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

[Mirrorrorrim]

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.

I love talking about D&D with people online. D&D is my passion. Like here in the ENWorld forums. It takes a large pool of fans to have a large, and active diverse pool of insights and perspectives to interact with. I think being the largest, most popular, most accessible TTRPG is a big part of my ability to engage in those discussions.

How much engagement do other TTRPGs get in their forums? Do you get enough engagement in the forums of your preferred games?

One reason I've been given multiple times as to why D&D haters post on the D&D forums is that they have to be on the D&D forums to engage meaningfully in the community. It sounds to me that they don't get that from the forums of their own preferred games. I would much rather that D&D haters also be able to be "[Preferred Game] lovers" that engage with delight on their preferred game forums. I want everyone to be happy with their passions. D&D criticism has its place in D&D forums too. Heck, I'm no stranger to being vocal about rules and business practices that I really don't like.

So yeah, fanbase size matters for more than profit. IMHO.

 

[Yaarel]

You are assuming as self-evident, again, that unifying a collection of disparate bespoke mechanics designed to address specific areas of interest in the game under a single dice roll was an unqualified good. The entire OSR movement, not to mention fans of the actual TSR editions those games are based on would disagree.

1e failed. And 3e succeed because of simplifying gratuitous complexity.

3e failed. And 5e succeeded because of simplifying the complex ad hoc disparate imbalances.

Note that Old School Renaissance likewise simplified and systematized 1e.

Note that Pathfinder likewise simplified and systematized 3e.

Gratuitous complexity is "ugly".

 

[tetrasodium]

1e failed. And 3e succeed because of simplifying gratuitous complexity.

3e failed. And 5e succeeded because of simplifying the complex ad hoc disparate imbalances.

Note that Old School Renaissance likewise simplified and systematized 1e.

Note that Pathfinder likewise simplified and systematized 3e.

Gratuitous complexity is "ugly".

You didn't name any specific simplifications or ways they improved gameplay. And yet earlier I was able to point to two different areas where 3.x created specific burdens slowdowns and negative pressures in the specific simplifications someone else mentioned as self evident good changes even while I agreed that there was good with specific reasons for why they were good.

 

[Yaarel]

You didn't name any specific simplifications or ways they improved gameplay.

For example, in the evolution from 1e to 3e, I mention a "shared advancement", rather than each class having its own ad hoc rules for its own advancement schedule.

I also mentioned how 5e "systematized" the "complex ad hoc imbalances" of 3e.

Is it necessary to explain why making things unnecessarily complex interferes with a roleplaying game?

Or why unfair inequities interfere with the enjoyment of the game among players at the same table, because one players favorite character concept ends up mechanically sucking?

 

[Yaarel]

To see clearly how gratuitous complexity fails: check out the Amazing Adventures game engine that pretty much failed immediately because of its insane complexity (subsystems and redundancies and imbalances), despite the fame of its creator.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

"What many people want" is likely relevant to the holder of the biggest RPG IP dedicated to squeezing the most possible profit out of their customer base to give to their shareholders and executives, but frankly it's not relevant to me.

Thats obvious by now. That is however frankly not relevant to WotC nor me.

And regarding squeezing out the most possible profit... as long as they do things many people like, what is bad about that. Demands and offerings and such.
And production cost to cover. And maybe even making up for less profitable brands that they would not be producing if money would not come from somewhere else.

 

[KYRON45]

Removing ability scores. Having 14 mean +2 is unnecessarily confusing.

Changing the attack and damage into one roll. 1d20+2d6+Str - 20 AC or something like that would speed up the game.

We won't see them because backwards compatibility.

If the bonus is a result of the score; where would the bonus come from without the ability score?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm getting very tired of these either/or arguments. A better game with a smaller audience is perfectly ok for anyone not representing a publicly traded megacorporation.

Except for the people who dedicated work into it and not getting a lot money out of it. Noone pays their bills and they can't afford to develop another of those great products.
But at least they have the warm feeling around their hearts that a few people are happy.

Probably the few people who feel superior because they understand the complexity of the rules.

I just thought about one of those simple games that are only popular due to marketing. And not because even with a few simple rules create a game with endless variations. I think that guy called magnus is quite good in it...

 

[Micah Sweet]

1e failed. And 3e succeed because of simplifying gratuitous complexity.

3e failed. And 5e succeeded because of simplifying the complex ad hoc disparate imbalances.

Note that Old School Renaissance likewise simplified and systematized 1e.

Note that Pathfinder likewise simplified and systematized 3e.

Gratuitous complexity is "ugly".

How long does a game need to last before, in your high and mighty opinion, it hasn't "failed"? That is an insulting claim.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except for the people who dedicated work into it and not getting a lot money out of it. Noone pays their bills and they can't afford to develop another of those great products.
But at least they have the warm feeling around their hearts that a few people are happy.

Probably the few people who feel superior because they understand the complexity of the rules.

I just thought about one of those simple games that are only popular due to marketing. And not because even with a few simple rules create a game with endless variations. I think that guy called magnus is quite good in it...

I don't know what you're referring to.