D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[Marandahir]

Remember also that "I don't like it, so it must not be good design" may also be at play here.

The playtest is not a democracy, it never was a democracy, so of course playtesting is not seeking a popular vote to determine what they're going to do with the game. But they are going to use audience reactions to impact which directions they go. So while -I- may like something, or not like something, if I'm not likely going to be the target audience for this feature, or the broadest target audience of the game means it should go a different way, then my likes are not so important, no matter how much I shout them out or convince other people to voice content or discontent about the feature design in the feedback surveys. WotC still can overrule us, of course they can; the playtests are ONE piece of the evidence for why they want to publish what they want. We're a sample size of their actual audience, and if the hardcore responders to the surveys are largely grognards like a bunch of us are, then they may need to take those demographics into account when taking our opinions into account.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Remember also that "I don't like it, so it must not be good design" may also be at play here.

That is 100% what is going on here.

There are lots of design decisions made in 5e (and really in any game) that I don't like, and would not have made had I been in charge. I would greatly prefer other systems, if my friends also did. But does that make D&D "bad design"? It would be arrogant of me to say so. Also wrong.

I challenge anybody here who thinks D&D is bad design to offer an objective, universal definition of what makes good game design.

 

[tetrasodium]

That is 100% what is going on here.

There are lots of design decisions made in 5e (and really in any game) that I don't like, and would not have made had I been in charge. I would greatly prefer other systems, if my friends also did. But does that make D&D "bad design"? It would be arrogant of me to say so. Also wrong.

I challenge anybody here who thinks D&D is bad design to offer an objective, universal definition of what makes good game design.

Is it? The last couple pages seem to have been meta analysis of a meta analysis so far from whatever started it that it seems like everyone is agreeing that "I do/don't like it so it's good/bad" is a meaningless statement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's where I fall. I wish popularity wasn't one (perhaps the most important, who can say) of WotC's goals.

Wishing popularity wasn't a goal of a design that for a company as big as WOTC is, well, a take.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is it? The last couple pages seem to have been meta analysis of a meta analysis so far from whatever started it that it seems like everyone is agreeing that "I do/don't like it so it's good/bad" is a meaningless statement.

I don't think its particularly good design (I think there's plenty of evidence that nontrivial parts of its user base find one or more things suboptimal, sometimes significantly so), but I think you have to set the target criteria very selectively to call it bad; for all the fact I think people are in too big a hurry to conflate popularity with quality (and use it to defend problem areas) I don't think an actively bad design could be as successful as D&D is, even accounting for the networking principal and the first-in benefit.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't think its particularly good design (I think there's plenty of evidence that nontrivial parts of its user base find one or more things suboptimal, sometimes significantly so), but I think you have to set the target criteria very selectively to call it bad; for all the fact I think people are in too big a hurry to conflate popularity with quality (and use it to defend problem areas) I don't think an actively bad design could be as successful as D&D is, even accounting for the networking principal and the first-in benefit.

Well that settles things. I think "It" is sounding unusually deep into being self evidentially great if even naming "it" or giving any specifics on why "it" may be "suboptimal" are all things to avoid to such an extreme degree. Your post doesn't even make clear if you are talking about "problem areas" in the 2014 d&d5e or the one of the 2022 One-D&D 6e playtest packets. Can you give any specifics?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well that settles things. I think "It" is sounding unusually deep into being self evidentially great if even naming "it" or giving any specifics on why "it" may be "suboptimal" are all things to avoid to such an extreme degree. Your post doesn't even make clear if you are talking about "problem areas" in the 2014 d&d5e or the one of the 2022 One-D&D 6e playtest packets. Can you give any specifics?

You're talking to the wrong person. I don't particularly like D&D. Not the current version, not all the way back to AD&D1 (and arguably, earlier). There was a period when I considered virtually everything it did doing things the wrong way. I got over that, but still don't find almost anything about its basic systemic design attractive.

So I'm not its market.

But I think it requires a selective reading of any place where people do like the basic structure of D&D to not see that there are repeated complaints about some of the same things. They just either aren't important enough to harm their overall appreciation of the system, or at least there aren't enough of them to significantly impact the overall success of the system as a system.

If you want more than that, I'm absolutely the wrong person to ask it of.

 

[Scott Christian]

What? Custom and customizing backgrounds are part of the new rules. Anyone can have their bonuses wherever they want.

I meant to say if the customization piece doesn't make it into the final edit. After all, what better way to sell more books than to make setting or AP and add backgrounds?
But I do stand by what I said, aside from that I think it will be smooth sailing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's easier to assign bad intent to Wizards of the Coast for moving away from your preferences so that they become the "bad guy" and you have someone to blame... than it is to accept that your own personal preferences do not match most of the general D&D populace and you've become an outcast from that gaming society. That can be a tough pill to swallow. Thus you keep lashing out at WotC with bitter jibes at their efforts and intent in order to make yourself feel better for being ostracized from the D&D community through no efforts of your (or their) own. You just don't like D&D the same way that all the others now seem to do, and that makes you feel alone and sad.

 

[payn]

It's easier to assign bad intent to Wizards of the Coast for moving away from your preferences so that they become the "bad guy" and you have someone to blame... than it is to accept that your own personal preferences do not match most of the general D&D populace and you've become an outcast from that gaming society. That can be a tough pill to swallow. Thus you keep lashing out at WotC with bitter jibes at their efforts and intent in order to make yourself feel better for being ostracized from the D&D community through no efforts of your (or their) own. You just don't like D&D the same way that all the others now seem to do, and that makes you feel alone and sad.

Im sort of with this. I would say outlier instead of outcast. Normally, not a big deal you just grab a game and system that does suit your preferences. However, with D&D's oversized impact on the hobby in general, it makes having a committed concern to its direction, and thus disappointment when it moves away from you, a popular opinion. Nobody wants a tiny pool of players to choose from. So, that anger gets placed at the feet of WotC.

I think the above was much more drastic back in '08. Now with the rise of VTT, crowdsourced indie games, etc... It's becoming less of an issue with every new iteration of D&D. YMMV.