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

[Stalker0]

since we are in the begging for examples phase, let’s look at one in 5e.

A big change was the removal of most “on this roll bonuses”. For example in 3e you might have a bonus for flanking, for higher ground, for being a certain distance with a bow, spells that have a one round buff…etc etc. these bonuses changed roll to roll or round to round.

5e removed the vast majority of these bonuses. Now you have the one attack number on your sheet + the d20 roll. You might roll another die like for bless but that’s also a concrete bonus on the table, not something you have to remember or look up.

On the one hand, this meant 5e lost a lot of granularity of bonus options. On the other, it’s much kinder to those who are not great at math or memory, and greatly accelerates the combat turn, making combats faster and helping to maintain player interest.

Is this simplification an improvement or a mistake?

 

[tetrasodium]

since we are in the begging for examples phase, let’s look at one in 5e.

A big change was the removal of most “on this roll bonuses”. For example in 3e you might have a bonus for flanking, for higher ground, for being a certain distance with a bow, spells that have a one round buff…etc etc. these bonuses changed roll to roll or round to round.

5e removed the vast majority of these bonuses. Now you have the one attack number on your sheet + the d20 roll. You might roll another die like for bless but that’s also a concrete bonus on the table, not something you have to remember or look up.

On the one hand, this meant 5e lost a lot of granularity of bonus options. On the other, it’s much kinder to those who are not great at math or memory, and greatly accelerates the combat turn, making combats faster and helping to maintain player interest.

Is this simplification an improvement or a mistake?

I don't think it's possible to look at that example without admitting the consequences caused by removing everything that might be used instead of (dis)advantage in order to force it's acceptance through a one size hammer fits all screws or your doing it wrong subsystem.

Since you mentioned bonuses on attack rolls... Let's go there

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

5e is even worse than 3.x ever was with a possible bonus adding up to over 100.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I want more out of an RPG than I do out of Chess.

Yeah. I hope you get it.

 

[Greg K]

Move Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins to the M:TG team and put Steve Kenson in charge of 5eR.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think it's possible to look at that example without admitting the consequences caused by removing everything that might be used instead of (dis)advantage in order to force it's acceptance through a one size hammer fits all screws or your doing it wrong subsystem.

Since you mentioned bonuses on attack rolls... Let's go there

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

5e is even worse than 3.x ever was with a possible bonus adding up to over 100.

The link just takes me to the Reddit main page, was there a specific article you were trying to show?

 

[tetrasodium]

The link just takes me to the Reddit main page, was there a specific article you were trying to show?

I dunno why the copy/paste failed so bad but yes. Someone compiled all the ways to add to an attack roll a couple years back

 

[mamba]

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

that kinda is what I was saying with the ‘we get no agreement’ part.

There is such a thing as objectively bad complexity however, and that is any complexity that adds nothing of use to the result, hence the ‘as simple as possible, as complex as necessary’.

For example everyone will
agree that saying x = 3 is better than saying x = ((2 + 4) / (6 - 4))^1, and I can continue adding pointless complexity to this forever…

That ‘necessary’ is in the context of your ‘preference’ however, without a preference / goal there is no necessity for anything.

 

[mamba]

So the best balance of simplicity vs complexity is the one that pleases the most people?

you will never get an objective measure for this, so either you go by your personal taste, consequences (sales) be damned, or you go by the consensus as the best measure you have

 

[mamba]

If you've ever been to Epcot and rode on the simple one rail monorail you know without question why that more complex second rail atop supporting trusses and gravel are undeniably critical

nothing about a monorail is simple, that is why we literally had vehicles with two rows of wheels for thousands of years before it

If you want to see a better example, look at battle tank design from where it started (and some of the weird designs it spawned early on) to where it is now

 

[KYRON45]

Got it. Everything WotC does to maximize profits is fine.

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.

If you are running a business and want to feed your family you want to sell as many units as you can. In order to sell as many units as you can; you need to please the most people. This is just basic economics.