D&D General The Double-Edged Sword: Is The New D&D Edition a Cash Grab in Disguise?

[Quickleaf]

But then the question is, do more concrete rules improve the situation, and for how many people...?

Yep. That is the start of a good question. “Concrete rules” also isn’t a monolith - there are lots of ways you can go with exploration, and the OSR logistics/procedures is just one possibility amidst a sea of possibilities.

I do agree with Shawn Merwin that the test of a good robust game system is not how it handles in the hands of a phenomenal GM playing with great players, but rather how it handles with a mediocre or learning GM with average to irksome players. Generally, “hands-off”/rules-light are great for that first category of great GM/players, but don’t handle so well for mediocre GM/players.

 

[Parmandur]

I think pretty much everyone agrees that the DMG can be improved. That doesn't mean complex, concrete, spelled out exploration rules would be better for the game.

Precisely what I mean: if they test out more robust rules, but the feedback they get is that more people than not find them less fun in practice...

 

[Parmandur]

I jest. But...

A few years ago, around the time there were at least speculations and rumors of the 50th but before official announcement, I made a poll here asking where the likely 50th anniversary edition would land on the ".x" scale. I think I described them like so:

5.1: Errata and new art, covers, and formatting, but no actual rules changes.
5.2: As above, but more significant re-formatting, minor rules adjustments and clarifications, maybe a few new options.
5.3: As above, but moderate rules adjustments and new options, but still mostly backwards compatible.
5.4: As above, but more significant adjustments, and probably the need to replace the old with the new in some cases.
5.5: As above, but with some major rules adjustments and options, if with the same basic chassis.
6.x: Actual new edition (e.g. 3.5E to 4E or 4E to 5E).

Or something like that. It sounds like 5.2 is most likely, with 5.3 being possible - but definitely more than 5.1 and probably less than 5.5.

By that scale, 5.2, as everything still works together. Definitely more than 6.1, abd not enough disjuncturre to qualify as 5.3 (all the Classes are being revised, but all the publishedSubclasses will work with the new base Classes.

 

[Parmandur]

Yep. That is the start of a good question. “Concrete rules” also isn’t a monolith - there are lots of ways you can go with exploration, and the OSR logistics/procedures is just one possibility amidst a sea of possibilities.

I do agree with Shawn Merwin that the test of a good robust game system is not how it handles in the hands of a phenomenal GM playing with great players, but rather how it handles with a mediocre or learning GM with average to irksome players. Generally, “hands-off”/rules-light are great for that first category of great GM/players, but don’t handle so well for mediocre GM/players.

I agree that the real test is in the hands of mediocre or new players, and as a mediocre DM I appreciate that 5E's rules allow me to muddle through.

I don't think k there is a hard and fast rule for when heavy or light rules will help the average player or DM, but that is what playtesting might reveal when the rubber meets the road. And if a nice, elegantly written system doesn't work for people...makes sense bot to proceed woth it, if people prefer a looser set of guidelines.

 

[Remathilis]

I jest. But...

A few years ago, around the time there were at least speculations and rumors of the 50th but before official announcement, I made a poll here asking where the likely 50th anniversary edition would land on the ".x" scale. I think I described them like so:

5.1: Errata and new art, covers, and formatting, but no actual rules changes.
5.2: As above, but more significant re-formatting, minor rules adjustments and clarifications, maybe a few new options.
5.3: As above, but moderate rules adjustments and new options, but still mostly backwards compatible.
5.4: As above, but more significant adjustments, and probably the need to replace the old with the new in some cases.
5.5: As above, but with some major rules adjustments and options, if with the same basic chassis.
6.x: Actual new edition (e.g. 3.5E to 4E or 4E to 5E).

Or something like that. It sounds like 5.2 is most likely, with 5.3 being possible - but definitely more than 5.1 and probably less than 5.5.

It's basically a ship of Theseus argument; how many changes do you have to make before it's a new edition?

 

[el-remmen]

To be honest, I have been playing D&D of various kinds since 1983 and I still don't quite understand what people mean by rules for exploration. There are rules that govern what characters can do and there are places that get explored. As someone who has done a lot of exploration in his games, I am not sure what else I am supposed to need to do that. Then again, I have an addled brain because I am pretty sure I have said this before on these forums and someone has explained it and somehow I can't hold it in my head.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, I don't find exploration difficult in 5e, but then I didn't find it difficult in prior editions, either. I don't need rules for everything. More, I don't want specific rules for everything.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Did you ask them to rewrite the game? Who was it? You vaguely hand wave and use a generalization. Why not just make some more great content, like Ravenloft, instead of fracturing the community?

Wizards has been soliciting feedback for years, via polls, and at live events at conventions. Remember the polls asking about the 2014 books, where we learned how poorly people thought about certain design elements like the Ranger? They have ratings from the players about the 2014 elements. They know the design pieces they phoned in, back in the day, like CR advice for building encounters and other DMG content. They are paying attention. Compare the ratings of the UA to the ratings of old. Everything is rated higher. It is a worthy effort that I fully support.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think most of you didn't read the article, just the title, lol.

From the article:

Oh man. I miss the times where i had to go back an forth to the right second when I wanted to listen to a certain song.
And datasettes were also way better than data discs...

I really don't buy that this was a cash grab disguised as technological advantage and I never heard of any outrage back then...

I am glad I did not read the whole article. It is just a time grab.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A decade between updates is in no way a "constant churn of editions". That may have been true for 3 and 4, it isn't any more. Add in that the old rules, modules, monster manuals are still compatible and your argument just doesn't hold water any better than a sieve.

I'd prefer the sieve if I had to chose between them.