D&D (2024) D&D playtest feed back report, UA8

[Stalker0]

I thought everyone agreed about the exploration rules being underwhelming?

There are some conclusions some people come to from that, often about other aspects of the game, that get strong pushback, but I am confident that you could say, “I am underwhelmed by the 5e exploration rules. I find the lacking. What have any of you done to fix them in your game?” Or something like that, it’d be fine.

You’d get at least one contrarian trying to argue over the premise, ofc, but that apperently can’t be avoided!

I think everyone would agree that exploration rules are “lite” in 5e.

Where the debate would be is whether that a problem or a benefit. As always some people want more codified rules, and for others less rules means more flexibility and freedom

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Heh. You wouldn't believe the pushback you get if you even suggest that adding an optional rules packet for any non-combat aspect of the game. The whole "anything outside of combat must be free-form" brigade is very loud, very vocal and very willing to die on that hill. And any suggestion of adding any mechanics becomes an attack on playstyle. Like you say, it's pretty much self-evident to me too. But, apparently, lacking, or half-baked mechanics counts as support.

I mean if people said “I’d like to build a more robust set of exploration rules” instead of “exploration in 5e might as well not exist and it’s the reason rangers suck” or whatever, the response would be wildly different.

People respond to tone and context. Oftentimes more than they do to content or “the point”.

 

[Stalker0]

1) that small changes can have big design impacts. Even if a 5e mechanic is similar to a 4e one, that doesn’t mean they play the same.

Another really simple example of this is the 5e movement rules. The change itself is exceedingly simple, now you can move between actions and attacks. Not exactly a eureka genius moment of game design.

But in gameplay it’s a total game changer, probably the best change 5e made. I immediately saw my players trying more things, it was intuitive for new players, everyone noted it meant combat feel more fluid and less rigid.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think everyone would agree that exploration rules are “lite” in 5e.

Where the debate would be is whether that a problem or a benefit. As always some people want more codified rules, and for others less rules means more flexibility and freedom

Sure, but vanishingly few abhor the notion of a Tasha’s style book expanding optionally on the exploration or social challenges.

Like we have had threads where these things are discussed peacefully. Yes, a few posters predictably come in and announce that they don’t care or whatever, but it’s a very different vibe from threads or discussion detours that start with a provocative statement.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, but vanishingly few abhor the notion of a Tasha’s style book expanding optionally on the exploration or social challenges.

Like we have had threads where these things are discussed peacefully. Yes, a few posters predictably come in and announce that they don’t care or whatever, but it’s a very different vibe from threads or discussion detours that start with a provocative statement.

You'd think.

But, any suggestion that any addition of more codified mechanics is immediately jumped on as wanting to change the core of the game, hating gamers, "if you want different rules, play a different game" and generally followed by vaguely edition warry 4e references, not so subtle jabs that if only you were a better DM, you wouldn't have these problems and general, "Well, I've never seen these problems, so they don't exist".

And then it endlessly swirls down the drain.

Like you, I'd pretty much take it as a given that 5e's exploration rules are "underwhelming", but, right there, you used a negative adjective, so, you must hate the majority of gamers who are making 5e the most popular RPG that it is.

I don't make the rules. But, after being absolutely dog-piled repeatedly for several years for saying exactly what you just said - 5e exploration rules are underwhelming, I'd like to see an optional add on that expanded the rules - I've pretty much despaired in going into those threads anymore because the conversation gets shouted down every single time.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't make the rules. But, after being absolutely dog-piled repeatedly for several years for saying exactly what you just said - 5e exploration rules are underwhelming, I'd like to see an optional add on that expanded the rules - I've pretty much despaired in going into those threads anymore because the conversation gets shouted down every single time.

One aspect i can respect is “how optional is optional”

While technically feats, mukticlassing, and magic items are all optional rules they are included in modules and even the recent playtest seems to be trying to better balance multiclassing…and some would say at the expense of other things.

So I can respect some peoples concern that once exploration rules are added, optional or not, it will start to consume resources and set expectations on future modules/products

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You'd think.

But, any suggestion that any addition of more codified mechanics is immediately jumped on as wanting to change the core of the game, hating gamers, "if you want different rules, play a different game" and generally followed by vaguely edition warry 4e references, not so subtle jabs that if only you were a better DM, you wouldn't have these problems and general, "Well, I've never seen these problems, so they don't exist".

And then it endlessly swirls down the drain.

This just doesn’t fit my experiences at all. Provocatively worded statements about how well made the game is or isn’t, and similar comments, rather than just discussing what you’d like to see the game expand into, gets heated responses.

Like you, I'd pretty much take it as a given that 5e's exploration rules are "underwhelming", but, right there, you used a negative adjective, so, you must hate the majority of gamers who are making 5e the most popular RPG that it is.

But I have never had that response to stating that opinion. Not once.

I don't make the rules. But, after being absolutely dog-piled repeatedly for several years for saying exactly what you just said - 5e exploration rules are underwhelming, I'd like to see an optional add on that expanded the rules - I've pretty much despaired in going into those threads anymore because the conversation gets shouted down every single time.

Look, I don’t want to be argumentative here, but…my perception of how many of my fellow enworlders have engaged with those threads does not match “5e exploration rules are underwhelming, I'd like to see an optional add on that expanded the rules” so much as statements with perhaps the same point, but worded very different and in a way that provokes an argument rather than a constructive discussion. “Lazy design” “half-baked afterthought” stuff like that.

But like seriously start a thread with no significant snark in the OP or stuff like, just talking about what the game is missing for you, and how you’d like to fix that or what you’re hoping to see in the 2024 core books, and the response won’t be a dogpile.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think everyone would agree that exploration rules are “lite” in 5e.

Where the debate would be is whether that a problem or a benefit. As always some people want more codified rules, and for others less rules means more flexibility and freedom

Yeah absolutely. For me it depends on the specific scene or challenge, tone of the adventure, etc.

I have a whole system hacked from the journey rules from TOR for traveling that keeps players engaged and gives a few quick little scenes “zoomed in” and then goes back to “zoomed out” travel. When I’m not very tired I’ll expand on it lol

 

[CapnZapp]

You could argue that is the whole point of a “half edition”…keeping it mostly the same with polish and improvements.

New editions is where you go more radical and mess with the fundamentals

Eh?

The point of issuing a new edition after frikkin ten years should be more than polish, and we should question "change around all the details so our compatibility promise doesn't really tempt people to stick with the old stuff".

Tell your "half edition" to the 3.5 folks instead - that edition came just a couple of years after 3.0, and quickly and conveniently obsoleted a deluge of 3.0 splatbooks.

We shouldn't have to wait until 2034 until fundamental things like how your level 20 character still sports a +0 Int save are patched, or how there still isn't a functional gold economy in 5E.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Eh?

The point of issuing a new edition after frikkin ten years should be more than polish, and we should question "change around all the details so our compatibility promise doesn't really tempt people to stick with the old stuff".

Why? The edition is still good.

Tell your "half edition" to the 3.5 folks instead - that edition came just a couple of years after 3.0, and quickly and conveniently obsoleted a deluge of 3.0 splatbooks.

It was a totally different situation.
The transition from 2e to 3e was a lot more revolutionary than from 3e to 5e.
Some things needed to be overhauled.
And some things should have not changed.
But the level of details that changed from 3 to 3.5 are way more anmoying than any change proposed in 2024 so far.

We shouldn't have to wait until 2034 until fundamental things like how your level 20 character still sports a +0 Int save are patched, or how there still isn't a functional gold economy in 5E.

Int save of +0 is a feature, not a bug. The buggy parts are the spells that only allow for a single save.
Look into 4e how saving throws determined the duration of spells. This is how you need to look at 5e saves. All spells that use the old 3e save or suck for x rounds mechanics need to say goodby.