D&D General Less is More: Why You Can't Get What You Want in D&D

[Oofta]

I think we are looking at a lot of things, but 10 years...I mean this forum is not typical. 10 years in a hobby, especially in a game, is an eternity.

This isn't soccer or basketball and even then ones involvement in sport after a decade will shift, and our bodies will dictate some of that.

I just find the suggestion that 24th changes reflect design flaws, gaps, shortcomings, to be an incorrect assumption when looking at 5e.

Obviously 5e was not designed for the players of today. It was designed for the community of 2014.

The players that everyone thinks matter, were in elementary when 5e was designed and released, learning to read.

As a thought experiment, assume for a moment that during the development cycle of 5E there was an AI that could play D&D. Feed it the rules, have the machine crank through millions of games of D&D with the rules, simulating millions of different players. Basically give the developers the same knowledge of how well the game has worked, what didn't work, what could be improved. The prediction machine doesn't take into account any cultural shifts per se, just has a massive amount of testing to kick the rules around.

I don't think the game that would have been released with that kind of knowledge and experience would be all that different from 5E24. There will always be things you learn after you've used a ruleset for long enough that you wish you could go back and tweak. There are, of course, going to be small adjustments here and there for the upcoming generation(s), but you can't really design for them. Nobody knows what they really want, heck they likely don't really know what they want. In addition assuming that people are a monolithic block because they're roughly the same age is a mistake. All you can do as a designer is take a look at what's been working and make your best guess at what will work better.

 

[Scribe]

All you can do as a designer is take a look at what's been working and make your best guess at what will work better.

Yes, I see 24 as just an incremental adjustment, evolutionary drift from 5e. It's not as if it's a redesign, deconstruction or rebuild.

Oh, Feats are assumed? Great lol.

 

[Oofta]

A thought regarding the OP that I meant to write up before I got caught up in discussion when catching up on the thread.

The paradox of choice is the theory that while we may think we want more options, more options pretty quickly leads to dissatisfaction. If you have 4 colors to pick from for your car, you'll pick one of the 4 and probably be pretty happy with it. So if you had 10 or 20 color options to pick from shouldn't you be even happier? Studies show that it's simply not true. Not only do you experience more stress and anxiety making the choice, but you'll also be less satisfied with whatever choice you do finally end up with.

Which can be an issue with D&D. I may be happy with my halfling rogue, but would I have been even happier with that elven warlock? Every choice you make in the game comes with an opportunity cost, the cost of the option not chosen. The more options you have, the higher the opportunity cost. We think more options will make us happier and up to a certain point they do. But there will always be a tipping point where it goes the other way.

Obviously general statements don't work for all individuals but having a relatively limited number of options can actually make the game more rewarding.

 

[Scribe]

Obviously general statements don't work for all individuals but having a relatively limited number of options can actually make the game more rewarding.

#Shadowdark

 

[Minigiant]

#Shadowdark

The very first thing Shadowdark fans did when they got together...

..design new classes.

 

[Staffan]

A thought regarding the OP that I meant to write up before I got caught up in discussion when catching up on the thread.

The paradox of choice is the theory that while we may think we want more options, more options pretty quickly leads to dissatisfaction. If you have 4 colors to pick from for your car, you'll pick one of the 4 and probably be pretty happy with it. So if you had 10 or 20 color options to pick from shouldn't you be even happier? Studies show that it's simply not true. Not only do you experience more stress and anxiety making the choice, but you'll also be less satisfied with whatever choice you do finally end up with.

Sure, at some point you get diminishing returns on the number of choices. But I think what's important is to have distinct choices.

Looking at your car analogy, if I want to buy a VW ID.7 Tourer Pro I have these choices for color: Moonstone Grey (the only solid, the others are metallic), Aquamarine Blue (dark blue), Glacier White, Grenadilla Black, Scale Silver, or Stonewashed Blue (light blue). That list could definitely use a few more options – all the colors are super boring. You'd need to add something like a red, a green, a yellow, and a purple. Maybe an orange. But you don't need to have both a fire red and a strawberry red and a dark red – pick one.

To me, the current class choices in D&D is a bit like the VW. There are a bunch of theoretical choices, but none that appeal to me. What's more, if you add in sub-classes that's like different shades of the same color. I can pick moss green, leaf green, teal, or lime green, but nothing purple.

 

[MockingBird]

I feel like 5e has a ton of lore. More lore than I could easily digest in detail, and way more lore than my players will ever learn or care about. It's in my opinion the lore is fine. I can appreciate that it might not be enough for some (or even most?).

To touch on 2e for a bit. This is a genuine question. Is there data to prove that 2e's multiple settings fractured the player base? Or was it just too much stuff that didn't sell? Or both?

Great OP by the way. I feel 5e dances on the verge of too much in terms of rules. It's my favorite edition though so I don't know if I'd change much of it.

 

[Staffan]

To touch on 2e for a bit. This is a genuine question. Is there data to prove that 2e's multiple settings fractured the player base? Or was it just too much stuff that didn't sell? Or both?

There is an article/post around here where Ryan Dancey describes how things were when he first took stock of the state of TSR, notably their warehouse full of virtually worthless stock dating back up to a decade. TSR, at their "height" published over a dozen of products each month, spread over maybe half a dozen settings at any one time. While product glut wasn't the sole reason TSR failed, it was definitely one of the major contributing factors.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is an article/post around here where Ryan Dancey describes how things were when he first took stock of the state of TSR, notably their warehouse full of virtually worthless stock dating back up to a decade. TSR, at their "height" published over a dozen of products each month, spread over maybe half a dozen settings at any one time. While product glut wasn't the sole reason TSR failed, it was definitely one of the major contributing factors.

That sort of content gets me all misty-eyed.

 

[Mercurius]

I only regret that I have but billions and billions of words to give to the eradication of bards.

I'm just here to speculate on what the age is that above it, more than half know who this is and below it, less than half.

My guess would be 37. Or 41. Something like that.