D&D (2024) If baseball can change, D&D can change too

[payn]

1/10

 

[TwoSix]

Are they changing the rules to sell more bats and balls, or to actually improve the game?

The current D&D revision looks to me like it includes changes for their own sake that don't actually improve the game. I'm not sure the revision will be an overall improvement or will make my game better.

Do you actually think that the designers believe that the changes they're introducing are actively worse than the rules that already exist? With the large caveat that they're also introducing changes in the playtests specifically to test how well they'll be received?

Because this comes across as being overly cynical. Of course they're making changes to drum up interest in the hopes of selling the new books, but I have to imagine they're also making the changes they think are better for the broadest cross-section of the player base.

 

[the Jester]

Do you actually think that the designers believe that the changes they're introducing are actively worse than the rules that already exist? With the large caveat that they're also introducing changes in the playtests specifically to test how well they'll be received?

I didn't say actively worse (although in some cases I think they are, e.g. spell lists), but change for the sake of change. And while the playtest is important, I do think that sometimes the 'design by acclaim'- or maybe it would be better to say 'discard that which fails to get enough acclaim'- model of 5e fails to produce the result that I think would be best; we have dumped some cool stuff because it didn't pass that critical threshold of popularity that WotC shoots for.

Because this comes across as being overly cynical. Of course they're making changes to drum up interest in the hopes of selling the new books, but I have to imagine they're also making the changes they think are better for the broadest cross-section of the player base.

Sure. I'm not saying every change is just for its own sake. Some are to improve D&D's appeal by being more sensitive to racial and cultural issues, some are to fix bits that didn't work well, etc. But there are a number of fixes in search of a problem.

There is a profit motive to the changes to the rules of baseball, of course, but I think they are much more likely to be purely about the game, while the 'sell more books' motive is inherently more important to a game like D&D, which has its players for customers rather than viewers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One person's "This rule is fine! It doesn't need to be changed!" is another's person's "Thank god they're changing this rule, it sucks!"

And (general) your opinions on what rules are worth keeping and which are worth changing are not any better or more right than anyone else's.

At the end of the day... (general) you just has to decide if the 2024E books "fix" enough things you wanted fixed that you decide to buy the new books. Or if not... then you just stick with the 2014E books and incorporate a few of those "fixes" into your game as houserules. No harm, no foul.

 

[TwoSix]

I didn't say actively worse (although in some cases I think they are, e.g. spell lists), but change for the sake of change. And while the playtest is important, I do think that sometimes the 'design by acclaim'- or maybe it would be better to say 'discard that which fails to get enough acclaim'- model of 5e fails to produce the result that I think would be best; we have dumped some cool stuff because it didn't pass that critical threshold of popularity that WotC shoots for.

I just don't think that the designer's intent is to make changes that are simply "change for change's sake". We can all have differing opinions on the final results, of course, but I think that they believe that the changes they are putting in are for the better.

 

[the Jester]

I just don't think that the designer's intent is to make changes that are simply "change for change's sake". We can all have differing opinions on the final results, of course, but I think that they believe that the changes they are putting in are for the better.

Maybe. I think they know they have to make enough changes to sell books, and are trying to make a better game overall. But I disagree with some of their decisions. Certainly it's a matter of taste, but some of the trends I see in the playtest aren't ones in line with my preferred playstyle.

 

[DarkCrisis]

D&D has been around since the 70s and had many MANY changes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

D&D has been around since the 70s and had many MANY changes.

You'll pry the -4 AC from my illusionist's cold, dead hands.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, but one's fandom is a bunch of change averse militant nerds obsessed with math and... and...

Huh.

 

[Gorck]

I think the equivalent to the 2024 D&D update will be if MLB were to say, the Blue Jays and Cardinals are going to use a shot clock but teams playing against them can choose if their pitchers are going to use them or not. Make the plate sizes bigger for the Astros. Etc.
But in the baseball analogy, teams can't just decide which updates to follow. They're not playing a confusing hodgepodge of a game because MLB is scared to change it.

Until a couple of seasons ago, this was the Designated Hitter rule. The American Leagues used the DH, while the National League didn't. The use of the DH by both teams in Interleague games was decided by which team was playing at home.