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

[Charlaquin]

These things are somewhat subjective, but the experience from what I see is common.

It’s entirely subjective, and I agree with @doctorbadwolf, readability is not a critique I have commonly seen of 4e.

Yes, that's why I'm ending on thst note.

End it on that note, fine, but calling it a positive note that WotC “learned their lesson” is extremely dismissive of people who liked 4e’s writing.

That's really not how the game has ever worked, though: as a DYI experience, mixing and matching versions has been natural since they first introduced a new version.

Every edition is a standalone game. People can choose to mix and match elements from other editions if they wish, but the fact that a rulebook written for one game isn’t useful for another game that didn’t even exist yet at the time it was written is not a weakness of that rulebook.

Really, I always see people bring up the awkwardness of the way Powers were presented, and the use of jargon instead of natural language. The natural language aspect is a major component of WotC own analysis of what went sideways.

Whereas I always see people lament that they can’t tell what their spells do at a glance, and that the use of natural language creates undesired ambiguity in the rules of 5e. As do you, apparently, since you said such complaints are why you brought up the readability issue in the first place.

 

[Charlaquin]

Absolutely.

But not because of this, because this is not unambiguously correct, by any stretch.

To many folks, D&D is at its best when you make it your own.

Sure. Let me rephrase: failure to recognize each edition as its own game often has undesired side-effects.

 

[Parmandur]

End it on that note, fine, but calling it a positive note that WotC “learned their lesson” is extremely dismissive of people who liked 4e’s writing.

The centrality of natural language as part of the central design 5E is from WotC own breakdown of the matter.

But again, it's not really in doubt that will continue into the future as the game is revised, so no worries.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, so it’s your preference. Which, again, is fine, but is not universal and I think it’s absurd to blame 4e’s financial struggles on.

That’s only a positive note if you didn’t like 4e’s writing.

And its only a negative note if you did.

 

[Parmandur]

“Awkward” is a new one, to me. I get that all the jargon annoyed people, but “poor readability” is just not something I’ve seen claimed, at least as I understand the terminology in question.

Like, it isn’t hard to read, poorly organized, overly wordy to the point of obfuscation, or any other thing that I would normally associate with poor readability.

"Dry," "jargon," "technical," "dull," "like a video game" (that last one I take to be a criticism of the readability when the critic lacks the vocabulary to ger across their frustration wirh the formatting) are all terms I've seen to describe the readability 4E products on numerous occasions. WotC have continued to tout their use of natural language when making 5E, which is tied to the readability of the game.

Note the difference between "legible" or "organized" and "readable." Readabikity is about enjoyment and the aesthetic sense of interacting with a text, not the understanding of information.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Absolutely.

But not because of this, because this is not unambiguously correct, by any stretch.

To many folks, D&D is at its best when you make it your own.

“Awkward” is a new one, to me. I get that all the jargon annoyed people, but “poor readability” is just not something I’ve seen claimed, at least as I understand the terminology in question.

Like, it isn’t hard to read, poorly organized, overly wordy to the point of obfuscation, or any other thing that I would normally associate with poor readability.

Regardless, it’s a big stretch to claim based on no more than anecdote that the thing you disliked was the reason that 4e was controversial.

There were a lot of reasons why 4e was controversial. Having the books be dry and uninteresting to read was, IME, one of them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s entirely subjective, and I agree with @doctorbadwolf, readability is not a critique I have commonly seen of 4e.

End it on that note, fine, but calling it a positive note that WotC “learned their lesson” is extremely dismissive of people who liked 4e’s writing.

Every edition is a standalone game. People can choose to mix and match elements from other editions if they wish, but the fact that a rulebook written for one game isn’t useful for another game that didn’t even exist yet at the time it was written is not a weakness of that rulebook.

Whereas I always see people lament that they can’t tell what their spells do at a glance, and that the use of natural language creates undesired ambiguity in the rules of 5e. As do you, apparently, since you said such complaints are why you brought up the readability issue in the first place.

I only see people on this board make those complaints. That’s why I know they are complaints.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"Dry," "jargon," "technical," "dull," "like a video game" (that last one I take to be a criticism of the readability when the critic lacks the vocabulary to ger across their frustration wirh the formatting) are all terms I've seen to describe the readability 4E products on numerous occasions. WotC have continued to tout their use of natural language when making 5E, which is tied to the readability of the game.

Note the difference between "legible" or "organized" and "readable." Readabikity is about enjoyment and the aesthetic sense of interacting with a text, not the understanding of information.

This. 4e had some great ideas, but it's only by reading people on these forums describe them in natural language that I have found out about them. Trying to read the 4e books was like reading an Astrophysics Paper in Monthly Notices to the Royal Astronomical Society, translated from Russian (and believe me, I have the experience to know what I'm talking about). 4e's biggest failure wasn't its rules, it was its presentation.

To be fair, it's not the only RPG rulebook of the period to have that problem. I've owned the Starfinder core rulebook for years, and I still haven't managed to read past page 16.

 

[Charlaquin]

The centrality of natural language as part of the central design 5E is from WotC own breakdown of the matter.

But again, it's not really in doubt that will continue into the future as the game is revised, so no worries.

No, definitely some worries, because I prefer clarity in rules text.

 

[Charlaquin]

And its only a negative note if you did.

Obviously. You’ll note that I haven’t said it’s a negative.