D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

maybe the issue is that people want slight changes to 5e, not a 1e, and you just assume that is what they want?

At least for me 1e is not any closer to what I want than 5e is. There is no way I go back to 1e. 5e with some tweaks however… it’s just that 2024 moved in the wrong direction relative to what I am looking for

This is why I went to a 5e that was closer to what I want anyway (A5e) and tweaked from there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is precisely why, when I sit down to examine design questions, I ask what state or position is difficult to achieve if it has to be built from scratch by a lone GM putting in design work. I then further ask, how much can we support that thing, while also supporting (inasmuch as one can) its opposite or at least things which are orthogonal to it. E.g. a game where the math is actually quite balanced and thus rewards qualitative reasoning far more than quantitative reasoning? That's hard as balls. A brutally difficult game is easy to produce if you already know what's supposed to be difficult most of the time and what's supposed to be easy most of the time. That's a case where my preferences are the more difficult thing to achieve. Conversely, having a reasonably extensive and reliable set of skill DCs for typical tasks adventurers are likely to undertake is hard for the lone GM, while the alternatives are relatively easy to come up with, so even though I don't much care for such "encyclopedic" design, as I call it, starting from that is the better game design choice.

With elbow grease and creativity, it's quite possible to make a D&D that actually achieves many of the goals all its different players want, not just catering to one group or another. It's certainly not a trivial task, but it's much more achievable than some folks like to think. A huge part of making it work, though, IS giving up the "WotC must cater to how I play" and instead be actively thinking about how to cater to playstyles one specifically does not care for.

But unless the people doing what you say are WotC, the 800-pound tarrasque (tarrasque is WotC IP you see) will still squeeze the rest of the hobby and the industry into their box as much as they possibly can.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure.

The issue is, they think that the company has no right to produce stuff they don’t like, and should continue to cater solely to their tastes forever.

Not so. They can cater to multiple tastes if they so chose.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If WOTC ran 3 different D&D lines, fans would just switch from edition warring to being upset that "their" preferred line is supported the most and another book got their book's spot.

Better than nothing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find it helpful to break out specific components of editions rather than taking them as a whole. 2E has that vast and creative lore to it that has the capacity to be mostly rules-agnostic as long as there are sufficient analogues. 3E has a wealth of character ideas of varying execution which certainly must be adapted to new rules but which are still fascinating experiments. OE dungeon crawls can fit any given narrative background, and work fine with any given action structure, but require certain limitations to allow for risk-reward play.

2e's lore is what makes it the D&D edition I'm most happy to have in the universe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not in ENworld because ENWorlders are mostly level headed.

But out in the world, there are many with a high visible platform who are are upset that they aren't the main target audience and think WOTC would make enough profit with them as it if they were with no evidence and proof of the contrary.

Then why are posters complaining about people that aren't even here?

 

[Lanefan]

More generally I don't like designers trying to smuggle multiple play styles into their games - either with half baked vestigial rules, or even effort to make some kind of general universal roleplaying game system. Own how you want your game to play and build towards it with mechanics, setting and adventure design ... but most of all let the reader/referee know what you are putting down and why.

I don't want them to smuggle different playstyles into D&D. I want them to bring them in with flags waving, each saying "here we are" and "here's how to play us using this rule-set".

 

[Lanefan]

I would say 5e does a pretty good job of emulating 2e style play.

Given 5e's full-heal overnight resting and rapid-fire level advancement I fail to see how this can even be possible.

2e had 1e-like natural healing and the slowest (by RAW) level advancement of any edition.

 

[Incenjucar]

If they planned ahead with an edition they could tag certain abilities for easy removal or addition and make sure that doing so didn't leave gaps. Continuous healing, easy status reset, extreme travel speed, food/water, shelter, teleportation, major divination, easy communication, and environmental adaptation cover most of it.

 

[Hussar]

I don't want them to smuggle different playstyles into D&D. I want them to bring them in with flags waving, each saying "here we are" and "here's how to play us using this rule-set".

Again, the last time they tried that, the fandom absolutely crucified them for it.

So, no, they will never go in flags waving again.