D&D 5E Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)

[Arilyn]

I'm a fan of elegance in RPG design, but F20 games, by their nature, are crunchy and require big books of rules and monsters. Even 5e is not elegant, by any stretch of the imagination.

Class based systems are constrained by what the designers feel bards, wizards, fighters, etc. look like. Sure, players choose where their stats go, or what equipment they'll buy, but the range of choice is not the same as classless systems. Both have advantages. I'm not arguing in favour of one style over the other, but when we rely on designers for our characters' core abilities, simplicity and elegance are sacrificed. And since players cannot then just create what they want from scratch, new classes, races, etc. are going to continue to be a very welcome addition for many players.

Also, heavy role playing is not usually associated with typical dungeon crawling adventures, which means players are more likely going to be looking for the newest shiny additions to their game.

Classes are fun. Levelling up and getting treats is fun. If WOTC published a supplement with 6 new classes, or so, new feats, spells and archetypes it would sell extremely well, and I have a feeling one might be coming to counter the criticism that 5e lacks enough choice.

 

[Fenris-77]

I found the OP perfectly understandable, and even understood as I was reading it why he was distancing himself from specific examples and also where he was headed. I enjoyed the post immensely. Coincidentally, I also teach 8th grade, and 8th grade English so if you want to talk about 8th grade writing you better bring the fire.

 

[MichaelSomething]

How about a book that goes, "if you the player stuff in this, you have to roll your stats 3d6 in order."

Would that be a good compromise?

 

[Fenris-77]

How about a book that goes, "if you the player stuff in this, you have to roll your stats 3d6 in order."

Would that be a good compromise?

Now we have Yoda churning out the RAW. Awesome.

Make a saving throw you must, or die you will, heh.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

As someone who has played every edition of D&D from Black Box and AD&D 2nd through D&D 5e:

I want WotC, "core D&D", to be vanilla. To be friendly. Easy. Welcoming.

I want it to be basic.

I want it to be the training wheels and the basic chassis of roleplaying.

I want it to be the freaking Honda Civic of RPGs.

Why? Because that's how I run the game? No.

Because I want people to have an approachable way to learn the basics, so when we come to the table, I don't need to explain the six stats, d20 rolls, saving throws, darkvision or Magic Missile. They know a Bard from a Barbarian, and a Wizard from a Sorcerer.

If the base game is too overloaded with options... it can intimidate the noobs. That's part of what turned 3e and 4e into esoteric pastimes while RPGs lost market and mindshare to computer games and other hobbies. 5e has caused a boom in the hobby, and that's a good thing.

As for me, I couldn't care less what's RAW or not, canon or not. I only play and run the game at my table, and at my table I wear the viking hat. And while I use the WotC Honda Civic as my base, I'm loading that puppy up with aftermarket parts ordered from Kobold Press Racing Division, hacked stuff I pulled off cars in the AD&D, OSR, 3e and Pathfinder junkyards... and nitro boosters I'm assembling in my garage.

So as far as rules-as-written and official product goes, WotC could close it's doors tomorrow and I wouldn't care one bit. But I want a healthy WotC and a healthy, limited D&D to keep initiating people into the hobby and giving us a common language to speak.

 

[tetrasodium]

How about a book that goes, "if you the player stuff in this, you have to roll your stats 3d6 in order."

Would that be a good compromise?

I did something similar in my current campaign but continued beyond that. The full thing was roll 3d6 in order but if you don't get at least two scores of 15 or better you can throw out the entire array. All things considered it had good and bad points by managing to avoid the silo'd idiot savant of point buy/arrange array as desired as well as the wildly uneven stats where Alice has a 15 for a high score, bib has an 8 & 6, but chuck has 18 17 16 15 12 12. Everyone had two good scores that may or may not be in optimal positions & a random arrangement of everything else. The players were significantly more varied than any other 5e game I've run.

 

[Undrave]

That sounds really sad to me.

That sounds a bit condescending to me...

 

[Garthanos]

Besides, what's wrong with a good old-fashioned incoherent rant now and then?

I am too good at incoherent damn it I don't need it from others!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That sounds really sad to me.

It reminds me of a Pathfinder GM that I knew, who hated the idea of re-using monsters. By his logic, if we've seen something in action once, then it's time to move on to something else. As though that one encounter was enough to appreciate everything there is about that monster. Even though it didn't even use half of its abilities in that fight.

I mean, I see where he's coming from, and there's a lot of content that we'll never experience if we stop to appreciate everything along the way, but still. It's kind of sad.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*