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

[jayoungr]

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".

I think you're overestimating the degree to which any given company can predict and/or prescribe what players are going to do with the game--especially a game with this much history. I've seen credible arguments that both 3E and 5E were originally envisioned by the designers as playing slightly differently, but the degree to which the playerbase embraced or rejected certain subsystems influenced the later development of those editions.

 

[GothmogIV]

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.

Reasonable observation, Paul.

 

[CellarHeroes]

An index is good for when you have no clue where a particular thing is. Art is good for when you know roughly where something is but not its exact page. Plus, it's also good for breaking up what would otherwise be long walls of text, as well as illustrating game concepts. For example, if you're looking for the Use Magic Device rules in the 3.0 PHB, you'll know they're right next to the picture that also illustrates the effects of rolling a 1 on the check.
View attachment 401511

I also know where the letter "U" comes in the alphabet, and Skills are listed in such a fashion.

Also, the illustration used on that page along with the formatting makes a total mess out of the text. The text on that page also explains what happens when you fail to blindly use a magical device by 10 or more. No illustration necessary.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I'd rather see them bring in five or six or eight different playstyles roughly equally, covering a broad range, and highlight them all (that's where the waving flags come in). Modular subsystem-based design really would be their friend here, but for some reason they hitched their wagon to unified design and in so doing rather limited their options

There'd have to be enough financial incentive to expand the team developing 5e, for it to be worth developing the system for secondary and tertiary play styles. If that incentive doesn't exist in adequate amounts, you end up taking dev time away from the "main" play style and, logically, lowering it's quality by some arbitrary amount. If this drop in quality negatively affects sales of the main product, you could end up with a net negative depending on the popularity and sales of the secondary play style.

Here is the Orr industry report, link below, for Q4 2021. We can see relative market share estimations here. And it becomes obvious that it only takes single digit declines in 5e's sales to become the equivalent of most third party offerings. Meaning that if the alternative costs 3.5% of D&D sales, due to loss dev time, that alternative better be as popular as PF2 if WotC wishes to just break even on the exchange.

The point is, how should WotC fund the dev time for these alternative play styles without sacrificing their golden goose? It seems like risky business for Hasbro. And I think it's a question we'd have to consider when proposing such changes.


Edit: Forgot the link: Orr Industry Report - Roll20 Wiki, note that the report isnt a perfect source, but provides some perspective.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t think that is a very feasible system. What’s more likely is you end up with a game that does one or maybe two of those things well, and the others poorly. You have any examples of any system that does this successfully?

The best example I can think of that had the potential to do this is 1e/2e D&D, mostly due to their modular subsystem-based design. To add more playstyles and-or tweak what was there, just add more modules and-or subsystems and suggest what they should replace and-or how they should fit in.

I mean, many of us did this with 1e without really realizing it - we took what was intended as a very complicated system (that expected a certain granular and somewhat gritty playstyle) and simplified it by eschewing such things as weapon-vs-armour-type and redoing the initiative system. Dragonlance showed us how some different playstyles could be incorporated and used as-written. Dropping xp-for-treasure is another easy way of quickly (in theory, anyway) changing playstyle. And so on.

 

[The Firebird]

I wonder how the people trying to get others to play, y'know—what's the sales pitch. (I've never had a FLGS to recruit others, so I have no idea how people post for players.) Would prefacing a LFG with a pitch that the game their trying to recruit is "like D&D, but..." ("with an old school flair", "science fiction instead of fantasy", "superheroes", "with an emphasis on narrative play", etc.)?

Yeah, if it is a d&d variant then something like that. If it's something else, then they'll say it is a different RPG and is anyone interested. These are usually advertised on discord now. And the vast majority of times, there's no uptake, or just one or two players. Unless the DM is already in the 5e community and advertises using that.

 

[TiQuinn]

The best example I can think of that had the potential to do this is 1e/2e D&D, mostly due to their modular subsystem-based design. To add more playstyles and-or tweak what was there, just add more modules and-or subsystems and suggest what they should replace and-or how they should fit in.

I mean, many of us did this with 1e without really realizing it - we took what was intended as a very complicated system (that expected a certain granular and somewhat gritty playstyle) and simplified it by eschewing such things as weapon-vs-armour-type and redoing the initiative system. Dragonlance showed us how some different playstyles could be incorporated and used as-written. Dropping xp-for-treasure is another easy way of quickly (in theory, anyway) changing playstyle. And so on.

Can’t agree with that. I think 1e/2e largely failed at providing the kinds of subsystems that allowed for heroic action like you find in 5e or 13th Age. It was the attempts to bolt on the splatbooks and create multiclass kits to shore up for deficiencies in the fighter class in a heroic system that resulted in the move towards 3rd edition. They attempted the modularity but the core system just didn’t support both styles of play.

 

[Hussar]

I think the tripping point here is the term “playstyle”. A table that uses weapon vs armor and a table that doesn’t are both playing the Slave Lords series, for example.

Are they examples of different playstyles? I don’t think so but I do think that others do.

The Dragonlance modules are not terribly different than earlier modules despite all the hoopla. They’re certainly no more railroads than, say, the GDQ modules where your character is executed if you choose not to accept the mission.

Playstyle differences for me is about much larger grained changes. Granting players direct control over results, for example, such as we see from many story games, is a huge change in play style.

Adding or not adding a +2 to hit depending on which imaginary lumpy metal thing your character is using is not a different play style.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think it's because OSR games are considered to be competing with Xth Edition, and are therefore the enemy of all who favor Xth Edition.

Edition wars have never been about "fixing" anything; it's always been about digging in and defending a beloved favorite against all other options.

Early OSR was a bit more one true way with 1E and OSRIC.

As it turns out B/X basically won. AD&D hasn't aged well.

My OSR leans more towards sandbox X1 or B4 vs Gary dungeon crawling.

I ram some 1E adventures recently xp for gold. Got old fast level 4-7 and wealth and magical loots a bit absurd tbh.

So sandbox xp stule with some BECMI or 2E xp awards is my personal preference.

Basic line was more innovative than 1E imho. 2E outdid them both. What you prefer though is really up to you.

My OSR isn't about trying to kill the PCs. It's easier to run though and the risk us very real eg poison or energy drains come out.

A bit of foreshadowing works well. A wight reaches into the light and recoils but the PCs see it's hand. It's not a zombie, skeleton or vampire br careful.

Hickman style and Gary style are meh to me. I prefer the rare good 2E adventures and Moldvay.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

* beside slowest leveling ever. Early 2E was slow late 2E they upped the xp awards in adventures.

It was always up to DM in 2E how much to hand out. I suspect some were very slow. DMGs not very clear on how much to hand out and draws no distinction between short and long adventures.

2E through modern eyes can be very fast leveling. Just hand out massive xp awards for goal, roleplaying or exploration.

You could do that back then as well. How common that was no idea hence *.