D&D (2024) GenCon 2023 - D&D Rules Revision panel

[Maxperson]

that still gives me one month more than the current DMG

I agree with a better starter set

I mean, the current DMG actually isn't bad. If you read it, and I know that nobody actually has, it has a lot of good information in it for new DMs. The main downside to it is that to say it is poorly organized gives it too much credit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Your constant negativity is driving me nuts, but you got me there. There was a lot of good stuff in NEXT that got dropped before 5e launched that could have just used a few more tweaks to get perfect, but the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.

This gets claimed all the time, as if y’all never considered that the majority of playtesters just didn’t like those ideas at all, and they got cut because they were disliked enough that it wasn’t worth iterating on.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, the promise of modular design was pretty universally praised, though a lot of people were skeptical it was possible. Turns out they were right to be, because it never actually manifested, in the playtest or the final product. Closest we got to it was a handful of optional rules in the DMG, most of which I suspect were designs that didn’t quite meet the approval threshold but Mike Mearls didn’t want to let go of.

No, the closest we got was setting books expanding on optional rules into full systems. Which…is the thing. We got the thing. People just refuse to admit that because it’s not in the core books.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The stars had to align, but what I'm saying is that had the release of other editions been when 5e was released, the stars would have aligned for those editions. They would have been the "right D&D at the right time."

You say that those other editions would have been more successful than they were, and doubt that they'd have done as well or better, but I'm not so sure. You might be right, though. My main claim here is that the other factors are likely playing a far larger role in the success of 5e than the rules of 5e itself, yet it's the rules of 5e that get all the credit from most folks.

To support that part of your argument tangentially, I would say that it's not "the Rules" of 5e, exactly, that make 5e more accessible. They don't hurt. But there are other factors that made 5e more accessible to a wider audience then just the mechanics.

Then again, OTOH, I think that both 3e and 4e would have been held back by their mechanics, had they struck the zeitgeist.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You say that those other editions would have been more successful than they were, and doubt that they'd have done as well or better, but I'm not so sure. You might be right, though. My main claim here is that the other factors are likely playing a far larger role in the success of 5e than the rules of 5e itself, yet it's the rules of 5e that get all the credit from most folks.

Heh... even if 4E was released during the time when Stranger Things, Critical Role, and Big Bang Theory could all have helped prop it up... I don't actually think it would still have achieved the same level of success that 5E had.

Because while both editions might have acquired probably more or less equal numbers of new players and fandoms... 4E's loss of older fans and 5E's regaining them would have put 5E over the top. The bad blood that unfortunately came along with 4E's ruleset would not have been offset enough by the pop culture institutions helping out.

 

[DEFCON 1]

At the end of the day... 5E's biggest strength for some people and biggest detriment to others is that it is a hub version of D&D. Its ruleset lies comfortably at the center of the spokes of AD&D/2E, 3E, and 4E... taking influences and pieces of all those games to produce something that doesn't expand out on its own, but melds everything else together in the middle to create a melting pot version of Dungeons & Dragons.

Some people find that to be wonderful, others find it to be a missed opportunity. But it's exactly why it's as popular as it's been-- it's re-acquired a lot of players from each of those spokes to return to the center, while simultaneously bringing in all new players that every edition has been able to do.

When a time comes for a potential 6E... the question will be whether those designers remain in the center and make 6E be the '2E' to 5E's 'AD&D' (slight evolution but mainly same game)... or go back out onto the edge of the wheel to find something truly new-- while alienating a lot of people who don't want or need something new for Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, the closest we got was setting books expanding on optional rules into full systems. Which…is the thing. We got the thing. People just refuse to admit that because it’s not in the core books.

“Expanding on optional rules into full systems” is not even close to what was promised as “modular design.” They literally claimed modular design would make it possible to have characters that played like different editions at the same table.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This gets claimed all the time, as if y’all never considered that the majority of playtesters just didn’t like those ideas at all, and they got cut because they were disliked enough that it wasn’t worth iterating on.

That's possible, I suppose. But I think that it is becoming more clear as time goes on that there were parts of 5e that were rushed last minute before publication.

Even if some things in NEXT were scoring low, (and I assume that they were, or would not have been cut) some of their published replacements might not have scored any better had they been surveyed. In fact, they DID score low when they were surveyed after the books came out!

 

[MockingBird]

People keep saying that, but correlation does not equal causation.

The folks putting 5e forward as the best version of D&D ever and then point at its success as proof are ignoring that Stranger Things, Big Bang Theory and many other main stream entertainment sources propelled D&D into the main stream, which equates to a lot of success. Critical Role also helped propel D&D(not necessarily 5e) into the main stream.

There's no way to know that 5e's massive success isn't despite the format and not because of it. Perhaps if 3e or even 4e had been released at the time 5e was, they would be even more wildly successful. Or maybe not.

What we can say is again that correlation does not equal causation and while 5e MIGHT be the best D&D ever, we can't just point at the sales and use that as the proof of that claim.

But why didn't the other WotC editions blow up? Big Bang had 4e books on their show. The popular metal band Mastodon had a video with PF/3.5. I do feel these shows shined light on D&D but I don't really get why so many discredit 5e so much in relation to the sales numbers. If it wasn't a good game I don't think it would have had as much success despite the shows.

 

[codo]

But why didn't the other WotC editions blow up? Big Bang had 4e books on their show. The popular metal band Mastodon had a video with PF/3.5. I do feel these shows shined light on D&D but I don't really get why so many discredit 5e so much in relation to the sales numbers. If it wasn't a good game I don't think it would have had as much success despite the shows.

There are lots of people who like to give Critical Role credit for the success of 5e, however I think it is even more likely that the success of Critical Role is due to 5e. I believe that if Critical Role had stuck with 3.5/Pathfinder or used 4e, that it would never have become nearly as popular as it is now.

I have watched a fair amount of people playing different RPGs, and the system really matters, particularly if you don't have a good understanding of the rules. The rules for 3e and 4e are just to complicated and jargon filled to make an easily accessible show. 5e, with its streamlining and natural language makes for a much quicker and easy to follow.