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

[mamba]

What do you mean. Lost Mines is an excellent adventure that covers the breadth of what a D&D campaign looks like.

no disagreement

If there was direct, specific advice in the presented encounters it would truly teach new agMs how to do.the job, at least we'll enough to grab an adventure like arime and run with it.

but a few sidebars do not add so many pages that the whole information cannot fit into a DMG chapter.

We are not talking about the whole starter set, only about the ‘how to play’ part

Have you ever tried to teach folks how to GM? I have. It isn't that hard, but you have to explain things with examples. Lost Mines IS the examples.

include one, at most two, examples (each) for things like encounters in the DMG, you do not need 30 of them, even in the starter set you stopped explaining much earlier than that anyway

 

[Reynard]

but a few sidebars do not add so many pages that the whole information cannot fit into a DMG chapter.

We are not talking about the whole starter set, only about the ‘how to play’ part

I think I understand our disagreement. In my opinion, if you divorced that beginner GM advice from an actual written adventure, it would require a significantly larger word count to explain in a satisfactory manner. If you tie it directly to the example of a solidly written adventure like LMoP, you can get away with just sidebars.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This implies that not having strong convictions in game design can be a strength because it allows for openness to listening, evaluating, and avoiding pushing a personal agenda. However, this reasoning overlooks the importance of a clear vision and creative direction in game design. A lack of conviction might lead to inconsistency, confusion, and a diluted player experience.

Successful games often result from a well-defined creative vision and the ability to iterate while staying true to that vision. While being open to feedback is important, a balance between flexibility and a strong creative direction is crucial for creating a compelling and coherent game.

So after all, the designers of 5e all had that, because 5e is extremely successful?

 

[Minigiant]

So after all, the designers of 5e all had that, because 5e is extremely successful?

I think the point constantly brought up is.

5e was and currently is the most successful edition. However 5e was not perfect. 5e designers have said many times they screwed up parts of 5e such as the design of the Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer classes, the design of Berserker and WO3E subclasses, the organization of the DMG, and the creativity of the MM.

The reason stated for this by 5e designers is that they ran out of time. They are wishy washy on stating why they ran out of time.

But almost anyone who was there for the D&D Next playtests can tell you why they ran out of time.

Champion vs Battlemaster
Template Wildshape vs Stat Block Wildshape
Combat as War vs Combat as Sport
Gritty vs Heroic
Basic Weapons vs Complex Weapons
New Settings vs Old settings
Factions of the D&D community want diametrically opposed things. There is no way to make 1 edition that satisfied 75% of D&D factions unless you prioritize supporting everyone from the start

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the point constantly brought up is.

5e was and currently is the most successful edition. However 5e was not perfect. 5e designers have said many times they screwed up parts of 5e such as the design of the Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer classes, the design of Berserker and WO3E subclasses, the organization of the DMG, and the creativity of the MM.

The reason stated for this by 5e designers is that they ran out of time. They are wishy washy on stating why they ran out of time.

But almost anyone who was there for the D&D Next playtests can tell you why they ran out of time.

I was there for the whole playtest and followed and played it extensively.

There is no such thing as perfect and even those bad classes are better than any bad classes of 3e for example.

I do agree though that those classes seem to be hastily redesigned short before release. The ranger in the last packets of dndnext was quite overtuned...

 

[Minigiant]

I was there for the whole playtest and followed qnd played it extensively.

There is no such thing as perfect and even those bad classes are better than any bad classes of 3e for example.

I do agree though that those classes seem to be hastily redesigned short before release. The ranger in the last packets of dndnext was quite overtuned...

There is this pervasive thought process that if someone criticizes part of 5e then the whole 5e is bad and/or unsuccessful.

5e was sucesseful and probably the best official edition of D&D.

However it was hamstrung because WOTC scrapped molecularity, tried to get all the factions of the D&D community on one accord, and wasted so much time. Then they had to design huge chunks of the game in house at the last second with factional data.

There were so many non-skeleton changes from the last Next playtest and the 2014 printing.

This time its the OGL fiasco that wasted their time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There is this pervasive thought process that if someone criticizes part of 5e then the whole 5e is bad and/or unsuccessful.

5e was sucesseful and probably the best official edition of D&D.

However it was hamstrung because WOTC scrapped molecularity, tried to get all the factions of the D&D community on one accord, and wasted so much time. Then they had to design huge chunks of the game in house at the last second with factional data.

There were so many non-skeleton changes from the last Next playtest and the 2014 printing.

This time its the OGL fiasco that wasted their time.

I am not sure if you are adressing me. I never said it was perfect, never said it may not be criticized.

And yes. There were many in house changes at the end. Some good, some bad (IMHO).
I am not sure however if more time would have helped. More time always helps. But at some time you need to put something out and have to see how it actually works.
Except for ranger, which I really dislike design wise (power level was always ok) the game turned out very good.

This time, yes, the OGL idiocy made the life of the designers hard. And might even have had a negative impact on the movie. So we might get a litte worse game than what we had otherwise with a few less improvements.

But it is just a month or two. In the end, that might not mean that much. You always run out of time. Being short of time makes you focus on what is important.

 

[Minigiant]

I am not sure if you are adressing me. I never said it was perfect, never said it may not be criticized.

Not specifically addressing you. However there is a pervasive idea that since 5e was successful anyone who criticizes parts of it is wrong and everyone loves all of it.

I am not sure however if more time would have helped. More time always helps. But at some time you need to put something out and have to see how it actually works.
Except for ranger, which I really dislike design wise (power level was always ok) the game turned out very good.

This time, yes, the OGL idiocy made the life of the designers hard. And might even have had a negative impact on the movie. So we might get a litte worse game than what we had otherwise with a few less improvements.

But it is just a month or two. In the end, that might not mean that much. You always run out of time. Being short of time makes you focus on what is important.

The OGL fiasco cut the experimental phase at least in half.

WOTC was only able to get out one batch of experiments. Anything that flopped is being scrapped and being reverted to 2014 version or Tasha's version. The UA6 is very close to what we are getting. So we only got one run of experiments on Experts and Priests.

Again the skeleton of 5e is near perfect. The muscles and skin were good. All the problems were the in the fleshy bits. 5e is only getting 1 pass to fix the fleshy bits.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

So, any news come out of the panel, or are we looking at some 9odd pages here of people arguing over word choice and statistics?

There will be more spells named after famous wizards (I wouldn't mind some named after clerics, druids, Warlocks, etc... as well), all classes and subclasses will get new art, new vampires for different CR like lower CR Vampire Familiar and higher CR Vampire Lord, same for Liches, 20+ CR Ooze that can eat a entire town, 20+ CR Hag, +20 CR Elemental Juggernaut, more creatures for creature types that don't have many, 500+ creatures in MM (2014 is 300+ Monsters, NPCs, and animal stats that is a huge increase), Bastion rules & campaign setting for DMG, alot of spells to be buffed or beefed with new spells, new types of weapons in PHB, more NPCs, including proformer, DMG will have art for major D&D villains like Venger and Baba Yaga, PHB will have art of the named wizards in the PHB.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Not specifically addressing you. However there is a pervasive idea that since 5e was successful anyone who criticizes parts of it is wrong and everyone loves all of it.




The OGL fiasco cut the experimental phase at least in half.

WOTC was only able to get out one batch of experiments. Anything that flopped is being scrapped and being reverted to 2014 version or Tasha's version. The UA6 is very close to what we are getting. So we only got one run of experiments on Experts and Priests.

Again the skeleton of 5e is near perfect. The muscles and skin were good. All the problems were the in the fleshy bits. 5e is only getting 1 pass to fix the fleshy bits.

The weird thing is is that some of the most experimental stuff is in playtest 6, Bard's spell lists by itself is one of the biggest experiments in the whole playtest process, same with the rogue's new way to use sneak attack dice, the changes to cleric's miracle, cleric's getting a Commune feature, Circle of the Moon druid having actual moon magic in it, the Monk stuff, I could continue.

So I'd take with a grain of salt how done they are with experimental stuff if you take UA 6 as an example. UA 7 will have Fighter, Barbarian, Warlock, Wizard, Sorcerer, their subclasses and possibly feats and spells (if they are changing a whole bunch of spells and adding new ones they will have to playtest them) so I fully expect there will be some more experimental stuff and surprises in that.