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

[Parmandur]

“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.

They did deliver a ruleset that is in fact modular by design...but I think what changed after Cook provided that design goal statement was that they found out how people were playing, and were surprised by what they found and just focused on supporting that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

They did deliver a ruleset that is in fact modular by design...but I think what changed after Cook provided that design goal statement was that they found out how people were playing, and were surprised by what they found and just focused on supporting that.

There was probably also the issue of just how exact something had to be to its original edition counterpart to be considered a successful "modular add-in". For instance, the game includes variants for things like Marking and Healing Surges, but because they aren't as integrated into the game chassis on the whole as they were in 4E... many 4E players don't count them as 4E modular design. They consider it more of just paying lip service to 4E then really trying to recreate the 4E game.

And that's the problem at the end of the day-- just how close to the previous edition do you have to get with all your modules for most of the fans of those editions to consider the "modular design" successful? With the incredibly wide and diverse options on what makes an edition and edition, I don't know if it was ever going to truly be possible to get close enough.

 

[Nikosandros]

And that's the problem at the end of the day-- just how close to the previous edition do you have to get with all your modules for most of the fans of those editions to consider the "modular design" successful? With the incredibly wide and diverse options on what makes an edition and edition, I don't know if it was ever going to truly be possible to get close enough.

Clearly not. However, IMHO, they could have made a better effort with the optional rules (I'm not talking just about the "4e style" ones). They feel to me just thrown there with little thought. There should have been some discussion about how to integrate them and what implications they have on the game play.

The presentation reminds me of an edition of the WWII wargame World in Flames. There is am optional rule, just thrown there, about halving the defense factor of naval transports. No discussion at all. Why the suggestion? Game balance? More realism? Something else? It was mysterious.

 

[Emberashh]

Modular design imo only works if you do it like Gurps and make dedicated books, zines, pamplets, sheets, and notecards that cover the modular mechanic(s) but also do the legwork of integrating them into the greater whole.

Which in turn means you either need to put more page count work in, or you need to release a lot of books.

WOTC kneecapped themselves on both options.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Modular design imo only works if you do it like Gurps and make dedicated books, zines, pamplets, sheets, and notecards that cover the modular mechanic(s) but also do the legwork of integrating them into the greater whole.

Which in turn means you either need to put more page count work in, or you need to release a lot of books.

WOTC kneecapped themselves on both options.

Did they kneecap themselves or just determine it wouldn't ultimately be worth the time and expense?

The thing I'll say about GURPS is that through the 80s and 90s it seemed to me to follow the same publishing pattern that TSR had... which was constantly writing more product in order to bring in the cash in order to pay the people to constantly write more product in order to bring in the cash in order to pay the people to constantly write more product in order to... etc. etc. etc.

At a certain point I'd look at the supplemental books that SJGames was releasing for GURPS-- some of the oddest and probably least marketable concepts or brand extensions you could find-- and just realize that a person was probably tasked to write this thing purely to keep them paid and on staff and just hope against hope it would bring in some amount of cash later on to then get funneled into some other GURPs project. The product wasn't needed, but writers gotta write.

 

[Minigiant]

Did they kneecap themselves or just determine it wouldn't ultimately be worth the time and expense?

They kneecapped themselves.
I believe WOTC went too far on the "One size fits all" and "DMs would fix it" side.
"How much?" is debatable.

However even WOTC admits a lot of the variants in the DMG were not designed nor organized great for use and are aiming to fix it.

 

[Stalker0]

Timing. I stated many reasons why the timing for 5e was perfect. Those things I listed were not present for 3e and 4e.


And I'm not discrediting 5e. I'm saying correlation does not equal causation.

WOTC does a lot of marketing research, including the various playtests we see currently. I am sure one of the key questions that they have tried to assess is "are old 3e/4e players happier now than they were with the older systems?"

And I'm pretty sure the answer on the whole is yes. There will always be people that like a certain thing and don't want to transition, but the core of the player base seems to have shifted without massive complaint.


I mean sure you can argue that some of 5e's success is outside of the system itself, as you can argue that about any trendy XYZ in history. But I think its a stretch to imply "we have no idea if 5e is really a "boon" or not".....as I'm sure WOTC has done lots of research to answer that very question.

 

[Maxperson]

WOTC does a lot of marketing research, including the various playtests we see currently. I am sure one of the key questions that they have tried to assess is "are old 3e/4e players happier now than they were with the older systems?"

And I'm pretty sure the answer on the whole is yes. There will always be people that like a certain thing and don't want to transition, but the core of the player base seems to have shifted without massive complaint.

This is purely anecdotal, but right now I'm actually playing the game(yay!) as my players give me periodic breaks and DM for a bit. The current DM is actually a first time DM and wanted to try his hand at it, but he doesn't like 5e as much as 3e, so we're doing a 3e/3.5 game. Prior to this, I had been having issues with 5e that frustrate me(lack of high level support, balance around resource attrition, the adventuring day, etc.) and have been on the fence of going back to 3e or continuing on with 5e.

Of my 5 person group, myself and the current DM have been talking about maybe 3e again, but the other three players wanted to keep on with 5e, which is why I hadn't given up on the edition yet. As soon as we started making 3e characters and playing again, all three of those other players said some variation of, "Wow! I forgot how much fun it was to create characters and choose from all of these options. And the abilities are so much better."

I mean sure you can argue that some of 5e's success is outside of the system itself, as you can argue that about any trendy XYZ in history. But I think its a stretch to imply "we have no idea if 5e is really a "boon" or not".....as I'm sure WOTC has done lots of research to answer that very question.

Having seen their polls for years, they aren't very good at research.

 

[tetrasodium]

WOTC does a lot of marketing research, including the various playtests we see currently. I am sure one of the key questions that they have tried to assess is "are old 3e/4e players happier now than they were with the older systems?"

And I'm pretty sure the answer on the whole is yes. There will always be people that like a certain thing and don't want to transition, but the core of the player base seems to have shifted without massive complaint.


I mean sure you can argue that some of 5e's success is outside of the system itself, as you can argue that about any trendy XYZ in history. But I think its a stretch to imply "we have no idea if 5e is really a "boon" or not".....as I'm sure WOTC has done lots of research to answer that very question.

Dismissing anyone who references an older edition as someone who are happier with one edition over the other is off the mark. It's easy to look at problems in 5e & see how previous editions avoided mitigated or somehow guarded against then use the comparison as an example to point at. Preference for edition A or B doesn't need to come into it.

 

[Mistwell]

Dismissing anyone who references an older edition as someone who are happier with one edition over the other is off the mark. It's easy to look at problems in 5e & see how previous editions avoided mitigated or somehow guarded against then use the comparison as an example to point at. Preference for edition A or B doesn't need to come into it.

Where was any note of dismissing?