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

[Minigiant]

Admittedly, the DMG never says that CR guidelines were designed as an aid to new players, and have limited utility otherwise. It doesn't say the game structure assumes unoptimized PCs controlled by novice players and run by a novice DM.

It never says that to be nice and polite.

But it was designed that way.

 

[Oofta]

sales are driven by new players, the PHB sold around 10x as many copies as the best selling adventure

Which is why most versions sold well for the first year or so and then died? Versus 5E which has seen continued growth? Something doesn't seem to add up.

As far as more PHBs sold than adventures, many DMs do homebrew campaigns and once your done with an adventure it has little value so you can give it to someone else. Meanwhile many people are going to want their own PHB but only 1 person needs a module.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If no one found it boring why did they add weapon mastery to the game. Well crippling strikes or brutal strikes?

This means someone felt it boring and it was enough someone that I got to Wizards to the point that day added that to the game.

This is what I talking about fans personalizing discussion of the game instead of realizing that D&D is a very old game and has a lot of different factions in it.

Therefore providing content for every faction and access to resources for every faction is very difficult. And thus other games peeling off D&D fans to themselves.

Unfortunately you do get some so then come back to badmouth D&D afterwards once they find the combat focused D&D clone they like.

Can you provide an example of one of these combat-focused D&D clones you're describing?

 

[Oofta]

1) 4e was the easiest edition IMHO to tweak combat to how you liked.

Not in any game I played in or DMed.

2) Weapon masteries impact is debatable but it's purpose was clear. Spice up combat.

And? It's a pretty minimal change and, as I said, every game can use improvement. I haven't played enough to know if weapon masteries are a big issue, so far I'd say no.

3) D&D stubbornly sticks to offering only simple or complex options to different styles of play rather than offering both options and let groups choose.

There's only so much a game can accomplish. If you want variation there's 3PP.

 

[Minigiant]

Can you provide an example of one of these combat-focused D&D clones you're describing?

Your in a thread about one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It never says that to be nice and polite.

But it was designed that way.

I always prefer honesty in these situations over politeness. To do otherwise is deceptive.

 

[Minigiant]

Not in any game I played in or DMed.

I don't know what to tell you.

I taught my 8 year old cousin to DM engaging 4E combat for a 50 year old accountant and his ~12 year old son.

There's only so much a game can accomplish. If you want variation there's 3PP.

That's a cop out.

If you can produce 13 classes in 10 years. You can produce 15 classes in 10 years.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Your in a thread about one.

DC20 seems no more or less combat focused than 5.5. When you use a descriptor like combat-focused ahead of clone, it reasonable to assume it's meant as a way to distinguish said clone from the original.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The portion characterised by decline (I stopped playing D&D for a start).

Hardly. The period characterised by decline is the 2e era - and from memory D&D's first peak was in 1983 so we might say the decline started in the mid 80s. And the 2e era was both the era in which D&D was overtaken by something that was not D&D (WoD) and the era that drove TSR to bankruptcy

We can therefore be 100% clear about when the actual period of decline was both in terms of mind share and commercial viability. And I don't believe it's a coincidence that it's the exact same era when both wealthy by level and combat balance weren't a thing. And when it drifted furthest from its tactical roots.

Now liking the era characterised by decline is fine (it takes all sorts). But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

The thing is, this is not zero sum. At least for some players, adding this stuff to the game actively makes it WORSE.

Indeed. Different strokes for different folks But for some reason I don't consider it worth pandering to the tiny number of players for which the presence of tools they do not have to use and can safely ignore with no problem contaminates the "purity" of their game.

 

[Oofta]

I don't know what to tell you.

I taught my 8 year old cousin to DM engaging 4E combat for a 50 year old accountant and his ~12 year old son.

The game was easy to learn at lower levels because it told you exactly what you could and could not do. That's far different from being able to tweak combat or add homebrew customizations. The interaction and details of powers was too complex to allow much of either.

That's a cop out.

If you can produce 13 classes in 10 years. You can produce 15 classes in 10 years.

Or you could let 3PP do it while you focus on the core rules. Which is what WotC seems to have done instead of the TSR model of trying to be everything and failing.