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:

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

That's a pretty damning conclusion.

If most editions are so badly designed that it is not hard to improve any of them, doesn't that mean we've been paying designers for sub-par product for years and years now?

Why should I pay for product that is so flawed?

 

[James Gasik]

That's a pretty damning conclusion.

If most editions are so badly designed that it is not hard to improve any of them, doesn't that mean we've been paying designers for sub-par product for years and years now?

Why should I pay for product that is so flawed?

I've been saying this since 2014, lol.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I notice that you keep cutting out that there was an average of 1 in 5 that the magic user would just plain die whenever he cast the spell, yet you keep saying that what you care about is the design of the game. Well, that's the design of the game and you are avoiding evaluating Wish regarding it. It kept Wish from being used unless things were so dire the magic user was going to die anyway.

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.

They're grognards explains why Lanefan and @Zardnaar is talking so much about how it used to be, and how Lanefan he plays it now. They are evaluating the game based on it's design and how it was played back when 1e and 2e were going strong.

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.

None of them are advocating that everyone be forced to play the old school way. They are talking about their experiences regarding the way it was back then, and to some extent @Lanefan is talking about how his game is now.

The one thing I saw Lanefan talk about being simply a part of the game in general is frustration, and he is right. Frustration is a part of virtually every game, because it comes along side and is a companion to failure. Players will hit cold die rolling, which is frustrating. Cold die rolling will cause failure, which is doubly frustrating because it isn't the fault of the player that things failed. Cold die rolling will even cause some well planned and executed(other than the die rolling) plans to fail, which is frustrating.

The only way to get rid of the above frustration is for the DM to step in and fudge things so that the players don't fail. For some of us, though, never failing is itself frustrating. And yes, I know you have said that you aren't advocating for the PCs to never be defeated, but that same advocation is for frustration to be a part of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

That's a pretty damning conclusion.

If most editions are so badly designed that it is not hard to improve any of them, doesn't that mean we've been paying designers for sub-par product for years and years now?

Yes and no. Most editions were in my opinion flawed and in need of house rules, so I house ruled the hell out of 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e. 4e's flaws(to me) were baked into the core and I couldn't house rule them out without re-writing the game, so I just didn't play it.

Why should I pay for product that is so flawed?

See me and 4e. If the product has gone past being a good, but flawed game and into too flawed to pick, don't buy it. There are a few exceptions to that. Sometimes a product has a few really good gems in it that make the purchase worthwhile to cannibalize the exact rules for use in your other game(s), and sometimes the game premise is one you love and just want to own it.

 

[Voadam]

To get back to the original point, emanations in 5e as the signature clerical/druid thing feels narratively off just like clerical and paladin god lasers as a thing has since 3e for me. The closest I can think of to a visual clerical exemplar for an area of effect emanation would be Imhotep in the Mummy movies turning into a sandstorm (I can not remember if he also turned into a swarm of scarab beetles) which would seem OK as a rare big high level spell only and not a fireball equivalent. And even the sandstorm would be a lot of friendly fire to a group and more for a solo villain thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's a pretty damning conclusion.

If most editions are so badly designed that it is not hard to improve any of them, doesn't that mean we've been paying designers for sub-par product for years and years now?

Why should I pay for product that is so flawed?

Applies to every rpg.