NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8793720" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It is very unlikely that D&D--which grows and changes far more slowly than MTG ever thought of doing--would ever reach that point. MTG retains cards first printed in 1993. The game is pushing 30 years old at this point. No edition of D&D has ever run longer than--what, 10, 11 years? 15 tops? And 5e is already gearing up to make sure that trend continues.So, while I recognize that excessive use of keywords is certainly a problem, you'd need to actually demonstrate that it would be excessive. Just making a comparison to another game that also uses keywords is rather poor evidence that all games which use keywords always become that bad or worse.For example, based on what data I can get regarding 4e (which is reasonably comprehensive, but I don't have the patience to do a perfectly thorough search), there are exactly 42 keywords for powers in 4e. The majority of these keywords are simply descriptive, e.g. things like power source (Divine, Martial, Arcane, etc.), damage type (Fire, Force, Cold, etc.), the tools you use (Weapon vs Implement), or the kind of effect applied (Fear, Healing, Illusion, etc.) About a third are class- or source-specific (e.g. Spirit for Shamans, Channel Divinity for Divine classes, Beast Form for Druids, Augmentable for non-Monk Psionic classes.) So, even with a pile of class-specific keywords that will only need to be known by players playing those specific classes...we have roughly half the keywords present in MTG (which, as far as I can tell, has about 95 keywords, though a small number of those have been permanently retired, two or three from what I'm seeing.)Okay...but...the new people are the ones with the greatest need, and the ones who are most likely to be lost if that need fails to be met. Old hands can often care for themselves, which is pretty much literally what your argument is built upon (that old hands not only can but should become amateur designers every single time they want to run a new system), and, perhaps more importantly from a business standpoint, old hands are "hooked," whereas neophytes need a reason to stick around in order to become old hands.Hence, while I agree that the book should be designed with a consideration for everyone likely to use it, it is (almost always) the neophytes who should be prioritized whenever one cannot choose to equally focus on both. That doesn't mean throwing the old hands to the wolves; their interests cannot be neglected. But if you genuinely have to choose between making it easier, smoother, and more convenient to get into the game and run it as a t0t4l n00b, vs making it easier, smoother, and more convenient to get into the game and run it as a l33t ub3r h4xx0r, and cannot help both no matter how much effort you put into it, then 99% of the time the correct choice is the former.That is not how the 5e DMG is written. Emphatically not. Even in places where it doesn't need to choose between supporting one or the other, it favors the old hands over the neophytes....it's a Bible quote. And preventative medicine is not needed--that doesn't mean it's not good, useful, wise, etc. It's just not needed. There are a great many things in life that are not needed yet are extremely important. I think most of us would agree TTRPGs are among those things!</blockquote>

Verification