D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[ph0rk]

That's only if you assume that D&D is only combat. It's not. The combat part of D&D is the easiest to run without a DM. The rest is harder.

Given the entirely-unsupported-by-the rules free form sort of stuff the newer generation likes, I don’t see why they need a DM, either.

And the trend has been away from structured rules for that stuff, not towards it.

 

[Aging Bard]

Given the entirely-unsupported-by-the rules free form sort of stuff the newer generation likes, I don’t see why they need a DM, either.

And the trend has been away from structured rules for that stuff, not towards it.

Agreed, and this is exactly my point. The next step is to codify it by WotC and make it a marketing point.

 

[Oofta]

Given the entirely-unsupported-by-the rules free form sort of stuff the newer generation likes, I don’t see why they need a DM, either.

And the trend has been away from structured rules for that stuff, not towards it.

You mean like all the stuff we made up back in OD&D days because the rules were often lacking? There's nothing new about it, it's something 5E encourages and each group does to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[ph0rk]

Agreed, and this is exactly my point. The next step is to codify it by WotC and make it a marketing point.

That seems pretty likely to me.

It be more like a game in that scenario, which might irritate the free form storytelling types, but seems more likely to help sales and approachability rather than hurt them.

 

[Mind of tempest]

That seems pretty likely to me.

It be more like a game in that scenario, which might irritate the free form storytelling types, but seems more likely to help sales and approachability rather than hurt them.

to rule-heavy and it just becomes math to free form and if you do not know how to be good at it in real life or you're bad at story telling you end up excluded.

 

[ph0rk]

I don’t think rule heavy is inherently bad. Confusing rules are bad, but rules governed interactions with several options would be close to ideal for this sort of thing.

We are close to that already; you can persuade, deceive, intimidate, sneak past, or kill an NPC in your path. Some people put a lot more stock in the first two in theory, when the last two get used most of the time in practice.

The middle option is for moving to “kill“ but not wanting to throw the first punch.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I don’t think rule heavy is inherently bad. Confusing rules are bad, but rules governed interactions with several options would be close to ideal for this sort of thing.

We are close to that already; you can persuade, deceive, intimidate, sneak past, or kill an NPC in your path. Some people put a lot more stock in the first two in theory, when the last two get used most of the time in practice.

The middle option is for moving to “kill“ but not wanting to throw the first punch.

making it more than a single dice roll would help.

skills could also be much better.

character gen could also be made clear had to teach a lass by a video to get her to get it.

 

[SkidAce]

So when my group hit the bosses of the gang that took over a mining town, I wasn't going through running 3 casters again. I cut out spellcasting and subbed in my "Anime Fighting Weapons Group Rule" into for the onis' casting. So once the minions got fireballed to death, they had 2 crazy interesting oni warriors and an oni spell caster to deal with.

I would like to suscribe to this newletter...

 

[Hussar]

It seems you are missing that
1) The rules would be optional
2) You wouldn't play with all the rules
3)The DM would choose which ones are in his or her game.

You really thought I was suggesting making 4 armor variants to be all added as core rules for everyone. I never said that?

No, I get what you're saying.

But, I don't think you quite realize what you're asking for. Most of those changes you suggest - such as Armor as DR for example, make every single previously published WotC module incompatible. None of those adventures have Armor as DR. So, any DM who wants to use these optional rules then has to edit every single monster in the module to use it. And that's just one change. Add in Armor as HP, additional fighting styles, etc. and you are creating a big book of Make the DM's Life Hell. Because, unless these optional rules are addressed in future products, none of the future products are compatible either. You have just successfully carved off every group who uses this book from buying future products.

This is why you will never see a book like this from WotC.

 

[Yaarel]

No, I get what you're saying.

But, I don't think you quite realize what you're asking for. Most of those changes you suggest - such as Armor as DR for example, make every single previously published WotC module incompatible. None of those adventures have Armor as DR. So, any DM who wants to use these optional rules then has to edit every single monster in the module to use it. And that's just one change. Add in Armor as HP, additional fighting styles, etc. and you are creating a big book of Make the DM's Life Hell. Because, unless these optional rules are addressed in future products, none of the future products are compatible either. You have just successfully carved off every group who uses this book from buying future products.

This is why you will never see a book like this from WotC.

How is creating an armor with DR, or a weapon with benefits versus certain kinds of armor types, any different from creating a new magic item?

The module can become accessible in this way.