D&D (2024) Dungeons and Dragons future? Ray Winninger gives a nod to Mike Shea's proposed changes.

[Charlaquin]

The Beyond statistics exclude people using the free version, and only included actively used characters, not tests. Still over two thirds of active PCs don't use Feats.

And before Beyond, Crawford reported that their Survey data showed that two thirds of people don't use Feats inn5E. Which matches my personal experience.

It makes sense to me. Whenever I play with people who aren’t super hardcore hobbiests, they don’t want to bother reading through all the feat options available to them. They’d much rather just boost a stat and move on.

 

[Parmandur]

I will briefly try and explain, but then otherwise leave it be: I said that the players on Critical Role enhance their reactions as part of their performance for their viewers. I, for the life of me, can't figure out the controversial part of the statement.

I don't know if it is "controversial," but I am not sure what they do that you think is unusual...? They play much as everyone else I have ever seen in real life does.

 

[billd91]

I will briefly try and explain, but then otherwise leave it be: I said that the players on Critical Role enhance their reactions as part of their performance for their viewers. I, for the life of me, can't figure out the controversial part of the statement.

Which is pretty much the same as them performing more like their characters would react, the metagame being invisible to them, rather than a calculating player who knows "Ok, I've got 62 hit points, but that NPC's probably just a CR3 so I'm pretty sure I can take him one-on-one."

 

[Reynard]

It makes sense to me. Whenever I play with people who aren’t super hardcore hobbiests, they don’t want to bother reading through all the feat options available to them. They’d much rather just boost a stat and move on.

That is a communication problem though (one of MANY with the rule themselves). if a player could look at their options in a clean, easy to understand format -- more about feel and theme than mechanics -- they would be able to make a choice and I think be excited to get a new "toy" to play with. The same thing is true, IMO, with complex NPC interactions in adventures: if the GM could look at a relationship map and with a glance know who was aligned with and opposed to who, you would see more even new GMs delve into intrigue more. D&D has a graphic design problem and is getting schooled by the OSR and other indies.

 

[Charlaquin]

Obligatory "Corporations exist to make money" and "Capitalism is why you have products to enjoy."

The first statement is true, the second is absurd. There have been many societies with other economic systems, and they have all produced things.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Obligatory "Corporations exist to make money" and "Capitalism is why you have products to enjoy."

The first is a bad thing, the second a falsehood.

 

[Reynard]

I don't know if it is "controversial," but I am not sure what they do that you think is unusual...? They play much as everyone else I have ever seen in real life does.

Ah. I think I just gained some insight into CRs popularity: they play like people think they themselves play. Huh. That's interesting.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am constantly bewildered that people play this game 'sober' (not in the 'not-drunk sense, but in the 'completely serious, we are dour men enjoying a stiff brandy and a cigar and laughter shall be confined to harrumphs' sense).

If you're going to get together with your friends to play make believe, I say own it.

Some people like their make-believe silly, others like it dramatic. Both are fun in my experience.

 

[Charlaquin]

"How do we trick people into playing the game we want to make?"

Sure, if that’s how you want to frame it. For better or worse it worked, and the game is more popular then ever because of it.

 

[Medic]

The first statement is true, the second is absurd. There have been many societies wit other economic systems, and they have all produced things.

The first is a bad thing, the second a falsehood.

It was a jab at people who use similar statements to defend questionable practices motivated by profit.