Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 9260765" data-attributes="member: 5889">At the end of the day I will continue to circle back to this point. We all clearly have different perspectives on what makes a TTRPG &quot;good&quot;, and what would improve the game going forward.Now I would never argue with a game company that creates a product to fulfill a specific niche, that's just good business practice.But we are discussing changing an existing (and popular) product. From what I can tell, WOTC has done a lot of research into their main audience over many years now, and that audience seems to prefer simplicity over complexity. Not brain dead simplicity, but certainly simpler than what we had in 3e/4e.Asking them to change the core game to be more complex against the grain of their main audience is just not good business...and no smart business would ever do that. Now devising some optional &quot;crunchy books&quot;, sure I can see that. Creating an alternate dnd setting that is more crunchy....yep could see that too. But the core flagship product....no that is both not going to happen.....and it should not happen. Angering the core audience that you have built up over the last 10 years to cater towards a more niche audience is as fantasy as the game we all love to play.So the notion of a general uptick in complexity is not in the cards. What &quot;might&quot; actually be something worth considering is injecting little bits of complexity in the areas of greatest weakness for 5e. There has been talks about the encounter building model for example, which we all know is just not that great at actually estimating challenge. So perhaps a slightly more complex (but more accurate) model would be worth the complexity cost. But you can't have it across the board, that won't fly....so what are some key areas that a bit more complexity might be worth the cost and therefore could actually be worth considering?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 9260765, member: 5889"] At the end of the day I will continue to circle back to this point. We all clearly have different perspectives on what makes a TTRPG "good", and what would improve the game going forward. Now I would never argue with a game company that creates a product to fulfill a specific niche, that's just good business practice. But we are discussing changing an existing (and popular) product. From what I can tell, WOTC has done a lot of research into their main audience over many years now, and that audience seems to prefer simplicity over complexity. Not brain dead simplicity, but certainly simpler than what we had in 3e/4e. Asking them to change the core game to be more complex against the grain of their main audience is just not good business...and no smart business would ever do that. Now devising some optional "crunchy books", sure I can see that. Creating an alternate dnd setting that is more crunchy....yep could see that too. But the core flagship product....no that is both not going to happen.....and it should not happen. Angering the core audience that you have built up over the last 10 years to cater towards a more niche audience is as fantasy as the game we all love to play. So the notion of a general uptick in complexity is not in the cards. What "might" actually be something worth considering is injecting little bits of complexity in the areas of greatest weakness for 5e. There has been talks about the encounter building model for example, which we all know is just not that great at actually estimating challenge. So perhaps a slightly more complex (but more accurate) model would be worth the complexity cost. But you can't have it across the board, that won't fly....so what are some key areas that a bit more complexity might be worth the cost and therefore could actually be worth considering? [/QUOTE]

Verification