Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9260771" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Standard, Move, and Minor as action categories. Much simpler and more natural than the cumbersome, circumlocution-filled way 5e currently does it.Better balance between classes, especially between full-casters and primarily non-casters (like Fighter and Rogue.)Actual (but optional) rules frameworks for non-combat challenges.More than 13 classes.Reducing the number of classes that have ported out key class features into spells.Actually good, useful, well-made encounter building tools. Which would mean completely scrapping and replacing CR, something that will never happen because WotC has already thrown good money after bad on that front.The problem, of course, is what one considers to be "brain dead simplicity."I find that this is a trend that has occurred across the game design space--not just D&D, but MMOs, platformers, shooters, the works.We now live in a world where our "choices" are often reduced to<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Skill ceiling last seen at the bottom of the Mariana trench</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Skill floor last seen near the summit of Mount Everest (read: FromSoft-style games, roguelikes, "ironman" modes)</li> </ul>I've seen multiple games I enjoy fall into this pit, where in the interest of making a game more approachable and accessible, they make it trivial; or, in the interest of making it more deep and engaging, they make it nigh-impenetrable. This false dichotomy is genuinely doing damage to the game design space, driving out any possibility of games that marry being approachable with being deep, of marrying accessibility with high engagement. There are other options--and more importantly, it is quite possible to market by horizontal market segmentation even within a single game, rather than trying to go absolutely whole-hog, all-in for one and only one side.We don't need every game to be FromSoft difficulty (though it is good to offer challenges on that level). We also don't need every game to be Baby's First Game difficulty (though it is good to offer very high accessibility for those who desire it). We can, and should, expect designers to produce gaming experiences which offer genuine depth, being neither trivial nor forbidding, but intricate and nuanced, rewarding creativity and experimentation while avoiding dominant strategies and solvable systems.You present this as a dichotomy: either the alleged we-have-no-idea-how-big majority gets what it wants and everyone else gets screwed over or has to wait years upon years to ever see anything they like, or the second group gets what it wants, and the majority gets screwed over or has to wait years upon years to ever see anything they like. This is a false dichotomy. You can make a game which supports a whole space of options in this sense. That's....kind of the whole point of having such a big, chonky system, isn't it? If simplicity uber alles was the name of the game, we should be getting by with ten or twelve page ultralite games, not this "three books with around a thousand pages between them" nonsense.</blockquote>

Verification