weirdly bespoke elements. That doesn't mean we should completely eliminate weird bespoke elements--I'm actually much more neutral on bespoke things than folks seem to think--but every bespoke element needs to be thoroughly justified, because each and every one is an extra burden that can be a quit moment for players.

We should never be afraid of the risk of quit moments. That's a massive mistake. But it is no less a mistake to ignore them either. Where possible, when the cost isn't severe, we should try to at least mitigate as many such moments as we can. Doing so makes the game more accessible.

This is also part of why I so desperately desire, and advocate for, robust rules for "novice levels" (read: rules for "below level 1") and "incremental advances" (read: rules for "partial level-up" benefits). And, likewise, why I think D&D should absolutely make some "Funnel Adventures" which exploit both of these rules to furnish fans of OSR-like experiences with something...more or less like what they enjoy.

I genuinely believe in a big tent. It's a big part of why I have so much venom for 5e's claims of being one. It claimed to be a big tent. It lied.


It's almost like being exposed to better, more rigorous design helped you see how to make the games you already liked better-designed and more-rigorous...


...did you read what I wrote?

Zardnaar, people were telling me that we should be applying pre-modern things to current-day D&D. That with a rebuild of 5e, or with 6e, or whatever, that we should make people run it old-school style, deny them even the potential of a modern-style experience. Telling me "don't apply modernism to pre-3E" is exactly the inverse of what I'm doing. I'm telling people that they cannot apply classicism to post-2E D&D, because enforced classicism would kill the game.

No editions perfect. Its not hard to improve any of them.

Thief rule was optional.

No idea how many hard assed DMs were around back then. RAW and published material you woukd get lavish amounts of equipment.

Can't testify to how many DMs ran RAW.

 

[James Gasik]

Er, what was the optional rule?

I'm going to guess it's this: