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

[Lanefan]

true, but CON is just so easy to remove because no one actually cares for CON.
There are no skills tied to it, you get to roll a CON save here and there and HP bonus is a passive once per level thing.

we always use point buy,
we have had STR, DEX, INT, WIS and CHA from 8 to 20 in various combinations on various PCs, but CON is:
14,14,14,14,14,14,12?!,14,14,14,14,14,14,14,14,14,16!??!,14,14,14,14........

Your second paragraph holds the cause of the problem you outline in the first.

If you didn't use point buy and instead had people roll, you'd see a lot more variance in Con scores even if they were allowed to rearrange their rolls.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, there's a group of people on ENWorld (small, but loud for their size) that hates D&D and wants it to fail. I'm not sure why; maybe they just hate tall poppies?

"I hate D&D and everything it stands for. I hate its history, I hate what it's become, I hate its game mechanics, I hate the company that produces it, and I wish every day for its painful demise. Anyway, here's my advice on how to make D&D great!"

Nobody hates a property more than its "fans".

Source: the Internet.

 

[MNblockhead]

I don't buy into the simple v complex divide. The ideal for me would be a well designed, written, presented system, the core of which is easy to quickly pick up, but which is designed with modularity in mind. If options overwhelm you, you can ignore them. With just about every TTRPG, other than ultra-simple one-page rules games like Dread few people can keep everything in their heads. In a well designed system, you shouldn't have to. For characters, you only need to have awareness of what is on your sheet. For adjudicating various situations that come up, you can have some base line rules that allow you to adjudicate on a more abstract level, but also offer subsystems that give a richer set of options. As long as those subsystems are easily accessed and easy to view, understand in game, they don't present much of an issue.

The technology you use to play a game matters as well. One thing I both love and hate about DCC is how every spell is basically its own subsystem where you not only have to select a table but often select what table to roll on. I love how it play outs in game when you have everything prepped nicely. With pen and paper, that means having your spells printed and ready and easily reference. Not ideal for my preferred style but I can live with it. In a VTT, which automates the rolls, its great. But I passed on DCC's Dying Lands for my current campaign because I can only run games remotely and they don't have Dying Lands available and prepped on any VTT.

But beyond that, even when a system is both complex AND not easy. There are some I may want to invest the time into overcoming the learning curve because I find the play experience rewarding. In some cases, even the time spend learning and mastering a complex system is rewarding for some.

I like very simple and accessible game, if they lead to a fun play experience. Games like Dred or InSPECTREs are great example of very simple to learn TTRPGs that can provide great play experiences. But I've always found ultra-pared down versions of D&D to be lacking something. And as much as I enjoy the simple games that I find fun, I wouldn't ONLY want to play them. I would find it very difficult to run an enjoyable multi-year campaign with a very simple set game. Generally, given the limits I have on my game time, I tend to run a crunchier game for my main campaign (since 2014 it has been D&D 5e with various third-party and self-created rules added, now it is Warhammer Fantasy 4e) and then run one-shots or mini campaigns on the side when I can fit them in.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't buy into the simple v complex divide. The ideal for me would be a well designed, written, presented system, the core of which is easy to quickly pick up, but which is designed with modularity in mind. If options overwhelm you, you can ignore them. With just about every TTRPG, other than ultra-simple one-page rules games like Dread few people can keep everything in their heads. In a well designed system, you shouldn't have to. For characters, you only need to have awareness of what is on your sheet. For adjudicating various situations that come up, you can have some base line rules that allow you to adjudicate on a more abstract level, but also offer subsystems that give a richer set of options. As long as those subsystems are easily accessed and easy to view, understand in game, they don't present much of an issue.

The technology you use to play a game matters as well. One thing I both love and hate about DCC is how every spell is basically its own subsystem where you not only have to select a table but often select what table to roll on. I love how it play outs in game when you have everything prepped nicely. With pen and paper, that means having your spells printed and ready and easily reference. Not ideal for my preferred style but I can live with it. In a VTT, which automates the rolls, its great. But I passed on DCC's Dying Lands for my current campaign because I can only run games remotely and they don't have Dying Lands available and prepped on any VTT.

But beyond that, even when a system is both complex AND not easy. There are some I may want to invest the time into overcoming the learning curve because I find the play experience rewarding. In some cases, even the time spend learning and mastering a complex system is rewarding for some.

I like very simple and accessible game, if they lead to a fun play experience. Games like Dred or InSPECTREs are great example of very simple to learn TTRPGs that can provide great play experiences. But I've always found ultra-pared down versions of D&D to be lacking something. And as much as I enjoy the simple games that I find fun, I wouldn't ONLY want to play them. I would find it very difficult to run an enjoyable multi-year campaign with a very simple set game. Generally, given the limits I have on my game time, I tend to run a crunchier game for my main campaign (since 2014 it has been D&D 5e with various third-party and self-created rules added, now it is Warhammer Fantasy 4e) and then run one-shots or mini campaigns on the side when I can fit them in.

I don't think that it's "simple. vrs complex.", it seems to be more "simple at any cost is best vrs complex enough is important to preserve the good that 'any cost' throws out"

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think that it's "simple. vrs complex.", it seems to be more "simple at any cost is best vrs complex enough is important to preserve the good that 'any cost' throws out"

As simple as possible − but not simpler.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't think that it's "simple. vrs complex.", it seems to be more "simple at any cost is best vrs complex enough is important to preserve the good that 'any cost' throws out"

I'm sure some people think that simplifying parts of the game is "at any cost" when really it just seems to be streamling some aspects of the game. Even though I love BECMI and 2e, I could see how streaming things into d20 improved the game. I don't even think using thac0 is difficult but I can understand finding ascending AC much easier for some. Something else to note is that 3e also complicated things with feats, new multiclassing, prestige classes so that edition wasn't all about simplifying things.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Sounds like that would please several people here.

Perhaps it would.

But I think that modern D&D has a pretty good balance of simplicity and complexity. It appears to be accepted by the largest audience, and there is a healthy middle-ground of people who explore growing it into their preferred complexity by adding their own changes, or changes from third party creators and clones.

It doesn't need to be so simplified that it isn't recognizable. It is a boon that there is generational knowledge of, and familiarity with, the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

As simple as possible − but not simpler.

Trouble with that reading is that the simple=good posters place simple on a pedestal of self evident inerrancy rather than wasting any keystrokes describing where the line belongs & why. Lacking any specificity that would mark the boundaries of a position the reader is left to interpret what very much seems to be "at any cost". I made a post about that earlier here but if anythingthe specificity has been reduced since then

I'm sure some people think that simplifying parts of the game is "at any cost" when really it just seems to be streamling some aspects of the game. Even though I love BECMI and 2e, I could see how streaming things into d20 improved the game. I don't even think using thac0 is difficult but I can understand finding ascending AC much easier for some. Something else to note is that 3e also complicated things with feats, new multiclassing, prestige classes so that edition wasn't all about simplifying things.

Just no aspects you can specify describe or provide reasons why? You were the one I was responding to earlier in the linked post stating that you need to get away from the circular self evident simple = best rather than leaving it up to the reader to infer your line, it's a bit late to come along 50+ posts later and try to say it's more complicated than inferred from your still unstated specifics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps it would.

But I think that modern D&D has a pretty good balance of simplicity and complexity. It appears to be accepted by the largest audience, and there is a healthy middle-ground of people who explore growing it into their preferred complexity by adding their own changes, or changes from third party creators and clones.

It doesn't need to be so simplified that it isn't recognizable. It is a boon that there is generational knowledge of, and familiarity with, the game.

So the best balance of simplicity vs complexity is the one that pleases the most people? Unless you work for WotC, I can't see that being true unless profit is the priority.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Taking this to the logical conclusion, we would end up reducing all ability scores to just three:

Power: a measure of your character's ability to harm, control, or influence others or their surroundings.
Defense: a measure of your character's ability to resist the harm control, or influence of others or their surroundings.
Luck: a measure of how lucky or fortunate your character is.

I prefer Muscle, Mysticality, and Moxie.