D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Parmandur]

And now we have 5e where doesn't even put playable-species NPCs on the same chassis as PCs. Sigh.....

Oh, add that to my pile of Likes.

 

[Remathilis]

The idea of percentile strength - that exceptional individuals could have crazy-high strength scores - is IMO sound enough. But those percentile rolls then immediately need to be converted to integer scores.

We had to do this conversion-to-integers in about 1985 in order to make the Cavaliers' percentile-increment system (a brilliant innovation that should have been given to all classes!) work side-along with exceptional strength.

It annoyed me to no end that there was no percentile intelligence, wisdom or dexterity for other classes to access. I guess it was supposed to give warrior types a bonus over non warriors, but if so it was locked behind "naturally" rolling an 18 for your strength. I had completely patched it out prior to 3e, mostly adjusting the numbers a bit and nobody missed it.

 

[Lanefan]

It annoyed me to no end that there was no percentile intelligence, wisdom or dexterity for other classes to access.

Yeah, me too, for about five minutes bask in the day. Then I realized what they were going for, just blamed Conan, and stopped worrying about it.

I guess it was supposed to give warrior types a bonus over non warriors, but if so it was locked behind "naturally" rolling an 18 for your strength. I had completely patched it out prior to 3e, mostly adjusting the numbers a bit and nobody missed it.

The natural-18 strength requirement serves to nicely make exceptional strength the long tail on the bell curve that it's supposed to be.

This does, however, assume honest (or closely supervised) dice rolling.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Big 3 Likes:

• Actually thinking about game design. D&D was designed by vibes for a long time before anyone thought about the impact those mechanics would have in play. Starting at about 3e, the people at the helm started thinking more about how to actually use the rules at the table, and it's been a huge benefit. Bounded accuracy, advantage/disadvantage, class balance, unified XP tables, these are very good things.
• Imagination & Inclusivity. A more diverse game that is less closely wedded to specific historical or fantasy tropes is a game that can explore ideas and themes and kinds of fun that weren't in the original. D&D is fundamentally a game (a toy, some might say) about make-believe, and that is something that should be celebrated and encouraged.
• Simplicity-focused design. This is sort of a combo of the above points in that the threshold for playing D&D is already VERY high. We do not need it to be any higher than necessary. Character builds and feat tier lists and such are things that the game has been moving away from, and this is Good.

Big 3 Dislikes:

• Encounter focus over Dungeon/Narrative focus. Attrition, resource management, strategic thinking, these are good bits of game design that deserve to be leveraged over a whole session. Combats should be fast and tight, as part of an overall experience in the session, but they are in practice meandering and heavy with too many decision points, too much time dedicated to them, and with most of the fun buttons being things you get to do in a fight, it steals focus from the other areas of the game. This kind of crystalized for me after seeing what Draw Steel is, in that I am not looking for a monster fighting game for my TTRPG. Monster fighting is necessary in my TTRPG, but I do not want to play a game that is ABOUT monster fighting.
• Lack of innovation on the Social / Exploration side. There's been a little, but I think it's an area that TTRPG designers in general are challenged by. In a game of make-believe, it's easy enough to pretend to have a conversation or describe an exploration, but there's a lack of impactful options, tactics, or strategy here that can be addressed. There are ideas and mechanics out there, but they're foreign enough to D&D and often lack D&D's characteristic crunch. Some OSR games are doing interesting things with exploration that future D&D could back into (encumbrance, light, etc.). The social side is still very much in "Do whatever you can imagine!" territory, which doesn't help players who need a bit more. Ironically, the improvements in Alignment's rules have made this a bit worse as editions have marched on.
• B R A N D I N G. D&D as a brand to market rather than as a product to be sold. Aesthetics and tropes without much significance or meaning. "I understood that reference!" without understanding why things are that way or what power they have. Stop just looting cool stuff and think about why those cool things are the way they are, please and thank you.