D&D (2024) Things You Think Would Improve the Game That We WON'T See

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of simplification is good, when 3e came out with its unified d20 mechanic, that was great. Now it was the same mechanic for hitting something, rolling skill checks, and making saves. No more separate attack rolls, roll under for skills and roll over for saves, and no more percentile skill checks for thieves. I ever minded thac0 but I also get why they changed it to ascending (something they wanted to do for 2e, but didn't because they didn't want to invalidate 1e, I guess conversion documents weren't a thing back then)

All that means is that you like some simplification, not that a lot of simplification is good in general.

 

[cbwjm]

All that means is that you like some simplification, not that a lot of simplification is good in general.

No it doesn't, I'm saying that that simplification was good in general. You might still like the various mismatched systems but that doesn't mean they're good.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Are those our only options?

What makes you think so?
Are they yours?

 

[tetrasodium]

A lot of simplification is good, when 3e came out with its unified d20 mechanic, that was great. Now it was the same mechanic for hitting something, rolling skill checks, and making saves. No more separate attack rolls, roll under for skills and roll over for saves, and no more percentile skill checks for thieves. I ever minded thac0 but I also get why they changed it to ascending (something they wanted to do for 2e, but didn't because they didn't want to invalidate 1e, I guess conversion documents weren't a thing back then)

"You were pretty light on specifics there.

No ot doesn't, I'm saying that that simplification was good in general. You might still like the various mismatched systems but that doesn't mean they're good.

and here you are getting downright circular
Detailing specifics would look like this:

• 3.x went to unified attribute bonuses rather than pre-3.x style attribute specific tables each with one off bonuses at non-unified values was good because: the unique values for each thing attached to six different attributes were too varied to remember them with any reliability rather than needing to consult the book every time one was needed.
  • However the implementation was bad because: the particulars of the implementation itself created new problems in the way narrowing the deadzone of +0 between roughly 6 & 15 put extreme pressure on players to perfectly arrange their attributes and forced the GM to be rather strict about anything boosting PC attributers.
• When 3.x went from roll low is good to roll high in order to avoid the confusion some people had when a +1 weapon would reduce your roll by 1☆.
  • However the implementation was bad because: Now players who were needed to spend game time calculating every attack roll they ever made due to 3.x also getting rid of the concept of Players having a precalculated
    
    Spoiler: attack roll table

    

    
    Courtesy of google image search
    in addition to getting rid of the character sheet section for
    Spoiler: precalculated weapon specific attack roll range

    

    Courtesy of google image search

Without specifics you either rely on circular "simple = good so any simplification is unquestionably good" type reasoning or you must rely on the reader to assume the reason for your support of a particular simplification
☆ or however someone wanted to phrase it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No ot doesn't, I'm saying that that simplification was good in general. You might still like the various mismatched systems but that doesn't mean they're good.

How is your opinion of what's good any better than mine?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What makes you think so?
Are they yours?

You're the one who seems to think simple = good. I didn't argue the opposite.

 

[Remathilis]

If character generation isn't harder than filling your taxes, are you even really playing an RPG?

#GURPSbyHRBlock

 

[CleverNickName]

If character generation isn't harder than filling your taxes, are you even really playing an RPG?

#GURPSbyHRBlock

Reminds me of Pathfinder. Every time the characters gained a level, the players would groan about how it felt like "having to file their taxes before the next gaming session."

 

[mamba]

All that means is that you like some simplification, not that a lot of simplification is good in general.

eh, simplicity is good, make it as simple as possible and as complex as necessary. The real problem is that we cannot agree on where that spot is

 

[Micah Sweet]

eh, simplicity is good, make it as simple as possible and as complex as necessary. The real problem is that we cannot agree on where that spot is

Nowhere on the simplicity - complexity spectrum is objectively always good or always bad. It's all about context and preference.