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

[cranberry]

Regardless of whether D&D2024 deserves to succeed or not, it's the 800 pound gorilla in the industry and it can produce substandard adventures, rule book, etc with little consequence. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality of a business that dominates an industry.

Complexity is personal taste, but when most people get introduced to something new, complexity can be a turnoff. It's typically when someone has been doing an activity for a while that they desire more depth of experience.

IMHO, it seems that ShadowDark is the only new game that has any potential staying power. Although, I don't see it growing beyond niche.

 

[Remathilis]

that is what I thought, some spells for the most part, I doubt that compensates for the weapon masteries which are constantly being used

They had a simple weapon mastery that just changed the damage dice. Playtesters screamed how it was inferior to others and it got pulled. Once again, the fans prove that simplicity is not as big a draw as they claim it is.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

They had a simple weapon mastery that just changed the damage dice. Playtesters screamed how it was inferior to others and it got pulled. Once again, the fans prove that simplicity is not as big a draw as they claim it is.

That's part of the problem with design-by-popularity playtests. There's a correlation between casual players and simplicity in a system. But I'd guess most people taking their time to playtest and answer questions are not what we would describe as ''casuals''.

Thing is, casual players are a huge percentage of the player base now, not just 1 or 2 dudes out of every 10 tables.

At least the book's layout is way friendlier to casual players now. That's a big plus, at least to me, because half my table has crippling ADDH. So bullet points and bolded keywords? Here for it! But I'd would have loved a simpler Mastery for them to default to.

 

[Belen]

They had a simple weapon mastery that just changed the damage dice. Playtesters screamed how it was inferior to others and it got pulled. Once again, the fans prove that simplicity is not as big a draw as they claim it is.

The people prone to test will be the most experienced players and DMs. They are not going to be representative.

They got the crunchy players which tend to be the loudest voices.

 

[Corinnguard]

This probably deserves a forum thread of its' own, but where do people draw the line between a game feature being too simple or being too complex? I didn't say an entire RPG like 5e here because it's bound to be a mix of simple and complex. Some features in 5e are simple and easy to understand when used at a table. However, some 5e features are complex enough in that they bring up debates between it being a RAW or a RAI rule in the forums.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Everyone deserves to succeed.

looks at any glossy popular-people magazine on the stands

No. No they don't.

 

[Belen]

That's part of the problem with design-by-popularity playtests. There's a correlation between casual players and simplicity in a system. But I'd guess most people taking their time to playtest and answer questions are not what we would describe as ''casuals''.

Thing is, casual players are a huge percentage of the player base now, not just 1 or 2 dudes out of every 10 tables.

At least the book's layout is way friendlier to casual players now. That's a big plus, at least to me, because half my table has crippling ADDH. So bullet points and bolded keywords? Here for it! But I'd would have loved a simpler Mastery for them to default to.

This.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Level Up is targeted at a niche market, not trying to compete directly with mainstream D&D.

It’s for people who have played D&D and want to movie on, it’s not attractive to people new to the hobby.

Even if you're right, does that support your thesis that they're making the "mistake" that complexity is better? Are they even saying that? Seems to be me they made a choice to make a more complex game because their design goals demanded a bit more complexity. That doesn't jive with your sweeping generalization.

Or, when you said "better", did you actually mean, "better for drawing in non-gamers", or ,"better at maximizing profits"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

More complex is a turnoff tbh. Along with Marshall.

People like different levels of complexity. It's a turn-off to you, but that's not nearly so generally true as your statement suggests.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People who have played 5e and want something more complex.

Because of where it is marketed. i.e. only advertised in places frequented by hardcore roleplayers.

I'm sure Morrus would market more widely if he had WotC's marketing budget. Where do you see RPGS that aren't D&D marketed?