D&D (2024) Is Combat Tedious on Purpose?

[Minigiant]

A significant chunk of what you call a "majority"∆ will enthusiastically support anything wotc publishes. Bad polling and the sort of questionable testing that allowed so many millions to b involved in sigil thinking a vtts was a video game

∆ we've all heard the phrase "lies damned lies and statistics", the results of self selected polling is notoriously unlikely to reflect reality to the point that statistics courses often warn against it while teaching how to conduct and accurately weight polling.

I do remember a very very loud reaction by fans about fears of lack of backwards compatibility.

90% of big change in the 2024 Playtest was down voted.

 

[Minigiant]

My suggestion is healthier in the long-term IMO, and definitely better for the hobby. Your hyperbolic example is obviously ridiculous.

Healthier for whom.

WOTC is not going to make a true new edition unless they think it would make them a lot of money.

And in 2022 when they floated the idea, the community backlash against a new edition was harsh.

A cynic would say d&D combat is tedious in order to make it too complex to design a simpler clone easily because the community has a weird relationship with purchasing no other industry has.

 

[tetrasodium]

I do remember a very very loud reaction by fans about fears of lack of backwards compatibility.

90% of big change in the 2024 Playtest was down voted.

So do I, but I took part in attempting to correct incredibly bad assumptions that often reacted as if we were talking about binary compatibility for compiled code. I also recall being dogpiled by a small and very vocal echo chamber reinforcing that had assumption and wotc making very little (if any) effort to properly set expectations in line with reality. That echo chamber tended to sound a lot like the one wotc has spent the last decade exclusively catering to even on things like their sigil missteps.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Healthier for whom.

WOTC is not going to make a true new edition unless they think it would make them a lot of money.

And in 2022 when they floated the idea, the community backlash against a new edition was harsh.

A cynic would say d&D combat is tedious in order to make it too complex to design a simpler clone easily because the community has a weird relationship with purchasing no other industry has.

Healthier for the hobby of role-playing games, which includes many games like D&D that aren't produced by WotC, and many more games that have little or nothing to do with D&D at all. The fact that the community was against big changes (according to WotC's publicly released data) does not make big changes a bad idea.

I strongly believe that the hobby would be much healthier if WotC had a lot less influence over it.

 

[Umbran]

That makes sense, but I maintain the hobby would have been better off if WotC had moved on to a new, perhaps more focused game that does what they want it to do and left 5e to the 3pp producers.

But a more focused game probably doesn't do what the company wants it to do. A more focused game has a more narrow market, which is not in their corporate best interests.

 

[Minigiant]

Healthier for the hobby of role-playing games, which includes many games like D&D that aren't produced by WotC, and many more games that have little or nothing to do with D&D at all. The fact that the community was against big changes (according to WotC's publicly released data) does not make big changes a bad idea.

I strongly believe that the hobby would be much healthier if WotC had a lot less influence over it.

You can't expect WOTC or any other company to do something that loses them money.

That's why your imagined ecosystem will likely never exist. Because it requires several companies to lose tons of money.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But a more focused game probably doesn't do what the company wants it to do. A more focused game has a more narrow market, which is not in their corporate best interests.

Probably true, (although they certainly gave it a fair shot with 4e), but making sure WotC maximizes their profits is not my concern or desire. I don't think the continuing financial success of a mega-corporation is in the best interest of the people who enjoy this hobby, whether they like the current edition of official D&D or not. My suggestions have little to do with whether or not Hasbro's shareholders would agree with them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can't expect WOTC or any other company to do something that loses them money.

That's why your imagined ecosystem will likely never exist. Because it requires several companies to lose tons of money.

It doesn't lose them money with certainly. It might make them less money in the short term, but they will remain profitable, which IMO is all they, and any business, should be focusing on beyond making product they can be proud to sell.

 

[Lanefan]

Healthier for the hobby of role-playing games, which includes many games like D&D that aren't produced by WotC, and many more games that have little or nothing to do with D&D at all. The fact that the community was against big changes (according to WotC's publicly released data) does not make big changes a bad idea.

I strongly believe that the hobby would be much healthier if WotC had a lot less influence over it.

The hobby would be a lot more scattered, no doubt of that; but whether it would be overall more healthy, less healthy, or roughly the same is IMO a very open question.

One undeniable advantage of having a single big player in the hobby (in this case, WotC) is that said big player is big enough to garner attention from outside the hobby itself; and external attention - if at all positive - can only serve to grow the hobby by introducing more people to its existence.

The main problem with WotC the last several years has been that they keep blowing the "if at all positive" piece.

 

[Umbran]

Probably true, (although they certainly gave it a fair shot with 4e), but making sure WotC maximizes their profits is not my concern or desire.

If one's concerns and desires are not linked to reality, discussing them is not particularly informative or constructive for anyone else.