Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Umbran]

BA is a crutch for mathematically-challenged groups who can't navigate big numbers. That was the complaint coming from so many people, right?

Oh, by the way, this is insulting, and also not generally correct.
The issue wasn't just "barrier to entry". It was also (indeed more) burden to play, even well past entry.

And don't give us that "mathematically-challenged groups" crud. I am a physicist - in no way mathematically-challenged, I assure you - and I found upper-level 3e too moribund with its modifiers to be much fun in combat action.

 

[Faolyn]

BA is a crutch for mathematically-challenged groups who can't navigate big numbers. That was the complaint coming from so many people, right? "The bonuses and modifiers are too complicated! It's a barrier to entry!" So they lowered bonuses (BA), dropped circumstantial modifiers (Adv/DisAdv) and nerfed the monsters (lowered AC, less attacks per round, lowered spell resistance, et al).

The result is this much more "math-friendly" game that plays more like PbtA than trad D&D. Has it been financial successful? Sure, although not nearly as successful as Hasbro expected - any guesses why?

No.

The problem with 3e is that it meant that you always needed something bigger, such as higher-level opponents and obstacles with higher DCs. This is not only a bit silly (have you seen some of those high-CR monsters?), but it also prevents a lot fantasy tropes--you can't have, for instance, a plucky, low-level character strike a lucky blow against the Evil Overlord or sneak past the dragon simply because it's impossible for them do so without a nat 20, and maybe not even then.

With bounded accuracy, you get that back to a high degree.

Also, @soviet's right. From a mechanical standpoint, 5e and PbtA are vastly different in basically every way, nor do they play the same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, by the way, this is insulting, and also not generally correct.
The issue wasn't just "barrier to entry". It was also (indeed more) burden to play, even well past entry.

And don't give us that "mathematically-challenged groups" crud. I am a physicist - in no way mathematically-challenged, I assure you - and I found upper-level 3e too moribund with its modifiers to be much fun in combat action.

I'm very blunt that I prefer mostly systems with a pretty fair bit of detail and crunch in my games I spent most of my history in games like RuneQuest and Champions that are in no way lightweight games.

I found running 3e at 14th level a general pain in the behind to run on so many different grounds I wouldn't do it again if paid.

So there's a lot more that goes on than just questions of simplification or complexity; both can be well or badly done.

 

[Theory of Games]

Citation needed. Do you have some document of their expectations the rest of us have not seen, or something? Or are you interpreting what you saw of corporate behavior to support that preferred narrative?

Because, as I recall, it has been pretty well agreed that 5e is associated with unprecedented and sustained growth in D&D, far greater than anyone expected.

What it may be didn't lead to was knock-on effects in terms of, say, movie ticket sales, or lifestyle merchandise sales. But that's not the fault of the system, as a system.

Wizards of the Coast Says Dungeons and Dragons is 'Under-Monetized'

Wizards of the Coast believes Dungeons and Dragons is 'under-monetized,' and seeks to create a 'recurrent spending environment' with the game.

gamerant.com

That's Hasbo & WotC's bosses calling the game "under-monetized". They targeted GMs with products that - to hear 5e co-designer Mike Mearls tell it - didn't give the GMs the proper information to run what was essentially a new system. Terrible business and bad design, but D&D survived because of great marketing and the loyalty of the player-base.

Oh, by the way, this is insulting, and also not generally correct.
The issue wasn't just "barrier to entry". It was also (indeed more) burden to play, even well past entry.

And don't give us that "mathematically-challenged groups" crud. I am a physicist - in no way mathematically-challenged, I assure you - and I found upper-level 3e too moribund with its modifiers to be much fun in combat action.

How is it insulting if I'm quoting what the player-base was saying about 3.5?

D

D&D 3.x Thread 'The problems with 3.5?'

Mar 24, 2008

I've been playing 3.5 for quite some time now, and I doubt I'll be switching to 4th, but after seeing the new offerings from Paizo and Monte, and with all the 3.5 "problems" I see people complain about, I am wondering if there is a thread, or blog, or article some where that has a definitive list of the "problems with 3.5"?

And I'm not necessarily talking about things that are a matter of opinion (like "Save or Die") but rather what are all the inherent problems with the system? People talk about the flawed math of 3.5, the "sweet spot", and the 15 minute day. What are these things...

• Deimodius
• Replies: 25
• Forum: D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants

I also get that smart people might not enjoy playing 3.5/PF, but that doesn't make it a bad system. Just means your playstyle is different from who that system was aimed at. This is dissimilar to 5e's design failures being pointed out by the very people who worked on it, like Mike Mearls and RPG Pundit.

No.

The problem with 3e is that it meant that you always needed something bigger, such as higher-level opponents and obstacles with higher DCs. This is not only a bit silly (have you seen some of those high-CR monsters?), but it also prevents a lot fantasy tropes--you can't have, for instance, a plucky, low-level character strike a lucky blow against the Evil Overlord or sneak past the dragon simply because it's impossible for them do so without a nat 20, and maybe not even then.

With bounded accuracy, you get that back to a high degree.

Also, @soviet's right. From a mechanical standpoint, 5e and PbtA are vastly different in basically every way, nor do they play the same.

The problem with your point here is D&D has ALWAYS been about fighting more powerful opponents. Since Basic, at least. It's a steady escalation of conflict that gives level-based advancement it's value. And yeah, you won't have low-level PCs harming the high-level BBEG because that's the nature of the game: the players have to keep their PCs alive long enough to get them high enough level to THEN take on the powerful BBEG. No one complains about this reality of D&D except (usually) those within the Storygame camp who (often) want their PCs to by capable of anything anytime because STORY My response to these kinds of complaints will always be consistent:

You are playing the wrong game. There are other TTRPGs out here that will do what you want. D&D is not that game. And even with BA, a low-level Paladin is not a danger to Count Strahd Von Zarovich, and no, a low-level Rogue is not sneaking past an ancient red dragon. All the Advantage in the world won't make it so, sadly.

And we're just talking D&D & design & it's an okay system, but "okay" in the sense that Palladium Fantasy is an okay system, too

 

[pemerton]

Has it been financial successful? Sure, although not nearly as successful as Hasbro expected

I don't think this is true.

Wizards of the Coast Says Dungeons and Dragons is 'Under-Monetized'

Wizards of the Coast believes Dungeons and Dragons is 'under-monetized,' and seeks to create a 'recurrent spending environment' with the game.

gamerant.com

That's Hasbo & WotC's bosses calling the game "under-monetized".

(1) That's not an account of expectations. It's an account of hopes.

(2) The plans for increasing the "monetisation" of D&D have nothing to do with making the game more mathematically complicated, and thus shrinking the player base. They have to do with creating more opportunities for D&D players to spend money, and trying to integrate those into both play and "lifestyle".

 

[Algorithmancer]

Totally get where that group is coming from. For some, rules-heavy means predictability and a shared understanding of the game's physics, letting players strategize based on defined abilities. It feels "fair" because everything's explicit.

On the flip side, rules-light fans often value flexibility and narrative freedom. The GM fiat isn't seen as a downside, but an opportunity for creative problem-solving beyond strict mechanics. I personally lean rules-light these days because I find it easier to adapt on the fly and focus more on the story than getting bogged down in minutiae. Both approaches have their merits, depending on what a group prioritizes in their game.