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

[mellored]

I like it, but why complicate it with background and class giving +1?

Just to keep it closer to how it is now.
Also kind of thematic that if your background is hauling stuff, you're generally stronger. And if you trained as a wizard, you're generally smarter.

-3: -4 pts
-2: -2 pts
-1: -1 pt
+0: 0 pts
+1: 1 pt
+2: 2 pts
+3: 4 pts
+4: 7 pts

Not a fan of such a big attribute spread, or negative numbers.

IMO
4 points for your attributes
2 trained
2 expert
2 points for items
2 points for temporary buffs
= 12 point spread between characters.

+5 for level. So a level 20 specialist can still fail against a level 1 newb if they roll a 1 or 2.

 

[Older Beholder]

Things that would improve the game that we won’t see:
All the people that hate DnD moving on with their lives and finding a game they like and just playing that instead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Do you think that either company is actively trying to work against the interests of the other, or are they simply trying to promote their own products? I don't recall any words or actions putting down their supposed "competitors". Just good things about what they do. Assuming everyone who's in the same industry is out to get each other, and basing decisions and feelings off this assumption without evidence, doesn't help anyone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah, it does depend on a host of factors. Simplfying it down to, "squeeze the most money out of everything you do or be a starving artist who can't feed their cat", with no thought to the vast gulf in-between, is just a poor argument. For definitely not the last time (I'm sure), I'm getting very tired of these either/or arguments.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I agree with the good of WotC free and simple core rules. I also think the 5e system supports adding complexity quite well. My big design issue with WotC is that they have done little, in 10 years, to actually add complexity and nuance to their rules, and instead seem to be fighting it constantly. Thus I have seen little in their offerings for the last several years worth paying for.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Assuming everyone who's in the same industry is out to get each other, and basing decisions and feelings off this assumption without evidence, doesn't help anyone.

Agreed. During my Gencon years, and from years of listening to Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff, it's generally been my experience that a lot of game designers generally like each other and find enjoyment out of mechanics, settings and ideas that their peers come up with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Things that would improve the game that we won’t see:
All the people that hate DnD moving on with their lives and finding a game they like and just playing that instead.

There's a difference between hating D&D and disliking what WotC has been doing in their specific (albeit very front-facing) expression of the game. The fact that its so popular requires anyone in the space, whether they like WotC or not, to engage with their business, because most people talking about D&D assume WitC as a baseline (or in many cases all there is).

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I agree with the good of WotC free and simple core rules. I also think the 5e system supports adding complexity quite well. My big design issue with WotC is that they have done little, in 10 years, to actually add complexity and nuance to their rules, and instead seem to be fighting it constantly. Thus I have seen little in their offerings for the last several years worth paying for.

I wonder if any of that is related to the way I remember Skills and Powers being percieved back in the day. The way I remember it, generally people might have found it novel, but, anecdotally, people were like 'If you want to do that, go play GURPS'.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wonder if any of that is related to the way I remember Skills and Powers being percieved back in the day. The way I remember it, generally people might have found it novel, but, anecdotally, people were like 'If you want to do that, go play GURPS'.

I always found all that stuff very interesting and inspiring. I still have all those books at home.

 

[Yaarel]

We all die.

Heh, speak for yourself.

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."

D&D is very much alive.

Much of 3e lives on in 5e.

At the same time, D&D sheds its obsolete forms to emerge anew.


One can look thru the history of D&D designs. That which D&D leaves behind is unnecessary complexity, including ad hoc subsystems, redundancies, imbalances, and so on.