D&D General D&D 2024 does not deserve to succeed

[payn]

"I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?"
"Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light."
"Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon."

 

[Zuranthium]

You can mix and match old and new. They specifically kept most of core 5e untouched because of compatibility.

No you can't mix and match. You have to go by what the DM/group is running. If the majority wants 2024 D&D because the mentality of "newest version of biggest brand name = best", then that's what you're forced to play. A new generation of kids are going to buy 2024 D&D and have ONLY that as their play material.

Does any game deserve to succeed?

Of course. In the same way that a great film deserves to succeed, but often doesn't bring the numbers financially, because it doesn't get the marketing it deserves. Hence trash like 2024 Twisters making tons of money, while Past Lives made very little, despite being something a lot of people would love if they were aware of it and felt the impetus to watch it.

It's not just a choice thing either. The dominant market force warps everything else around it, determines what can actually get funded. World of Warcraft was a mediocre, problematic MMORPG that continued to get worse over time, but its popularity caused investors to try and copy it, and the entire concept of what the genre was supposed to be fell by the wayside. But of course tons of people who experienced WoW as their first MMORPG hold it on super high regard, because that's what they know and it's what now impacts their nostalgia.

All information seems to indicate that most of us here have played more non-D&D TTRPGs than the designer of DC20 has

They've played RPG's their entire life and have a strong understanding of mechanics. Game design has a lot of overlap.

Oh, and as a side note, I looove McDonald's Big Macs. Love 'em. Like... A LOT. But I don't fool myself into thinking they're health food. It's a tasty, tasty treat.

So if that's an analogy the OP wants to run with, I'm down with it. Because.... Big Macs. Holy Heck. I want one Right NOW! I think I'll eat one while playing D&D online this evening.

And there is exactly the problem. A company like McDonalds is literally killing the planet (tldr; research the environmental impacts) and the health of society as a whole. Yet, like smoking before it, the majority of the populace regards it as "a tasty treat and nothing wrong with consuming it regularly". It's much worse than being a non-health-food. The way cows are raised these days literally causes diseases, not mention all the additives and processed crap involved in McDonalds that is seriously detrimental to people, but has simply being normalized by the toxic modern food system.

 

[mellored]

Mana instead of spellslots is self explanatory.

IME, that just leads to spamming the same thing over and over.

Spell slots forces you to use a variety of spell.

D&D has used points for Psionics a few times. They where not popular.

Action points are just what you can do during a round of combat instead of being railroaded into "main action, move, bonus action, reaction". It adds variety and depth, while removing the cheese of trying to exploit your "bonus action" as much as possible,

IME, that just leads to spamming the same thing over and over.

Action variety forces you to use a variety of actions.

And I don't see how "use all your action" is any less cheesy when they are all the same as compared to different.

Rolling high is simply extra damage for exceeding the target's AC by an increment of 5; makes perfect sense to me - if you only needed to roll a 9 to hit, and roll a 19, then logically your attack should do more.

That one i like, kind of.

You still want to add some variety. Rolling twice allows you to play with risk/reward.

I.e. always do 5 damage or sometimes do 10.

There are probably other ways to do it without rolling twice though.

In general I've never liked the massive variance of damage dice on spells.

5e could use a few more Magic Missile spells, including a cantrip.

Though adding Graze does it for weapon.


I would allow you to play a sorcerer who could only cast magic missile.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

They've played RPG's their entire life and have a strong understanding of mechanics. Game design has a lot of overlap.

So have (and do) a great many of us ENWorld posters.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Actually. No. Never mind.

I’ve got Big Macs to be delivered and a D&D game in 1/2 an hour!

Game on!

 

[Doc_Klueless]

So have (and do) a great many of us ENWorld posters.

Shhhh… shshshshhhhh…. We’re all ignorant and, apparently, unhealthy though my yearly physical would say otherwise.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm drifting away from D&D due to a combination of my own changing tastes and changes to D&D. But despite my interests diverging, I think D&D is a good game. I think every edition of D&D has been a good game (not you, 4th edition). A somewhat common criticism I've heard over the years is that D&D is only popular because of name recognition, but I think if you made a bad game and slapped the D&D logo on it then it wouldn't sell very well. People would stop playing.

I think D&D is a decent game that won't be better because WotC cares more about name recognition than making it better in any significant way.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

We have a saying for our Residents. Sometimes the enemy is good enough is better.

Which is to say, in the drive to make something better, you end up messing up the good thing you had.

It’s a very, very real risk.

Especially, when someone else’s “better” is someone else’s “worse.” And in a subjective thing like entertainment, that is typically what I see happening.

 

[mamba]

No you can't mix and match. You have to go by what the DM/group is running. If the majority wants 2024 D&D because the mentality of "newest version of biggest brand name = best", then that's what you're forced to play. A new generation of kids are going to buy 2024 D&D and have ONLY that as their play material.

and? otherwise they would have gotten 2014 since there is nothing newer, I see no issue there. There is no requirement to mix

It's not just a choice thing either. The dominant market force warps everything else around it, determines what can actually get funded. World of Warcraft was a mediocre, problematic MMORPG that continued to get worse over time, but its popularity caused investors to try and copy it

what determines mediocrity, you? I'd say its popularity shows that it cannot be that mediocre, or everything it beat was predominantly bad....

We have no real metric for something being good or bad, we just have opinions.

They've played RPG's their entire life and have a strong understanding of mechanics. Game design has a lot of overlap.

they played for fewer years than many here, and a single game at that, so no, that is just factually wrong. As to a strong understanding of mechanics, I did not conclude that from what I have seen, as I said I am much more interested in what experienced designers are doing than a guy with an opinion and a YT channel

 

[mellored]

So based on your description and the little I've seen. Here is a 5e version of DC20.


Magic Missiler
You can cast magic missile at-will.

When you cast magic missile, you can spend a bonus action to increase the number of missiles by 1.

If you didn't move on your turn, you can set your speed to 0 in order to increase the number of magic missiles by 1.

Level 2: when you roll initive, you gain a number of missile points equal to half your level. You can expend a missile point to increase the number of magic missiles by 1.

Level 3: subclasses
Barbarian Missiler: when you take damage, you gain a missile point.

Ranger Missiler: you can use a bonus action to choose a target. All your missiles against the target are d6's.



Now, I haven't played it. So maybe there is more variations than it seems. But so far I am not impressed.