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

[Remathilis]

Then how do we have more than one company making similar things?

Competition. They are actively trying to work against each other. C'mon Micah.

You really think Kobold or Paizo wouldn't work against each other if it meant they could massively increase their sales? That Paizo and KP didn't use the OGL debacle to increase their own standing at WotC's expense? That KP would love every single Paizo customer to buy a TotV PHB and vice versa? That Paizo would tell its customers to skip buying the PF2R core book and help out KP by buying their book to help them out?

They might all drink at the same bars, but I'm pretty sure they want to maximize their profits.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Competition. They are actively trying to work against each other. C'mon Micah.

You really think Kobold or Paizo wouldn't work against each other if it meant they could massively increase their sales? That Paizo and KP didn't use the OGL debacle to increase their own standing at WotC's expense? That KP would love every single Paizo customer to buy a TotV PHB and vice versa? That Paizo would tell its customers to skip buying the PF2R core book and help out KP by buying their book to help them out?

They might all drink at the same bars, but I'm pretty sure they want to maximize their profits.

Exactly this. You can't say Paizo or someone wouldn't ABSOLUTELY love to have a Pathfinder movie, or tv show.

I am absolutely sure Evil Genius was absolutely drooling to get a financial jump with Rebel Moon. They won't reach Hasbro/Wizards levels, but it would definitely get those numbers up.

When I see these arguments about games and companies should make the best games they can, preferences in the community be damned, always makes me think of the Fountainhead, where we see a guy who would absolutely rather work in a quarry than design the types of buildings people want to hire him for because he has his own design ideas and refuses to 'compromise' and make what the market wants.

 

[MNblockhead]

Even Pathfinder no longer uses the 3e game engine. I call that, "3e failed". It is no longer financially viable, at least not at the magnitude that it once had.


From a point of view of an individual esthetic preference, it is a bit trickier to describe. One must be able to actualize ones preferences. One must be able to find a group of players that can accommodate the individuals preference. Also, this can be part of customizing the 5e engine for ones unique taste.

We all die, so I guess we are all failures because we don't go on forever.

The only way I can take your take on 3e "failing" seriously is if I read it as "3e failed to last forever."

 

[MNblockhead]

Interestingly, Albert Einstein is known to have said this (1933):

"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible, without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

Also by Einstein:

"I do not play any games … There is no time for it. When I get through work I don’t want anything which requires the working of the mind"

Simplest rules ever are those you don't play.

 

[payn]

We all die, so I guess we are all failures because we don't go on forever.

The only way I can take your take on 3e "failing" seriously is if I read it as "3e failed to last forever."

Same thoughts here. Basically, everything ever designed has failed under this logic.

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

Not the most people. You need to sell enough units as at a profit sufficient to "feed your family."

Luxury and niche goods exist and do well for their merchants.

Strange to be siding with Micah here. Overall I have no issues with WotC, enjoy 5e, and am fine with what I've seen of the revised rules so far. But no game is going to be right for everyone and the mass popularity of 5e and the economics involved make it much less likely that WotC is going to take huge risks, be on the bleeding edge of game design, or servicing less popular preferences.

That gives other game publishers room to fill unmet needs for the smaller audiences that are either still large enough, or are willing to spend more for their niche preferences, to make a market.

And then there are communities to further fill in the gaps that market doesn't satisfy. Everything published by smaller publishers and or none-profit making community creations are just as "good" to those who enjoy them as the more popular products.

 

[KYRON45]

Not the most people. You need to sell enough units as at a profit sufficient to "feed your family."

Luxury and niche goods exist and do well for their merchants.

Strange to be siding with Micah here. Overall I have no issues with WotC, enjoy 5e, and am fine with what I've seen of the revised rules so far. But no game is going to be right for everyone and the mass popularity of 5e and the economics involved make it much less likely that WotC is going to take huge risks, be on the bleeding edge of game design, or servicing less popular preferences.

That gives other game publishers room to fill unmet needs for the smaller audiences that are either still large enough, or are willing to spend more for their niche preferences, to make a market.

And then there are communities to further fill in the gaps that market doesn't satisfy. Everything published by smaller publishers and or none-profit making community creations are just as "good" to those who enjoy them as the more popular products.

I guess this depends on the size of your family and the quality of the food. How many mouth's are at Company X? How much health insurance do they need? What do lawyers cost? How much do the investors want in return? It's my understanding that artists can't feed their cats with exposure and on and on.

It's not that everyone loves capitalism; its that capitalism is what we've got.

 

[MNblockhead]

Also by Einstein:

"I do not play any games … There is no time for it. When I get through work I don’t want anything which requires the working of the mind"

Simplest rules ever are those you don't play.

Thinking more on this, I think this is getting at the crux of why I don't find using metascience principles particularly persuasive.

My work is very demanding. There have been many times where I've thought of quiting TTRPGs, at least for a while, and just relaxing with TV or something less taxing. But the running my campaign brings me a kind of enjoyment that other pastimes don't provide for me. And the games I choose for my main campaign are certainly not the most simple game systems. There are plenty of systems that are simpler than 5e and I actually ADD to the complexity by buying third-party rules or developing my own for subsystems I want to add to my campaign.

When my last campaign ended in December, I could have just started up a new 5e campaign, but moved to Warhammer Fantasy. Which is many ways is more complex than 5e. And THAT was after spending time reading through and understanding the rules of a several other systems so that I could pitch ideas to my group.

There is a kind of enjoyment for many in learning the rules of a game. If the rules are too simple, I find from my own experience and general (anecdotal) observations that people are less likely to invest their time in it over the long term.

I think what 5e did well, is it has simple to learn core starter rules that you can get for free. They are still complex enough to keep it interesting and build that feeling of system mastery for new players. Then they offer many more rules in the core books and supplements. And the system makes it very easy to customize and add to, whether additional options provided by WotC or by third-party publishers.

While I am a fan of stream-lining rules and have a simple and easy to get started with core, I find that for games I want to build a hobby that I will spend years with, I want that core to be design in such away as to support the building on of complexity in a way that doesn't break the entire system. Throughout its entire history, D&D has, for all its flaws and iterations, managed to do this well.

 

[MNblockhead]

I guess this depends on the size of your family and the quality of the food. How many mouth's are at Company X? How much health insurance do they need? What do lawyers cost? How much do the investors want in return? It's my understanding that artists can't feed their cats with exposure and on and on.

It's not that everyone loves capitalism; its that capitalism is what we've got.

Sure, of course. If you want to make a living doing something you love, you will likely have to make compromises. Adjust to taste and to actually ship product. There is a reason many cultures often lionize the artist or visionary who refused to compromise their vision--because it is so hard and often self-destructive to go that route. Even among many of the famous and lionized visionaries, many died poor, not living to see the success of their ideas, art, etc. And there are many, many more who refused to compromise and were wrong in their vision or had so few share that vision that they disappeared into obscurity.

As one who is on the patron or consumer side, I, like most people am just going to play what I like. I love creatives and people who take risks to make their visions realities. But there are more of them, especially in the game design space, than there are people to support them. And I don't think I'm violating forum rules to point out that the situation would not change, regardless of the political system. I've lived in communist, capitalist, western socialist, and mid-east constitutional monarchies ... and being a game designer would be tough going in any of them. Even in a place where one wouldn't need to worry about basic healthcare, housing, food, and child care, it is still going to be a tough life.

And, yet, in the end I'm going to spend time or money on the game I want to play. And that is going to be the best game, for me, at that time. D&D 5e isn't the best game for me as a player because it provides a living wage for lots of people, but because I really enjoyed the product they put out...until I moved to something else. Where you are obviously correct is that a successful company is one that is going to continue to making product I like and have a large community I can enjoy that hobby with. But, that's a relativity weak influence on I find to be a good game, because, ultimately, I mostly only affected by what I and 4-6 other people I play with enjoy. I have enough TTRPG content from various publishers that I own or will be readily available to me if I want to buy it to play to my grave.

So, again, I find myself agreeing with Micah. It really doesn't matter beyond what I and my players like. The entire industry could burn to the ground and it still wouldn't matter much in the big picture. Not that I believe that in any way will happen, despite Ben Rigg's prophecies of doom.

 

[KYRON45]

Sure, of course. If you want to make a living doing something you love, you will likely have to make compromises. Adjust to taste and to actually ship product. There is a reason many cultures often lionize the artist or visionary who refused to compromise their vision--because it is so hard and often self-destructive to go that route. Even among many of the famous and lionized visionaries, many died poor, not living to see the success of their ideas, art, etc. And there are many, many more who refused to compromise and were wrong in their vision or had so few share that vision that they disappeared into obscurity.

As one who is on the patron or consumer side, I, like most people am just going to play what I like. I love creatives and people who take risks to make their visions realities. But there are more of them, especially in the game design space, than there are people to support them. And I don't think I'm violating forum rules to point out that the situation would not change, regardless of the political system. I've lived in communist, capitalist, western socialist, and mid-east constitutional monarchies ... and being a game designer would be tough going in any of them. Even in a place where one wouldn't need to worry about basic healthcare, housing, food, and child care, it is still going to be a tough life.

And, yet, in the end I'm going to spend time or money on the game I want to play. And that is going to be the best game, for me, at that time. D&D 5e isn't the best game for me as a player because it provides a living wage for lots of people, but because I really enjoyed the product they put out...until I moved to something else. Where you are obviously correct is that a successful company is one that is going to continue to making product I like and have a large community I can enjoy that hobby with. But, that's a relativity weak influence on I find to be a good game, because, ultimately, I mostly only affected by what I and 4-6 other people I play with enjoy. I have enough TTRPG content from various publishers that I own or will be readily available to me if I want to buy it to play to my grave.

So, again, I find myself agreeing with Micah. It really doesn't matter beyond what I and my players like. The entire industry could burn to the ground and it still wouldn't matter much in the big picture. Not that I believe that in any way will happen, despite Ben Rigg's prophecies of doom.

I agree with all of this.